Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998
Thursday November 16, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 103 STUDENT LIFE
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
First-year orientation fosters bonding
CHARLOTTE ADAMO :: PRINCETONIAN DESIGN STAFF
Leadership applications for OA and CA will be due in the spring semester.
By Mallory Williamson and Regina Lankenau contributors
The University’s first-year orientation programs are touted to prospective students as a way to “allow stu-
dents to form strong bonds among first-years across residential colleges and with their student trip leaders across class years.” The degree to which students actually enjoy this proto-
typical experience, though, varies based on the program they’re assigned to. A voluntary survey conducted by The Daily Princetonian of 133 University first-years revealed key
U . A F FA I R S
Sackler family donations funded by OxyContin
By Allie Spensley assistant news editor
The Arthur M. Sackler Gallery at the University Art Museum is filled with beautiful relics of Asian art: Neolithic pottery and jade, ceramic vessels and bronze figurines, terra-cotta sculptures, and coffin boards from an ancient tomb. But the Sackler name displayed on a sign in the gallery has recently been tainted by press coverage exposing the
family’s role in promoting OxyContin, a leading culprit in the nationwide opioid abuse and overdose crisis that takes nearly 1,000 American lives each week. “What is the moral threshold Princeton should use to decide whether they will accept a donation from someone?” asked Lee Garth ’87, a principal training engineer at the computer software company The MathWorks Inc. “In the long run, I think we need an open, public discussion about this.”
differences in the experiences of respondents on Outdoor Action and Community Action trips. Out of the survey respondents, 73 participated in Outdoor Action and 60 participated in
Community Action. Respondents perceived that Outdoor Action fosters a stronger bonding experience between orientation group members. 85 percent See ORIENTATION page 3
ON CAMPUS
The privately held company Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, engaged in a number of practices — such as covering up initial studies and encouraging doctors to prescribe OxyContin for only moderate pain — that downplayed the drug’s addictive properties while making Mortimer and Raymond Sackler billionaires, according to an article in The New Yorker. Arthur SackSee SACKLER page 2 COURTESY OF CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
U . A F FA I R S
Jeanne Lambrew served as deputy assistant for health policy under former President Obama
Princeton Research Center celebrates 25th anniversary
Affordable Care Act will not die under Trump
By Kevin McElwee
contributor
If a poll from a Princetonian has entered your inbox, chances are it has passed through an unassuming building at 169 Nassau Street: the Princeton Survey Research Center. The Center is celebrating its 25th anniversary this week. Founded in 1992, this institution has helped the University’s students and faculty conduct countless polls.
the number of students taking advantage of original polling, as digital techniques have streamlined the process. Qualtrics, a survey software tool, is open to students and staff through a University license. “We used to have a programmer write each survey,” said Freeland. “When we got the Qualtrics tool, everybody got to go online and set up their own survey. We were able to quaSee ANNIVERSARY page 4
By Amy Abdalla “I do believe that the ACA will endure; it will survive. But there probably will never be a moment to declare a victory,” explained Jeanne Lambrew, former deputy assistant for health policy to President Obama, in her Nov. 15 talk, “Why the Affordable Care Act Survives and What’s Next.” In addition to discussing her substantial career in health policy, Lambrew fo-
In Opinion
Today on Campus
Electrical engineering professor Andrew Houck comments on the department’s sexual harassment allegations and Jessica Nyquist extols study abroad programs. PAGE 6-7
12 p.m.: Carol Sanger discusses her book “About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy in Twenty-First-Century America.” RSVP at goo.gl/Xdb7aLcontent_copy. Robertson Hall, Bowl 002
cused on her role coordinating the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Since President Trump took office, Congress has made three collective attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare, but the bill has survived. Lambrew said that she thinks that no matter what efforts Republicans put forth to undermine the Affordable Care Act, they will never completely remove the law from See HEALTHCARE page 4
WEATHER
contributor
Although the Center’s main focus is graduate and undergraduate research, dozens of faculty members have taken advantage of its resources. Over the past quarter of a century, the Center has helped publish five books and 48 journal entries, which have been cited approximately 20,000 times. Edward Freeland, the associate director of the Survey Research Center and a lecturer in the Wilson School, has noticed a considerable rise in
HIGH
56˚
LOW
34˚
Partly Cloudy chance of rain:
20 percent
The Daily Princetonian
page 2
Thursday November 16, 2017
Garth: What is the moral threshold for accepting a donation? SACKLER Continued from page 1
.............
ler, Mortimer and Raymond’s brother, was no longer involved with the family’s pharmaceutical company when it launched OxyContin in 1996. In the 1960s, however, he was at the forefront of a new approach to medical advertising that encouraged doctors to over-prescribe addictive tranquilizers such as Valium, even for patients that did not display any symptoms, according to The New Yorker. “Most of the questionable practices that propelled the pharmaceutical industry into the scourge it is today can be attributed to Arthur Sackler,” said Allen Frances, the former chair of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, in the New Yorker article. In the 1990s, Purdue Pharma was guided by the Sackler family’s direct involvement: Esquire reported that family members filled the company’s executive board and actively led its daily affairs. During this time, Mortimer, Raymond,
and Raymond’s son Richard applied Arthur’s 1960s marketing techniques to the promotion of OxyContin to market an addictive substance as a treatment for a wide range of symptoms. The company purposely misled physicians to believe that the drug’s delayed absorption effect — slow release into the bloodstream — reduces its addictive liabilities. As the Sacklers grew wealthy, they began donating to “bluechip institutions such as Columbia, Harvard, and Princeton,” according to Garth, which intertwined the family name with the reputations of prestigious centers for art and education. Over time, the private corporate underworld of Purdue Pharma was translated into distinguished and visible patronage: Sackler Wings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Louvre, an Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard, the Sackler Center for Arts Education at the Guggenheim, and similar installments at dozens of universities. In addition to the gallery at the art museum, the University hosts the Raymond and Beverly
Sackler Lecture in Astrophysics, established by a donation in 1988. Vice President for Advancement Kevin Heaney said that the University promised at the time to honor the gift and will carry out that promise. In March 2016, the Board of Trustees adopted the report of its Woodrow Wilson Legacy Review Committee, created in response to student protests that Wilson’s legacy was problematic in light of his racist beliefs and policies. In response to this report, the Council of the Princeton University Community established a Committee on Naming to solicit ideas for naming buildings and spaces that would “recognize individuals who would bring a more diverse presence to the campus,” according to the committee’s website. However, the committee focuses on naming “buildings or other spaces not already named for historical figures or donors.” Heaney wrote in an email that donors to the University are given naming privileges, subject to approval on a caseby-case basis by the Board of
Trustees. “This naming policy does not pass judgment one way or another on the lives of the donors; it expresses only our gratitude and respect for the act of donating funds,” Heaney wrote. Heaney added in an interview that it was “safe to say the University would have considered differently” accepting the Sacklers’ donations had they known about the family’s underhanded pharmaceutical dealings. “I understand that it’s tricky when it comes to institutions like museums where the person [a gallery] is named after gave the money to build that wing of the museum,” said Beth Wang ’18. “Ideally it should be changed, but the acknowledgement that the only reason the room is there is because of this really problematic person makes it less easy to take the name away.” Wang, who is an art and archaeology major, pointed out that the Sacklers’ donations have allowed for significant positive contributions to the field of art, even though their money came from a dishonorable source. For example, the
Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art is a space dedicated to the support of feminist art, which is a realm of historical scholarship that hasn’t received much recognition, Wang said. Elizabeth is Arthur Sackler’s daughter. “As an art and archaeology major, who has probably walked through this Arthur M. Sackler Gallery on numerous occasions without even being cognizant of this person and how he gained whatever capital he’s been able to then donate to the university, I have unfortunately been complicit in benefitting from and even implicitly supporting this Arthur M. Sackler and his legacy of ‘questionable practices,’” Isaiah Nieves ’19 wrote in an email. “There’s such a dissonance between what the Sackler name means to the actual art in the center and this greater context of what the Sackler family is and what they stands for,” Wang added. Erin Firestone, Manager of Marketing and Public Relations for the University Art Museum, could not be reached for comment.
The Daily Princetonian
Thursday November 16, 2017
Schochet: OA was literal hell during the trip, afterwards extremely glad ORIENTATION Continued from page 1
.............
of those surveyed, regardless of their placement on either OA or CA, felt that OA was more conducive to group cohesion. “OA was literal hell during the trip, but afterwards I am extremely glad I went. I’d do it again in a heartbeat,” commented Noah Schochet ’21. “It’s one of those ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’ situations.” Two-thirds of respondents who participated in OA said that their orientation group was cohesive as a unit, and not ‘clique-y’ or divided into smaller groups. In contrast, only 36 percent of the CA respondents said their group was cohesive. In their written responses to the survey, some respondents suggested that the lesser degrees of connection between CA groups could be the result of cell phone use being permitted on the trip. Taylor Mills ’20, a CA leader, said that the program fosters small-group friendships in a different way than OA — while participants aren’t bonding over hardships like a lack of showers and physically challenging hikes, they do have more time to talk and build relationships by working together. “CA does cultivate smaller-group friendships, which gives people the chance to get to know others in a service context,” Mills said. “Doing service together really helps people bond because you have to be vulnerable.” CA participants expressed a similar view. “During our CA trip, all of us were so willing to be vulnerable with one another and honest about ourselves that we can now be 100 percent there for each other,” said CA participant Chantal Thantrong ’21. However, average responses of OA and CA participants indicated that their orientation groups are similarly close now, even two months after the experience. On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 was extremely distant and 10 was extremely close, respondents rated their current closeness with their groups 4.94 for OA and 4.96 for CA.
A majority of students on both kinds of orientation trips reported willingness to repeat their experience: 79.7 percent of OA respondents said they would go on their trip again, and 81.7 percent of CA participants said the same. In their written responses to the survey, students highlighted the unique conditions under which the trip was conducted — with a group of strangers only two days after arriving at college — as a conduit for friendship and a social experience that helped them overcome potential awkwardness when trying to make friends on campus. “I loved how my OA trip brought people together from such wildly different backgrounds in a shared experience — it really set a good tone for the start of Princeton and I really appreciate all of the friendships I made on that trip and have carried on throughout the semester,” wrote Amanda Eisenhour ’21. Survey respondents also emphasized the ease their trips afforded them in adjusting to the social scene at the University. “My OA trip was an amazing experience that served as the foundation for my successful transition to college life. In fact, I made many of my closest friends on the trip,” wrote Alex Taylor-Lash ’21. Respondents to the ‘Prince’ survey also suggested that the generally high quality of leadership — rated by respondents an average 7.41/10 for CA and 6.99 for OA — contributed positively to their orientation experiences. “Towards the end [of] OA my leader said that the trip made him fall back in love with Princeton. As someone who had a very hard time deciding what school to attend, the trip made me fall in love with Princeton for the first time,” Zachary Holecek ’21 said, adding that his OA leader was “phenomenal.” Leader training for next year’s orientation trips began for OA over fall break, and will continue through the spring. Leader applications for CA have not yet been released; last year they were due on Feb. 5.
T HE DA ILY
Enjoy drawing pretty pictures? Like to work with Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign? Join the ‘Prince’ design team! join@dailyprincetonian.com
page 3
page 4
The Daily Princetonian
Thursday November 16, 2017
Lambrew: Obama’s name has become disconnected from ACA HEALTHCARE Continued from page 1
.............
the U.S. health care system. “Because this law is no longer just a pile of paper, a bill, it really is integrated into the fabric of our health care system, so it becomes much more difficult for Congress to try to make that change,” said Lambrew. “I hope sooner rather than later, we shift this debate back to how rather than whether we can provide affordable, accessible coverage to all Americans.” Lambrew explained that despite the House bill that repealed and replaced parts of the law in May, Medicare provisions, Medicaid policy, and a majority of the insurance reform of the ACA were left intact. A similar trend was maintained in the Senate, Lambrew said. The high income taxes that were used to support the law and the premium structure packages of the ACA were left unrepealed. “Even the big, bad repeal bills maintained large parts of the law, so, no. I don’t think I would ever declare it totally dead,” Lambrew said. She explained that it was no coincidence that her former administration did not refer to the Affordable Care Act as Obamacare. Instead, opponents of the law used the term to conflate people who were opposed to the president with opposition to the law.
“Certainly President Obama felt responsible for it, and was responsible for it on his watch. However, in his succession he kept a relatively low profile. He wants the law to stand up on its own,” said Lambrew. “It was never about him. It was always about the people who he was trying to help. Our mission was not about legacy or politics, but to improve the U.S. health care system.” Lambrew and the audience also engaged in a conversation on the role of health care in an increasingly political and polarized world. Lambrew described her struggle to determine where the line should be drawn between public health and respect for religious views. She explained that the balance between religion and public health is always hard to navigate. There’s no right line, Lambrew said, and that line is being moved continuously. Specifically, she expressed her fear that any employer may now be able to say that they have a moral and religious objection to providing a specific type of health care such as abortion, transgender health services, substance abuse services, or vaccines. “I’m worried that our debate has become about ideals and concepts, and not actual policy,” Lambrew said. The talk, sponsored by the Wilson School’s Office of Public Affairs and Communications, took place in Robertson Hall at 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 15.
Research center focuses on new data analysis techniques ANNIVERSARY Continued from page 1
.............
druple the number of surveys run through the Center with no change in staff.” Freeland estimates that nearly 90 percent of the Center’s surveys are now conducted online. Although it’s become easier to create surveys, Freeland noticed that there are some disparities in the response rates among University students. He estimates that nearly 90 percent of incoming first-years are eager to respond to polls. “When you get to upperclassmen, however,” he said, “you start seeing a response rate around 15 or 20 percent.” The Center uses a University email roster to conduct research, but only sends the minimum number of emails necessary for each project. “We want to make sure that the burden of participating in these surveys are spread across the whole student body,” Freeland explained. Freeland is especially worried, however, about increasingly low response rates to surveys sent outside the University. “It’s getting harder and harder to make good estimates, especially in pre-election polls,” he said. “Increasingly, people are more and more reluctant to talk to pollsters.” The Center did not help with any of the U.S. pre-election surveys, but did assist with local and statewide polling. Professor Alan Krueger, professor of economics and public policy and director of the Survey Research Center, notes that response rates are decreasing, especially for political questions. He is concerned that a narrower slice of the population is being represented. The Center is hoping to help reduce errors where it can. Funded by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
Center is trying to understand measurement error in labor force surveys. “We hope to have an impact in how the Bureau of Labor Statistics collects their data,” Krueger said. The Center focuses more on cutting-edge data collection techniques than large-scale projects. Its recent projects have included social media, textbased surveys, and even sensorbased data collection. “What’s really been rewarding is how creative the students have been,” Krueger said. He cited an example of a senior thesis that used a phone survey rather than a typical internet poll. When asked about the biggest mistake undergraduates make when they approach the Survey Research Center for help, Krueger said simply, “They come too late.” “We always are holding our breath after spring break,” said Freeland with a laugh. He and Kreuger explained that seniors sometimes realize they need data only after starting to write their thesis. According to Naila Rahman, the assistant director of the Survey Research Center, the Center has mostly worked with the politics department, psychology department, and the Wilson School, but have helped many other departments. Rahman enjoys working directly with students in constructing and maintaining their surveys. “It gives you so much information. You learn every day what’s going,” she said. “I believe that without surveys, nothing is possible. You need a survey to do anything. To sell a book, you need to know if it [will] sell. For everything, you need to do research. It just gives you a lot of wisdom.” The Survey Research Center is holding a day-long colloquium with presentations on recent research on Friday, Nov. 15.
Thursday November 16, 2017
The Daily Princetonian
page 5
Thursday November 16, 2017
Opinion
page 6
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
Letter to the Editor: Regarding sexual harassment in electrical engineering Andrew Houck
guest contributor
T
here is no greater power discrepancy in all of academia than between a Ph.D. advisor and their advisee. Sure, professors can determine course grades, but a course grade is one among many, so the influence of any one professor is diluted. An advisor-advisee relationship, on the other hand, is one that spans many years, and an advisor’s voice can make or break your career. Students must be able to trust that their advisors will treat and evaluate them fairly. It is impossible to have a functional system built on these relationships if violations of this trust are not met with the severest
of punishments: termination. For those who are unfamiliar with the process, there is very little coursework involved in getting a Ph.D. In graduate school, you conduct research for many years, typically under the mentorship of a single professor. When you go to look for jobs, that advisor’s recommendation is the single most important determinant of your success. Even after you have a job, that advisor can open (or close) doors, often having the power to weigh in on decisions about research funding, awards and honors, peer review of publications, and promotion. Your relationship with a former advisor is one that echoes throughout your career.
Beware of tech triumphalism Thomas Clark
contributing columnist
D
uring a talk on campus last spring, Eric Schmidt ’76, the executive chairman of Alphabet Inc., glowingly described how technological solutions and big data will soon remedy virtually all societal problems. It is a tantalizing idea — that all the human suffering we see in the world can be eliminated by predictive algorithms, powerful analytics, and global interconnectedness. As a computer science major, I can attest to the allure of Silicon Valley, and Princeton alumni no doubt can too. According to a Career Services report, 15 percent of the Class of 2014 pursued jobs in science and technology, up from 12 percent the year before. While it’s easy for a billionaire entrepreneur to put technology on a pedestal, I am wary of the triumphalist narrative surrounding the powers of technology and the assumption that technological progress is always inherently good. There are certain objective metrics of human progress such as life expectancy, nutrition, and literacy. When technology helps these to increase, it should be celebrated. But these metrics do not account for more subjective metrics of life quality such as mental health, community bonds, happiness, and a sense of purpose in life. Studies have linked social media use to social isolation and depression. This is not surprising given the emphasis on culture and community in less technological societies. Technology is a tool to improve society but shouldn’t be idolized. It is a means and not an end. Unless we think critically about what purpose we are building towards, we may find ourselves inventing things that would be better off not existing. History is rife with examples of technology going wrong or even being used to advance death and destruction, from the A-bomb to Zyklon B. Furthermore, there are some things that technology may never be able to do. I am skeptical that an app will ever cure depression or heal racial divides. We should not approach technology unquestioningly, but rather with a balance of both hope and realism about its limitations. Technological progress has left a trail of unresolved societal side effects that require serious deliberation and real solutions. Technology, while increasing overall wealth, can also concentrate wealth in the hands of the few who control it. In parts of Silicon Valley, median home prices have increased 18 percent
year-over-year, causing a homelessness crisis. Analysts have predicted that tens of millions of low- and middle-skill jobs in the United States will be lost to automation in the coming decades. Caught up in the hypnotic possibilities afforded by a computer science degree, it’s easy for highly educated workers to overlook the human impact of the industry that promises to do so much for the world. Beyond economic side effects, technology has direct impacts on its users. Over fall break, I had a chance to meet with members of the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C. Their work often involves protecting consumers from sophisticated online scams and devices that process user data without informed consent. This shows the arms race between enforcers and criminals and the tension between security and privacy that comes with a more advanced and connected world. Research conducted by University professors has shown how machine learning can incorporate human biases along the lines of gender and race. Well-meaning tech utopianists have proposed replacing human judges and parole officers with algorithms that predict criminal behavior, but these algorithms wind up manifesting racial biases implicit in their training data. We are also becoming increasingly aware of the influence of technology on politics. Facebook’s treasure trove of user data allows fine-grained ad targeting, which both political parties (not to mention Russia) used in the 2016 election. Facebook and Twitter are technological vectors for the viral spread of misinformation and vitriol, while content recommendation algorithms that know you all too well increasingly control the articles you read and the videos you watch. It is crucial that we all be informed about the potential issues in emergent technology. We should foster productive conversations about them in our workplaces, in public policy, and in the classroom. Rather than using college as a time simply to hone technical skills, pick up new programming languages, and make ourselves as marketable as possible to the Googles and Facebooks of the world, students in tech should take the time to form value systems, learn about the interaction of tech with law and governance, and reflect critically on the technology in our lives. Thomas Clark is a senior studying computer science from Herndon, Va.. He can be reached at thclark@princeton.edu.
The potential for abuse in this relationship is strong. When an advisor sexually harasses a student, that student has no good options. If a student pushes back, they must worry about the potential far-reaching impact on their career, and they may have to change research fields entirely. Because the pressure to acquiesce is so severe, the only way to protect our students is to ensure that these situations never arise. Unless the punishment for sexual misconduct between an advisor and advisee is extreme, I do not believe we can make this assurance. We must adopt a zerotolerance policy, where violation equals termination. Following the news in re-
cent weeks, we can see that the world is rife with unreported or unpunished sexual misconduct, particularly in fields where one person has the power to act as a gatekeeper, like Hollywood, Congress, and, sadly, academia. As reported in The Huffington Post and The Daily Princetonian, we recently had such a case in my department. I am appalled at the reported behavior of my colleague, and a lack of severe punishment undermines our ability as a department to foster the advisor-advisee relationships needed to properly teach and train our students. Regards, Andrew Houck ’00 Professor, electrical engineering
Letter to the Editor: SHARE — Title IX SHARE
guest contributors
I
n September, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that the Department of Education would formally rescind Obama-era guidance on how schools should handle sexual assault accusations under Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools and programs that receive federal funding. Interim guidelines written by the Department of Education reflect DeVos’s concern that previous guidance denied proper due process to those accused. After soliciting feedback from universities and other stakeholders, the Department of Education plans to release a new set of guidelines. Princeton’s policies regarding sexual misconduct will not be affected for the foreseeable future by the decision of the Department of Education to rescind the Obama-era guidelines. The University’s website explains that a voluntary resolution agreement, reached by the University and the Office of Civil Rights in 2014, remains binding under the September 2017 guidance, and holds the University to the preponderance standard of evidence. “The new guidance will not have an immediate effect on Princeton,” the website states. Additionally, Vice Provost Michele Minter, the University Title IX coordinator, affirmed that the University is not making any changes in the short term. “We believe that our policies are working well,” she said. While it is impossible to know what effect future guidelines will have on Princeton’s policies, the recent interim guidelines give a sense of the direction in which the Department of Education is inclined to move. The changes contained in the interim guidelines issued by DeVos’s Department of Justice include: 1) greater discretion in establishing a standard of evidence in university sexual assault proceedings, 2) removal of the definition of a “prompt” university investigation, and 3) allowance for mediation in university proceedings. Under Obama-era guidelines, the standard of evidence used in university sexual assault proceedings was the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is used in all civil cases in the United States. This standard requires that the evidence show that an event is more likely than not to have occurred. Those who support
preponderance of the evidence as the standard in Title IX cases argue that this standard gives equal weight to both the complainant and the respondent. The clear and convincing standard of evidence requires that the complainant show that something is substantially more likely than not to have occurred. It thus raises the bar for findings of responsibility. Under Obama-era guidelines, universities were required to operate under the preponderance of the evidence standard; now, universities can choose to implement either standard as they see fit. The Obama-era guidelines also required that universities conduct a “prompt” investigation into any sexual assault allegations submitted through Title IX, defined as within a 60-day period. This ensured that universities would conduct their disciplinary process in a timely manner, preventing unnecessarily extended distress for the complainant. The new guidelines do not include a definition of the term “prompt,” making the timeline open ended and at the discretion of each university. The third and final change allows for (but does not require the provision of) informal resolutions to Title IX sexual assault complaints, including mediation, an option that was not permitted under previous guidelines. As described by the University’s Ombuds Office, mediation “is a voluntary process in which one or more impartial person(s), the mediator(s), facilitate communication between parties in a conflict.” It is, by nature, nonpunitive. Brett Sokolow, president of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, writes that allowing for mediation or informal resolutions “sends a message that sexual assault is a misunderstanding to be worked out by better communication skills.” For the foreseeable future, Princeton, bound by its voluntary agreement with the Office of Civil Rights, will continue to operate under the preponderance of the evidence standard, will complete each investigation within 60 calendar days of receiving a complaint, and will not allow for mediation or informal resolution between a complainant and a respondent. DeVos’s changes, however, reflect the Department of Education’s changing views on Title IX, and may foreshadow future guidelines that would affect Princeton’s policies. The new guidelines do not affect the availability of any of the resources currently in place for survivors of interper-
vol. cxli
Sarah Sakha ’18
editor-in-chief
Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager
BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 Kathleen Crown William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Lisa Belkin ‘82 Francesca Barber trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73
141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 associate news editors Kristin Qian ’18 head opinion editor Nicholas Wu ’18 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Emily Erdos ’19 head sports editor David Xin ’19 associate sports editors Christopher Murphy ’20 Claire Coughlin ’19 head street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 associate street editors Lyric Perot ’20 Danielle Hoffman ’20 web editor Sarah Bowen ’20 head copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 associate copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 head design editors Samantha Goerger ’20 Quinn Donohue ’20 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19
NIGHT STAFF copy Arthur Matheos ’19 Kaitlin Bolin ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 design Charlotte Adamo ‘21
sonal violence. If you or someone you know has been a victim of interpersonal violence or sexual misconduct, you can get help. Sexual Harassment/ Assault Advising Resources and Education is a confidential resource with a 24-hour on-call service (609-258-3310), located in McCosh Health Center 217. SHARE peers are students who serve as private resources, who are available to to help you figure out your next step. If you wish to make a Title IX complaint, contact Michele Minter, Title IX Coordinator, at 609-258-6110 or mminter@ princeton.edu, or submit a complaint directly online at sexualmisconduct.princeton. edu/complaint. — SHARE Becca Senatore ’20 Zaynab Zaman ’18 Aly Kersley ’19
Thursday November 16, 2017
Opinion
page 7
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
Friendly Reminder Sophia Gavrilenko ’20 ..................................................
To commit to our mission, the University must require study abroad Jessica Nyquist
senior columnist
N
ew York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof came to campus in October to discuss his work on global poverty and to advise students on how they can get involved. He explained that every student has the capacity to help, as every “drop in the bucket” provides an important contribution. But he also mentioned a huge downfall of university programs: the tendency to study the world without actually seeing anything beyond campus. Kristof’s 2014 article “Go West, Young People! And East!” emphasized the importance of study abroad as the most effective way to broaden perspectives and understand other cultures, lamenting that “fewer than 10 percent of college students study overseas during undergraduate years.” Students study international poverty and history and politics and brainstorm international solutions, but they rarely apply these lessons outside of Princeton during their college years. At a university with the informal motto, “Princeton in the nation’s service and the service of humanity,” it is counterintuitive that only 57 percent of students in the Class of 2016
studied or worked abroad for at least a month. To genuinely instill these values in students, the University should make study abroad a requirement. The University has demonstrated its awareness of the importance of study abroad. In 2007, then-Provost Eisgruber and President Emerita Shirley Tilghman created the President’s Advisory Committee on Internationalization in response to rapid globalization. Their goal was to “develop a set of strategic priorities and … specific measures that will enable the University to fully realize [its] aspiration to be an American university with a broad international vision.” At that time only 38 percent of the graduating class had had at least one international experience, so the charge included efforts to remove “the barriers that inhibit our students and faculty from going abroad.” The committee outlined ways to make study abroad more accessible and encouraged within the unique research-focused undergraduate curriculum by emphasizing increasing funding and programs. Now, the University has a variety of abroad options, from the Bridge Year Program to Global Seminars to the International Internship Program. But many students still go through Princeton without reaping the
benefits of international immersion. The reason may have nothing to do with a lack of opportunities. Rather, the low rate of engagement with international experiences may be the result of students’ riskaverseness and unwillingness to stray from an orthodox education. In response to Kristof’s 2014 column, Aaron Schwartz ’17 explained the benefits of his Bridge Year experience in a Letter to the Editor, but commented that “American students struggle with the idea of separating from the educational fast track that parents and educators expect.” Another response to Kristof’s column suggested, “We need to shift the paradigm so that study abroad is seen … as essential so that students go to college wondering not if they will go abroad but when.” By making study abroad a requirement, the University would integrate it as part of the undergraduate experience rather than just an (often intimidating) option. Tilghman and current University President Eisgruber also acknowledged, in the Princeton in the World report, the unique barriers on Princeton’s campus: “Princeton’s ethos nurtures and depends upon a rich and demanding form of community. We insist that our faculty be present on the campus and in the class-
room, and our students often develop such strong loyalties to the institution that they are reluctant to spend time away from it.” This sentiment continues in 2017 to be a great obstacle to studying abroad, especially during the academic year. Students feel a sense of academic FOMO (fear of missing out) — with so many opportunities and courses on campus, it can be hard to peel yourself away. Socially as well, students sometimes struggle to find a semester they would want to off campus. By requiring study abroad, the framework will be strengthened and the time away will be normalized. This will mitigate many concerns as the time off campus will be expected and experienced by all undergraduates, changing the perception from time missed to an opportunity experienced. In my six-week Global Seminar experience in Cuba, I felt challenged in ways I never had during my first two years on campus. I was constantly placed in situations beyond my comfort zone: navigating the language barrier, understanding religious ceremonies, being perceived as a clear outsider for the first time in my life. But the fact that the course was a Princeton program provided a comfortable community to share all of these experiences. I
Keep yourself informed on the go! Follow us on Twitter:
@Princetonian
learned while being mentored and was challenged alongside my peers. Having grown so significantly, both personally and academically, in only a halfsemester, I cannot imagine my Princeton experience without this international component. As a communal experience and integral part of the undergraduate curriculum, required study abroad would promote the global features necessary to develop students reflecting the University’s mission. The social and academic framework established and normalized could relieve many students’ anxieties and apprehensions. For academic concerns, robust programs designed to accommodate every student would ensure that adequate courses and credits seamlessly integrate the semester abroad into the student’s course of study. Socially, time away would be experienced by all our peers so would not feel as much like missing out. The University requires Writing Seminars as preparation to contribute to the academic discourse; it should place a similar emphasis on preparation to contribute to the global discourse. Jessica Nyquist is a junior in computer science from Houston, Texas. She can be reached at jnyquist@princeton.edu.
Thursday November 16, 2017
Sports
page 8
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S BASKETBALL
Photo recap: Tigers drop home opener to BYU 65–56
JAMES CURRAH :: PRINCETONIAN STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
By Chris Murphy associate sports editor
In a game dominated by defense, Princeton dropped its home opener to BYU 65–56.
Princeton began to rally late in the game — at one point cutting the Cougars’ lead to 3 points with about 5 minutes to go, but were foiled by some late game stops and a Cougar
Tweet of the Day “Where did Powers Field go? #bubblewatch” Princeton Tigers(@ PUTigers)
offensive run. Junior guard Devin Cannady led the Tigers in scoring with 19 points. Meanwhile, junior Myles Stephens led the way on defense with eight rebounds. Princ-
eton was able to hold most of the BYU offense in check but had no answer for Elijah Bryant, who had 22 points and seven rebounds and was the catalyst for the Cougars.
Stat of the Day
.462 Field Goal Junior Devin Cannady shot 6 out of 13 on his way to a team leading 19 points vs. BYU.
The Tigers dropped to 0–2 on the season, but played well against to quality NCAA teams. The Tigers return to action Saturday at St. Joseph’s University.
Follow us Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!