December 11, 2017

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday December 11, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 116

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } STUDENT LIFE

USG debate, campaigns worry students contributor

In last week’s debate, Undergraduate Student Government presidential candidates spent over half an hour discussing Lawnparties. Audience members — and other students — expressed frustration about the focus that seems far from issues they see as more important.

The candidates, Matt Miller ’19, Ryan Ozminkowski ’19, and Rachel Yee ’19, debated for roughly an hour last Wednesday, Dec. 6.

At the debate, the Lawnparties discussion effectively ended when a member of the audience demanded from the USG presidential candidates, “I need to hear ideas, not bullshit ideals.”

Surrounded by scandals

from the beginning of campaigning to recent “super PAQs,” the USG winter 2017 elections have seen their fair share of controversy.

But across campus, students have been questioning why these scandals are taking precedence over actual issues.

While the issue of Lawnparties frequently takes center stage in USG presidential campaigns, this year’s emphasis is grounded more in presidential power than typical years. Because no one is running for Social Committee Chair, the USG president will be able to appoint a chair, subject to approval by the Senate.

The Daily Princetonian interviewed over a dozen undergraduates, many of whom See USG ELECTION page 7

STUDENT LIFE

USG approves Dean’s Date concert funding

By Jacob Gerrish contributor

Debate raged over the constitutionality of the Honor Committee referenda at the weekly Undergraduate Student Government meeting on Dec. 10.

Senator Eli Schechner ’18 advanced an appeal against the approval of the Honor

Committee Referenda by chief elections manager Laura Hausman ’20.

The elections handbook stipulates that the sponsor be an individual or an ODUSrecognized student organization, and Schechner argued that the USG academics subcommittee on the Honor System did not constitute an See USG MEETING page 5

U . A F FA I R S

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ALUMNI WEEKLY

Prato was commissioned as a second lieutenant in Nassau Hall in 2015.

Prato ’15 injured in Afghanistan

By Anna Vinitsky contributor

U.S. Army first lieutenant Victor Prato ’15 suffered a serious injury on Monday, Nov. 13, when his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device in Kandahar province, Afghanistan. Three other U.S. soldiers were wounded.

According to former 82nd Airborne Division officer Zach Beecher ’13, Prato was awarded the Purple Heart and the Combat Action Badge, and is currently being treated at Walter Reed National

Music is often thought of as a universal language — one that brings communities together.

Composer Pascal Le Boeuf GS uses his music to do just that by combining contemporary classical music and jazz into what he calls a “new music” community.

Now, Le Boeuf was nominated for a Grammy for his composition, “Alkaline,” in the Best Instrumental Composition category. “Alkaline” is from Le Boeuf’s new album, “imag-

COURTESY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Leslie studied philosophy, math, and cognitive science at Rutgers.

Leslie GS ’07 prepared to be dean of graduate school Sarah-Jane Leslie has been just about everything you can be at the University.

Now, she steps into a new role: dean of the Graduate School.

“I just cannot imagine anyone better for the job than her,” Vidushi Sharma ’17 said. “I know the philosophy department pretty well, and whenever anyone talk-

In Opinion

See VETERAN page 7

Le Boeuf GS nominated for Grammy contributor

contributor

that Prato was involved in route clearance when he was attacked.

Sam Rob ‘18, who was a first year in the University’s Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps when Prato was a senior, also talked about route clearance and his own experience with the task.

“Victor wanted to be an engineer and the engineer regiment in the Army is largely [involved in] route clearance, which is a dangerous job,” Rob explained. “I trained with a route clearance company in Fort Polk, [La.] this

STUDENT LIFE

By Isabel Ting

By Benjamin Ball

Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. Prato is now in stable condition.

“Victor is a First Lieutenant in the Army’s Engineering Branch assigned to the 127th Brigade Engineering Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Fort Bragg, N.C.,” Beecher explained. “He was deployed to Kandahar, Afghanistan in support of the International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring Freedom as part of nearly 11,000 U.S. troops there now.”

Beecher also explained that it is highly plausible

ed about Sarah-Jane, they would have this air of pure respect. She just inspires genuine respect in people because of the way that she conducts her work.”

Leslie is an affiliated faculty member in the psychology department, the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, the Center for Human Values, and the Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and See LESLIE page 3

Guest contributor Kayla Vinson calls for greater diversity and inclusion in the Wilson School graduate program, and guest contributor Micah Herskind calls for Honor Committee reform based on his experiences as a former Honor Committee member. PAGE 8

inist,” which is recorded by the Le Boeuf Brothers and the JACK Quartet.

Le Boeuf described his style of music as “anything that brings together people from different communities,” and that “Alkaline” is meant to bring the jazz and contemporary classical communities together.

“I try to avoid genre and emphasize the community aspect [of music],” said Le Boeuf. “Jazz means a million things but there’s communities within that value different things [about it].”

Le Boeuf said that the nomination was completely surprising, explaining that he heard about it from a fellow musician before checking his email to find out for sure.

“It was a huge honor, and it was very encouraging,” he said.

Out of the 438 records that were up for nomination, Le Boeuf’s “Alkaline,” was one of the five nominations that were chosen.

“It’s nice to get a nomination and receive recognition, but at the end of the day it doesn’t reSee GRAMMY page 4

‘Prince’ elects next editor-in-chief, head news editor Marcia Brown ’19

By Ivy Truong contributor

After almost four hours of discussion, The Daily Princetonian elected head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 as editor-in-chief for the 142nd Managing Board.

Candidates also included chief copy editor Isabel Hsu ’19 and managing editor Sam Garfinkle ’19.

“I feel really honored and gratified that there was a lot of kind support, warm support for me,” Brown said.

“Working with so many people on the ‘Prince’ has really been a very unique and special part of my Princeton ex-

perience.”

A candidate must receive a two-thirds majority of votes to win the election in the first round.

The election officially began at 11 a.m. with discussions on the role of the editorin-chief of the ‘Prince’ and the ideal qualities of an editor-in-chief. A question-andanswer period with each candidate immediately followed.

The first and only round of voting began shortly after 2 p.m.

An amendment passed with a two-thirds majority gave seniors the right to vote.

Previously, eligible voters had included those who have

Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: Ambassador Dani Dayan, Consul General of Israel in New York, will speak.

Robertson Hall, Arthur Lewis Auditorium

three bylines or who have worked on the ‘Prince’ for at least a semester with the exception of seniors.

A candidates’ forum on Dec. 2 allowed candidates to present their speeches and participate in a debate.

Brown ran on a platform that emphasized hard-hitting coverage and becoming a digital-first organization.

As part of her vision, she also focused on the concept of editorial leadership, which emphasizes holistic coverage of issues from every section of the paper.

Brown will succeed outgoing editor-in-chief Sarah Sakha ’18.

WEATHER

By Linh Nguyen

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

HIGH

41˚

LOW

27˚

Mostly sunny chance of rain:

10 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Monday December 11, 2017

Monday December 11, 2017

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

Leslie: Brilliance is something that is more associated with men LESLIE

Continued from page 1

Public Policy. Her research and academic work have also led to her authoring and publishing a number of writings, focusing primarily on her advocacy for diversity and gender equality, as well the intersections of language, philosophy and psychology. Much of Leslie’s recent research has focused on why some academic disciplines are more diverse than others, especially when it comes to gender, exploring the barrier to participation to women and other minorities when it comes to certain academic disciplines.

“My collaborators and I have looked into a role of beliefs about brilliance,” Leslie said. “Culturally speaking, brilliance is something that is more associated with men than with women, and what we found was that disciplines such as philosophy, my home discipline, that have very few women in them, tend to believe you have to be ‘brilliant’ in order to succeed.”

Major outlets such as The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and BBC News have

THE DAILY

Enjoy drawing pretty pictures?

Like to work with Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign?

Join the ‘Prince’ design team!

covered her work on brilliance. The use of brilliance as a requirement in academia is something Leslie outspokenly opposes. Based on her research, she says that messages of brilliance being an academic requirement unveil the psychology behind categorization and generalization that cause so much discrimination and stereotyping in not only STEM fields but, as she says, “the entire academic spectrum.”

“These messages combined with cultural stereotypes to discourage women’s participation in a number of ways, including by making women more vulnerable to outright bias and discrimination,” Leslie explained in a video lecture for a YouTube channel dedicated to her research.

“These findings suggest that academics who wish to increase the diversity of their fields should pay particular attention to the messages they send concerning what’s required for success.”

Leslie’s hiring comes as the graduate school faces certain gender-based controversies such as those previously reported in ‘Prince’. In the German department, students have alleged gender-based discrimination, and a grad-

uate student in the electrical engineering department spoke out about her experience of sexual harassment by a professor. As someone who speaks about diversity, and whose research frequently focuses on the necessity of academics promoting diversity, Leslie is now in a position to do so herself.

“I look forward to combining that kind of database socially, scientifically informed approach to these rich and concrete questions that impact lives such as including diverse groups in our graduate student population,” Leslie said.

Whether focusing on gender diversity or the practical methods of pursuing career choices, Leslie plans on taking a student-centric approach to her leadership of the graduate college. The most enjoyable parts of her work, she explained, always involved students.

“I’ve always found it especially rewarding to be involved in initiatives that include students,” said Leslie. “In all of the programs that I’ve run, including the programs in linguistics and in cognitive science, we’ve made it a priority to include students, offer them the

most rich educational experiences possible.”

Her family emigrated from the United Kingdom. Leslie herself is a New Jersey native, and was an undergraduate student at Rutgers University, where she studied philosophy, math, and cognitive science. She came to Princeton as a graduate student in 2002, and her dissertation work was mainly concerned with how the human mind understands language — drawing from linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. She received her Ph.D. in 2006, after having started teaching as an assistant professor a year earlier.

She was then awarded tenure and promoted to full professor in 2014.

“I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to stay at Princeton,” said Leslie. “I enjoyed my experiences here as a graduate student very much and was delighted to be able to stay on here and contribute to the University as a professor.”

Her fellow students and collaborators also agree that her time as a graduate student will be a significant advantage when it comes to her position as Dean of the School, including Adam Le-

rner GS, one of Dean Leslie’s academic advisees.

“Dean Leslie is especially well placed to be an excellent dean of the graduate school,” said Lerner. “She was a graduate student at Princeton in the 21st century, so she has a keen sense of what kind of challenges today’s graduate students face and what kind of conditions they need and tools they need to thrive in their research, their teaching, and eventually on the job market.”

Leslie is currently the Vice Dean for Faculty Development in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, the Director of Princeton’s Program in Linguistics, and the Director of the Program in Cognitive Science, which she founded in 2015.

“Some priorities of mine include increasing the diversity of the graduate student body, making sure that students from all walks of life and identities are supported and experience welcoming environments at Princeton,” Leslie said. She said she eagerly anticipates working with all members of the graduate school faculty and staff to make the graduate student experience “terrific.”

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

Monday December 11, 2017

U. music community open-minded, generous GRAMMY Continued from page 1

ally mean anything except that some people listened to the music,” Le Boeuf said. “I hope it doesn’t change my outlook on music or things that I’m doing.

The real motivation for me is just the creation of music itself and the engagement with the community.”

Le Boeuf’s composition, “Alkaline,” is a metaphor for alkalinity, a way to measure the solution needed to balance the acidity of water, and he tried to extend the concept of alkalinity to the larger picture of society.

“When social injustice is introduced to society, how do we recover from that?” Le Boeuf mused. “How do we recover equilibrium and what is the tipping point? That’s what the elements of the music interact with.”

When asked which social injustices he had in mind, Le Boeuf responded that he preferred the ambiguity of not naming one injustice.

“There’s a lot wrong in this world and the list seems to keep going,” he explained.

Within the song, Le Boeuf explained, the composition tries

to find the meeting point between two worlds, whether of improvised and notated music, or string and jazz quintets.

“The [balances that are being manipulated] conflict a bit and rail against each other and don’t ever settle,” Le Boeuf said. “It feels more like a forced union at times in the orchestration.”

Le Boeuf describes the music he creates as a conversation, where all the musicians are “talking” about what they’re interested in.

“What makes it feel good is that we’re all interested in what we each have to say, and that comes across in the music. It’s not all notated — a lot of it is improvised, so it does feel like we’re ‘talking,’” he explained.

“Alkaline” was recorded by Le Boeuf and his Brooklyn-based twin brother and saxophonist composer, Remy Le Boeuf, as part of the album “imaginist.”

The album uses a theme of language structures in musical compositions and interpretations. Remy adopted a literary approach by working with German writer Franz Kafka’s short story, “A Dream,” and including narrations by actor Paul Whitworth into the album. Pascal incorporated literary devices into music, emphasizing contrasts and metaphors. The two “Exquisite Corpse” compositions were inspired by a poetry game, where participants contributed to the storyline by knowing only the final sentence of the previous contribution; the game resulted in a “cohesive sound and story.”

When conducting research for the album, Remy dug into the past by looking at composers like Igor Stravinsky and Gustav Holst, while Pascal attended concerts by Princeton Sound Pitch, a series that graduate composers write for where they bring in different ensembles.

Although Pascal wrote the music for the album before becoming a University student, he was inspired by the University music community through the concerts he attended well before composing any music for “imaginist.”

Now as a graduate student in the music composition program, Le Boeuf describes the music community as openminded, generous, and supportive.

“Everyone — the faculty, graduates, and undergraduates — seems to be in it together, and it doesn’t feel competitive,” said Le Boeuf. “It feels like we’re a big family, and that’s been primarily something that’s improved my life. It helps that I have a genuine appreciation for the music that people are working on.”

Le Boeuf acknowledged his peers; his brother, Remy; and Bang on a Can, a contemporary classical music organization based in New York City, as sources of inspiration.

“I look up to Bang on a Can a lot because they have a very open-minded, inclusive approach to engaging with classically trained musicians,” said Le Boeuf. “They’re opening up the classical music world to what is happening now, and they keep things relevant. I value innovation and inclusion in music, and they are leaders in that regard.”

Le Boeuf notes that his favorite part about being a musician is making records.

“I love recording — the way that you can kind of capture a moment in sound and polish it and have something to hold onto like a painting,” said Le Boeuf. “Records represent this snapshot of feelings of emotional environment. What makes me the happiest is the final stage of mixing and mastering a recording.”

As for future projects, Le Boeuf just finished writing a piece for Eighth Blackbird, the Chicago-based and four-time Grammy-winning ensemble, and is currently in Chicago working with the ensemble.

Their performance of Le Boeuf’s piece, along with other pieces, will premiere on Feb. 26 in the Taplin Auditorium in Fine Hall.

Monday December 11, 2017

Flanigan: It is time to vote USG MEETING Continued from page 1

ODUS-recognized student organization.

Schechner voiced worry over the precedent set by shortening the winter elections cycle and the adoption of a USG subcommittee as a sponsor of the Honor Committee referenda. He believed that counting the entire Senate as sponsor of the referenda would also be “disingenuous” and inaccurate.

“We have had a history over the last month or so of bypassing and rewriting several of our own rules,” said Schechner. “This suggests that there is this internal drive to make this change, that we are going to steamroll it through without putting any concerns for the institutions that stand in the way of that.”

According to U-Councilor Nick Wu ’19, a focus on procedures detracts from the purpose of the Senate to give voice to students.

“Just because rules are in place does not mean that we ought not to change them,” said Wu. “The constitution is able to be amended because it is not perfect.”

Schechner, however, maintained that it was necessary to act in accordance with Senate rules.

In a 15-minute video presentation, Louis Tambellini ’18 articulated his concerns over the election process and the consequences of the Honor Committee referenda. Following the video, USG members discussed its context for another 10 minutes.

Tambellini claimed that meetings of the USG academics subcommittee on the Honor System remained closed to the public despite what the USG constitution sets forth. He also stated that minimal dialogue took place between the subcommittee and the administration and student groups.

“There were just eight subcommittee members acting in what they think is the best interest of the University,” Tambellini said.

Academics committee chair Patrick Flanigan ’18 sharply disagreed with Tambellini’s contentions. Flanigan stated that the meetings were closed because of the confidential and potentially “embarrassing” nature of the meetings.

“I do not like the paternalistic attitude towards the students that’s been taken up that we can’t decide what I believe are common-sense reforms,” Flanigan said. “It only takes one-fourth of the students to defeat this.”

The Daily Princetonian

“Throughout this process, I have been called sexist, a zealot, undemocratic, unfair, secret, manipulative, and it is beginning to wear on me,” Flanigan said. “I think it is time the students vote.”

The Senate voted not to uphold Schechner’s appeal.

Parliamentarian Jonah Hyman ’20 introduced two alternatives in case of a runoff election for USG president.

Senate Resolution 9-2017 would implement a system of instant runoff voting, or ranked voting. Senate Resolution 7-2017 would delay a runoff election into winter recess. As is, elections results are typically released two days after voting ends, which would bring the election’s conclusion into winter recess.

Schechner resisted Senate Resolution 9-2017 because of the “confusing” ballot format with an instant runoff ballot structure. However, he also expressed regret that voting turnout would decrease during the runoff election.

The Senate passed Senate Resolution 7-2017 to delay the runoff election. Voting in the runoff election would happen from Saturday, Dec. 16, at noon to Monday, Dec. 18, at noon, and results would be available on Tuesday at noon during winter recess.

In an effort to hold a concert during Dean’s Date celebrations, social committee chair Lavinia Liang ’18 further petitioned the Senate for $25,000. The Senate approved the request for funding, and the Social Committee will use the money this week to bid for the headliner.

Additionally, Undergraduate Student Life Committee Chair Tania Bore ’20 presented modifications to the USLC charter. The amended charter primarily eliminates the involvement of the Graduate Student Government in USLC and transfers some liaisons into the Diversity and Equity Committee. In a previous USG meeting, the USLC committee realized that it had not been following its charter and decided to reform it.

“We do intend on coming back and evaluating what was effective and what was not effective,” Bore said.

In her presidential report, USG president Myesha Jemison ’18 discussed the University portraiture committee and the Class of 2020 Facebook page.

The Senate voted to approve the amended charter unanimously. This was the last USG meeting in 2017.

Meetings will resume after winter recess.

page 5

(if(equal? web love) (join the ‘Prince’ now) (join anyway)) Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 6

The Daily Princetonian

Monday December 11, 2017

U . A F FA I R S

Princeton Energy Plant values safety, compliance, service

By Neha Chauhan contributor

Here, water is being heated by running hot water parallel to cooler water. The hot water and the cooler water are in thin layers separated by layers of metal, and move in opposite directions. This method of heat transfer is very efficient: By the end of the process, the cooler water is heated to within a few degrees of the hot water.

The cooling towers (left) emit steam from the water cooling process. The cylindrical structure (right) is the thermal storage tank, which is connected to the water chiller and the cooling towers. This thermal storage tank stores both hot and cold water. Hot water is pumped into and out of the top of the tank, while cold water is pumped into and out of the bottom. Because of the 15-degree difference in temperature between the two layers, and because hot water is less dense, the two layers don’t mix and can be stored together.

The energy plant is connected to the power grid of Public Service Electric and Gas Company here. The power plant and energy department buy electricity from PSE&G to supplement the energy produced by the power plant and to minimize energy production costs.

The power plant operator’s priorities are put into a clear order: safety, compliance, service. Employees know that their safety is number one, according to plant manager Ted Borer. The plant’s next priority is to follow all regulations and requirements set by governments. Next, the plant ensures reliable service to the University campus. Borer noted that it is typical for all three to be fulfilled.

Energy input and output are constantly monitored using control rooms inside and next to the power plant complex. Operators watch and control the amounts of energy being bought and produced, as well. They use information updated every five minutes about the price of PSE&G energy and are also given ongoing updates about campus energy demands, weather predictions (which are especially relevant to the solar field’s energy production), equipment efficiency and availability, and more relevant factors.

These chillers and others cool water for various on campus needs. “We cool off two and a half million gallons of water to make chilled water for the campus. for lasers and electron microscopes and CT scan machines and computer facilities, but also for comfort cooling in the summer — for air conditioning,” said Borer. Some of these chillers are electric and some are steam-driven. The electric chillers have motors operated using electricity bought from PSE&G, while the steam-driven ones have motors turned using excess steam from the power plant.

The Daily Princetonian

Monday December 11, 2017

page 7

Prato ’15 Attendee: I need to hear ideas, not bullshit ideals awarded USG ELECTION Purple Heart Continued from page 1

VETERAN Continued from page 1

summer and I talked to a lot of guys who were blown up, so it’s more than just infantry who are in harm’s way.”

Rob also praised Prato’s enthusiasm. Prato was always passionate, Rob said, about serving his country and what he was doing with ROTC. Prato, a mechanical and aerospace engineering major, also played varsity football at the University.

Matt Giannotti ’18, Prato’s mentee and a current senior in ROTC, said Prato is a “generous human being who was generous with his time, vocal, happy, and understood the profession.”

When describing his relationship to Prato, Giannotti remembered when he was at Fort Dix, N.J. and Prato came into his room late at night to check that he had all of his gear for the next day.

“Vic painstakingly took the the time to make sure everyone was okay,” Giannotti said.

Rob said that he looks up to Prato.

“He was an engineer and he inf luenced me and my career choices,” said Rob. “Victor had the incredible capacity to balance his Princeton academic schedule, ROTC, and being a varsity athlete.”

The Princeton ROTC community is making a determined effort to support Prato. Rob explained that Prato has a strong support base and that his healing will just take time. In addition to reaching out to Prato personally, current and past ROTC members of the the University are writing get well cards. Some University alumni have already visited Prato at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. According to Giannotti, Major General Cavoli of the 25th Infantry Division also visited Prato at the medical center.

Rob explained that becoming part of the Army naturally comes with some uncertainty.

“Victor’s experience reminds me of what is at stake and of just being able to live up to his example,” said Rob. “He’s handled it so well, and he is a great example of someone that’s put it all out there and accepted that it is what he wants to do. Victor’s injury reminds us of the sacrifices that Princeton cadets make right after college.”

For Rob and other ROTC students, the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan is very real. However, Rob explained, the war is sometimes reduced to a foreign policy discussion in academia.

“We have to remember that there are people like Victor on the ground,” Rob added, pointing to the importance of decreasing the civil-military gap that seems prevalent today.

“It is important to realize what American soldiers are doing every day, the sacrifices they are making in Afghanistan, and the cost they pay for what we enjoy here at Princeton and in America,” Rob said.

Monetary contributions to Fisher House, a home for parents and loved ones to stay if their loved ones are killed or injured, are welcomed by the Prato family.

conveyed discontent about the state of the USG presidential elections.

“I went to the debate last week and I was very disappointed in what a lot of the candidates were saying,” Lloyd Feng ’19 said. “They spent a lot of time talking about Lawnparties and how to make Princeton fun. Lawnparties shouldn’t have been everything that the debate was about.”

Feng also praised Yee for standing out among the candidates and creating in-depth policies for a variety of issues.

“Rachel has taken the time to carve out these policies,” said Feng. “The other candidates are not engaging with these issues. Students should be pissed. Students should be concerned that these are the candidates who we have to choose from. This shouldn’t be a joke to people.” Feng also noted that certain candidates were “making it a game,” ultimately “taking away what could be a really valuable opportunity for students to change the Princeton experience.”

Kieran Murphy ’19 also ex-

pressed frustration over the attempts to undermine USG’s importance.

“Maybe there is this perception on campus that USG doesn’t do very much, but I think the issues at hand are very serious, including mental health care and sexual assault on campus,” said Murphy. “I think it’s very sad that the elections have come down to personal politics and whatever the latest scandal is, and it seems like it’s more like the 2016 presidential election than a regular USG election.”

To some, Ozminkowski’s campaign drew an inordinate amount of controversial attention in the election.

“I honestly just think that the way Ryan has run his campaign, with the domain thing and allegedly saying that he’s running a parody campaign and just the way that people compare him to politicians like Trump, really kind of detracts from the context of Princeton and our experiences and our issues,” Tori Gorton ’21 said. “This election should be about the real issues that the other candidates are trying to talk about.”

Another student, Sonya Isenberg ’20, credited Ozminkowski for attempting

“to make this election season more fun and lighthearted,” but emphasized that this was “clearly inappropriate if it is at the expense of those issues” that are up for debate in this election.

Other students demonstrated concern that controversy has taken precedence over discussion about real issues throughout all components of student life.

“It’s definitely frustrating that we have some candidates that are very experienced and have a lot to say and want a platform to make this about change, but most of the coverage and social media and student attention concern the controversies,” Shea Minter ’19 said. “It seems a lot like the elections before my freshman year with Will Gansa.”

Despite significant concern across campus regarding the USG presidential election, students continue to find promising aspects in the candidates.

“I think it’s unfortunate that there have been these scandals and these controversies, but I think Rachel’s platform is really important in that she goes both in-depth about the issues while being really pragmatic, sticking to the things that she can get

done,” Micah Herskind ’19 said.

Liam Mullett ’19 followed up on his recent op-ed defending Ozminkowski, emphasizing that despite his “bias as Ryan’s friend,” he still wanted voters to recognize that Ozminkowski “really is a great person.”

“I think Rachel and Matt are good people and they know what they’re doing, but I think with Ryan, he just has this energy and creativity and vision to him that makes him the perfect person for it,” said Mullett. “I get why some people don’t like some of his more unconventional methods. That was kind of the reason why I wrote my piece because I was afraid that it was crossing over from the realm of tactics and campaign strategies to personal character.”

Two students who identify as Miller supporters based on their Facebook profile pictures declined to comment. Two other students who have publicly supported Ozminkowski on Facebook also declined to comment.

Voting will take place from noon on Tuesday, Dec. 12 to noon on Thursday, Dec. 14, with both times according to Eastern Standard Time.

Opinion

Monday December 11, 2017

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Why we can’t wait: Diversity and inclusion at the Wilson School Kayla Vinson

I

guest contributor

t is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness…. [O]ne ever feels his twoness — an American, a [Black person]; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.” — W.E.B. Du Bois After campus was roiled by student protests in 2015, the Trustee Committee on Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy at Princeton found that “what is needed is nothing less than a change in campus climate that elevates Princeton’s commitment to diversity and inclusion to a higher priority.” Yet little has changed for graduate students at the school whose name was the center of those protests — the Wilson School. Longstanding grievances of marginalized students remain unaddressed and the curriculum has gaping holes.

I can’t count the number of times I have heard a classmate reflect on the huge privilege it is to be a graduate student at the Wilson School. I know there are people for whom enrolling here indeed imbues a sense of pride in joining the ranks of famous, powerful, and historically important alumni.

But I can’t feel that way. For me, being an Master in Public Affairs student at the Wilson School imbues a profound sense of absence. Absence of the perspectives, lives, and scholarship of people of color.

When I scan the syllabi for my courses, I do not see the perspective of marginalized people represented in our foundational coursework. If people of color are acknowledged at all, it is often as an afterthought. When the differential impact of policies

T

on people of color and white people are raised by a student, my fellow classmates of color and I have come to expect a superficial analysis of why these differences exist.

In one core class, we explored police brutality in America without ever referencing race, even though police killings of Black people have dominated national media since 2014. In another, the topic of our singular discussion on race was how white U.S. residents feel about immigration. In a third, we study economic outcomes deemed “socially optimal” with only lip service paid to the fact that these outcomes can exacerbate social inequalities.

Perhaps the Wilson School is aptly named to honor Wilson’s legacy after all, because Black people don’t seem to exist inside Robertson Hall.

How can it be a privilege to learn in a place where people who look like me — a Black woman — primarily exist in theory, in hypothetical, in counterfactual?

Being here is not a privilege for me, but a daily act of resistance.

It is insisting that my group policy memo on how to reduce incidents of police brutality acknowledge race even if the only readings we are allowed to use do not. It is writing papers that recognize the legitimacy of the political behavior of low-income U.S. residents even when the authors of the assigned reading are baffled by it. It is knowing these moments might not happen at all if I were not here.

While I have not heard mention of racial, socioeconomic, religious, or sexual orientation diversity as a priority at the Wilson School, I have certainly heard people emphasize intellectual diversity. At a place like the Wilson School, this means more conservative

voices.

But other members of underrepresented groups and I don’t need a reminder that policies of exclusion and marginalization have come from liberal spaces as often as they’ve come from conservative ones. Wilson, the progressive Democrat, re-segregated the federal civil service and screened the film “Birth of a Nation” at the White House.

The Clinton administration supported some of the legislation that led to our current era of mass incarceration of people of color.

Intellectual diversity has never been enough to keep Black people safe in the United States. And that kind of diversity, alone, is not enough for the Wilson School.

Only an institution with its roots in white supremacy would need a special task force to tell it that “negative experiences on campus are disproportionately borne by individuals with minority identities: people of color, women, LGBTQA people, members of religious minority groups, low-income and first generation students, people with disabilities, and others. This is fundamentally unfair and inequitable.” Yes. We know.

We’ve known.

As a student here, what I do more than anything else is push back against frameworks that co-opt my ability to work towards a better world, frameworks that have historically oppressed, rather than liberated, the communities from which I come.

That is why I am involved with graduate student efforts to bring institutional change to the Wilson School. The changes we are pushing for are in line with the Council of the Princeton University Committee’s recommendations for additional administrative leadership to focus on

diversity, equity, and inclusion in terms of administrative support and resources for marginalized students, a curriculum that acknowledges the diversity of the world, and faculty who reflect that diversity in person and in their academic interests.

When Beverly Tatum, a former college president herself, spoke on campus this semester, she encouraged students seeking progress around diversity and inclusion to remain persistent. She reminded us that institutions of higher education often do not evolve voluntarily. I am encouraged by the number of my peers willing to persist in making the Wilson School a better place to learn.

I do not doubt that the graduate students of the Wilson School will one day hold some of the most powerful and impactful roles in the policy field. But what will that impact be? Will we be the kind of policymakers who narrow gaps in equity or who contribute to the widening of those gaps? Will we be the kind of policymakers who commission study after study, task forces and committees to convince us over and over that we must change, or will we be prepared to act? As a policy school, I believe the Wilson School has an ethical responsibility to ask itself these questions and to care about the answers.

If the MPA curriculum is meant to teach us how to navigate political systems in order to bring about necessary policy change, then consider the Wilson School my first case study.

Kayla Vinson, kvinson@princeton.edu Master in Public Affairs Candidate, Princeton University, 2019 J.D. Candidate, NYU School of Law Public Interest Fellow, 2019

Letter to the Editor: Oppose the Honor Committee Referenda

his week, the student body will be asked to vote on four referendum questions that would make significant changes to Princeton’s student-run Honor System. As members of Undergraduate Student Government (USG) and a former member of the Honor Committee (HC), we the undersigned believe that these referenda are the result of a highly problematic deliberative process by certain members of USG. On substance, these referenda would make the Honor Constitution untenable as a meaningful way to handle academic integrity violations on in-class examinations at Princeton. Most notably, the proposal to change the standard penalty for Honor Code violations from a one-year suspension to disciplinary probation would result in an unsustainable disparity between penalties in cases before the Honor Committee and the Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline (CoD), creating an unfair system with inconsistent penalties for similar violations.

The student body should reject these proposals and, instead, support a more responsible process for potential Honor System reforms already being undertaken this spring by a University Task Force composed of students, faculty, and administrators.

These referenda to fundamentally change Princeton’s 124 year-old Honor System were proposed by a self-selecting subcommittee created less than

two months ago. On Oct. 8, USG Academics Chair Patrick Flanigan ’18 proposed the creation of a subcommittee of the USG Academics Committee on the Honor Constitution. Flanigan made it clear from the onset that the subcommittee’s conclusions would almost certainly be to reform the Honor Constitution, regardless of what they heard from students and faculty, because he only appointed members who were already open to reform. No members of the Academics Committee, which works on academic policy issues each year, were appointed to the subcommittee. The subcommittee’s only major student outreach was a feedback form distributed on social media and listservs on Nov. 10, and in publicly available USG meeting materials there is no clear indication of the extent of the subcommittee’s conversations with members of the faculty.

Less than two months after the subcommittee’s creation, the student body was informed on Nov. 28 that there would be a referendum on Honor Constitution reforms.

The hasty nature of this process has effectively stifled meaningful debate on quite serious changes to the Honor Constitution. In fact, it was so hurried that USG even had to retroactively change its own rules for student referenda to put these questions on the ballot in a three week election cycle instead of the normal five weeks. The subcommittee

is asking the student body to significantly reduce the severity of the penalty for cheating on an examination at Princeton without having itself undertaken a rigorous process of gathering feedback from important stakeholders. The current Chair and Clerk of the Honor Committee were not consulted on the specific reforms the subcommittee is asking students to support. Many members of the USG Academics Committee were not consulted on the subcommittee’s proposals and were as surprised as the rest of the student body to find out that a group of students ostensibly organized as a subcommittee of their own committee were proposing a vote on changing the Honor System. Student members of the CoD were similarly not consulted despite the effect of these changes on their important work. Finally, the subcommittee failed to meaningfully consult administrators or the faculty more broadly. Failing to engage with these groups and others makes plain the imprudent process that led to these referenda questions.

While referendum questions two through four have their own issues, we are most concerned about the proposal to change the standard penalty for Honor Code violations.

Currently, both the CoD, which handles cases that do not involve in-class examinations and other University disciplinary proceedings, and the HC have a standard penalty of a one-year

suspension for students found responsible for violating the University’s standards of academic integrity. Should question one be adopted, the penalty for violations of the Honor Constitution would no longer be consistent with Rights, Rules, Responsibilities because the HC would use disciplinary probation for first offenses while the CoD would continue to use oneyear suspension for similar, if not less serious violations of academic integrity.

Even if students believe the current standard penalty is too harsh, adopting this referendum question would immediately create an unfair system where cheating on examinations is punished less severely than plagiarism on papers and assignments. This issue demonstrates why any significant changes to the University’s disciplinary system must be undertaken in concert with faculty and administrators to avoid contradictions between different parts of the system. The already-formed task force on the University’s disciplinary system is the best way to meaningfully examine whether changes are necessary to the HC and CoD. While some students might be frustrated at the slow pace of reform, this is the only way to avoid creating disparate punishments for students and ensure that the system does not contradict itself.

The substance and procedural basis of the Honor Constitution referenda should concern all students. Without even releas-

vol. cxli

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 Kathleen Crown William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Lisa Belkin ‘82 Francesca Barber trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73

141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 associate news editors Kristin Qian ’18 head opinion editor Nicholas Wu ’18 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Emily Erdos ’19 head sports editor David Xin ’19 associate sports editors Christopher Murphy ’20 Claire Coughlin ’19 head street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 associate street editors Lyric Perot ’20 Danielle Hoffman ’20 web editor Sarah Bowen ’20 head copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 associate copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 head design editors Samantha Goerger ’20 Quinn Donohue ’20 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19

NIGHT STAFF copy Marina Latif ’19 Jade Olurin ’21 Armani Aguiar ’21 design Charlotte Adamo ’21

ing a promised final report to the USG Senate summarizing its reasoning, this subcommittee is asking students to vote, with only a week of public discussion, on serious changes to fundamental elements of the academic integrity system at Princeton. For the reasons outlined above and many others we could list, we urge students to vote no and, instead, participate in more prudent efforts to examine the potential need for reform of the Honor Committee and Committee on Discipline.

Signed, Connor Pfeiffer ’18, Member of the USG Academics Committee Ethan Marcus ’18, U-Councilor Stuart Pomeroy ’18, former member of the Honor Committee Pfeiffer is a member of the ‘Prince’ Editorial Board.

Opinion

Monday December 11, 2017

page 9

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Proportionate penalty: Comments from former Honor Committee membership Micah Herskind

guest contributor

B

y now, you’ve likely heard that there are four referenda on the ballot for next Tuesday proposing reform to the Honor Code. Why is such reform necessary? I hope you’ll read this and find out.

I was on the Honor Committee from my freshman spring to sophomore fall; I joined with the intention of reforming things and injecting compassion into a system I heard was rather punitive and even vicious. As I came to find, it’s both these things, with the issues stemming from two places.

First, they come from the many, though not solely, punitive-minded individuals the Honor Committee tends to attract. More importantly, they stem from structural flaws of the Honor Code that empower a small group of students to exert disproportionate influence over fellow students’ lives while operating in a black box, with no accountability and few checks on their authority.

This danger is compounded by the high stakes of each Committee ruling: the standard penalty is a one year suspension, regardless of intent or severity of violation (read: you will be suspended equally for not knowing calculators weren’t allowed and for having brought in a water bottle with the answers written on the label).

So, several students, including elected USG officials and current and former Honor Committee members, began to formally explore Honor Code reform. Drawing on knowledge accrued from our varied experiences, we met at least weekly, solicited student input, spoke with professors, and studied the Code itself to

envision a fairer Honor System.

Some students have expressed skepticism of the potential behind these referenda. How many referenda have we seen create yet another committee? These referenda are critical chiefly because they will implement direct change. Article VI of the Honor Constitution gives students the direct authority to make change. So, fear not that your vote will contribute to an ineffective bureaucratic process bearing no fruit; instead, you’ll make a direct impact.

The first reform is the most controversial: Won’t reducing the standard penalty to probation and failure of exam mean that Princeton doesn’t value academic integrity? In a word, no. Not only does it establish a more proportionate response to violations, but it also actually reaffirms Princeton’s commitment to academic integrity.

Ideally, the Honor Code would consider intent. Such consideration includes a gradated list of penalties corresponding to severity of violation. Unfortunately, this is unlikely and undesirable for several reasons. Beyond it being impossible for relatively untrained students to adjudicate intent, I am extremely wary of codifying the subjectivity involved in determining intent, given that the committee generally attracts punitive membership.

Therefore, we are left with a system that imposes blanket punishments for Honor Code violations. This leaves two options. First, we could make policy based on worst-case scenarios: students who maliciously, purposefully cheat.

Or, we could make policy that is proportionately punitive to average instances of academic dishonesty. These include students who didn’t

know their actions violated the Code, and students experiencing panic and mental health crises.

As a former member who investigated and adjudicated many cases, I can tell you that these are the average violations. Rarely did I see intentional, malicious cheating.

This in no way excuses violations of the Code. However, it forces the question: why are we making policy that reflects the worst-case scenario? We must find a penalty that reflects the average academic integrity violation.

Further, as it stands, there are many people who would never report an academic integrity violation, because they believe what they saw was too minor to merit a year of ostracism. For this reason, implementing a reasonable penalty will serve to facilitate the efficacy of the Honor Code; knowing that peers will be treated appropriately, students will be willing to report violations, allowing for a truer grasp on academic integrity violations at Princeton and removing the subjectivity of reporting. Put simply, an overly-draconian code is an ineffective one, and must be changed if we are to take academic integrity seriously at Princeton.

Lastly, it is also important to mention that one-year suspensions disparately impact students of different backgrounds. While some students can afford gap-year programs and unpaid internships, such opportunities are cost-prohibitive to low-income students. International students may not be able to obtain a renewed visa. Most students face the social ramifications of estrangement from one’s class year.

The opposition party claims that our referenda are not the product of sufficient campus discourse, implying

The need for Honor Code reform: A former member’s perspective Hassan Ejaz Chaudhry guest contributor

A

cademic integrity is one of the core values of the University community. For many of us, it influenced our decision in choosing Princeton over other schools. Maintaining the highest standard of academic integrity is indeed a cardinal responsibility of all Princeton students.

However, as a former Honor Committee member, I solemnly believe that the current Honor Constitution is not serving its core objective to the best of its capabilities, and therefore requires immediate reform.

We sit in a room, a group of self-selected judges, and we deliberate on people’s futures. We investigate, look at “evidence,” and, in the event we find a student responsible, we punish. However, it just so happens that the punishment we inflict severely affects not only a student’s future academic and professional prospects, but can also have serious effects on their mental health.

At first, I thought being on the Honor Committee served a righteous cause (and to a very large extent, I still think it does), but what the idealistic freshman in me learned after serving

on the Honor Committee is that power is contagious, and it can easily go to people’s heads. There are several structural failures in the Honor Constitution which enable this rampant power, and demand policy reform.

First, the current punishments are too harsh and often do not commensurate with the alleged violation.

If someone unintentionally violates the Honor Code, the Honor Committee will suspend them for a year. The same goes with someone undergoing a mental health crisis. With the low bar of evidence needed for moving to a hearing, the lack of information provided to the student in question, the general inflexibility of Committee members, the lack of reliance on legal precedent, and a lack of an administrative or student check on the committee, we have created a flawed system that does more to empower committee members than to maintain the highest principles of academic integrity.

The standard punishment of a year-long suspension for the first offense and expulsion for the second offence, without extenuating circumstances, are too harsh by any measure. They are, in fact, harsher than those at almost every other school with an honor code. Further, this standard punishment

is rendered regardless of the violation’s magnitude or the student’s intent. Changing it to disciplinary probation would not only pave the way for a more forgiving system, but would also lead to higher rates of reporting.

Currently, students don’t know if they are being called as a witness or being accused when they are initially contacted. As a Committee member, I have had multiple awkward phone calls with students demanding to know whether they are the accused. For those who don’t know how it works, let me make it explicitly clear. Your phone rings from a restricted number. You pick up — there is an Honor Committee investigator (one of the students on the Committee) on the other end. They call you to the Honor Committee office, refusing to disclose your status, even after you ask. You might be the accused. You might not be.

Your heart skips a beat when you leave whatever you were up to and run frantically to the Honor Committee office. Don’t you think this warrants change?

Lastly, under the current Constitution, it is really up to the individual members to decide whether they consider mental health within the extenuating circumstances of the case. Officially, however, the Constitu-

that these suggestions have come from our Committee’s agenda alone. This is a misleading claim. Two years ago (my freshman spring), 95 percent of voters affirmed a referendum urging Honor Code reform. While it didn’t pass due to threshold limitations, the student body has demanded reform. Those discussions continued over the past several years, both informally, as well as through the initiative of Honor Committee members (myself and others who brought our concerns to the Chair, and have discussed with various faculty members). Thus, these referenda are firmly nested within two years of formal and informal discourse.

Furthermore, the Honor Code has undergone consistent change since its creation in 1893. Serving as a contract for academic integrity between students and faculty, we have consistently renegotiated the terms of our contract as is our enumerated right. These referenda are simply another installment in our continual pursuit of high systemic quality.

The opposition party claims that we must forestall this chance for democratic student response to the Code by first allowing a University committee to discuss. They recommend that instead of students voicing their opinions, we sack these referenda in favor of — you guessed it — another University committee! What’s more, this new committee will be co-chaired by the current Honor Committee Chair, the same person who is leading the opposition party. Forgive me if I’m skeptical of this attempt to suppress student voices while concentrating power in the hands of those who run the Honor Committee.

I have no faith in the transformative potentiality of Uni-

versity committees, and nor should you. One example: last year, a University Committee featured administrators, faculty, and students. Chair Liziewski referenced this committee’s report in last Sunday’s USG meeting; however, this report is unavailable to the public. Why weren’t we able to see those recommendations? Is it because publicizing them would show how little was actually recommended, revealing cosmetic reform instead of substantive change? Most optimistically, the report recommended substantive change with no intent to implement.

The opposition has also made vague arguments about the legality of inconsistent penalties between the Honor Committee and the Committee on Discipline. These legal arguments are never explicated – we’re expected to trust the opposition that it’s impossible to change the standard penalty. However, it’s not students’ responsibility to protect the University from legal liability; rather, we must create the most equitable system possible with the referenda power endowed to us. If it must be adjusted, let the administration respond. Let them change the CoD standards; another committee operating on an unfair penalty should not constrict the Honor Constitution; our system is explicitly not subject to administrative constraints, and nor should our considerations be as we attempt to change it.

Students should not live in fear of our Honor System; we should be proud of it. So, next Tuesday, Nov. 12, I hope that you’ll exercise your right and enact Honor Reform.

Micah Herskind is a junior in African American studies from Buffalo, N.Y. He can be reached at micahh@princeton.edu.

i’m snow sad to see you go

tashi treadway ’19 ..................................................

tion fails to consider it within the parameters of extenuating circumstances.

In cases involving mental health issues, this lack of consideration might further worsen the student’s health.

Imagine a student with suicidal tendencies who is still suspended or expelled by the committee. How would such a decision impact that student?

Honor Committee reform is not only necessary but also inevitable in order to make the academic misconduct

proceedings fairer, while also achieving the core goal of maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity. There is a lot more that I want to share but cannot, given the confidential nature of the cases. I would, however, strongly urge you to vote for the referenda!

Hassan Ejaz Chaudhry is a senior in operations research and financial engineering from Lahore, Pakistan. He can be reached at hassanc@princeton.edu.

Monday December 11, 2017

Opinion

page 10

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Institutional abuse by the Honor Committee Anonymous

guest contributor

E

ditor’s note: The author was granted anonymity due to the risk of harm to or retaliation against the author.

My story is one of egregious abuse by the Honor Committee, and it shows what happens when you give a self-selecting jury the unchecked authority to dictate students’ futures.

I took my midterm exam at 7:30 p.m. After finishing my exam, I signed the Honor Code, and wrote “see back” on the margins to orient the grader to the work on the back of one of my exam pages. In the following days, I received a terrifying call that I think this campus is all too familiar with. Of course, I was not informed of my status, but was forced to walk all the way to Nassau St. to the Honor Committee.

This is the first reason I support the proposed reforms.

I was told that a student identified me by name, claiming that I continued to work past the initial time call. As a result, the Honor Committee opened an investigation. The investigators approached the proctor of the exam, who stated that he saw a female student who was using a calculator after he called time. The investigators described the proctor’s process of identifying the student characteristics as “somewhat complicated.”

The proctor noted that this student was “female … that

she was not Caucasian, had dark hair, that she was not one of [his/her] students, and was “fairly sure” she was not Asian. When given a face chart of students in the class, the proctor was asked to identify eight students who could have been the culprit. I was not one of these eight individuals. In a second round of identification, the proctor identified another three students who could have been the culprits.

I again was not one of these.

In spite of the fact that the proctor never identified me, Honor Committee investigators justified their decision to move forward with my investigation. This is the second reason I think the proposed reforms are really important – specifically, the proposal requiring two pieces of evidence that indicate that a student is guilty.

Interestingly, the Committee did use two pieces of evidence, but they were neither corroborating, nor did they indicate guilt. In my case, the two pieces of evidence were: 1) a reporting witness identified me by name but wrongly claimed I was wearing an orange sweater (I don’t own an orange sweater), and 2) the proctor described a female student with dark hair who was neither white nor Asian who was using a calculator and seated in a particular area.

The third reason I support the referendum arises when we consider the little attention the Honor Committee gave to instructor input.

In a conversation with the

proctor after my hearing had taken place, the proctor told me he/she had made it explicitly clear to the Committee that in choosing from the face chart, if a student was not selected, the proctor could 100% rule them out as not being the student he/she saw. With this, the Committee should have been able to confirm I was not the student working overtime. The proctor’s identification was not “complicated” as the Committee described – it simply was not me. Moreover, the Committee withheld crucial information from me, information the professor provided them early in the investigative process. The head professor of the course made it explicit to the Committee that strict time cutoffs were not a common practice in the course. Students are given time to wrap up their exams and quizzes, as even an additional five minutes, in the professor’s opinion, would not be enough time to gain a sufficient advantage given the nature of the exam questions. I was not made aware of this information by the Committee itself. It was not until I sat down and told my professor I had an Honor Committee hearing for a time violation that I found out the professor had already spoken with the Committee about course policy. Upon approaching the Committee’s leadership regarding this withholding of information, the Committee went back through their notes and added this crucial piece of information

to my case’s document. In the end, however, the Honor Committee ruled 6-1 that I would be put on academic probation with censure until graduation. Their reasoning: they decided that in writing “see back,” I attempted to gain an unfair advantage.

The Committee’s logic was deeply flawed. Again, the Committee refused to take into consideration professor testimony. Both professors informed the committee during the hearing that they grade the back of the exams. They mentioned that the back sides of exam pages are intentionally left blank for students who need extra space to write in the back.

The head of the course also clarified that students do not have to write any note to the grader for their work to be graded, although they are certainly allowed. Both professors clarified that even if a grader were to accidentally miss the work on the back side of the exam, the student would be able to request a regrade for full points.

The Committee justified their penalty by claiming that in other classes, writing on the back of pages is not necessarily graded unless there is a note to signal or inform the grader to the work.

How can a reasonable comparison be made to judge what is considered an unfair advantage among different courses? For this reason, we need to pass the third reform as to ensure the Honor Committee cannot exploit differences in course policies. This committee made

a decision that ignored the specific policies and claims of my professors and exams, and instead considered the entire University exam system as a whole. How can it be that my professors will read what is on the back anyway and treat it as an evaluation of my answer, and yet my writing “see back” is an attempt to gain an unfair advantage? There is no way that I could have attempted to gain an unfair advantage when the advantage is nonexistent.

I wrote an appeal, and I was very fortunate that the decision was completely overturned, but this outcome is actually extremely rare. The unchecked power of the Committee means most students are forced to take a year off. I’m sharing my story because I believe that more people should know about the oversight and problematic nature of the Honor Committee’s investigative and hearing processes. No student should have to face what I went through. I initially came into the process feeling confident in my peers and their judgment, thinking that there was no way they would be overwhelmingly convinced that I had done something wrong. Yet, after they deliberated and decided I was guilty, I realized how broken this system is.

As Princetonians, we must ensure that the institutional procedures we are subject to are rigorous and fair. This is absolutely not the current scenario.

Reforming the Honor Constitution: Support from a former Honor Committee member Ling Ritter

guest contributor

A

s a referendum sponsor who served on the Honor Committee for two years, I write with the hope that my fellow Princetonians will exercise their right to amend the Honor Constitution and seize the opportunity to create a fairer system by voting “yes” on the four referenda up for voting between Tuesday, Dec. 12, and Thursday, Dec. 14.

These referenda reflect many frequent student concerns in addition to issues stemming from dynamics that I bore witness to while a member of the Honor Committee.

I encourage you to read the article by my colleague Micah Herskind ’19 about the need to reform the standard penalties (Referendum 1). Below I will explain why we should also vote to pass Referenda 2–4.

The second referendum sponsored by the USG Subcommittee on the Honor Constitution establishes a minimum standard of “at least two separate pieces of evidence, each of which indicates that a violation occurred” necessary for the Honor Committee to put a student through a hearing. The opposition claims that this standard would force the Chair and investigators to make pre-hearing judgments on the strength of the evi-

dence. Firstly, the Chair’s role of overseeing investigations means that he or she sees all the evidence collected in an investigation, even if some of that evidence doesn’t make it into the hearing room. Because of this role, it is impossible for a Chair to enter a hearing unbiased.

Additionally, I can guarantee from experience that the Honor Committee investigators and Chair already form pre-hearing opinions when deciding whether to send a case to hearing. The Honor Committee currently adheres to a norm, though not a requirement, of having two pieces of corroborating evidence before sending a case to hearing. This means that in a case wherein a student is alleged to have used their phone during an exam, the Honor Committee investigators and Chair are already making decisions about whether the second piece of evidence corroborates that alleged violation (such as the testimony of a second witness) or does not (as with IP records, which the Committee holds as inconclusive).

However, this minimum standard of evidence is not presently a Constitutionally guaranteed right of students, meaning that a student could be sent to hearing without two pieces of evidence against them, and that a chair who

wants a student to go to hearing would have the power to overrule two investigators who disagree. This referendum would codify the right all students have to a minimum standard of evidence presented to them before being forced to endure the trauma and strain of undergoing a hearing, which can regularly take six or more hours or even go overnight.

The third referendum necessitates that the Honor Committee find a student not responsible if the professor states that the student’s actions were not in violation of their course policy. Take, for example, a student who is reported for writing overtime in an exam where the professor said, “Alright, the test is over,” to signal the exam’s conclusion. That professor can inform the Committee that they meant to give students time to wrap up their final thought, and the Committee can, despite the testimony of the professor, conclude that the student should have dropped their pencil, and will find that student responsible of an Honor Code violation.

The course instructor sets the rules and expectations for exams. An Honor Code violation is an infringement of the policies a professor has set in place. Because the Honor Code is a pact between students and faculty, a professor can play

an essential role in clarifying what his or her policies were.

It should not be the case that, if a professor testifies before the Committee that a student’s actions were not in violation of their course policy, the Committee still punishes that student regardless.

The fourth referendum requires Honor Committee investigators to inform students whether they are under investigation or are being asked to serve as a witness when they first contact students. Presently, Honor Committee investigators call students from a restricted number and ask them to come to an office on Nassau Street without any information other than that they’d like to speak to them.

The opposition claims that withholding from students information about their status allows the Honor Committee to “control the environment in which a student is informed that they are under investigation.” When a student in question comes to the office, it is not Committee procedure to tell these students they have the right to speak with a CPS official.

Often, confrontations of students in question occur on weekends, when no CPS official is available. Honor Committee members themselves undergo no mental health training. In short, the Honor Committee in reality does not

Keep yourself informed on the go!

Follow us on Twitter:

@Princetonian

control the environment in which a student is informed that they are under investigation.

Given that there can be dozens of student witnesses called for a single investigation, the Honor Committee policy of not telling students for what reason they are being called is the greatest unnecessary source of stress and fear among students when it comes to Honor Committee matters. I have interviewed witnesses and students in question alike who come to the office distraught or in tears. Not informing students of their status immediately is a policy the Committee has chosen to adopt to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of students.

It’s not easy to admit that, as Honor Committee members bound by the rules of the Honor Constitution, we participate in a system that inflicts needless pain on others.

But through these referenda, we as students have the opportunity to change that and to re-emphasize Princeton’s value of integrity while creating a fairer system for all.

It is out of compassion and a commitment to justice that I strongly encourage students to vote “yes” on all four referenda this week.

Sincerely, Ling Ritter ’19

Monday December 11, 2017

Opinion

page 11

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

USG Senator Morales Nuñez: Time to reform the Honor System Soraya Morales Nuñez guest contributor

I

joined the Undergraduate Student Government as a class senator because I saw a gap in student representation on the Senate.

As a first-generation, low-income woman of color, I was not familiar with anyone on the USG Senate who also identified with all three of these backgrounds. I viewed this as an opportunity to bring to the table the visions people of these communities on campus have for Princeton’s present and future.

Representation matters because identity matters. Having someone in a position of leadership who looks like you and shares a story similar to yours is empowering. It demonstrates to you that there is an effort being made to critically analyze the institutions in which you operate and the systems by which you function within these institutions in order to create an environment where you feel welcome, safe, and equal.

This is why, as a class senator, I fully endorse the four referenda on this winter’s USG elections ballot. These are referenda that, if voted for by three-fourths of all students who vote, would immediately

Liam O’Connor columnist

U

ndergraduate Student Government elections began with a bang last week when presidential candidate Ryan Ozminkowski ‘18 bought the online domains to his rivals’ campaign websites. Throughout the events and controversies that have ensued, public interest in USG elections has skyrocketed to a new high. One can hear conversations about the candidates and referenda across campus, everywhere from Whig-Clio senate debates to late night common room chats.

Despite this year’s theatrical elections, I don’t think the unfavorable popular perception of USG will change. It’s still denigrated as the “government club” and viewed as nothing more than a social group that organizes Lawnparties.

This image results from the insularity and poor communication of USG’s members.

In order for USG to become a relevant governing body to students, its elected officials must become independent leaders and take stands on controversial issues.

It’s a common belief among students that no one knows what USG as an organization does besides throw Lawnparties. But that’s nonsense. We all see what USG does. We receive the same weekly e-mails from the president and read

reform the University’s Honor Constitution. I am endorsing these referenda because I have a commitment to the student body, and this commitment is not limited to the Class of 2018. My obligation also lies in representing other communities on our campus as well.

From the Latinx to the FLI (first-gen, low-income) communities, I hold a responsibility to consciously — and to the best of my ability — consider the needs and concerns of my peers in all decisions I make as a voting member of the USG Senate.

Many members of the Latinx and FLI communities at Princeton have expressed deep concerns about the current structure of our Honor System.

These concerns range from the lack of racial diversity of those who sit on the Committee, to what students believe is an excessive punishment for firsttime Honor Code violations.

Moreover, during and even before my time serving on the USG Senate, I listened to numerous testimonies from my peers about their experiences with the Honor Committee, the body of students that enforces the Honor Constitution.

Latinx and FLI students I’ve spoken with who have been called before the Committee discussed the extensive anxi-

ety induced by the Committee’s initial phone call, during which the students were not told whether they were being called as witnesses or as alleged violators before the Committee. Others who have testified before this Committee told me about experiencing severe intimidation as well as unnecessary mental and emotional distress at the hands of peers that walk the same halls as us, sit next to us in class, and eat in the same dining spaces as us. One particular student who testified before the Committee discussed with me how she noticed Committee members would roll their eyes and explicitly make facial expressions when they thought she was not looking as she spoke during the fourhour-long hearing.

I’ve discussed the prevalence of this type of Committee culture not just with Latinx and FLI students who have been called before the Committee as alleged violators, but also with former Committee members themselves. One former member said that the persistent condescending and belittling behavior she observed from other Committee members towards the accused in various cases — and the senior committee members’ failure to reprimand such behavior —

did not at all align with how she envisioned the role of the Honor Committee in its promotion of academic integrity at Princeton.

This is unacceptable. As a student-run group, the Honor Committee is accountable not only to the Honor Constitution, but also to the student body which, under Article VI, Section A, Subsection 2 of the Constitution, “has the right to amend that same constitution through a referendum vote.” From my conversations with students in these subcommunities of the larger Princeton community, these referenda are a way to not only reform an Honor System that is not reflective of their values as Princetonians, but also as a way to mitigate what they view as a significant potential for abuse of power from the Honor Committee itself.

The Honor System needs reform. Our Honor Constitution is supposed to be a living document that reflects the values of the diverse composition of our student body, and the Honor Committee is supposed to be a group of peers “who we trust will use their power to maturely enforce this Constitution.” As a class senator, what I have learned is that myriad students I am responsible for representing

do not feel that the Constitution as it stands now accurately reflects their values and their vision for the Princeton student experience. Furthermore, they do not believe that the Constitution as it stands now promotes healthy behavior from Committee members when enforcing it.

I believe in integrity. I believe that the standards to which we hold ourselves in all aspects of our lives should encourage us to strive for good character, morale, and sincerity. I also believe these standards must reflect the values of the communities in which they are exercised, and the bodies that enforce them must operate in a way that keeps their authority in check. As a 2018 class senator — and more importantly, as a Princetonian — I endorse the four Honor Code referenda on the ballot because my constituents have spoken. It is time for a progressive Honor System that proactively encourages academic integrity among the Princeton student body and treats our peers fairly and humanely.

Soraya Morales Nuñez is a senior in politics from Grand Junction, Colo. She can be reached at sorayan@princeton.edu. She is also a 2018 class senator.

Why USG fails (and how to fix it) summaries of Senate meetings in the “Prince.” What we don’t know is what the people in USG actually do as individuals.

I’m plugged into the campus community. I read all of the major publications and attend public forums. But I don’t have the slightest clue as to what my class senators have done since being elected. I know more about what my state’s senators do — who serve 1 million people — than my class senators — who serve only 1,300 students.

This happens because we see the same thing each election cycle. Candidates all campaign for office, are elected, go to Frist, and then are never heard again until the next election. Once in office, our leaders hide behind the nebulous name of “USG.” The USG media specifies what the USG organization is doing, yet rarely specifies who in USG is doing it.

This isn’t how government works in the outside world.

When candidates are elected to office, they maintain high public profiles. They inform their citizens about their work by making speeches at public events, offering constituent services, holding town hall meetings, tweeting about bills, creating newsletters, and bringing pork back to their districts. Through these efforts, citizens stay informed about their leaders’ actions and can hold individuals ac-

countable for them. Politicians who don’t engage with their constituents aren’t reelected.

At Princeton, we can hold USG as an organization accountable for its actions, but it would be difficult to do that for individual officials because we don’t even know if they’ve fulfilled their campaign promises. In the past, USG presidents have held office hours in Frist. While these efforts are commendable for allowing easy access to a key leader, they can be improved.

Princeton students are busy.

Few can attend a singular meeting with a narrow timeslot on the weekend.

Politicians should be going to their constituents to hear their concerns, not vice versa. Instead, all USG officials — from the president to UCouncilors — should be holding office hours at least on a biweekly basis at locations all around campus, from residential colleges to academic buildings. Such meetings should be highly publicized so that people know when and where they occur.

USG officials could further inform students by creating their own media on which they communicate their activities. With the exception of extraneous quotes in “Prince” reports, students are largely unaware of where their representatives stand on major campus issues. A public Facebook page for each official

would go a long way in helping students identify what their representatives are doing and whether they actually represent the students’ will.

The lack of knowledge of and inability to differentiate between elected officials stems back to their campaigns. Elections are where USG officials first create their public image and establish their platforms.

Fellow columnists Ryan Born and Jan Domingo Alsina have argued that there is nothing political about USG, hence candidates’ platforms should be apolitical. They view USG as a glorified social event organizer, so the candidates should have platforms that merely say, “‘I will get you free gear,’ and nothing else.”

I completely disagree. USG handles loads of political topics. We just don’t talk about them. As Ozminkowski writes on his website, “In USG elections, people don’t touch controversial issues.” USG does or can have a role in a wide range of political topics including: disarming bathroom locks, implementing sexual harassment punishments, evaluating minority affinity housing, providing menstrual products, supporting private prison divestment, demanding sanctuary campus status again, and much more. There are students on all sides of the argument for each one. But none of these issues arise in any of the USG elections. Instead, we spent

Oop s, sorly, Dos theeS butherr u?

Join the ‘Prince’ copy department.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

an hour watching three candidates agree with each other on nearly everything in last week’s presidential debate.

Elections need disagreement on hot-button issues to differentiate candidates and engage voters. Currently, students don’t have any “skin in the game.” No one stands to win or lose on these issues based on who’s elected to office. It creates a never-ending cycle. Because all of the candidates have similar platforms every year, students think that the same initiatives will be executed regardless of whether they vote or not and for whom they vote. As a result, voter turnout is low. This allows USG candidates to campaign little in the future and not take controversial stands because they can get elected simply by the number of friends voting for them instead of by the student body at-large.

USG can only improve its public image by improving its elected officials. Candidates need to run campaigns that encompass controversial issues. Once in office, they must stay involved with the student body by going to their constituents to hear their concerns and providing individualized media that explains their actions in USG. As students, we should demand more from our elected officials.

Liam O’Connor is a sophomore from Wyoming, Del. He can be reached at lpo@princeton.edu.

Sports

Monday December 11, 2017

page 12

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

Women’s basketball stuns Bobcats on the road, wins third straight

By Chris Murphy associate sports editor

Heading into this game against the Tigers, the Quinnipiac Bobcats had only lost three times in their last 46 home games. However, the women’s basketball team did not let the crowd at TD Bank Sports Center faze them, and handed the Bobcats only their fourth home loss in the last four years.

Princeton gutted out an impressive 60–46 win on Saturday afternoon to win their third straight. With both teams sporting five wins heading into the game, if figured to be a tightly contested matchup between teams looking to continue to bolster their nonconference schedule. The Tigers knew they would have to combat not just the raucous Bobcat faithful, but also a Quinnipiac offense that was averaging 65.0 PPG. Quinnipiac prepared for this matchup with games against quality Top 25 opponents, including Missouri and Ohio State. Princeton knew that this matchup was going to be tougher than it seemed on paper.

The game was inconclusive heading all the way into the final quarter. Neither team was able to gain a sig-

nificant advantage and momentum swung back and forth throughout the game.

The key turning point came with about seven minutes to go in the fourth quarter; a three pointer by freshman Carlie Littlefield put the Tigers up 46-44, then the defense took over the game. Senior Leslie Robinson would extend the lead to four with her mid-range jumper before senior guard Kenya Holland nailed a dagger three to extend the lead to 51-44 with 2:29 left. The defense was relentless throughout the quarter, refusing to allow a single bucket and forcing Quinnipiac to foul the Tigers after rebounds, allowing Princeton to open the lead from 7 to 15.

Senior Kenya Holland put the game on ice with this deep 3 to put Princeton up by 7.

Once again, sophomore Bella Alarie had a double double for the Tigers, with 16 points and 11 rebounds. Only two times this season has Alarie not registered a double double as she is making a strong case early in the season for team MVP; not even halfway through her sophomore year, she already has over 500 career points. Also stuffing the stat sheet this game was Robinson, who made seven field goals in an evening of

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The Tigers clawed out an impressive performance this past Saturday to defeat Quinnipiac 60-46.

16 points, 11 rebounds, and 2 steals. But the clear star of this game was the overall team effort; Princeton registered a career high 18 points off the bench and held the explosive Quinnipiac offense to their lowest point total and their second lowest shooting percentage of the year. The Tigers silenced the home crowd and

Weekend review

Men’s Squash: W 7-2 Saturday vs. No. 7 Drexel No. 8 Princeton put together an emotional, exciting performance in the 7-2 rout of Drexel this Saturday. The Tigers won over the No. 7 team in the nation, the highest ranked opponent they’ve beaten in the past five years. After the first shift, the Tigers were already up 3-1 thanks in part to a thrilling 3-0 win by sophomore Adhitya Raghavan who rallied from down 7-1 in the final game of his set. Princeton’s No. 1 player – freshman Youssef Ibrahim – remained unbeaten in his Princeton career with a controlling 3-0 victory against his opponent. The win puts the Tigers at 4-1 on the season as they head into a month long break. They will next play after winter break at home against the UVA Cavaliers.

Men’s Swimming and Diving: W 172-128 Saturday vs. Columbia Princeton improved to 5-0 in Ivy League competition with a 172-128 victory over the Columbia Lions at DeNunzio Pool. The Tigers started the afternoon celebrating senior day and finished celebrating the accomplishments of head coach Rob Orr, who moved into third all-time on the NCAA wins list with his 321st victory. Princeton started the day strong with freshmen Arthur Markley and Levy Nathan finishing first and second in the 1000m individual event. Senior Alex Lewis, swimming in his final regular season home meet, finished first in the 100m backstroke with a time of 49.32. The highlight of the meet was an exciting 1-2 finish by senior captains Ben Schafer and Zach Buerger in the 100m fly, where Schafer took the win by less than 0.5 seconds. Princeton is off until after winter break, when they will take on the Naval Academy at home.

Wrestling: L 12-26 vs. No. 10 Virginia Tech at Madison Square Garden Princeton took on another ranked opponent this weekend, facing the No. 10 Hokies in the Grapple at the Garden event at Madison Square Garden. Despite strong performances from freshmen Patrick Brucki and Jonathan Gomez, junior Mike D’Angelo, and senior Matthew Kolodzik, the Tigers fell 12-26 against this top ranked team. On Friday, they will head to Delaware to take on No. 1 Ohio State.

Men’s Hockey vs. Arizona State: split series 1-1 The men’s hockey team opened their series in Arizona with an emphatic 4-0 shutout of the Sun Devils.

However, their second match up would prove to be much tighter. Despite holding a late 3-2 lead off two back-to-back goals from junior Ryan Kuffner, Arizona State managed to force overtime and claw out the win. Senior David Hallisey managed to score in the first game of the series, extending his goalscoring streak to six games.

Women’s Hockey vs. Quinnipiac: split series 1-1 The women’s hockey team opened their series against Quinnipiac at home. While both teams failed to find the net in the first two periods, the Princeton team quickly took control in the third, putting themselves on the scoreboard off a goal from junior Keiko DeClerck. This would be the start of a threegoal run that saw the Tigers ice the game late. However, the momentum would shift as the Tigers traveled to Connecticut to complete the series. The Bobcats took an early lead in the first period and would score in each of the following periods to win 3-1, splitting the series at one apiece.

came away with a win in one of the toughest environments in the nation to play in.

Now at 6-2, the Tigers find themselves tied for second in the Ivy League behind the red hot Brown Bears, who won their seventh straight to improve to 9-1. Princeton’s defense currently sits at second best in the league, allowing

Performances of the week Alex Riche Junior forward Alex Riche recorded one goal and two assists in the Tiger’s 4-0 win over Quinnipiac. He would add another goal in the second match of the series.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Rob Orr With the Tigers since the start of the 1979 season, head coach Rob Orr moved into 3rd place on the all time NCAA wins list after picking up his 321st career win with the Tigers, passing USC legend Peter Daland. Orr remained with the team after the cancellation of the 2016 season, and was able to celebrate this accomplishment with his team on senior day. Orr has been one of the longest tenured Princeton athletics staffers and continues to climb in the history books as one of the most successful coaches in men’s swimming history.

Tweet of the Day “Recap: Robinson, Alarie, and Team Defense lead Princeton over Quinnipiac, 60-46. ” Princeton WBB(@ PrincetonWBB), Women’s Basketball

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Ellie Randolph Junior Ellie Randolph scored in two events for the Tigers at the New Year’s Invitational on Saturday. Despite scratching on her last three attempts, Randolph took first place in the long jump with a 5.69m jump and third in the 60m hurdles.

Men’s Track at New Year’s Invitational This weekend, the men’s Princeton track and field team hosted the New Year’s Invitational at Jadwin Gym. Monmouth, Penn, Rider and The College of New Jersey all traveled from their locations nearby to compete against the Tigers. With six first place finishes and three second, the men’s team showed showed they’re prepared for a very strong season to come.

Women’s Track at New Year’s Invitational The women’s track and field team also partook in the New Year’s Invitational at Jadwin Gym on Saturday. Except for senior runner Melissa Reed, most of the distance crew had the meet off while the speed and field athletes competed. The Tigers had first place finishes in the 300m, 400m, long jump, and triple jump.

only 59.3 points per game. The Tigers will look to improve to 8-2 by the start of winter break with two games this week. Up next is a trip to battle in-state rival Rutgers. The Tigers dominated the Scarlet Knights at home last season, holding them to only 34 points in a 30 point blowout victory.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Stat of the Day

4th loss Princeton handed the Quinnipiac Bobcats their fourth loss in the last 46 home games.

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