November 28, 2016

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday november 28, 2016 vol. cxl no. 107

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

By Ruby Shao

news editor emerita

Leila Clark ‘18 started gathering petition signatures on Nov. 21 for a referendum to publicize the demographics of eating club members and bickerees.

The referendum asks that the Undergraduate Student Government Senate establish a standing committee that collaborates with the Interclub Council to annually collect and release characteristics like race, gender, and major for each club.

After the petition received the necessary signatures from 10 percent of the student body, USG circulated an email about the referendum on Wednesday.

Clark said she proposed the referendum because she realized by her sophomore spring that eating clubs massively affect every University student.

“The first step to understanding the impact of eating clubs is to understand who is in the eating clubs,” she said.

Clark, who chose Terrace partly to interact with a diverse See REFERENDUM page 2

YOSEMITE

DeVos P07 named as Secretary of Education President-elect Donald Trump nominated Betsy DeVos P07 as the Secretary of Education for his administration.

DeVos previously served as the Republican Party chair in Michigan, and is married to Dick DeVos, who was the CEO of Amway, a consumer goods distribution company. Dick DeVos delivered the inaugural Doll Family Lecture in Religion and Money at the University in April 2007 entitled: “Philanthropy...It’s Definitely not for Wimps!: Reflections on Faith and Finance.”

DeVos’ daughter, Elisabeth DeVos ‘07, graduated from the University with a degree in Architecture.

Her senior thesis was titled: Thomas Demand: or an Encounter with Blankness, and was advised by School of Architecture Professor Stanley Allen GS ‘88. Elisabeth DeVos is married to Nathan Lowery ‘06. The couple reside in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Betsy DeVos and her husband have also donated to the University. According to public records, the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation donated $50,000 to the University in 2004 and 2013, $1,000 in 2002, and $2,500 in 2003. In addition, the foundation donated $50,000 in 2005 to the University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

The donations were reported in 2014.

DeVos is a Republican donor and philanthropist, and chairs the Wind-

Myesha Jemison ‘18 (left) and Rachel Yee ‘19 (right) are two candidates running for USG president.

Jemison ’18, Yee ’19 vie for USG president staff writer

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

staff writer

PHOTOS COURTESY OF CARL A. FIELDS CENTER (LEFT) AND LINKEDIN (RIGHT)

By Jason Fu

CHRIS FERRI :: PHOTO EDITOR EMERITUS

By Abhiram Karuppur

STUDENT LIFE

quest Group, which invests in clean energy and manufacturing initiatives in Michigan. She also chairs the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation and the American Federation for Children, which supports charter school expansion across the United States. DeVos served on the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, and is a supporter of school choice, school vouchers, and the Common Core education standards.

The selection of DeVos triggered mixed responses from education advocates. In an interview with Politico, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, the president of National Education Association, described DeVos as someone who has “consistently pushed a corporate agenda to privatize, de-professionalize and impose cookie-cutter solutions to public education.”

“By nominating Betsy DeVos, the Trump administration has demonstrated just how out of touch it is with what works best for students, parents, educators and communities,” an NEA statement reads.

However, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, praised DeVos’ selection as an excellent choice during an interview with The Washington Post. He further stated that he expects DeVos to halt the efforts of the Obama administration to “turn the federal government into a ‘national school board’.”

Like most cabinet-level officials, DeVos would require Senate confirmation before assuming office.

Class of 2018 Senator Myesha Jemison ’18 and former Class of 2018 vice president Rachel Yee ’19 have entered the race for USG president.

Yee said she wants to improve student perception and awareness of USG’s policies and activities. She explained that while the current USG has passed important policies, it has not been effective at communicating the results to the student body.

“I think that they have a disconnect between what they actually do, and how they communicate that. People do so much behind the scenes work, but it doesn’t get publicized very well,” Yee said.

Yee further explained that because of the general lack of communication, many students are not aware of USG’s work beyond certain “feelgood” events such as Lawnparties or free class gear. This,

in turn, hurts both students’ perceptions of the student government’s efficacy as well as USG’s own ability to achieve its goals.

“I really see this as a selfperpetuating cycle where people don’t think USG does anything, then they don’t want to invest their time into USG because they don’t think it’s a meaningful use of their time.

Then if more people don’t invest their time, the same couple of people are bogged down all the time, which makes USG less efficient,” Yee said.

Similarly, Jemison said she wants to increase USG’s involvement with student groups as well as more farreaching social issues.

Jemison said she planned to add a committee to USG that would focus on current social issues. The committee would be comprised of students with a diverse set of backgrounds, and it would provide an environment where students could discuss important topics re-

gardless of their viewpoint.

She added that she hoped to expand the scope of conversation provided by USG to beyond topics only relevant on campus.

“USG is just a small contingent within the wider Princeton area, within New Jersey, within the United States, within the world... We should be engaging in issues that aren’t just specific to our campus, but also apply to the wider communities that many students come from,” Jemison said.

“I want to really branch out USG to not be just this smaller body of 30 to 100 voting members, but a much larger part of the population that is really engaged policy-wise,” Jemison added.

Yee also said she wants to address the overcrowding and lack of availability of counselors at Counseling and Psychological Services by adding satellite offices in each of the See USG page 3

Q&A

Q&A: Sandra Clark, vice president for news and civic dialogue at WHYY

By Katie Petersen contributor

Sandra Clark is the vice president for news and civic dialogue at WHYY. Before she took the role in August 2016, she was a managing editor at Philadelphia Media Network, publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News and Philly.com. She spoke about diversity in journalism on a panel last week, then sat down with the Daily Princetonian to continue the conversation and discuss where journalism is headed.

The Daily Princetonian: What were some of your highlights that you got to talk about during the panel today?

Sandra Clark: Well, we talked a lot about diversity in journalism, or the lack thereof, in many ways.

Diversity is a big problem for the news media. We write about the lack of diversity in many companies, but we fail to address it in our own sometimes. Particularly, post-election, some of the things we learned were about how diversity could have been better: one of the things in the elections was there was a lot of generalizations about various groups, so there were questions about, you know, which way is the black vote going

to go, which way is the hispanic vote going to go, and ironically, no one really thought about which way is the white vote going to go?

DP: Do you think there are other kinds of diversity that need to be addressed more?

SC: I think there are so many different kinds of diversity. I think the fact that many of us don’t know each other, and this also includes our own neighbors, for example, is a problem. We don’t always as a society seek out credible information and so you know it’s important for all of us to be knowledgeable about various parts of our country, regardless of what our party is or what our political views are. I think we should seek more understanding of each other than just kind of going to our corners and just kind of shouting assumptions about each other. And journalism plays a role in the knowledge that people have, and if we don’t get it right, then we haven’t done a service to our readers. And I think some people did very, very good coverage, so it’s not all journalism that didn’t get it right. We’re in a cable environment now, so obviously there’s just a lot of ratings pushings by the controversy.

And most people watch television

In Opinion

Today on Campus

The Editorial Board argues against the proposal to add “identity and power” and “international” requirements, while four Board members dissent. Associate opinion editor Newby Parton dissents separately. PAGE 5

7 p.m.: Screening of “All the Difference,” a film that follows two young African American men from the South side of Chicago and subsequent panel with producers. Dodds Auditorium, Richardson Hall.

every single day, I mean, that’s just a fact. So it’s incumbent upon us to try and create understanding by listening to people rather than assuming what we know or don’t know.

DP: Absolutely. Congratulations, by the way, on your recent new position [as vice president for news and civic dialogue] at WHYY. What are you excited about in this new role, and what are some of the challenges that you see your outlet facing moving forward?

SC: Thank you. I mean, it’s two different playing fields; I moved from print to radio, which is just another distribution model. I oversee the NewsWorks’ website as well as our radio coverage, and we have several programs throughout the day, and we do news reporting and radio as well.

And then we have some news coverage on television as well. So it’s interesting, I mean, there’s all these different, you know, distribution platforms for us. But the key is the same, no matter where you are: you have to write stories that serve your readers, stories that reflect that you understand the needs of your audience, stories that reflect your communiSee CLARK page 2

WEATHER

Referendum calls for club demographic release STUDENT LIFE

HIGH

54˚

LOW

42˚

Mostly sunny. chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Monday november 28, 2016

USG’s COMBO Reports found disparities in club demographics REFERENDUM Continued from page 1

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

set of majors, said her proposal would help sophomores make more informed decisions about which clubs to join. She also said that the data would dispel many myths about clubs, adding that, even if some stereotypes prove true, having more information is always a plus.

However, President of the Interclub Council and Colonial Club Christopher Yu ‘17 emphasized the importance of also weighing the referendum’s consequences rather than simply demanding information.

Yu said the clubs do not collect demographics and do not want to.

He explained that each club’s undergraduate officers and graduate board, as well as the ICC, lack the right to demand that members identify themselves for public records, because no such requirement

exists in their contracts.

“There’s a danger in profiling,” Yu said. “A lot of people won’t join a particular club because they think there’s too many of X or too many of Y in that club.”

He added that stereotypes rely on more than numbers.

Moreover, just because a club has many people of some category, that does not make it homogeneous, as each demographic contains many levels of diversity.

Charter Club President Lorena Grundy ‘17 also objected to the referendum, citing a belief that collecting and releasing demographics could sabotage diversity.

Although majors are available in databases like the College Facebook, Grundy said she would not take the liberty of guessing members’ race or gender in case they identified differently from how they appeared.

Additionally, she would not

trust a survey of members to yield representative results, since people sensitive about their demographics could be more or less likely to answer.

She added that a policy requiring all members to disclose their race and gender could push away the minorities that the clubs are trying to welcome.

“If there’s a club with a fairly small membership, and we release information that X number of our members are gender non-binary, you might be able to figure out who those people are based on your interactions with them and your knowledge of what groups they’re involved in. And I can see that being scary for those individuals,” she said.

Yu and Grundy emphasized that all the clubs are already demonstrating a commitment to diversity through other means, like the Carl A. Fields Center Dialogue, which gathers upperclassmen regardless

of dining option for a dinner discussion at a club, and social events that foster unity.

USG President Aleksandra Czulak ‘17 said members’ and bickerees’ demographics could not come from the University.

“Logistically, all previous demographic information about the clubs has either been anecdotal or self-reported,” she said. “The only way I can see that this information could be 100% reported is when students sign up to bicker or pay their dues to the eating club every year.” But she noted that even in that case, coordinating data among the eleven clubs might prove difficult.

Clark’s claim that the referendum would serve prospective members addresses the question of widespread ignorance about eating clubs among underclassmen. In December 2014, only about half of thensophomores felt knowledgeable about the clubs, with the rest claiming some or no knowledge, according to USG’s Eating Club Accessibility Report 2014-2015.

Furthermore, demographic disparities in club membership have historically emerged in USG’s Committee on Background Opportunity (COMBO) Reports.

COMBO I in 2007 revealed that most black students did not join clubs. Among bickerees, ethnicity predicted likelihood of acceptance.The rate hovered at 25% for Asians, but neared 60% for all races.

Membership, especially in selective clubs, has historically been skewed toward white and wealthy students. Representatives of the committee for the most recently released report, COMBO III, confirmed the continuation of the trend through 2011.

The longtime income disparity partly resulted from the high cost of club participation.

An automatic $2000 increase in financial aid for upperclassmen began in fall 2007 to combat the issue. However, over 40 percent of the Class of 2017 reported as sophomores that the money would not sufficiently support their future dining option.

If the demographics referendum passes, it may have no effect. Graduate Interclub Council Chair Thomas Fleming ’69 said that the ICC cannot force the clubs to act because they run independently of the University and of one another.

He explained that the graduate board of each club would need to adopt the policy for it to work throughout the Street.

The referendum marks the second recent attempt to propose a policy that would apply to all of the clubs. The first, circulated in February 2015, called for every club to end Bicker with the support of an ad hoc USG committee, one of whose members would serve on the ICC. But that referendum failed, garnering only 43.7 percent of the vote.

For the current proposal, Clark said she picked race, gender, and major because they represent the most obvious demographics, easy to gather because of their availability to the public. Her peers suggested including athletic team membership and socioeconomic background, but she omitted those from the referendum to minimize controversy. She

said other candidate traits, like extracurricular involvement, could enter the discussion if the referendum passes.

Referendum supporter Jeffrey Kuan ‘18 said that, with enough student interest, the community could work together to overcome any hurdles to collecting such basic, unobtrusive demographics.

“If anything, releasing this data should really be a catalyst for eating clubs to branch out to more diverse communities,” he said.

The purpose of the data would be to hold the clubs accountable to students, rather than to sway sophomores toward joining certain clubs over others, Kuan said. He added that confirming stereotypes with evidence would force officers to reform unfair admissions practices.

Another petition signatory, Allie Burton ‘17, noted that if the release showed certain groups being accepted into clubs at lower rates, then the University community would need to discuss that problem. Transparency would deter clubs from discrimination. Meanwhile, major distributions could help prospective members choose the kind of community they want, she said.

However, Josh Latham ‘20 said he opposed the referendum because publicizing demographics would fail to help students.

He pointed out that if the data proved a club contained mostly a certain kind of person, then the officers would recruit others to avoid looking bigoted, but that shift would be too impersonal.

“A pressure to be socially responsible isn’t the same as an actual desire to be with somebody and welcome them in,” Latham said. “Having nice numbers isn’t the actual solution.”

Clark said most people she had talked to, especially underclassmen, expressed surprise that USG does not already collect this information regularly.

She added that she expects the biggest obstacle to the referendum will be insufficient turnout.

Yu urged the University community to consider both sides of the debate before voting.

Critics of the demographics referendum have until Sunday to form an official opposition party.

The referendum will come to a vote during USG elections from Monday, Dec. 5 to Wednesday, Dec. 7. At least onethird of the undergraduate student body must vote, with a yes majority, for the referendum to pass.

Cannon Dial Elm Club President Keelan Smithers ‘17, Ivy Club President Mina Para ‘17 and Tiger Inn President Connor Moore ‘17 deferred comment to Yu. Terrace Club President Nick Horvath ‘17 declined to comment.

Quadrangle Club President Yekaterina Panskyy ‘17, Tower Club President Romie Desrogène ‘17, Cap and Gown Club President Sean Poosson ‘17, Cloister Inn Vice President Allie Diamond ‘17, and Cottage Club President Danny Baer ‘17 did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and five times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

The Daily Princetonian

Monday november 28, 2016

Both candidates cite prior leadership roles as informing decisions to run USG

Continued from page 1

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

residential colleges. She noted that such changes would reduce the stigma many students feel when making an appointment with CPS, as well as increase the accessibility of CPS services for those who live farther from their offices.

Yee also added that she hopes to install a current student onto the Board of Trustees, which supervises nearly all policy changes on campus.

“In terms of having real USG power, that’s having representation directly to the people who are going to make these decisions,” Yee said.

Jemison said an initiative she hopes to undertake is ingdiversify the participation in USG. Jemison said that while USG is currently composed of a diverse group of students in regards to gender, major, and race, she hopes to recruit more student groups who are underrepresented, such as athletes.

“I think there’s still strong contingency of students that still wants to be involved in the policy that this university is implementing, whether that be through an institution like USG, or through conversation with faculty and administration,” Jemison said.

She also stated that she hoped to bridge the communication gap between the USG and students by instituting another committee within USG designed to gather feedback. The committee would serve as a liaison between USG and the student body, providing a clear consensus of student opinion towards various campus issues.

Jemison explained that her experiences as a Class of 2018 Senator has allowed her to spend time with the leaders of student groups representing many backgrounds, including the Hidden Minority Council.

Her work gave the USG a bet-

ter understanding of difficulties current groups encounter when starting or running their programming. She hopes to use this information to help future student group leaders manage and provide events for their group. “[That] has allowed me to see what students want out of their Princeton experience as a whole, because student groups are what we do in our leisure time, but also represent what specific things are important to us... It has given me insight as an elected official as to what I can be doing to ensure that when students think back on their Princeton experiences, they think back on them with a smile,” Jemison said.

Similarly, Yee said that her experiences as the state president of the New Jersey Association of Student Councils, in which she oversaw many students from schools across the state, makes her well-prepared for the position of USG president.

“The [New Jersey Association of Student Councils] has even more moving parts than USG, so I feel confident in terms of my ability to manage people. I feel the [USG president] position would be a lot easier in terms of communication because we are all physically on campus,” Yee said.

Jemison is a Spanish and Portuguese major from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Aside from her position in USG, she works for the Community House, which provides tutoring to students from elementary to high school, Princeton’s Caribbean Connection, and the Office of International Programs.

Yee is a Wilson School major from Mount Holly, New Jersey. Aside from her positions in USG, she is involved in the Asian American Students Association, Princeton Faith and Action, and the Dining and Housing Committee, among other activities.

Thanksgiving Fitness nathan phan ’19

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

T HE DA ILY

The best place to Write Edit Opine Design Produce Illustrate Photograph Create

on campus. join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 3

page 4

The Daily Princetonian

Monday november 28, 2016

Clark: Journalism isn’t about liking to write, rather about public service CLARK

Continued from page 1

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

ties, and so in that way, it’s not different than print.

DP: What are some trends in journalism that you’re observing right now?

SC: Well, this isn’t so much a trend, but obviously our transformation to producing content for digital is huge. And technology has affected everything. So digital audiences, mobile audiences are huge, and that sometimes is a different kind of storytelling that, you know, requires a different skill, and a different attentiveness. We have radio, we have podcasts, so it’s really different skillsets and different ways of packaging information. All of it still comes down to meeting the needs of your audience, but how we do that is different. Another trend is, you know, a lot of public media stations are partnering with print journalism, because we all realize that, particularly at the local level, none of us can cover all of it. So how do we enrich our storytelling by working together in some cases rather than just thinking that we can compete or not cover something at all, because we don’t have the bandwidth to do it.

DP: So, linking to those other sites?

SC: Well, we just started a partnership with several different local media partners who cover prison reentry, and that’s gonna be very interesting, because it’s WHYY, it’s WURD which is a public radio station, Philadelphia Tribune which is a newspaper, Philadelphia Media Network, which is the biggest media company in the area, that has the Inquirer, Daily News, and Philly.com. So there’s a number of partners, and this is supported by Solutions Journalism. And so they want to see that we can come together and cover in a really important area from very different entry points and different perspectives to create the best possible package.

DP: Journalism is such a powerful tool. And obviously, especially nowadays, it’s a business, but it’s also a public service.

SC: I think that’s something we have to keep in mind. We hear, particularly from a lot of young journalists, “I like to write, and I’m interested in long-form journalism.” And what we have to remember is it’s not about liking to write: it’s about serving the public. And regardless of which way we do it, whether if it’s by digital, television, or radio, it’s about “How do we best serve our audience?” And so we don’t always focus on what the audience needs as much as we should.

DP: So, where I might want to put on my artist’s hat and write a beautiful long-form piece, I’m going to write the story that people want to read, because I know they need to learn about it?

SC: Yeah, yeah. I always put myself in the place of the audience. Not to say that I have interests that match up with everyone’s, but when I’m reading a story or listening to a radio piece, I’m always thinking as an audience member, and that’s my editor training. I’m always thinking,’Well gosh, this story is not getting to the info[rmation] I need quick enough, or it turns out to be a beautiful read and I can’t stop reading, or, if I’m listening to the radio, I’m thinking did that person ask the right question, or I’m thinking that person knows exactly what’s going on, and is now giving me useful information on top of that.

DP: What would be your biggest piece of advice to aspiring journalists?

SC: I think what I look for are people who are willing to step out of their comfort zones, who see the world in a much bigger space, with all these different nuances, who understand that people are different, who go deeper in their storytelling, or challenge their own perceptions. And I like people who speak other languages, and engage with different communities. Because I think those are the skills [one needs]. You can teach somebody to post a story, you can teach someone to attach a picture to it, what you can’t teach so well is for somebody to really, really open their eyes, and to want to reach for the mission of journalism. We need to serve all of our communities and it’s easy to kind of get caught up in certain areas, where all of your sources are the same people, where you write the same kinds of stories. We need to challenge our assumptions actively, all the time. Because what we think may be the truth may not be the truth. How do we even begin to impart understanding to others when we haven’t gone and sought it ourselves?

DP: Absolutely. I so believe in the power of journalism to heal divides and offer insights into differing viewpoints and stir up empathy. With everything going on in our country today, what does that actually look like?

SC: I think to be good journalists it calls upon us to really be critical thinkers. And it calls upon us to seek truth. And as much as we talk about audience engagement we have to challenge ourselves to engage more with different communities, because the engagement isn’t going to happen on its own.

YOSEMITE

CHRIS FERRI :: PHOTO EDITOR EMERITUS

Students enjoy peaceful nature settings during break.

Monday november 28, 2016

Opinion

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } EDITORIAL

C

ontinuing our analysis of the General Education Task Force’s recommendations, the Board will comment on the third recommendation proposing general education “tags” requiring students to take two distribution requirements with certain tags, one exploring international content and another on the intersections of culture, identity, and power.

The Board opposes this proposal on the grounds that any such tag improperly restricts student choice and flexibility. Further, we believe the specific tags proposed cannot be structured in an academically rigorous way that avoids the danger of ideological partisanship.

The Board believes the creation of any general education tags contradicts the University’s stated goals for the distribution areas: to “serve as a broad intellectual map for students to follow...there are no required courses; instead the areas encourage students to make choices that best suit their [interests].” This flexible model positively contrasts with the far more restrictive core curriculums at institutions like Columbia University and the University of Chicago. Princeton’s current distribution program properly exposes students to “important substantive fields of inquiry and methodological approaches” without defining the course content itself that students must study.

But under the proposed requirement, students would pick from “tagged” courses across any distribution area, from HAs to STNs, with the tags united only by their common content.

By thus necessarily being based on content instead of a particular learning methodology like the distribution areas are, tags are an inappropriate attempt by the University to compel students to study certain material.

Implementing the tags would also create the necessary framework to further limit student choice by later prescribing additional requirements on a multitude of specific subjects at the whim of the University. The Board has consistently argued for broad student flexibility and choice in academic program se-

Rejecting a politicized curriculum

lection, and we continue that precedent here in opposing any tags.

The Board rejects the international content tag because of our opposition to any such tags as enumerated above. We have additional concerns with the identity and power tag. The task force aims to define this new requirement narrowly enough so that it “meaningfully engages the manifestations of difference and their relationship to structural inequalities,” but it also would define ‘identity’ broadly enough so that “no particular ideological position dominates the courses that probe this complex terrain.”

These two imperatives, while well intentioned, are contradictory and underlie the tag’s inherent politicization. A truly ideologically neutral definition of identity would likely be so broad as to make the requirement redundant to existing HA and SA offerings, while imposing on these classes the stigma of ideological partisanship. The University aims to be narrower than that. Accordingly it cannot decide which courses meaningfully engage the manifestation of differences and structural inequalities without making a political judgment as to what constitutes structural inequality and which differences are worth studying. Further, the new requirement is premised on the notion that one of only two specific content areas that Princeton students must study is that differences in identity undergird structural inequalities. It is itself an ideological assumption to prioritize this material over the many other questions that can be addressed through study. The University, as an institution, would be mandating highly politicized content as a requirement for an undergraduate education.

As such, the decision to mandate the study of differences and structural inequality would replace intellectual training with political ideology as the purpose of a Princeton education. Through the tags, the Task Force has mistaken a liberal arts education with a politically liberal education. But serious academic inquiry is premised on a scholar’s commitment and

ability to conduct research that is not guided by ideological presuppositions — be they of the left or right.

When taking courses to fulfill the culture, identity, and power requirement, students will also be aware that the University has mandated the courses to teach them about structural inequalities, and they will be expected to find these structural inequalities in the content to which they are exposed, regardless of differing conclusions they may reach independently. Such homogeneity is antithetical to the goals of an academic institution.

In the eighteenth century, when John Witherspoon was the president of Princeton University, and James Madison and Aaron Burr were his students, the University was a Presbyterian institution. Students learned right and wrong based on the tenets of Presbyterianism. This religious education was replaced with increasing secularism and openness as the University modernized, a change with which we suspect most, if not all, students and faculty members would strongly agree. The proposed tags establish the theology of modern progressivism as the University’s new standard of moral truth — its new sectarian affiliation.

If Princeton is to remain a venue for rigorous, ideologically non-partisan academic debate, there is no room for officially established University dogmas. This proposed requirement would be a dangerous first step towards erasing students’ academic choice in favor of an anachronistic, politicized curriculum. What a bitter irony that the step would be taken in the name of “progress.”

T

DISSENT he Dissent affirms this year’s Task Force Report in its recommendation to implement tags to require all students to “take at least one course with international content and one course that explores the intersections of culture, identity, and power.”

While the Majority opinion rejects the Report’s recommendation on the premise that

these tags would restrict student choice and flexibility, we argue that the tags are in accordance with the University’s commitment to offer “an academic program that allows each student to achieve a truly liberal education.” The purpose of distribution areas is to “provide all students with a common language and common skill,” so that engineers are well versed in historical analysis and humanities students develop an understanding of quantitative reasoning. It is clear that the University has established the precedent of mandating curriculum that transcends “the boundaries of specialization” so that all students engage in certain distinct conversations, such as that of structural inequalities. Similar precedents have been set by our peer institutions, Columbia University and University of Chicago, who each boast a set of requirements that represent their unique values. Thus as an institution committed to fostering diversity and inclusion, Princeton should uphold these tags.

The Dissent also critiques the Majority’s position that the implementation of the tags would lead to “highly politicized” course material. The Dissent firmly argues that the existence of structural inequality is not a subject of academic debate. The United States is undeniably a country of historical structural inequalities. At one point in its history, this country enslaved African-Americans and disenfranchised women. Therefore, by requiring students to study these inequalities, the University is not imposing an ideology. Moreover, any politicization of course material would occur within the discussion of policy implementation to address these inequalities. Since the Report says nothing about prioritizing certain policy solutions under a moral standard, the Dissent finds the Majority’s argument in this respect to be invalid.

Finally, the Dissent finds one major inaccuracy within the argument of the Majority that contradicts the facts of the Task Report. The authors of the Report clearly state that the third recommendation asks students

to “take at least one course that explores the intersections of culture, identity, and power in a rigorous and intentional way.”

However, the Majority piece misquotes this aim by writing that the tag’s only specific content is that Princeton students must learn “that differences in identity cause structural inequalities.” The Majority’s interpretation of the intent of the tags blatantly contradicts the definition as outlined in the Report. While the Majority opinion critiques a tag that requires a causal interpretation of structural inequalities, the Report calls for the creation of courses that explore “the intersection” of these inequalities with markers such as culture and identity. Moreover, the Majority opinion is concerned that such a tag would be implemented so broadly that it would be too similar to content currently expressed in HA and SA courses offered by the University. However, the study of these intersections is what makes this tag distinct from current distribution requirements that focus on strictly historical or social analysis without considering how these two approaches might be used jointly to observe inequalities within societies over time.

In light of debates that have erupted on campus over the past two years, Princeton’s trustees have urged the University to expand its motto to read: “In the nation’s service, and in the service of humanity.” The Dissent strongly supports the implementation of the tags mentioned within the Task Force’s Report as they clearly resonate with the University’s mission to be an institution that fosters a dedication to service across all facets of humanity.

Signed, Ashley Reed ’18, William Pugh ’20, Cydney Kim ’17, Daniel Elkind ’17 Connor Pfeiffer ’18 recused himself from the writing of this editorial.

Carolyn Liziewski ’18 abstained from the writing of this editorial.

The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of the ‘Prince.’ The Board answers only to its chair, the opinion editor and the editorin-chief.

Inequality is not politics vol. cxl

Newby Parton

Associate Opinion Editor

I

n today’s editorial, the Majority argues against a proposal that would require students to “take at least one course with international content and one course that explores the intersections of culture, identity, and power.”

I too come down against the proposal in its current form, but I disagree sharply with the Majority’s reasoning. The Dissent is right: structural inequality exists. That academic debate was settled a long time ago, and it is a political matter only because many Republican leaders are so allergic to some facts that they treat them as “liberal.”

The Editorial Board is surely correct that some courses with the tag would be politicized.

But plenty others would not be. I know this from experience. If these tags were added today, I would have already fulfilled them through a course called “The Global Ghetto.”

This was a global seminar that traced ghettos throughout history, from the Venetian Jewish quarters that first took on the name, to the ghettos of the Holocaust, to the adoption of this term by communities in America.

We spent most of the course examining sociological theories of racism and structural inequality.

The course was not “highly politicized” — only actual Nazis and Holocaust deniers would find ide-

ological disagreements with its content. When the Board argues, then, that identity and power are political issues, I shake my head.

They are not, at least not if the tag is implemented appropriately.

“The Global Ghetto” was probably the single most important course for my personal and intellectual development.

I would love to see more people share a similar learning experience — and, therefore, support the spirit of these tags.

But I oppose the tag system on two grounds. First, I am generally against any changes that would make the curriculum here more restrictive. Even though I have already fulfilled these requirements, I would not ask others to do so unless we asked less of them elsewhere by taking away an existing distribution requirement.

The Task Force recommendation tried to solve this problem by creating “tags” that stack onto the underlying distribution requirements — and, in some cases, allowing a single course to fulfill two existing distribution requirements.

But this awkward solution is the second reason for my opposition to the tags. By allowing some courses to count for two requirements, the University unintentionally creates a great incentive for students to enroll in these particular courses.

That’s harmful to the Univer-

sity’s broader goal to encourage diversity in academic study.

Under the tag system, “The Global Ghetto” would have fulfilled both an SA requirement and either an international tag, a power and identity tag, or both.

Students would therefore be encouraged to take this course as their SA to the exclusion of, say, ECO 100, which itself would introduce them to a way of thinking different from that presented in “The Global Ghetto.”

I want to encourage students to take a course on power and identity — but it need not come at the expense of all other SAs. We should recognize that “identity and power” is not merely a content tag, as the Majority in the editorial claims, but that such courses also introduce students to a new and important learning methodology substantially different from other SAs — and are therefore worthy of their own, separate distribution requirement.

Because we do not need a more restrictive curriculum, we must ask ourselves if the benefits from this distribution requirement outweigh the benefits from whatever existing distribution requirement we would drop. That is where the debate should be centered.

My own opinion is that we should drop the second SA or LA requirement to make room for

this one. This recommendation comes from someone who has taken five LA courses and eight — yes, eight — SA courses. Nevertheless, I can say from experience that students will probably benefit more from a course on power and identity than from their second English or economics class.

The proposal from the Task Force has already suggested that the A.B. requirement for a second SA, LA, and ST be dropped. But their proposal — that students choose which three areas to take two courses from — is frankly inane. I seriously doubt that many A.B. students could graduate without taking one extra course from three areas, even if they tried.

The likely effect of giving students choice, then, is to remove the imposition altogether.

It would be better to remove the imposition formally, then designate identity and power as its own distribution requirement.

And while we’re at it, keep the STL requirement and continue letting bilingual students to place out of the foreign language requirement. Our Editorial Board got those two recommendations right.

Newby Parton is a Wilson School major from McMinnville, TN. He can be reached at newby@princeton.edu.

Do-Hyeong Myeong ’17 editor-in-chief

Daniel Kim ’17

business manager

EDITORIAL BOARD chair Cydney Kim ’17 Megan Armstrong’ 19 Allison Berger ’18 Jacob Berman ’20 Thomas Clark ’18 Paul Draper ’18 Daniel Elkind ’17 Richard Furchgott ’20 Theodore Furchgott ’18 Dee-Dee Huang ’20 Sergio Leos ’17 Carolyn Liziewski ’18 Connor Pfeiffer ’18 William Pugh ’20

NIGHT STAFF 11.27.16 Design Quinn Donohue ’20

Sports

Monday november 28, 2016

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S ICE HOCKEY

Men’s Ice Hockey earns first two wins of season against No. 10 Bemidji

By Jack Graham staff writer

Princeton Men’s Ice Hockey traveled to northern Minnesota this weekend and earned its first two wins of the season in a pair of impressive performances against No. 10 Bemidji State University.

Friday’s series opener between the two teams was locked in a hotly contested and scoreless draw for 35 minutes before two goals from sophomore forward Ryan Kuffner and junior defenseman Joe Grabowski within the span of three minutes gave Princeton a 2-0 lead that it would not relinquish. Bemidji narrowed the margin to one at the 12:39 mark with a power play goal, before junior forward Max Becker reopened the margin with a skillful backhand goal three minutes later. Kuffner added another goal, his third of the season, on an empty net with less than a minute remaining to solidify a 4-1 victory for the Tigers.

Princeton received stellar performances from se-

nior goalie Colton Phinney, who saved a remarkable 35 of 36 shots, and freshman forward Jeremy Germain, whose 2 assists in the second period brought him to a team-leading 5 assists for the year.

Saturday’s game saw Princeton again defeat Bemidji, this time by a score of 3-1. Princeton trailed 1-0 entering through one period after a goal by Bemidji’s Nate Arentz on a penalty shot, but junior forward David Hallisey scored two goals in rapid succession midway through the second period to reclaim the lead for Princeton. He scored the first point off assists from team point-leader junior forward Eric Robinson and senior defender Quin Pompi, and the second just seconds into a power play off a rebound from freshman forward Jackson Cressey.

Though Bemidji launched an offensive onslaught in a third period in which it dominated the puck and took far more shots, Princeton’s defense held stout until a Pompi strike halfway through the period gave

RACHEL SPADY :: PHOTOGRAPHY EDITOR

Men’s Hockey claim their first two wins of the season with impressive performances against No. 10 Bemidji.

Princeton a commanding two-goal lead that it would not relinquish. Junior goalie Ben Halford filled in for an injured Phinney during Saturday’s game and performed admirably, allowing just one goal and making a career-high 43 saves.

This weekend’s wins mark a major accomplishment for Princeton, which brought its record to 2-6-1. Though the team has been executing well throughout the season, earning a pair of road wins against a nationally ranked team will undoubtedly give

the team confidence that it can get positive results in the upcoming games against conference foes.

Princeton will next return home to face conference opponents Union College and RPI this Friday and Saturday, respectively.

WOMEN’S ICE HOCKEY

Tigers drop back-to-back games against Boston University after tough overtime loss

By Nolan Liu and David Xin Associate Sports Editors

JASPER GEBHARDT :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

The Tigers will look to rebound after a tough loss to Boston University. Princeton will face two conference rivals this week.

Tweet of the Day “Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving. It’s always good to get back home and spend time with the family.”

Dorian Williams (@ DWilliamsPU), Senior defensive back, football

The Princeton women’s hockey team had a rough Thanksgiving weekend, dropping back-to-back games against Boston University. The Tigers suffered a rough 4-1 defeat to the Terriers on Friday before giving up a much closer 3-4 loss in overtime to them on Saturday.

Boston jumped out to an early lead in their first game against the Tigers, as Maddie Elia scored just 54 seconds in and Samantha Sutherland added another just a minute later to move the tally to 2-0.

The Tigers fought back, with freshman Sylvie Wallin cutting the lead to 2-1 at the opening of the second period. Despite outshooting their opponents 42-29 over the course of the match, the Tigers had difficulty converting these chances into points.

The Terriers prevented Princeton from making any further inroads on their early lead and ultimately pulled away with a decisive goal at the close of the final period. After an empty-net goal in the closing seconds of the game, Boston handed the Tigers a disappointing 4-1 defeat.

In the teams’ rematch the next day, Princeton again came out fighting. The Tigers jumped to a 2-1 lead after the first period, with freshman forwards Karlie Lund and Carly Bullock

Stat of the Day

43 saves Junior goalie Ben Halford made a career high 43 saves in Princeton win over Bemidji.

scoring for the Tigers. However, the Terriers battled back, with Elia scoring to even the game. However, the Orange and Black would quickly respond to give the Princeton squad a slight 3-2 lead heading into the third period.

The Tigers would maintain their lead until the final five minutes of the third period. Abby Cook blasted a shot through heavy traffic to score her first goal of the season. This would prove to be a crucial moment, as neither team would manage to find the back of the net in the third period. And for the fourth time this season the Tigers would play in overtime.

Despite the resolve showed by the Princeton squad throughout the match, the Terriers found an opening in under a minute into overtime. A twoon-one led to a goal from Mary Parker. The leading goal scorer notched her 15th goal of the season to help the Terriers edge past Princeton.

The loss drops Princeton to 4-6-1 this season. However, the Tigers will have an opportunity to rebound as they face conference rivals Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Union College. This presents the Tigers a perfect opportunity to climb up the table from their sixth place position.

Princeton will travel to New York this coming Friday and Saturday to face these next two teams.

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