December 11, 2015 by The Daily Princetonian

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Friday december 11, 2015 vol. cxxxix no. 120

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Greenpeace accuses U. professor of bribery By Shriya Sekhsaria senior writer

Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has been accused of accepting bribes to write research papers that cast doubt on the reality of climate change, however he has denied these allegations. According to the details of the investigation published on Dec. 8 by environmental campaigning organization Greenpeace, which brought the charges, Happer is one of two academics at leading universities accused of accepting secret payments from fossil

fuel companies to promote their interests by undermining arguments about climate change. The other accused academic is Frank Clemente, a sociology professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University. Happer said that he was not familiar with the details of Clemente’s case. To uncover the alleged scandal, Greenpeace U.K. representatives posed as representatives from fossil fuel companies and struck deals with both professors to publish articles promoting the positive benefits of carbon di-

U N I V E R S I T Y A F FA I R S

oxide. Representatives of Greenpeace did not respond to requests for comment. Happer said that Greenpeace targeted him because he was a threat to the organization due to his influence and scientific views of the harmlessness of carbon dioxide. Greenpeace targeted Happer and Clemente because they had previously been linked to fossil fuel companies or climate sceptic organizations that have received fossil fuel funding, according to the details of the investigation pubSee HAPPER page 3

LECTURE FILE PHOTO

U. spokesperson Martin Mbugua will leave his position at the University.

Mbugua to leave U. for Carnegie Mellon in Feb. By Claire Lee staff writer

AHMED AHKTAR :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Juan Mendez, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, spoke at a lecture on Thursday.

Méndez discusses regulations for treatment of prisoners at lecture By Myrial Holbrook staff writer

Torture does not provide safety and actually exacerbates societal problems, Juan Méndez, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and prominent human rights advocate, said in a lecture on Thursday. The lecture coincided with Méndez receiving the 2015 Adlai

Stevenson Award for a “career of service to the global community,” according to the award’s website. Méndez explained that even if one could say that torture provides intelligence and information, it also leads to a decrease in the citizens’ trust and faith in their country. He added that citizens have fallen into a relativism about the moral condemnation of torture fueled by some state prac-

tice but also by our culture. “The culture in which we live is one that makes us feel that torture is ugly but it has to happen, that it’s inevitable, that somebody has to do it, that it keeps us safe — and if it keeps us safe, then we might as well look the other way and live with it,” he said. Mendez stressed the importance of understanding and upholding the international norSee LECTURE page 2

Martin Mbugua, Director of Media Relations and University spokesperson, who has held the position since 2011, will leave the University to join Carnegie Mellon University as Assistant Vice President for Communications. Mbugua will start in his new position Feb. 1, 2016. “It is an excellent opportunity for me to, under one role, bring together skills and experience that I have gathered over the years in different capacities throughout my professional career while still serving higher education,” Mbugua said. He explained that he decided to relocate because he could use more of his writing and speaking skills at Carnegie Mellon. He added that he is very excited about joining the Carnegie Mellon team, but the transition is bittersweet because it means saying goodbye to friends and colleagues at the University. Steve Kloehn ’87, Vice President for Marketing and Communications at Carnegie Mellon, said that Mbugua will be a key advisor to

him and a senior manager within Marketing and Communications. Mbugua will supervise internal communications, staff in media relations and issues management, magazine and home page content and social media. He added that Mbugua will work closely with all of the departments within Marketing and Communications. Daniel Day, Assistant Vice President for Communications at the University, said that the operational structure of the University Office of Communications will stay the same after Mbugua’s departure. Currently, the media relations team within the Office, which Mbugua heads, is constituted of two people and is in charge of managing and responding to media inquiries, according to Office of Communication’s website. He explained that he hopes to begin a search process for Mbugua’s replacement by posting the new position before the holidays. Interviews for candidates will ideally begin before Mbugua leaves in the latter half of January. “Martin is very well-known and very well-liked all across campus. See MBUGUA page 3

Q&A

Q&A: Juan Méndez, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture staff writer

Juan Méndez is the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and a prominent leader in human rights advocacy. He sat down with The Daily Princetonian to talk about how he first became involved in human rights advocacy, his current priorities in the prevention and abolition of torture and advice for aspiring human rights advocates. Daily Princetonian: How and when did you first become motivated to serve as a human rights advocate? Juan Méndez: As a law student in Argentina, I — together with

other friends — we tried to do a little bit of public service, giving free legal advice to shantytown dwellers and to union members. But then as soon as I graduated, my country was having a military dictatorship with quite a bit of unrest, and so I started defending political prisoners. I continued to do that for five years or so in Argentina, until I was myself arrested and tortured and held in administrative detention without trial. Then, when I came out of Argentina, I was adopted by Amnesty International as a Prisoner of Conscience, so I made contact with them as soon as I could. And then I started doing some volunteer work, mostly in Argentina — eventually, I was really lucky

that I was able to do it as a kind of a professional calling. DP: How did your experience as a torture survivor change you? JM: A lot of people in my same situation were tortured in Argentina — some much worse than me. So when you know that this is a collective problem … then you understand why it happens and you try to fight against it by protecting others from being tortured and also by trying to set up policies and institutions that prevent torture from happening. I can’t say that there’s a moment in which I changed because of that, because it was always kind of a continuum.

DP: What qualities, both professional and personal, have you found necessary to be a prominent leader in human rights advocacy? JM: First and foremost: empathy — being able to understand not only intellectually but emotionally the plight of people who suffer human rights violations. It’s very easy otherwise to see so many cases, one after another that you become numb and you feel that you’ve heard it all before. But it’s important to be able to not let that overcome your instincts about empathy. I also think we need to have a warm heart for victims and a free-thinking mind in order to find the proper channels to help people because it’s not enough to

In Opinion

Today on Campus

Columnist Reva Abrol considers the trend of increasing female enrollment in STEM fields, and columnist Luke Gamble reflects on the power of empathy as the strongest force for change. PAGE 4

4:30 p.m.: Filmmaker Mary McGuckian will discuss “The Price of Desire,” her new piece on Irish architect Eileen Gray. Stewart Theater, 185 Nassau St.

empathize — you need also to be effective in what you do. DP: Of all the positions you’ve held, which one do you feel allowed you to make the most impact? What positive changes have you helped to initiate? JM: It’s difficult to separate, because what I enjoyed the most was going into the field, and talking to people, and gathering their testimony. Whether that had a lot of impact or not, it seemed at the time that it was useful, and I also learned a lot. In terms of impact … I would say my work with the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights seemed to have more impact because it had more resoSee Q&A page 2

WEATHER

By Myrial Holbrook

HIGH

63˚

LOW

43˚

Periods of clouds and sunshine. chance of rain: none

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Friday december 11, 2015

Méndez discusses torture experience “Preventing new torture is Q&A not enough,” Mendez says Continued from page 1

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

nance, and you actually do get to meet heads of states, ministers, etc. You have doors open to you that you don’t have when you’re doing non-governmental work. I think the same can be said about what I’m doing now — Special Rapporteurship on Torture. Even though states are not bound by what we say, the flag of the United Nations carries a lot of weight. We’re always wondering whether what we do is effective or not. But you get a lot of support from the fact that victims and their families reach out to us and ask us to do things. DP: When limited resources, personnel and so on force you to tackle only one among many possible human rights issues, what do you do? JM: Nowadays, my mandate is narrow. I can only deal with torture and cruelly inhumane and degrading treatment, which is narrow but not too narrow, because it encompasses a lot of things. I think that the fight against torture is particularly meaningful for me because I’m the first Special Rapporteur who was actually tortured, but also because torture is the outside manifestation of the violation of all rights,

because states torture because they want to clamp down on people who are fighting for everyone else’s rights. Helping to curb it, or at least to lessen it, also opens up doors for others to work and struggle on behalf of other rights and other peoples. DP: Which human rights issues do you think are most pressing for the international community to address? JM: The threat of terrorism and the fact that there’s agents that commit this practice that cannot be beholden to a state. But also, I’m afraid that the reaction of well-established states to terrorism, the knee-jerk reaction to fight terrorism by betraying our own principles, is a threat to human rights everywhere. And I would say, the use of military means [that] also don’t fully respect the obligations under the laws of war, means that we recreate the conditions for terrorism rather than helping suppress it. DP: What would your advice be to college students interested in serving as human rights advocates? JM: I would definitely encourage them to use opportunities to work during the summers … or between the undergraduate and the graduate level, in the field. But I would also say very strongly that you need to contin-

ue your education, your training. You need to prepare yourself both academically and professionally — not only because it’s a very competitive field, but also because we owe it to the victims of human rights abuses to bring to bear in support of them everything that we can learn and every skill that we can acquire.

DP: What issues are you currently working on and most passionate about? JM: In the Rapporteurship on Torture, for example, we’re about to publish a report on the gender-specific ways in which women and girls, but also LGBT people, experience torture and inhumane treatment. We hope that it will be a good contribution to understanding that torture may be the same for everybody, but the way people experience it means that we also have to have separate remedies for them. Of the several thematic reports that we’ve published, I’m particularly proud of the very first one that I wrote, which was about solitary confinement. It has given me the chance to revisit the issue permanently, to learn more about it and to participate in actions … to try to highlight the enormity of solitary confinement and to have some practical ways of limiting it.

LECTURE Continued from page 1

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

mative framework for human rights as essential to human rights advocacy and global accountability. He noted that the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which establishes such a framework of obligations, is ratified by many nations and includes obligations of the state to prevent torture, obligations which Méndez sees as the foremost concern. Mechanisms for prevention of torture include periodic review of police practices, allowance for civilian oversight of law enforcement bodies and re-training of law enforcement officials, Méndez said. But prevention goes beyond these actions, he said. “More than anything, the obligation to prevent is broader than that and encompasses any other things that the state has to do,” he explained. “And one of them, and the most important perhaps, is to investigate, prosecute and punish every act of torture.” Méndez also drew attention

to the state of torture in the United States, noting the executive order President Barack Obama issued upon coming into office in 2009 that prohibited torture. While Méndez acknowledged the apparent effectiveness of this order, he called for further action on the part of the United States, especially regarding torture tactics used after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “Preventing new torture is not enough,” Méndez said. “The United States has to tell the truth and come clean about what happened.” Méndez also discussed the death penalty, saying that he thinks it should be abolished and questioning whether there is such a thing as a painless form of execution. “If our country can retain the death penalty but has an absolute prohibition on the consequences of solitary confinement and death row, or with certain forms of execution, they might as well do away with the death penalty altogether,” Méndez said. Méndez classified the death penalty as a form of torture, also noting that poor prison conditions, prolonged solitary confinement and even some forms of health care can become methods of torture in their own right. Furthermore, solitary confinement, which he focused on in his first report as a Special Rapporteur, also qualifies as an inhumane means of punishment, he noted. There is, however, hope for positive change, Méndez said. He noted that the U.N. General Assembly adopted a revised standard last month for the minimum rules on the treatment of prisoners that specifically prohibits solitary confinement in indefinite and prolonged cases, as well as in the case of pregnant or nursing women and children. “I think it’s very important for the international and legal framework to be used as extensively as possible — to attack the different aspects of torture that I’ve mentioned — because they give us tools to attain not a de jure, but a de facto prohibition and actual practice of torture in the near future,” Méndez said. The lecture, which took place at 4:30 p.m. in Robertson Hall, was co-sponsored by the Princeton-Trenton Area Chapter of the U.N. Association of the USA and the Program in Law and Public Affairs.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three 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 2015, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

@Princetonian

Friday december 11, 2015

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

Happer denies allegations Mbugua will become Assistant VP for of monetary compensation Communications at Carnegie Mellon HAPPER Continued from page 1

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

lished by Greenpeace. Happer said that he was one of the most effective spokespeople on the benefits of carbon dioxide and knew a lot about climate, carbon dioxide and science. “I funded a lot of [the science] when I was director of energy research at the Department of Energy, so I know where all the skeletons are,” he said. “So I’m an enormous threat to [Greenpeace], so their need to demonize me, to blacken my reputation in any way they can. And they’re experts at that.” Happer added that Greenpeace was using totalitarian tactics of stirring up hatred against him and many others. “This is propaganda, pure and simple,” he said. “It’s the same kind of propaganda that was in the Soviet Union and during the locinco era, the same propaganda that the Nazis spewed out in the 30s. You know, I know propaganda when I see it. I’m one of the few who remembers World War II.” Greenpeace accused Happer and Clemente of being academics-for-hire, following a series of reports about fossil fuel companies funding flawed research to bury the scientific consensus of climate change. Happer said that he always believed that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant and that it would be better, especially for plants, if there was more of it in the air. According to the emails exchanged between the undercover Greenpeace investigators and Happer, Happer agreed to write for the fictitious company if it shared his views about the benefits of the gas. He added that the company was ambiguous about what it wanted him to write. Happer received most of his funding from the external source of the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research for the studies of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation of matter, according to the emails he exchanged with the Greenpeace investigator. In the email, Happer added that he no longer received this funding as his research laboratory closed down last year. The Greenpeace investigator, posing as a person named Jonathan Ellis, confirmed that the “client,” a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, had the same beliefs as Happer, according to the emails exchanged between the investigator and Happer. When ‘Ellis’ offered to pay Happer for his services, Happer asked for the fee to be donated to the CO2 Coalition instead. The Coalition, founded earlier this year, attempts to demonstrate the benefits of carbon dioxide through scientific facts. Happer also disclosed that in August, Peabody Energy donated $8,000 in return for his testimony at a Minnesota State Hearing about the impact of carbon dioxide to the Coalition. Happer explained that the Coalition did not have a lot of funds and could use all the support it got. “I was looking for ways to get some money there, and this seemed like the ideal thing,” he said. “Because you know, if this person was willing to spread my message — I wasn’t sure he was legitimate or not — but I was quite happy to have somebody promote the benefits of CO2. And that was all I was prepared to do.” Happer said he received an email from a graduate student at the University that accused him of transgressing the ethics of academic freedom and dishonoring the University. The student also added that receiving the funds through an organization that Happer was on the board of was no less quid pro quo than if he received the funds himself.

According to the details of the investigation published by Greenpeace, Happer agreed to let the source of funding remain a secret. According to the details of the investigation published by Greenpeace, the academics’ willingness to conceal the source of funding contrasted strongly with the ethics of journals such as Science, which require clear disclosures from all authors of their affiliations, funding sources and financial holdings upon research manuscript submission. William O’Keefe, a member of the Board of Directors for the Coalition, said that he was the one who suggested donations through Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor-advised fund based in Virginia. O’Keefe was included in the email exchange when the conversation turned to sending the money to the Coalition. O’Keefe added that this suggestion was only made when Ellis insisted that the donations should remain anonymous. “There was nothing illegal or unethical, and there was certainly nothing that could come close to a bribe,” O’Keefe said. O’Keefe noted that one possible explanation for the propaganda arising now was that the timing coincided with Happer’s testimony at the Senate Hearing on Protecting Climate Denial led by U.S. Senator for Texas Ted Cruz ’92. He added that other possible reasons included trying to damage the newly founded Coalition’s credibility and lashing out as the measured temperature changes did not match the extremist models’ predictions. “Professor Happer is a person of the highest integrity,,” O’Keefe said. “I think that it’s outrageous that any person or organization would attempt to smear a person like [him].” O’Keefe said that this issue would not affect the Coalition’s identity as the Coalition functioned on facts and honesty and benefited from people asking questions. Happer said that the issue would not affect Cruz or the University either. “I don’t know why it’s a scandal,” he said. “You know, the people who should be ashamed are Greenpeace and the irresponsible media that is promoting their propaganda.” Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, also reported Greenpeace to the Federal Bureau of Investigation under The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, according to a Dec. 8 article he published on WUWT, an online global warming and climate change site. “Greenpeace has made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth,” he wrote in the article. He added that Greenpeace subjected Happer to “a maladroit attempt at entrapment.” Greenpeace published an official statement on Moore, claiming that Moore exploited his ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and usually took stances that Greenpeace opposed. “He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters,” the statement read. Happer said that many students at the University think that they are protecting the planet by supporting Greenpeace, but they are actually harming it. He added that most of the protectors on the planet actually knew nothing about the science of the matter and only acted in accordance with the people around them. “I think that someday in the future, people are going to write Ph.D. theses about this period of human history in absolute incredulity that so many people were misled for so long,” Happer said.

MBUGUA Continued from page 1

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

A lot of people will miss him because not only does he have great professional skills, but he is also a delightful person and a wonderful colleague,” Day said. Kloehn said that Carnegie Mellon held a nationwide search with more than 100 applicants from different backgrounds and from across the United States to before choosing Mbugua for the position. “At the end of the day, Martin was the best candidate and the best fit for what we need here,” Kloehn said.

He added that Martin is one of the most outstanding communicators in higher education today. “He obviously has a proven track record at Princeton, dealing with sensitive issues, working to build consensus among senior leaders and speaking on behalf of the University,” he said. Kloehn said that Martin will bring some outstanding talents as a writer, a speaker and a strategic thinker. On top of these strengths, he called Mbugua an outstanding teammate and collaborator as well as having a great presence. Mbugua said that his most memorable moments at the University were times when the community came together during

times of challenge, noting the meningitis outbreak as an example, and other situations in which he saw the can-do spirit across campus in full force. Even in difficult situations, the collective positive spirit directed at making a difference made it possible to move forward with a positive attitude, he said. “To see so many units, offices and departments represented, and everyone offering to do their very best to make sure we get things done and address the issues was very inspiring to me, and it showed the true teamwork and collaboration that makes Princeton a wonderful place to work,” Mbugua said.

The feminization of the humanities Reva Abrol

Friday december 11, 2015

columnist

ith course selection fast approaching, I am reminded that, as a sophomore, I am left with the inadequate time frame of one more semester to come to terms with the limitations of my skill set, the scope of my academic passions and the professional realities a certain degree might produce for me. As a lover of the humanities who has been sidetracked by some ill-defined yet insuppressible attraction toward the pragmatic, employable and fiercely pertinent intellect of STEM concentrators, I have hoped that some level of reflection would bring me closer to discovering the exact origins of this feeling of vocational uncertainty that I have and whether it is at all remediable. For a long time, I had thought that my status as an Indian American with first-generation parents in medical professions had engendered my mindset in believing that STEM majors are the most respectable, relevant and necessary ones. However, I have come to realize another essential factor influencing my path as a female undergraduate student: the feminization and infantilization of the humanities. With the increasing emphasis of STEM studies and employment opportunities, the humanities have been shuttled to secondary academic status. But my intention is not to produce another plea to save the humanities from dying (I’m sure you can find an exhaustive list of such arguments from octogenarians and neglected literary scholars who have more to say about the decline of the humanities than I do). Instead, I’d like to problematize female professional empowerment as associated increasingly and singularly with the involvement of women in STEM disciplines. In a 2013 article from The Atlantic, author Heidi Tworek identifies a trend that has changed the face of higher education over the past few decades: the percentage of women earning degrees in the humanities “peaked at more than 20 percent in the late 1960s, but plunged to below 10 percent by 1980. Currently, slightly more women than men study the humanities. The shift in women’s choices drove the fall in the share of humanities majors.” Tworek concedes that the causes behind such changes seem unclear but posits that it may have been “a consequence of increasing equality that women turned away from degrees that seemed to funnel them into traditionally ‘feminine’ occupations.” Trends in degree election at Princeton over the past five years confirm the general national trend of increasing female involvement in STEM fields rather than the humanities. Between 2011 and 2012, there were 384 female B.S.E. undergraduate degree candidates at Princeton; this academic year, there are 506. I cannot speak to the reasons for which greater numbers of female students at Princeton elect to participate in engineering or hard science majors, but I can speak to my experiences. Currently, I face a dilemma: I feel that I cannot be a strong, independent woman in the humanities. My mom is a superwoman, and I’ve always identified her superwoman status with her ability to dominate in the predominantly male-dominated camp of medicine. I cannot say that I would see her as less of a superwoman if she were a professor at a small liberal arts college, a freelance writer or a field worker in a developing nation. But as it is, her empowerment for me has always been defined in terms of how she has resisted gender inequality within her field, and that’s a problem. Female empowerment in professional contexts should not be defined by the extent to which it resists imposing and historically masculine disciplines. The barriers of opportunity for women pursuing STEM studies and employment ought to be removed, but the conditions for female empowerment should not necessitate the pursuit of STEM studies. While I cannot change the way in which my upbringing has shaped my perception of humanistic disciplines, I do not think that the academic environment and pre-professional opportunities at Princeton do much to alleviate concerns about pursuing an academic or career path in the humanities. Handshake is flooded with quantitative analyst and software engineer positions, but there are limited career or internship postings in media, publication and the arts. While a career management system may arguably be more suited for STEM majors, since the employment opportunities for them may simply be greater, there are fewer platforms to connect students in the humanities to viable career options that resonate with their academic interests. Theoretical academic tracks are often seen as lacking in practicality; as a result, traditionally non-scientific disciplines are adopting a quantitative bend, as seen in newer quantitative analytical course requirements in the Politics and Psychology departments. Although Princeton prides itself on a strong liberal arts education, the truth is that the academic and pre-professional environment here confirms a national and international trend: the science of things has become increasingly important while the theory of things has become an insufficient pursuit. And as ambitious, competitive women here continue to seek the greatest empowerment they can find in a professional world where the gender pay gap doesn’t seem to budge and capable women are being prevented from leadership, it seems that their validation may only come if they steer away from studies in the increasingly feminized humanities. Reva Abrol is a sophomore from Syosset, N.Y. She can be reached at rabrol@princeton.edu.

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } EDITORIAL

Anonymize exam grading

s the Office of the Dean of the College states, “Princeton University is committed to fairness and transparency in assessment of students’ work and grading practices.” With this admirable goal in mind, the Board believes that the University could take more steps to ensure fairness in grading student work and to improve the overall academic experience. First, the Board urges the University to adopt anonymized grading for exams, while maintaining regular grading practices for papers and written work. Second, we recommend that professors and preceptors utilize multiple criteria, in addition to talking in precept, to assess participation for students less inclined to speak up. The Board recommends that anonymous grading be implemented for in-class and take-home exams in order to help ensure fairer grading. Currently, in courses where preceptors and professors know whose tests they are grading, knowledge of a student’s identity could unfairly influence grading. For example, while grading an in-class essay exam for a humanities course, a grader may be unduly critical of a student’s exam knowing that the student performed poorly on a past exam or has performed poorly in precept — even if the student’s knowledge or performance has since improved. To eliminate this bias, courses could simply assign each student a randomly generated code with which to label his or her exam or ask that students write their names on the back of test booklets. These measures would also take steps to address the damaging effects of other potential forms of implicit bias concerning, for example, gender, race or nationality. Implementing anonymous grading for exams is a simple and effective step toward increasing fairness. However, we do not recommend anonymous grading for papers. It is true that knowledge of a student could influence the grade a professor or preceptor assigns to that student’s written work. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing and could provide potential benefits for students. For one, many courses grade papers based on student growth and improvement in writing. With anonymous grading in place, it becomes more difficult for graders to measure student growth and reward those students who have made an effort to im-

vol. cxxxix

prove. Furthermore, graders are likely to reward students who seek advice on their papers and are willing to attend office hours to discuss their ideas. Knowing this, students have more incentives to be engaged in the class since that engagement could be rewarded with a higher grade. For these reasons, we advise that anonymous grading be restricted to exams. Lastly, the Board suggests that, in addition to verbal participation, professors and preceptors provide different means of assessment suited for students with varied skillsets. Currently, precept participation grades are mostly determined by the quality and consistency with which students speak up in precept. However, this singular mode of assessment favors students with strong verbal skills and is detrimental to students who, despite having a command of the material, have more difficulty speaking up. To more holistically assess students in precept, the Board suggests providing more written means for students to participate, such as asking students to submit discussion questions or reading responses on Blackboard before each precept. This would allow students to demonstrate knowledge through writing, and students, having prepared their own questions and having read other students’ questions, would feel more confident verbally participating in precept. Furthermore, preceptors could assign each student a week to give an oral presentation at the beginning of precept, allowing their demonstrated preparation for precept to be accounted for in the precept participation grade. In sum, there are clear steps that can be taken to anonymize the grading process and improve grading procedures. The members of the Board ask that the University implement the measures we have outlined to improve students’ academic experience and to ensure fairness in grading. Jeffrey Leibenhaut ’16 and 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 Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its Chair, the Opinion Editor and the Editor-inChief.

Anna Mazarakis ’16 editor-in-chief

Matteo Kruijssen ’16 business manager

EDITORIAL BOARD chair Jeffrey Leibenhaut ’16

Allison Berger ’18 Elly Brown ’18 Thomas Clark ’18 Paul Draper ’18 Daniel Elkind ’17 Theodore Furchgott ’18 Wynne Kerridge ’16 Cydney Kim ’17 Sergio Leos ’17 Carolyn Liziewski ’18 Sam Mathews ’17 Connor Pfeiffer ’18 Ashley Reed ’18 Aditya Trivedi ’16 Kevin Wong ’17

139TH BUSINESS BOARD head of outreach Justine Mauro ’17 director of client management Vineeta Reddy ’18 director of operations Daniel Kim ’17 comptroller Nicholas Yang ’18 director of circulation Kevin Liu ’18

Scheduling Conflict

NIGHT STAFF 12.10.15

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

staff copy editor Gordon Chu ’19 Jordan Antebi ’19 Marina Latif ’19 Isabel Hsu ’19 Katie Petersen ’19

Jon Robinson GS

senior copy editor Belinda Ji ’17

news Abhiram Karuppur ’19 Katherine Oh ’18

Doing “justice” to our sorrows

Luke Gamble columnist

ver Thanksgiving break, my best friend Jeff’s father died. Just two weeks earlier, Jeff’s father was initially diagnosed with stage 4 inoperable kidney cancer. With his mother having passed away a little over a year ago and without any siblings, Jeff, who is only 19, has suddenly been left more alone than anyone else I know. Jeff has suffered, and is suffering, in ways few of us will ever know. I can’t pretend to understand Jeff’s suffering and I felt powerless to help. All I could do was sit and listen to my friend in pain. But perhaps just being there is more effective than I realized. Henri Nouwen once wrote that our best friends are the ones who “instead of giving advice, solutions, or cures […] can be silent with us in a moment of despair or confusion, who can stay with us in an hour of grief and bereavement.” Recognizing and acknowledging another’s pains, sorrows and difficulties can be the most difficult work in a friendship. Those who have gone to psychological services know that the majority of a psychologist’s time is simply spent listening to and validating feelings. Humans have an incredible ability to empathize and commiserate. On the University’s campus, on every campus, in every household and street in America and around the world, there are a lot of difficulties and struggles. There are long days and dark nights. While we all bear different burdens, we do, in some sense, share in the experience of suffering. While we will never truly know or fully understand the experience of another’s suffering, we do all share in this “fallen” state

of things. If we took the suffering of our peers seriously, then maybe many similar problems on this campus would be resolved by now. The University campus in particular would be a lot more unified, uplifting and supportive if individual students, faculty and administration took more seriously not only their opponents’ arguments but also their sufferings. President Eisgruber embodied this ideal of commiseration and solidarity with how he handled the Black Justice League’s “Occupy Nassau” protest. In his letter to the student body following the end of the protest, President Eisgruber, acknowledging the pain and suffering some African Americans across campus were feeling, wrote “I have heard compelling testimony from students of color about the distress, pain and frustration that is caused by a campus climate that they too often find unwelcoming or uncaring,” nothing that such feelings could be “heightened or exacerbated by exchanges, frequently anonymous, on social media.” Eisgruber did not engage in debate; he simply extended an olive branch, doing his best to show he was an advocate for all students while assuring the BJL that he would do his best to combat the causes of their suffering. He wrote, “I care deeply about what our students are saying to us, and I am determined to do whatever I can…to improve the climate on this campus so that all students are respected, valued, and supported as members of a vibrant and diverse learning community.” Eisgruber refrained from questioning or doubting the causes of the offenses, and instead focused on the validity and importance of the students’ pain. In his letter, he focused on why students were currently suffering and

tried to be there for them. Rather than just blindly reacting to the protests and following the demands in the hope that the pain would subside, Eisgruber has opened his office to students of any opinion, ready to listen to their concerns. Of course, we must do our part to mend the world’s problems. The debate over the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name can and should continue, but let’s not forget what we can do now — stand alongside one another, sharing and bearing each other’s burdens in the process. We should not become so obsessed with the demands that we lose sight of the pain people are feeling right now, in the present. In order to counteract the sources and causes of each other’s suffering, often the biggest service we can do for others is the one we neglect most, simply listening and being a friend. This is also true outside the BJL situation in everyday life circumstances. When we get hosed from eating clubs next month, we can tirade against the system or we can commiserate with one another in the process. When we see someone get hurt by a racist, sexist or homophobic slur, certainly the culprit deserves to be reprimanded, but perhaps our energies are better spent comforting the victim. As the world’s attention turns from mourning with the Parisians to blaming Islam as a whole, we can continue to follow up with those who we know were affected, French and Muslim alike. Change may take a long time, but we must not forget what we can do to help right now, asking and listening and being there with others through their suffering right now. Luke Gamble is a sophomore from Eagle, Idaho. He can be reached at ljgamble@princeton.edu.

The Daily Princetonian

Friday december 11, 2015

Youthful Panthers, experienced Tigers clash W. B-BALL Continued from page 6

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

Brown and Vanessa Smith also helped keep the Big Ten team in check, making significant contributions of their own. Given the strength of the Princeton upperclassmen, expect to see underclassmen spend more time on the court as the Tigers continue to build their deep roster. Against Monmouth on Tuesday, sophomores Tia Weledji, Leslie Robinson and Kenya Holland left their own marks on the court, as did freshmen Caroline Davis, Claudia Reid, Sydney Jordan, Qalea Ismail and Gabrielle Rush. For Banghart, developing depth is key to a successful program, so expect to see the team testing different rotations in the upcoming games. In addition to experience, the Princeton women’s basketball team will have the fans on its side. As the jam-packed

game against Michigan showed, home-court enthusiasm is a major boon. Princeton will have to keep up this energy as it looks to visit challenging opponents, like Ohio State on Friday, Dec. 18. Banghart said that the team should be experienced and competitive enough to sustain their energy away from home. “We could play on the moon, and we would bring that same level of effort,” she said. “That’s what we strive for every day.” The mood is optimistic as the Princeton women’s basketball team sets its sights high and looks to deepen its program. The Tigers will battle it out against the Pittsburgh Panthers this Saturday, December 12, in Jadwin Gym at 3 p.m. The first 500 fans will receive an Ugly Sweater Beanie. Princeton faculty and staff will get free admission for Faculty & Staff Appreciation Day. The game can also be viewed on the Ivy League Digital Network.

MIKKEY CLARKE :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

After starting the season 4-0, the Tigers have dropped the last two games.

Tigers seek improvements after struggles on defense against Stony Brook M. B-BALL Continued from page 6

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

shooting 45 percent from the three-point line, and will pose a real threat to Princeton as both teams try to get back on track. The Tigers struggled containing Stony Brook’s Ja-

meel Warney and St. Joseph’s DeAndre Bembry, who scored 26 and 27 points, respectively, in the two defeats, but will be looking to do a better job containing Williams this weekend. The game will be available to watch on ESPN3.com, with tip-off at 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Tigers looking to extend four-game win streak W. HOCKEY Continued from page 6

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

day on the Pegula Ice Arena. Princeton is the third ECAC contender that the Nittany Lions will face off against this season. Last weekend, Penn State swept Union by matching 3-0 scores in midOctober and lost 4-2 at St. Lawrence two weeks ago, the same team the Tigers lost 3-2 to in the beginning of their season. Penn State’s team is led by forwards Laura Bowman and Amy Peterson, who have each scored a cumulative 11 points this season. Bowman has a team high of eight goals and three assists, while Peterson has a team best of eight assists and three goals. Similar to the Tigers, the Nittany Lions also have a very strong freshman forward this sea-

son, Victoria Samuelsson, who has scored a total of seven points. Samuelsson was also honored as CHA rookie of the week for her performance against the Union Dutchmen. Penn State’s third leading goalscorer is senior forward Shannon Yoxheimer, with a total of six points this season. Senior goalie Celine Whitlinger has a .947 save percentage and a 1.59 GAA and has been ranked CHA Goalie of the Week twice in the 2015-2016 season. For the first time in program history, the Nittany Lions tallied back-to-back shutouts against a Division I team. The puck is set to drop at 7 p.m. at Baker Rink on Friday, Dec. 11 and 3 p.m. on Saturday, Dec. 12. Both games will be available to watch on the Ivy League Digital Network, as well as live-tweeted by @ PUTigers_Live.

Tweet Tweet!! Keep yourself informed on the go!

page 5

Sports

Friday december 11, 2015

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

Women’s basketball to host Panthers By Berthy Feng contributor

JAMES SUNG:: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

After back-to-back victories against Michigan and Monmouth, the Tigers hope to keep it going against Pittsburgh. MEN’S BASKETBALL

The Princeton women’s basketball team will look to extend its five-game win streak in a home game against Pittsburgh on Saturday. The game will be the third in a series of four home games. The Tigers (7-1 overall) are enjoying a home-court high, having earned an 81-70 win over in-state opponent Monmouth and a 74-57 win over previously undefeated Michigan. The Pittsburgh Panthers (6-3 overall) have had a lukewarm start to their season. In a 56-50 win over Holy Cross on Sunday, the team struggled offensively. Pittsburgh lost its sevenpoint first-quarter lead by the third quarter, only rallying to its six-point margin in the last ten minutes of the final quarter. However, the Panthers are on an upward trajectory as they find their rhythm with a young team. On Tuesday, Pittsburgh earned a convincing 74-57 victory over Mount St. Mary’s, with a season-high 52.5 percent in shooting. Freshman forward Kalista Walters is the Pittsburgh team’s greatest asset. As the team’s highest scorer, she holds 59 per-

cent in shooting overall and was the key player in the Panthers’ most recent win. Indeed, Pittsburgh’s top five scorers thus far are underclassmen. As a team, the Panthers are only getting better, and perhaps their youth poses the greatest challenge to the Princeton team. “Pitt is a young team, so they’re unpredictable. They’ve got really athletic dynamic pieces, and they’re looking for a signature win,” head coach Courtney Banghart said. “We expect to get their best.” Pittsburgh’s dynamism means that the Tigers will have to be on their toes defensively. “We expect that we’re going to have to be solid on the ball defensively,” Banghart said. “We’re going to have to really play together on defense and force them to have to play a 5-v-5 game. If we can do those things, I think we can be really good.” Whereas youth is Pittsburgh’s strength, experience is on the Tigers’ side. Against Michigan on Sunday, seniors Annie Tarakchian, Amanda Berntsen, Michelle Miller and Alex Wheatley led the charge against the Wolverines, scoring a combined 55 of 74 points. Juniors Taylor See W. B-BALL page 5

WOMEN’S HOCKEY

Tigers to take on Lipscomb as road games continue By Alan Balson contributor

The men’s basketball team looks to rebound from its first two losses of the season as it faces a struggling Lipscomb team (3-8 overall) on the road this weekend. Despite the loss of last season’s leading rebounder and second-leading scorer Hans Brase to an ACL injury at the beginning of the year, Princeton (4-2) jumped out to an exceptional start to the season, winning its first four games. However, Brase’s absence started to show this past weekend for the Tigers in consecutive losses to Stony Brook and Saint Joseph’s. Princeton was out-rebounded by a combined margin of 8467 and shot just 28 percent from the three-point line in the two games, areas where Brase, who averaged 7.5 rebounds and 1.7 threes per game, excelled last year. Junior forward and top scorer Henry Caruso has softened the blow in both of those areas, grabbing a team high of 7.2 rebounds per game (an increase of four from his average last season) and shooting an excellent 60 percent from beyond the arc through the first six games. Another en-

couraging sign is the strong performance of freshman guard Devin Cannaday, who is averaging over 20 minutes per game and put in a strong performance in the loss against Stony Brook, with 16 points off the bench to lead the team. Neither Caruso nor Cannaday, however, scored in the double digits in the game against St. Joseph’s, in which the Tigers were held under 60 points for the first time this season. Junior forward Steven Cook has also given impressive performances in the last two games, turning out a season high of 15 points to go along with 7 rebounds against St. Joseph’s. In spite of their recent skid, the Tigers have a great chance to beat Tennessee this weekend. The Lipscomb Bisons, whom the Tigers soundly defeated 77-55 last season, are on a four-game losing streak and have yet to win a game at home. The Bisons are also giving up over 80 points per game, an encouraging sign for a Princeton team that, the game at St. Joseph’s aside, has shown explosive offensive potential this season. Lipscomb guard Josh Williams, the Bisons’ leading scorer for the last two seasons, has been See M. B-BALL page 5

Tweet of the Day “I have the densest load of laundry just screaming my name as I put on my tie-dye” annie tarakchian (@annabellyy5), senior forward, women’s basketball

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETIC COMMUNICATIONS

After strong showings against Harvard and Dartmouth, women’s hockey battles Penn State at Baker Rink.

Women’s ice hockey continues home stand against Penn State By Claire Coughlin contributor

The Princeton women’s ice hockey team (9-4-1 overall, 5-4-1 ECAC) is scheduled to host the Penn State Nittany Lions (4-10-4, 1-3-4 College Hockey America) for its fifth annual two-game series this weekend at Baker Rink. The Princeton Tigers are currently on a four-game winning streak, which includes their sweep from last weekend against two major con-

ference rivals, No. 7 Harvard and Dartmouth. This week was a successful week for the Orange and the Black, as junior defender Kelsey Koelzer was honored as the ECAC Player of the Week and senior goalie Kimberly Newell was honored as ECAC Goalie of the Week. The team’s offense has been led by freshman forward Karlie Lund in the past few games, who has previously been named ECAC Rookie of the Week. With many stellar players

Stat of the Day

78.9 points The women’s basketball team has averaged 78.9 points per game so far, good for first in the Ivies.

and great team chemistry, the Tigers are striving to continue their success in this weekend’s series against Penn State and the rest of the season. Princeton is 3-1 in the relatively new series against Penn State. Last year, the Tigers and the Lions split the wins between both games. The Tigers lost the first game 2-1, which was the team’s season opener, and came out strong with a 4-1 win the next See W. HOCKEY page 5

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