The Daily Princetonian: November 25, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday November 25, 2019 vol. CXLIII no. 111

Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Alagappan ’20, Malhotra ’20 win 2020 Rhodes Scholarship

By Ivy Truong Head News Editor

COURTESY OF OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

Alagappan ’20 (left) and Malhotra ’20 (right) have been awarded 2020 Rhodes Scholarship.

ON CAMPUS

Forbes offshoot of U. vertical farm to reopen this month

Serena Alagappan ’20 and Ananya Malhotra ’20 have been selected as two of the 32 U.S. students who have been awarded a Rhodes Scholarship.

According to a statement from the Rhodes Trust, Alagappan and Malhotra will be part of the third consecutive class of Rhodes Scholars that are majority-minority, and roughly 50 percent of the awarded individuals are first-generation Americans.

Through a multistage process, students are awarded for outstanding academics and a commitment to leadership and service. The scholarship will provide all expenses

for two or three years of postgraduate study at the University of Oxford.

Hailing from Manhattan, N.Y., Alagappan is concentrating in Comparative Literature and will pursue an M.Sc. in Social Anthropology and an M.St. in World Literatures in English. According to the statement, her “writing and research explores the ways in which identity and modes of expression shape art.”

When she had received the news about the fellowship, Alagappan said she was “speechless and overcome with gratitude.”

“My first thoughts flew to my parents and sisters, who have always been unconditionally supportive, and my teachers See RHODES page 3

ON CAMPUS

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

By Katie Tam Senior Writer

In Opinion

COURTESY OF DAVID BOHRER / THE WHITE HOUSE

Joshua Bolten ’76 shakes hands with President George W. Bush.

Q&A with Joshua Bolten ’76, Former White House Chief of Staff

By Sam Kagan Contributor

On Thursday, Nov. 21, Joshua Bolten ’76, former White House Chief of Staff under President George W. Bush and current CEO and President of Business Roundtable, spoke on campus at a public event organized by the Cliosophic Party.

In his years at Old Nassau, the University trustee secured an undergraduate degree from the Wilson School, serving as president of Ivy Club along the way. After graduating from Princeton, Bolten received a J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Following his conversation in the Whig Hall Senate Chamber, The Daily Princetonian caught up with Bolten to discuss campus politics, perceptions of President Bush, the reality of Dick Cheney’s portrayal in “Vice,” and more.

The following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

The Daily Princetonian: Welcome home. What’s it like to come home?

Joshua Bolten ’76: Princeton feels very much like home, but a home that is more vibrant and interesting and engaged with the world than the home I had

Senior columnist Hunter Campbell advocates for improvements to the current system of fire safety inspections, while columnist Sebastian Quiroz argues that Tigerbook should move to an opt-in system.

PAGE 4

here 40-plus years ago.

DP: What was “the home” like when you were here 40plus years ago?

JB: It was a tight community, but much less vibrant than it is today. Less diverse and less connected to the outside world.

DP: Talking just a little bit about your time on campus, you also mentioned in your talk that you were the president of Ivy Club while you were here. Could you tell me what that was like? Eating clubs were so different from the way they are today.

JB: I think the eating clubs are the same in the sense that they provide a really congenial atmosphere for students to get to know each other ... in a way that’s close to family. That element is the same.

Today, though, Ivy Club and all of the clubs I’ve visited seem much more alive.

I think they are much improved. Those that were allmale, I think they are much improved by now having women as well. And, like I said about the campus overall, they seem much better connected to the outside world than they were when I was an undergraduate.

See BOLTEN page 2

JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Nicholas Matyas at DeNunzio Pool, shortly before he officially joined the men’s swim team.

15-year-old cancer survivor Nicholas Matyas joins U. swim team

By Ngan Chiem Contributor

15-year-old Nicholas Matyas officially signed onto the University men’s swimming team on Saturday, Nov. 23, at the DeNunzio Pool during the team’s match against Cornell and Penn.

Matyas, a survivor of lymphoma, is now successfully in remission. A swimmer since the age of seven, he continues to swim for his high school and club teams.

Through Team Impact, an organization that “connects children facing serious and chronic illnesses with local college athletic teams,” Matyas was invited to join the University’s swim team. As a member of the team, Matyas is welcomed to attend team-related events.

“It doesn’t have to be a swim meet,” Matyas’s mother, Melissa Matyas, said. “It can be a pizza party, or if the team’s going to see a football game, he’s welcomed to come.”

In an email statement to The Daily Princetonian, Doug Lennox ’09, an assistant coach on the men’s swim team, wrote, “We are

Today on Campus 5:30 p.m.: My Big Fat Interfaith Thanksgiving Chancellor Green Rotunda

super fortunate to have [Matyas and his family] on our team! We are very proud of him for showing grit, courage and kindheartedness through some of life’s most challenging circumstances.”

Several members of the swim team expressed their appreciation for Matyas and their enthusiasm towards his new status as a team member.

“I have nothing but respect for [Matyas], and I think that he embodies everything that Princeton Swimming stands for,” John Ehling ’23, one of Matyas’s student leaders on the team, said.

“I’m sure every one of us thought of Matyas during our races, which definitely helped us beat both Penn and Cornell,” Max Walther ’22, his other student leader, added.

Matyas’s mother shared that he is interested in pursuing a career in the medical field. A former patient of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Matyas is “mature for his age,” according to his mother, and sees value in helping others.

WEATHER

After a brief hiatus for the summer, the Forbes Vertical Farm is set to reopen this month.

The farm, which was dismantled at the end of last semester, has been rebuilt over the past two weekends in the lobby of Forbes College.

The farm began in the fall of 2018 as an offshoot of the main Princeton Vertical Farming Project (PVFP), which was launched

by Paul Gauthier, a former associate research scholar in the Department of Geosciences. The PVFP was founded in April of 2017 to engage University students in sustainable farming practices and provided fertile ground for research.

The PVFP ended with Gauthier’s departure this past summer, and the main farm housed in Moffett Laboratory was shut down. The latest Forbes offshoot will further the original goal of demonstrating that farming can fit into the busy life of a student at the University.

Gauthier now works as a Senior Agricultural Scientist for Bowery Farming in New York City.

It is meant “to show students that this type of farming works, and that it tastes really good,” said Kaylin Xu ’22, who served as manager of the Forbes farm last year.

“It’s also a mood-booster, to see that much green indoors,” Xu said.

“I’ll walk by the lobby, and there will be students just staring at the plants.”

The setup was attended by students from the Pink House, Greening Dining, and the Princeton Student Climate Initiative (PSCI), among others. Gauthier, Forbes College Dean Patrick Caddeau, and Forbes Faculty Fellow Ryo Morimoto have also assisted.

While some of the equipment was stored in the basement of the college, most of it had to be lugged back from Moffett. A new automatic watering system was installed — good news for Xu, who had to carry buckets to water the plants last semester.

See FARM page 2

HIGH

52˚

LOW

32˚

Partly cloudy chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Monday November 25, 2019

Bolten ’76: Value of my having taught on campus was exposing students to conservative point of view that is not the cartoon that you might get on Fox News BOLTEN

Continued from page 1

.............

DP: Did Princeton do anything to prepare you for your jobs in [government] service?

JB: Yeah, Princeton did a lot to prepare me for my roles, especially in government service. And particularly because so much of the education is focused on identifying and pursuing sound principle. That pedagogic focus is one that I think informs the best in public service as well.

DP: Shifting more to the intersection of your time at Princeton and your time in service, right before the meeting adjourned, you said “thank you” to all the people who came here to support conservative life on campus.

I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about that in both the context of Princeton and the broader national conversation about political atmospheres on college campuses.

JB: Well, I think it ought to be a matter of great concern at all our universities that there is so much homogeneity of political perspective, both among faculty and students. I know that Princeton is among the institutions that has best recognized that concern.

When I left government in 2009, I left without any plans for what I was going to do afterwards — in part because it was so busy in the final months of my tenure in the White House, but also because I thought that it’s better for senior public servants to run through the tape at the end of an administration and not be diverted in any way by concerns about what they were going to do next.

And I was fortunate enough not to be in a financial situation where I absolutely had to get a job the month after I left the White House.

So, in February of 2009, I was relaxing, visiting my mom, without a job, and I got a phone call out of the blue from [University] President Shirley Tilghman, whom I had never met. She said, “I’m calling because we have a diversity problem at Princeton, and you may be part of the answer.” And I said, “What? Not enough late-middle-aged white Jewish guys?” And she said, “No, not enough conservatives.”

She recruited me to be a visiting professor at the [Woodrow] Wilson School, which we had agreed I would do for one year, but I enjoyed [it] so much that I re-upped for a second year.

During those two years, I taught a total of six classes, evenly divided between graduate and undergraduate, and had contact with a lot of terrific students, most of whom self-identified as liberal or left-of-center, but all of whom were very receptive and interested in a more conservative perspective, which is hard to find on any campus.

I feel that part of the value to the students of my having been on campus for those two years was to expose the students to a conservative point of view that is not the cartoon that you might get on Fox News, but rather from an experienced public servant, who had wrestled with important power public policy issues from a conservative perspective, but in many cases coming out in the same place that ... those with a left-of-center perspective would have.

I don’t think I changed many minds or changed many students’ approach to their ideology. But, I think it’s an important part of education that students be exposed to at least a mainstream conservative viewpoint. Princeton offers a number of ways to do that, not least through the programs and classes that [Professor] Robbie George runs, which I admire greatly.

DP: Your comment about Fox News is interesting to me. You said you wanted to bring a “thinking conservative perspective,” not a caricature that one would see on Fox News. I’m curious what your perceptions are of modern conservative media.

JB: It’s not a perspective that is just critical of conservative media; it’s critical of media in general. MSNBC offers just as distorted a cartoon of leftist thinking as Fox does of rightist thinking. It’s because they are not — their programming appears less designed to inform than it does to entertain and titillate and, in doing that, reinforce existing biases.

It seems to me what’s valuable about interesting news productions, just as with educational programming, is ... in challenging biases and making people question their assumptions rather than reinforce them.

DP: On that idea of questioning assumptions, I was very interested in what you said about your time working on the [George W.] Bush campaign in trying to combat public perceptions that were less than positive about then-Governor Bush. I’m curious what that’s like. What is it like running a campaign

where part of the challenge that you’re facing is, as I believe you said in your own words, the public thinks the candidate isn’t the brightest guy?

JB: Frustrating. It was a frustration that stayed with us throughout eight years in the White House. I cannot tell you how many times I would be in a private meeting with then-President Bush and a participant who had never been exposed to him in person would come up to me and say, “Wow, he’s a lot sharper than I thought; why don’t you show that Bush to the American people?” It was always a frustration to us who worked on the inside that the Bush that we saw was not fully portrayed through the media.

And in saying that, I’m not blaming media bias, although I think there was plenty of that. The nature of the way media filters impressions and news often makes it hard for them to see the real character of the political leaders [who] are being portrayed.

DP: On your time in the White House — it’s been about a decade now since you left. Looking back, what are you proud of, and are there things that you find yourself reading about in the paper or seeing in the news and you just sort of say to yourself, “Oh no, I really wish we hadn’t done that one?”

JB: I don’t think much about the do-overs. There’s a lot I am proud of in things done during the Bush administration and how they were done. I’m proud of having been a very small part of the way that the President and the White House responded to 9/11 — in both rallying the country, but also resisting demonization of fellow citizens.

I’m proud, for example, that a couple of days after 9/11, before he went to Ground Zero, President Bush made the decision to go to the mosque in Washington and talk about Islam in a favorable light and remind Americans that there are many American citizens who are Muslims who are great contributors to our society, and that those who perpetrated 9/11 were doing it based on a distortion of Islam, not in furtherance of it.

I’m very proud of the role that I played in President Bush’s program to combat AIDS in Africa. It’s called the PEPFAR program, and it’s the largest program ever in the history of healthcare to combat a single disease. The program has been continued by both the Obama and Trump

administrations and, so far, it’s saved nearly 20 million lives in Africa.

Most Americans don’t know that, and President Bush, when he talks about it, talks about it not to direct credit his way, but he always says he wants his fellow citizens to know what American generosity has accomplished elsewhere in the world.

DP: I would be remiss if I if I didn’t bring this up, but obviously the hottest political issue of the day is the impeachment hearings. I’m wondering how you think about them, but also what you think you might do if you were still Chief of Staff in the White House.

JB: Well, I guess I’d probably be acting Chief of Staff anyway. Yeah, I don’t know what I would do as Chief of Staff — I would hope that I would have been in a position to prevent the situation from arising in the first place.

But what I find disturbing about the impeachment is that it’s just amplified the tribal instincts in our politics, and most Americans don’t seem to be thinking about it in terms of what they think is right and what behavior they expect from their president. They’re just thinking about it in tribal Republican or Democratic terms, and I think that approach is at the core of the dysfunction in our politics today.

DP: During the Bush years, when you were in the White House, Gallup’s tracking poll put the percentage of Americans who [were] satisfied with the direction of our country at a high of 70 percent.

JB: That’s in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

DP: Yeah, which is likely the “Rally ‘round the flag’” effect. But it was still, on average, higher during the Bush years that it has been under Obama or Trump. The number currently sits at 35 percent, and I’m wondering what you think about the future of our politics and the direction in which our government and national culture is heading.

JB: Well, the nature of our political discourse today is very concerning. The toxicity of our politics, I think, is tearing in our social fabric in a way that could have consequences for a long time to come. That said, I’m longterm optimistic. I believe that these episodes of tribalism tend to come and go, sometimes over long cycles, but that the pendulum ultimately swings back.

One of the reasons why at

this session with students that you just attended, organized by Clio, I was particularly complimentary of the conservative students who were there is that my sense is that they are part of a generation that can manage deep policy and even ideological differences in a civil manner.

DP: To wrap up, I’ve got a fun question for you.

JB: Let’s go with the fun one.

DP: Okay, which political drama do you feel is most accurate to real life, [and] have you seen “Vice,” and is Dick Cheney like that?

JB: I have not seen “Vice.”

I did work closely with Dick Cheney, and it sounds like they got him largely wrong.

In particular, what I think they got wrong was the widespread misimpression that he was running the government or a substantial part of it during the Bush years.

If you don’t like the Bush policies, don’t blame Cheney — blame Bush, because he was in charge. Cheney was a valued advisor but, certainly during my tenure as chief of staff, he lost as many arguments as he won with other senior advisors to the president. The decisions were the president’s. So yeah, no on “Vice.”

DP: “West Wing,” “House of Cards?”

JB: I used to watch “West Wing” — I did enjoy watching “West Wing,” including when I was in the White House. I remember when I arrived in the White House as Deputy Chief of Staff ... somebody saying to me, “you know, West Wing, how can they even copy your name?” And I had to point out, “Yeah, the Josh on ‘West Wing’ was Deputy Chief of Staff before I was Deputy Chief of Staff.”

We actually had a visit from the cast of “West Wing” during the early months of the Bush administration.

Each of us visited with our fictional counterpart and it was good fun. That show did — I mean, it’s not accurate to life in many ways, but it did a pretty good job of distilling the dynamics around tough issues that confront every White House. I think that’s in part true because many of the consultants [who] helped prepare the scripts were people who had worked in the Clinton White House.

DP: All right, thank you so much for taking the time to sit down with me. I really appreciate it.

JB: My pleasure.

Xu ’22: The vertical farm is meant to show students that this type of farming works, and that it tastes really good FARM

Continued from page 1

.............

Basil, tomatoes, strawberries, cilantro, and lettuce will return to the farm. Arugula and broccoli are also in the works.

A few students present to help this past Sunday expressed their enthusiasm for the future of the project.

“I’m excited for the herbs,” said Milan Eldridge ’20, “and just in general the food that we’re going to grow.”

“I’m excited about the variety,” Jordan Bowman-Davis ’23 said.

As a first-year, Bowman-Davis was new to the farm, but other participants had prior experience.

“I think that we have a lot of space, even though it’s in this small alcove,” said Olivia Foster ’20, who worked on a project with

the farm this summer. “There’s a decent amount of space to be able to experiment with different types of crops.”

Xu is heartened by the level of interest in the farm and is hoping to make the experience more collaborative.

“It’s going to be mostly studentrun this year,” Xu said. “I want it to reach more people. We’re looking to increase student engagement in general.”

As examples, Xu mentioned starting a message board with updates, hosting events and tastings, partnering with the Forbes Garden Project, and getting input from the Forbes community about what they would like to see.

“There’s a lot we can do,” Xu said.

KATIE TAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Milan Eldridge ’20 and Olivia Foster ’20 at work on the farm on Nov. 24

The Daily Princetonian

Monday November 25, 2019

page 3

Alagappan and Malhotra will be part of the third consecutive class of Rhodes Scholars that are majority-minority RHODES Continued from page 1

............. and professors, who have mentored and inspired me over the years,” she said. “I also thought of the many formative conversations I have had with friends, whom I love so much.”

Alagappan also serves as the editor-in-chief of The Nassau Weekly and is accomplished published author of fiction, nonfiction, and poetry.

Malhotra, from Atlanta, Ga., is majoring in the Woodrow Wilson School

of International and Public Affairs. She hopes to complete the M.Phil. in International Relations at the University of Oxford in order to pursue her aspirations of becoming a human rights lawyer and academic.

Off-campus, she has interned at United Nations Women, where she created a program for youth gender equality activists. On-campus, she is the president of Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education (SHARE).

According to the statement, her senior thesis

“uses oral histories to examine the consequences of nuclear weapons testing in the American southwest.”

“I was completely shocked [upon receiving the news] and overcome with emotion and gratitude for all the people I love who have made me who I am — especially my parents and younger sister,” Malhotra said. “I owe everything to them and to my closest friends, as well as the support and guidance of my mentors, professors, and former teachers who believed in me, even when I didn’t believe in myself.”

Oop s, sorly, Dos theeS butherr u?

Join the ‘Prince’ copy department.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Revealing the truth, one story at a time. join@dailyprincetonian.com

Opinion

Monday November 25, 2019

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Improving fire safety inspections Hunter Campbell

Senior Columnist

Fire safety inspections are an inconvenient but critical reality on college campuses.

Just one person committing a serious violation — for example, removing the proper signage on “means of egress” — could put the lives of all of a building’s occupants in danger.

Despite their importance, such inspections must be carried out in the most ethical manner possible. This principle is not just to protect students’ privacy, but also to make the inspections more effective.

Fire safety inspections should not be scheduled as they currently are. Right now, it is all too easy for students to hear the loud knocking and inspectors yelling, “fire inspection!”

from down the hallway.

Students who would otherwise be found in violation of a fire safety regulation can move around objects in their rooms to avoid discovery and the resultant fine.

The current policy also privileges students who occupy quads over those who live in doubles, because there is a higher likelihood that someone will be in a larger dorm when the inspectors come. More occupants in a room means that someone will more likely be in the room at any moment during the day.

I propose an alternative: scheduling inspections when students have class.

For example, if a student has a Wednesday seminar from 1:30 p.m. until 4:20 p.m., then the inspectors should come at that time. Fire Safety can independently receive access to the room from the Office of the Registrar.

These steps would lessen the likelihood of a student having the chance to rear-

range illicitly placed items.

They would also reduce the prospect of a student being woken up by the inspection, or of the inspectors arriving when someone is in the middle of changing.

Inspections can also interfere with students’ studying. Someone could be having a phone call, or a Skype interview at that moment, and the inspection could be incredibly disruptive.

Finally, it is just a bit strange to know that these inspectors can arrive at any moment during weekdays and that they are guaranteed entry to your room — no matter what you may be doing. There is something a bit unnerving that, before planning daytime activities, you must consider the possibility of inspection, even if it only happens a few times a year.

The proposed solution of only scheduling the inspections while the students are in class could require more fire safety staff, as inspec-

tions would take longer, since entire floors could not be completed all at once.

However, this would be an intuitive use of the money collected from the fines given to violators — and the proposed solution would likely result in more violations discovered, as students would not be able to quickly hide or move objects in violation of the fire safety regulations.

If the goal of fire safety inspections is to stop violations that endanger the lives of the members of our community, then why should we not be willing to spend some more money in adopting a more effective — and more prudent — inspection policy?

Hunter Campbell is a senior politics major from Sunderland, Vt. He can be reached at hunterc@princeton.edu.

Tigerbook, privacy, and consent Sebastian Qiuroz Columnist

Claire Wayner, a fellow columnist, recently argued that we should bring back some of the features from Tigerbook in its original form.

In brief, she argued that the benefits of having access to Tigerbook significantly outweighed concerns about the platform, and that the University ought to consider reinstating Tigerbook in its original form — and even add a few new features.

Tigerbook, however, represented an invasion of privacy, and the concerns that it raised should compel us to forfeit the benefits the platform provided.

Like many of my peers, I benefited from the platform.

Hometown listings, for instance, were often useful in making sure I remembered where my friends were from without having to ask them dozens of times, as Wayner notes. The most controversial feature — students’ dorm rooms — were also useful: it can be awfully awkward to ask a friend where they live after having been to their dorms many times.

That being said, I am not convinced that the benefits of Tigerbook in its original form really outweighed the costs.

Privacy, for many of us, is of central importance. If recent discussions about social media are any indication, we are often shocked, if not deeply perturbed, when we find that corporations and other entities have infringed upon our privacy. The reason for this, it seems to me, is that privacy is necessarily tied to autonomy. Privacy allows us, as individuals, to make decisions about how we live our own lives and who we share those lives with.

Yet, it seems that privacy — and the autonomy

it is meant to protect — are somehow subject to a utilitarian calculus. The ostensible benefits of, say, Facebook outweigh ceding control of our data and information.

Similarly, it seems that the benefits of Tigerbook — not having to ask our friends for information we should already know, for instance — simply outweigh the costs to our privacy that may come with it.

This all ought to worry us.

It’s important to remember the comparatively limited harms that Tigerbook represents, especially in light of the damage done by social media companies such as Facebook. Unlike the case of Cambridge Analytica, the exposure of our data is limited to other members of the University community, who need netIDs to see any of the information. Moreover, this is not a sophisticated program that attempts to gather deeply personal information; rather, it is limited to the information that the University has collected about us.

I also want to emphasize that the reforms Wayner proposes are aimed at maintaining the privacy of our fellow students. The compromise between protecting all data and revealing the information available previously on the platform represents a valuable attempt to balance the utility of the platform and students’ privacy concerns. Moreover, including an opt-out option, as she suggests, would certainly be a better measure towards ensuring our privacy relative to what exists.

As such, I do not want to suggest that we should simply scratch the platform, something even the University has not done, though they presumably could. And I am not, in principle, opposed to reintroducing some of the information that was once featured on the plat-

form.

My suggestion, though modest, could lead to more radical outcomes for our privacy: change Tigerbook to a purely opt-in system. This would have various advantages compared to both the current system and Wayner’s suggestion that the platform might include an opt-out system.

First, it has the benefit of protecting students who do not use the platform. It’s not clear to me why students who do not use it — out of ignorance of the platform’s existence or because they’ve chosen not to use it — still ought to be subject to the exposure of their data. This is particularly pernicious in the case of students who are not aware of the existence of the platform; it would be akin to being taxed by the government without knowing you are being taxed.

This leads me to my second point, which relates to the notion of consent. If I am correct that privacy protects our autonomy, then the only way to overcome a violation of that relation would be for us to consent to it.

Imagine that I own a very special coffee mug, and you have a strong desire to use it. The only way for you to be able to use it would be for me to give you permission to use it — that is, for me to consent to your use of the coffee mug. In order for us to consent to something happening, it seems that I have to give you affirmative permission. It follows that in order for someone to violate my right to privacy, I have to consent to that action.

An opt-out system might be thought to do the necessary work. It allows us to stop someone from having access to a certain sphere of our autonomy, such that it seems to mirror our consent. The problem with optout systems, however, is that

they presume consent.

Given the nature of autonomy, such a presumption cannot be valid. In the case of the coffee mug, you cannot presume that I have consented to your use of the coffee mug. An opt-out system on Tigerbook suggests that we’ve somehow already consented to other people having access to our information. This is an implausible assumption.

An opt-in system, conversely, presumes no such thing. It is built on the assumption that we have a right to privacy, and that only our express consent can validly overcome that right. This solution, I think, satisfies all of our concerns. It allows us to access the information we might want or claim to need, though under a substantial constraint: the individual whose information you are looking for would have had to agree that you could access it. Moreover, we could strengthen this constraint with a fairness clause, clarifying that you must opt-in to use the platform; you must consent to release the information in order to see other people’s information.

I do not disagree with many of my peers that Tigerbook was a valuable resource.

But as I have argued, it’s not clear to me that Tigerbook’s benefits outweigh its potential dangers. My proposal for a mandatory, opt-in-for-use system balances these two worries in a way that takes seriously the relationship between privacy and autonomy.

Like Wayner, I would like to save Tigerbook. Doing so, however, requires thinking hard about how we can responsibly protect the right to privacy.

Sebastian Quiroz is a senior Politics major from Deltona, Fla. He can be reached at squiroz@ princeton.edu.

vol. cxliii

editor-in-chief

Chris Murphy ’20 business manager

Taylor Jean-Jacques’20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Chris Murphy ’20 Taylor Jean-Jacques’20

143RD MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Aftel ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Jon Ort ’21 head news editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news editors Linh Nguyen ’21 Claire Silberman ’22 Katja Stroke-Adolphe ’20 head opinion editor Cy Watsky ’21 associate opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editors Samantha Shapiro ’21 Jo de la Bruyere ’22 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

Pyne Prize request for nominations Kathleen Deignan

Guest Contributor

I write to solicit nominations for the Pyne Prize, the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate, which will be awarded on Alumni Day, Saturday, Feb. 22, 2020.

In thinking about student

nominations, I would ask that you consider the following description: M. Taylor Pyne Honor Prize.

A prize awarded annually to the senior who has manifested in outstanding fashion the following qualifications: excellence in scholarship, character, and effective support of the best interests of Princeton University. Founded in 1921 in

remembrance of the life and character of M. Taylor Pyne, Class of 1877, Trustee of Princeton 1885–1921, by his cousin, Mrs. May Taylor Moulton Hanrahan, the prize is the highest general distinction the University confers upon an undergraduate. The prize consists of the income from this fund up to the prevailing comprehensive fee for one academic

year.

We are eager to receive letters of nomination from members of the University community. Please send letters to pyneprize@princeton.edu by Monday, Jan. 6, 2020.

Kathleen Deignan is the Dean of Undergraduate Students. She can be reached at kdeignan@princeton.edu.

NIGHT STAFF design Sophie Li ’23 Kenny Peng’ 22

Sports

Monday November 25, 2019

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } FIELD HOCKEY

Field hockey loses in National Championship

By Molly Milligan Senior Sports Writer

No. 9 Princeton field hockey (16–5) fell to No.1-ranked, defending national champions North Carolina (23–0) in the NCAA National Championship game on Sunday afternoon, by a score of 6–1.

The Tigers and the Tar Heels met in a rematch of the NCAA final from both 1996 and 2012 on damp turf at Kentner Stadium on the campus of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. To reach the title game, Princeton bested No. 4 Virginia 2–1, while the Tar Heels took down No. 7 Boston College 6–3 in the national semifinals.

Fired up following the upset of Virginia, Princeton came out firing on all cylinders. Early in the match, junior striker Clara Roth stole the ball away from a North Carolina defender deep in the right corner of the circle.

Roth played an expert pass across the face of the goal to junior striker Emma Street, who was waiting wide open.

Street slammed the ball past UNC’s goalie to give the Tigers a 1–0 lead just 2:13 into the game.

Later in the first, UNC earned the first corner of the game, but did not convert a score. With only 40 seconds to play in the quarter, Melissa Creatore slipped a ball by senior goalie Grace Baylis to tie the game. At the end of the first, both teams had fired seven shots.

Princeton earned three consecutive corners to open the second stanza, but none of the balls found the back of the net.

With 19 minutes gone in the game, junior midfielder and three-time First-Team All-Ivy League honoree Julianna Tornetta fell to the turf clutching her knee. She got up quickly, though, and walked off the field unaided.

In her absence, UNC’s Eva Smolenaars added another tally for the Tar Heels. Tornetta then re-entered the game, but hit the turf again and was forced to walk off after just 30 seconds. She did not return to the game.

North Carolina led 2–1 at the half.

The Tar Heels took control of the game in the third, as ACC Offensive Player of the Year Erin Matson added two tallies. Without Tornetta patrolling the midfield, the

Tweet of the Day The Tigers took down #7 Lehigh 18-4 for the second year in a row! The team was tough, aggressive and exciting #BurnTheShips Princeton Wrestling (@TigerWrestling) Wrestling

Tigers struggled to possess the ball and make a stand defensively.

To open the fourth quarter of play, North Carolina earned two consecutive corners, but could not add on to its 4–1 lead. Minutes later, playing one up following a yellow card assessed to Princeton senior midfielder Krista Hoffman, Smolenaars added her second goal of the day to give UNC a four-goal advantage.

In search of any offensive opportunity, Princeton earned its sixth corner of the day, but the shot by junior midfielder MaryKate Neff sailed wide. On another corner for the Tigers, first-year midfielder Sammy Popper’s shot was off the mark.

With just 2:50 left on the clock, UNC’s Hannah Griggs took advantage of a ball misplayed by Princeton and added another goal for the Tar Heels. The 6–1 margin would prove too much for Princeton to overcome in the waning minutes, even as Popper earned a penalty stroke with just one second remaining.

Princeton finishes the season at 16–5 following an undefeated Ivy League campaign. This loss ends a

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Field hockey lost in the national championship game to North Carolina.

13-game win streak for the Tigers, the second longest in program history. North Carolina earns its second consecutive national title and eighth overall, while extending its win streak to 46 games.

The national title game

also marks the end of the Class of 2020’s Princeton careers. They finish their four years with a 55–25 record, two Ivy League titles, and three NCAA Final Four appearances.

Stat of the Day

Follow us

46 games

Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!

After beating Princeton in the national championship game, UNC field hockey extended its winning streak to 46

Sports

Monday November 25, 2019

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S VOLLEYBALL

Women’s volleyball advances to NCAA tournament with Ivy Playoff win over Yale

By Alissa Selover Associate Sports Editor

Junior Clare Lenihan put the icing on top of an incredible season with the game-winning kill for the women’s volleyball team — one that punched its ticket to the NCAA tournament.

Princeton faced Yale on Friday night in a battle of Ivy League Champions. After taking a tough five-set loss to the Bulldogs on Nov. 16 to share the Ivy League title, the Tigers came out full force to take the victory in just four sets (23–25, 25–21, 26–24, 25–15).

Yale was outworking Princeton in the first set, taking a promising 23–16 lead before the Tigers started coming back. A quick 7–0 run by Princeton tied the score at 23-all, but Yale gained the momentum it needed to score a quick two points from a kill and a block to take the first set win.

The second set started as a tough matchup; Yale took a quick 3–2 lead, but Princeton would rally off two more points to take its first lead.

Yale wouldn’t take the lead for the rest of the set.

After coming off of a 13–12 lead, the Tigers were able to keep the Bulldogs astray until three Yale points set the score at 20–19. Princeton would go on a 5–2 run to take their first set win.

Yale came out aggressive in the third. After Princeton’s 4–1 lead, the Bulldogs used a six-point run to take a 7–4 advantage, before the Tigers tied the score at 7-all.

The score would be tied seven more times until a 7–0 run put the Tigers up 20-14.

Despite this advantage, Yale used a 8–2 run to tie the score once more at 22all. The score would be tied again at 23-all and 24-all, before two Princeton points gave them the win.

While the fourth — and final — set started as a

back-and-forth battle, two Yale attacking errors and a kill from Lenihan gave the Tigers a 6–3 lead. Yale continued to fight back, but the Bulldogs wouldn’t see a lead for the remainder of the match, eventually losing their opportunity to play in the NCAA tournament 25–15.

Sophomore Elena Montgomery led the Tigers with 19 kills, with senior Natasha Skov adding 16 and Lenihan contributing 13. Senior setter Jessie Harris reached her 1,000-assist mark for the season, as she added 57 assists and 10 digs. Sophomore libero Cameron Dames had 23 digs, while Skov added eight.

The NCAA selection show will take place on Sunday, Dec. 1, when the Tigers will learn their opponent and the venue where they will face off.

JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Princeton huddles in the first set of the win over Yale.

FOOTBALL

Princeton football finishes season with 28–7 win over Penn, falls one win short of Ivy title

By Jack Graham Head Sports Editor

After two consecutive losses put a damper on a season with a 7–0 start, Princeton football (8–2, 5–2 Ivy) managed to finish the year the way it wanted. On Saturday, in Philadelphia, the Tigers scored 28 unanswered points and rushed for 283 yards to triumphs 28–7 over rival Penn (5–5, 3–4 Ivy).

The game represented the second straight year in which Princeton faced Penn in the final week of the season as part of the Ivy League’s initiative to finish the season with regional rivalry games, and it was Princeton’s second straight victory.

“It’s a rivalry game; we’re not necessarily fond of Penn,” said junior running back Collin Eaddy, who rushed for 174 yards and two touchdowns.

“But we really just wanted to send the seniors out on a good note, and the fashion we did it [in] was impressive.”

Despite the win, the Tigers fell one game short of Ivy League co-champions Dartmouth and Yale, who beat Brown and Harvard, respectively, to secure one-loss seasons.

The Tigers struggled establishing the run in the past two weeks against Yale and Dartmouth, but they had little trouble doing so against Penn. In addition to Eaddy’s 174 yards on 30 carries, senior running back Ryan Quigley contributed 92 yards, and senior quarterback Kevin Davidson picked up important yards with his legs several times.

“The [offensive line] got it going today,” Eaddy said.

JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Ryan Quigley rushes in the first half against Penn.

“When they start rolling, I don’t feel like we can be stopped. If we can get efficient runs and stay ahead of the chains, that’s a big thing, and I feel like we did that well today.”

“They ran hard,” head coach Bob Surace ’90 said about the Princeton running backs. “I felt like the word of the week was ‘finish’ … That really helps your run game, getting the extra yard.”

Meanwhile, the Tiger defense didn’t allow any points after the 6:56 mark in the first quarter. Penn was able to move the ball down the field, recording 446 yards of offense, but Princeton stopped six of seven Penn fourthdown conversion attempts, including three inside the Princeton 10-yard line.

Tweet of the Day The Tigers took down #7 Lehigh 18-4 for the second year in a row! The team was tough, aggressive and exciting #BurnTheShips Princeton Wrestling (@TigerWrestling) Wrestling

“Our theme of the week was finish and fight, and that really showed up on the field, getting those stops on third down [and] fourth down,” said junior defensive back Delan Stallworth, who led Princeton with 11.5 tackles.

“We took two tough losses, and how we bounced back from that and how we fought in those critical situations was really good.”

After Penn scored the first touchdown of the game midway through the first quarter, Princeton responded on its next possession with an 11-play, 92-yard drive capped off with an Eaddy three-yard run to tie the score at 7–7.

A pass deflection by Stallworth on a fourth-and-two play from the Princeton six-yard line helped Princ-

eton keep the Quakers off the board for the rest of the first half, and Princeton kicked a field goal with less than a minute remaining in the half to take a 10–7 lead into halftime.

The second half started frightfully, as sophomore running back Trey Gray was part of a hard collision and was down on the field for several minutes before being taken off the field in a stretcher with a head injury.

Surace said that, while Gray will spend the night in the hospital, the team had received encouraging news about his status.

Princeton’s first drive of the second half resulted in Eaddy’s second touchdown; he reached the end zone from two yards out to give

Princeton a 17–7 lead. After the Tigers got the ball back from another Penn turnover on downs, Princeton kicked a field goal to go up 20–7.

Penn had a chance to make it a one-possession game early in the fourth quarter, but on a fourth-down play from the Princeton five-yard line, Penn quarterback Nick Robinson overthrew a receiver in the back of the end zone. Princeton took over and promptly marched 95 yards in 13 plays and nearly eight minutes to take a commanding 28–7 lead with under seven minutes to play, and the game ended with that score.

Entering Saturday, Princeton needed both Dartmouth and Yale to lose to have a shot at an Ivy League title. Midway through the afternoon, it looked like that was a possibility. Dartmouth trailed Brown by nine points after the third quarter in Providence, and Yale trailed Harvard 15–3 at halftime in New Haven. Both teams came back to win, forcing Princeton to settle for a third-place finish.

With the win, Princeton’s record over the past two seasons sits at 18–2. Perhaps fittingly, that record is the reflection of the 2–18 record Princeton posted in Surace’s first two seasons in 2010 and 2011. But fresh off a victory to cap a successful season, he isn’t focused on grand narratives just yet.

“Today is about beating Penn, in my opinion,” Surace said. “To me, it’s the process, the way our seniors and these juniors have led. We didn’t win every game, and we’ll continue to work to get back to that point, but the other stuff is just awesome. I love

Stat of the Day

Follow us

46 games

Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!

After beating Princeton in the national championship game, UNC field hockey extended its winning streak to 46