December 12, 2017

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Tuesday December 12, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 117

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } ON CAMPUS

COURTESY OF MATT MILLER

COURTESY OF RACHEL YEE

COURTESY OF RYAN OZMINKOWSKI

Election special: USG presidential candidate profiles

By Audrey Spensley and Regina Lankenau senior writer and contributor

Elections for Undergraduate Student Government begin today, and all three USG presidential candidates encourage University students to vote.

Matt Miller ‘19 As a first-year student, Matt Miller ‘19 did not envision himself running for USG President.

“I got involved in USG on a whim a little over a year ago when I saw that there was an open spot for social media,” explained Miller. “I had a lot of experience in that area, and I had some extra time, so I thought, ‘Why not do something for the Princeton community?’”

Miller, a former lightweight rower, says that he became more and more involved in USG as he realized that important student perspectives — for example, those of student-athletes —

were missing from the organization.

“In a communications role, I got to see everything from the inside,” added Miller, “and I wanted a position where I could do more.”

According to Miller’s website, his solutions for bridging the student-athlete and non-athlete divide includes summer study abroad financial aid for athletes, shifting event timing to avoid conf licts with 4:30 p.m. practice times, increased late meal times, and healthier late meal options.

For Miller, the presidency would allow him to do more than he currently can because it would enable him to work from a position of increased visibility.

“What the USG presidency really does is to give the president a microphone, a platform to be a voice for the student body,” Miller said.

In an interview with the ‘Prince,’ Miller acknowledged that long-term reforms, such as changes to

ON CAMPUS

Princeton Counseling and Psychological Services, would be difficult. His biggest tangible priority is improvement to Lawnparties headliners, and his cultural goal is to be a voice for students.

Miller spent a good portion of the USG debate discussing his plan for Lawnparties.

“What the USG presidency needs is someone who can talk to the administration, fight for student perspectives and, if necessary, go public,” Miller noted.

“I want to make myself public and available to the administration,” Miller said.

Interviewed at the end of a long week of campaigning, Miller seemed enthusiastic about the process.

“I love meeting new people, going door-to-door,” he said. “It’s great to hear support from so many segments of my life and the Princeton community.”

Ryan Ozminkowski ‘19 When asked to summarize his campaign in a single phrase, Ryan Ozminkowski ‘19 emphasized “ideals over ideas.”

“Everyone proposes things that are basically all good.

No one’s going to say, ‘I want worse mental health reform,’ or ‘worse athlete/non-athlete relationships,’” he said.

“These have been the same ideas for 20 plus years on the platforms, no one disagrees with them, so you have to vote for the ideal. My ideals are just fun, they’re love, culture, community.”

“The focus is to just, in a very genuine way, make people care and just share my love of the school with other people,” he added.

Ozminkowski, a varsity track athlete, has started three organizations on campus: Princeton Tonight, the Princeton Tonight Festival, and an entrepreneurial club.

His time at the University has been shaped by his desire to create or fix things that

ON CAMPUS

are not working, he said.

“I’ve worked with USG so closely to start these groups (that’s the Student Group Recognition committee), to get funding through [the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students], [and] to get about $100,000 through them to make these clubs work, through projects and conference funding,” Ozminkowski added. “I’m very close with everyone in the Dean’s office from pulling off these giant events.”

Rather than take sole advantage of school-sponsored funding opportunities, Ozminkowski hopes to share his knowledge of these resources with the student body.

“Let’s tell people about these things,” Ozminkowski said. “It shouldn’t be something that’s elite and only if you know the ‘inside scoop.’”

Ozminkowski’s campaign has drawn controversy over the past two weeks for what he terms “Domain-gate” — See CANDIDATES page 2

U . A F FA I R S

Likely finance violations U. students may dog USG campaigns consider head news editor

JACOB GERRISH :: CONTRIBUTOR

Matt Miller ‘19 and Ryan Ozminkowski ‘19 discussed campaign policies during a debate at Late Meal on Tuesday night.

Late meal debate held between USG candidates

By Jacob Gerrish contributor

Ryan Ozminkowski ’19 invited his opponents in the Undergraduate Student Government presidential race, Rachel Yee ’19 and Matt Miller ’19, to an impromptu “Late Meal Debate” via a Facebook video posted on Thursday, Dec. 7. While Miller accepted the invitation, Yee declined to attend.

“I will not be attending on principle since USG is not sponsoring this,” Yee wrote in an email.

The Miller campaign, however, appealed to Yee

In Opinion

to make an appearance.

“As Ryan has made it clear he will use late-meal as a platform either way, we would like to make this as productive and informative as possible to all candidates, and believe the only useful discussion will occur if all candidates are present,” explained Shea Minter ’19, the moderator chosen by the Miller campaign, in an email sent to various members of the campaigns and the ‘Prince.’

During the debate, Miller differentiated himself from Yee and OzminkowsSee DEBATE page 3

Both campus and alumnus communities weigh in on the Honor Code referenda, columnist Thomas Clark defends the baker who would not make a cake for a same-sex couple, graduate students condemn the diversity of the Wilson School, and the Editorial Board weighs in on the upcoming USG election. PAGE 4

In a campaign season that has seen its share of outside inf luence, including an endorsement from La La Land director and Princeton native Damien Chazelle, the campaign of Ryan Ozminkowski ’19 for Undergraduate Student Government president denied any violations of the Elections Handbook after a ‘Prince’ report on Dec. 7 about campaign domain buyouts and the recently established “Super PAQ” Liberty Meets All Opportunity (LMAO).

The ‘Prince’ requested campaign expenditure reports from each of the candidates, as well as proof of purchase in the form of photos or screenshots of receipts. Each of the candidates and the LMAO Super PAQ sent detailed responses regarding their spending, as well as that of third party candidates. According to USG Election Handbook rules, campaign expenditures from candidates and third parties are limited to a total of $50, and only half may be spent on printing costs.

In an email, USG presidential candidate Rachel Yee ’19 sent a spreadsheet of her campaign expenditures which showed a total of $33.86 for print-

ing and “Candy Wonka Party Favs.” She wrote in the email that she will also be spending $5-8 on a Snapchat filter, while using the rest of her allowed money on Facebook ads.

USG presidential candidate Matt Miller ’19 also reported his expenditures to the ‘Prince,’ emailing a spreadsheet and attaching screenshot proof of his purchases. His expenditure report detailed a total of $36.90 that included both printing and the costs of his domain and website purchases.

Miller added that he will spend the rest of his allotted money on printing.

“I’ve been militant about following the current rules as written,” Miller wrote. “Also, per [Section] 8.4 of the elections handbook I have had no third party spending on behalf of my campaign, which I also would need to report.”

Ozminkowski forwarded a ‘Prince’ request for campaign expenditures to Halem, his campaign manager. In a statement emailed to the ‘Prince,’ Ozminkowski’s campaign manager Zach Halem ’18 wrote that “the Ozminkowski campaign can unconditionally confirm that it has not violated the expenditure limit.”

Halem added that the he See FINANCE page 3

Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: Renowned scholar Burl Kylen will present a lecture in three parts entitled, “The Last Lecture before Kingdom Come: A Brief Genealogy of Sunset Studies.” Frist Campus Center, Room 302.

Honor Code referenda

By Ivy Truoung contributor

Four binding referenda on the ballot this week aim to fundamentally reform the University’s 124-year-old Honor Code.

The referenda include a reduction to the standard Honor Code violation penalty from a one-year suspension to disciplinary probation, a requirement that two pieces of evidence are presented to bring a case to a hearing, an assurance that cases will be dismissed if professors testify that a student’s action did not violate the course policy, and a new policy that Honor Committee investigators must disclose a student’s status as either witness or accused at first contact.

Chair of the Undergraduate Student Government Academics Committee Patrick Flanigan ’18 spearheaded a subcommittee this fall that submitted the referenda to the elections manager after weeks of deliberation. Flanigan cited the experiences of members of his subcommittee, which includes USG members as well as both former and current Honor Committee members, in shaping the contents of the referenda.

A task force charged by See REFERENDA page 2

WEATHER

By Marcia Brown

HIGH

45˚

LOW

19˚

Scattered Showers chance of rain:

40 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Tuesday December 12, 2017

ON CAMPUS

ENV seniors spearhead Princeton Environmental Ideathon

By Ariel Chen senior writer

Certificate students from the University’s Environmental Studies program are bringing a new competition to campus in the form of a novel environmental summit. From April 13-15, 2018, ENV certificate students will be hosting an Environmental Ideathon for 300 graduate and undergraduate students pursuing environmental studies across the East Coast. Competing students will be invited to spend a weekend at Princeton collaborating and innovating on “Cities of the Future.”

“It made sense for us to start with cities, which leave a big trace on their surroundings because of the concentration of people, cars, etc.,” ENV se-

nior and project leader Julie Pourtois ’18 explained of the group’s choice in theme.

The impetus for the summit came out of an ENV colloquium led by Geosciences postdoctoral student Paul Gauthier, according to Pourtois. Though Gauthier helped get the idea started, leadership for the Ideathon consists mostly of seniors in the ENV certificate program, along with certificate juniors and other interested members of the University community.

“Ultimately,” said Pourtois, “this should be completely student-organized.”

The Ideathon will challenge participants by placing them in groups with peers they haven’t met before. These groups will be asked to respond to a variety of prompts throughout

the weekend. According to Pourtois, leaders have not yet decided whether prompts will be given beforehand. However, the project should not be one participants have been working on for years.

Though most competitions of this type do not mix students of differing educational levels, Pourtois explained that inviting both undergraduate and graduate students to the Ideathon “opens the Ideathon up to more people, especially considering [the fact that] not every college will have an environmental section for undergrads.”

Pourtois added that interesting opportunities for mentoring could arise from the Ideathon. Not only will there be mixing of educational levels, but also of educational backgrounds. “We will par-

ticularly encourage people from different backgrounds to work together, including architecture, engineering, the sciences, and the humanities,” Pourtois explained.

Students from colleges and universities across the East Coast will be targeted for participation. Monetary prizes will be awarded based on the feasibility, intellectual merit, and broader impact of contestants’ projects.

Logistics director Christopher Shin ’18 explained that the Ideathon has the potential to be “another big step towards mainstreaming environmental issues on college campuses. Thinkers and doers across all disciplines need to come together for these complex issues; the Ideathon is going to make that happen.”

Sponsorship director Don Martocello ’18 agreed with Shin.

“From a young age, I’ve known that one of my duties and responsibilities to future generations was to protect and preserve the environment in perpetuity,” said Martocello.

“Through my time at Princeton, I’ve learned that this can take many forms and it is truly awesome to realize just how central the environment is for humanity.”

Martocello also explained that the Ideathon is a chance to show the world that the University is a great place to study the environment and its impact on all aspects of life.

School outreach coordinator Mikaela Bankston ‘18 did not respond to requests for comment.

Referenda are based on conclusions of USG subcommittee REFERENDA Continued from page 1

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

the University will also review the Honor System in the spring semester with the input of faculty, students, and administrators. Flanigan will participate in the task force.

Flanigan argued that the first referendum would help to provide protections for low-income students who would not be able to afford to take a year of school off if convicted of an Honor Code violation.

“As a student on full financial aid myself, I could not afford to take a gap year in Europe. I’d have to work to support myself,” explained Flanigan. “The realities are different.”

Flanigan also explained that the subcommittee found the penalty to be too excessive for a first offense that may not be premeditated.

Disciplinary probation, according to Flanigan, is a harsh enough penalty in and of itself.

“This is not the kind of penalty that we felt—and we’re asking the students if they agree—that this kind of offense merits,” Flanigan said.

Flanigan also explained that the subcommittee found the traditional Honor Code penalty of a one-year suspension to be too excessive for

a first offense that may not be premeditated. Disciplinary probation, according to Flanigan, is a harsh enough penalty in and of itself.

Chair of the Honor Committee Carolyn Liziewski ’18 argued that such a referendum would be a lower penalty across the board, more similar to “standard leniency” rather than “standard penalty.”

“The student who writes 45 seconds overtime will be penalized the same exact way that the student who uses Google will be penalized,” said Liziewski, referring to a 2013 referendum that gave overtime cases a standard penalty of disciplinary probation.

The second referendum has also drawn intense opposition from opponents to the reform. According to Flanigan, the referendum is meant to prevent the possibility of only one piece of evidence being the deciding factor in bringing a case to a hearing.

“For me, this would prevent a case from going to hearing where there was one anonymous piece of testimony against a student, no matter how certain they were,” Flanigan said.

Liziewski specifically noted that opposition to this referendum is based more on its language than its content.

The referendum reads that two pieces of evidence are

needed to bring a case to a hearing, “each of which indicates that a violation occurred.” The wording, Liziewski argued, suggests that the evidence would be, in effect, doing the work of a hearing — finding that a violation of the Honor Code has been committed.

“The fear is that this does open the door for an appeal because a student can say, ‘Of course, the Chair voted to find me responsible. A week before she ever voted, she told me she thought I was responsible,’” Liziewski said.

The third referendum allows a professor’s testimony to dismiss a case against a student if a professor claims that the student’s actions did not violate the course policy.

The referendum was made to account for variations in different professors’ course policies.

Diego Negrón-Reichard ’18 noted that while tabling at Frist Campus Center in support of the Honor Code referenda, he spoke with a professor who expressed support for the referenda. That professor had twice before attempted to intervene on behalf of a student under Honor Committee investigation, but was ultimately unable to inf luence the Committee’s ruling in both cases.

“For these cases, we believe that the Committee is not giving enough weight

to these professors’ testimonies,” Flanigan said.

Liziewski emphasized that the Honor Committee is mostly focused on whether or not the students receive unfair advantage during an examination.

“In our minds, we’re thinking, ‘Well, did the student get to do something that everyone else in the classroom didn’t get to do?’ That’s what the Honor Code is all about, which is leveling the playing field,” Liziewski said.

The fourth referendum forces the Honor Committee to notify a student of their status as either a witness or accused person upon initial contact. Currently, the Honor Committee does not notify a student of their status until their meeting, which, according to research done by Flanigan’s subcommittee, places a mental burden on students who are asked to come in. “[From] being called up there — that experience in and of it itself — Committee members said they would frequently have people [who were just witnesses] in tears or on the verge of tears,” Flanigan said.

Liziewski noted that the Honor Committee previously did not notify students of their status until after their initial questioning. She also argued that, though arguments on both sides of the referendum are valid, the

impact of being notified of a person’s status could outweigh the anxiety of waiting.

During a USG meeting on Dec. 3, Liziewski repeatedly emphasized the need for faculty engagement in the discussion of changes to the Honor Code, which she believes has not occurred with this referenda. The opposition has also argued that a longer timeframe is necessary to discuss potential changes to the Honor Code.

“I think because the Code is conceived as a contract between the students and the faculty, it really is necessary for us to engage the faculty in these discussions,” Liziewski said.

Negrón-Reichard explained that individual members of the subcommittee have had conversations about the Honor System with faculty. Flanigan also noted that faculty members are more than welcome to recommend proposals, but emphasized that students have the right to govern their own constitution.

“There have been months of discussion. We’re just putting this reform up to the vote of the student body,” Negrón-Reichard said.

The referenda, which will be voted on from Tuesday to Thursday of this week, will need three-fourths of the vote to pass. Each referendum can be voted on independently from one another.

Miller, Yee emphasize mental health reform in platforms CANDIDATES Continued from page 1

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

his campaign’s purchasing of domain names which referenced the other candidates but redirected to a blank page — and for potential links between his campaign and

Princeton Tonight.

“We’re 20 years old, you know, let’s just enjoy our time. That I can introduce that [idea], I feel like, is an obligation, because if I didn’t, no one would,” Ozminkowski said.

Describing himself as a producer who, rather than write or direct, brings together people to complete a proj-

ect, Ozminkowski explained, “In the movie of Princeton, bringing together the best people that represent different groups, that represent the different ideals, and being able to turn it into a functioning ‘movie’ of the school is a good thing.”

Rachel Yee ’19

Rachel Yee ‘19 states that her campaign motto — “See a need, fill a need” — is inspired by a line in the movie Robots.

She watched the movie in the seventh grade, but continues to remember those words.

“I have [the saying] in big, bold letters in my room,” she said. “It’s a reminder that whatever I’m doing, I need to see what needs have to be filled around me, and step up to do that without being asked.”

For Yee, the campaign process has been both rewarding and frustrating.

“Going door-to-door has given me so much more inspiration,” Yee said. “Without even knowing me, [students] have given me advice and encouragement. It truly reminds me why I have been running on the first place.”

“It’s been a very aggressive campaign cycle,” she said.

Yee agrees with Ozminkowski’s sentiment “that USG is not seen as a fun club and that’s something we need to change

perception-wise,” but she emphasizes working to “differentiate between wants and needs.”

For Yee, participating in USG is also a way to practice empathy.

“In order to be a good representative, you have to go and talk to people and see what their concerns are,” she said. “I think for me it’s also a really good exercise in getting out of your own perspective, a good exercise in being less self-centered, because you have to be focused on others.”

Yee stated that, if nothing else, she wants her administration to achieve reform for Counseling and Psychological Services.

“That is one tangible thing, and yes, it might not be one hundred percent successful, and that’s why you have to try it,” Yee said.

“I don’t think that in the near future Princeton will ever get any easier, but what we can do is provide resources,” Yee added.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 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.

Tuesday December 12, 2017

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

Miller: The real difference is what we bring to the table DEBATE

Continued from page 1

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

ki by affirming his “tangible” experience in communications for the Senate.

He also talked about how his background as a gay former athlete distinguished him from the “narrow scope of [USG] social circles.”

“The real difference, though, is what we bring to the table,” Miller said.

On the other hand, Ozminkowski emphasized his being a “total outsider” and highlighted the distinction between qualification for office and USG experience. Ozminkowski additionally underlined the purpose of his campaign in an appeal to seniors.

“If you vote for me, you’re changing the game,” said Ozminkowski.

“You’re inspiring the underclassmen to know that USG isn’t an insular group; it’s something that can get people excited, that can get people happy and engaged with the school community as a whole.”

Ozminkowski, confidently interacting with the surrounding tables of his supporters, called his campaign “fun.”

The tables responded very positively to the moderator’s questions directed toward the absent Yee, noting that they hope Yee will respond digitally.

Miller and Ozminkowski also answered an audience member’s question about Yee’s absence.

“It was held in a very professional way in a very open setting and I do not think this has been in any way biased,” said Ozminkowski. “We worked together to ensure that could happen. I think

it is very hypocritical of an individual to keep talking about how much more you’re going to engage the community and when there is a debate that can do nothing but engage them to their fullest ... to not even show up.”

In comments during the debate, Miller again reasserted his platform of re-allocating funding to Lawnparties and looking for rising musical stars.

Ozminkowski coined the slogan “Make Lawnparties Great Again” in reference to Miller’s Lawnparties policy.

Both candidates backed the Honor Committee referenda, although Miller stressed the necessity of making referenda more accessible. Miller and Ozminkowski also underscored inclusion of various student communities on campus, such as student-athletes. For

example, Ozminkowski noted that the time of the USG presidential debate in Whig Hall inhibited many athletes from attending.

Notably, many athletes, including those in track and field, were in attendance at this debate.

The Miller and Ozminkowski campaigns finalized the debate in last-minute negotiations.

The Miller campaign rejected the Ozminkowski campaign’s suggestions of having “get to know your candidates” questions and two questions of undisclosed content for each moderator.

“It’s not productive, and with door-to-door campaigning, personal websites, and social media, there are plenty of opportunities for that kind of publicity: a formal and legitimate debate is not one of them,” Minter explained of the campaign’s

decision in an email to campaign staffers and the ‘Prince.’

In the same email chain, however, the Ozminkowski campaign maintained the necessity of not disclosing certain questions to the opposing candidate’s chosen moderator.

“We believe it is very unlikely that repetition would occur and believe that there is a level of ‘offthe-cuff ’ that should be involved in this debate, and would encourage you not to confuse such with ‘gotcha’ questions,” Zach Halem ’18, campaign manager for the Ozminkowski campaign, wrote in an email to campaign staffers and the ‘Prince.’

Ultimately, the debate occurred without the undisclosed questions.

The “Late Meal Debate” took place on Monday, Dec. 11 at 8:30 p.m. in the Frist Gallery.

USG counts outside support towards $50 candidate spending limit FINANCE Continued from page 1

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

and the campaign are “fully versed in the Elections Handbook.”

In a subsequent email to the ‘Prince,’ Halem evidenced that he spent $20.37 on Ozminkowski’s behalf for a domain name, a website domain connector through Wix.com, and paper promotions. Halem explained that these expenses were third party purchases. He wrote that Ozminkowski “did not personally have any expenditures during this election cycle.” According to the USG Election Handbook, third party expenditures are not reimbursed, unlike those of the candidate.

According to the handbook, purchases made by a third party on behalf of a candidate do count toward their total campaign expenditure limit of $50.

The penalty points system says that for every $1 purchased in ads above the $50 limit, 10 penalty points are accrued, and 50 penalty points incurred could mean removal from the election. In other words, exceeding the limit by just $5 can serve as grounds for dismissal.

LMAO has endorsed presidential candidates Yee and Ozminkowski, and has bought Facebook ads for the two candidates.

The Super PAQ excluded Miller from its endorsement.

As the ‘Prince’ previously reported, Yee said that she did not ask for the endorsement and that she is “focused on the issues.”

Halem also wrote in the email that “as an independent member of the student body,” he donated the domain names yeeforpresident.com and mattmillerforpresident.com to the Yee and Miller campaigns, respectively. Neither campaign recognizes the domains as in-kind donations.

As for the endorsement from the LMAO Super PAQ , Halem wrote that the Ozminkowski campaign was “surprised but honored” to receive it.

“The Ozminkowski campaign has since scrutinized the organization’s

written materials and sees no reason not to support its mission and $500 charity project,” wrote Halem.

“In fact, we are confused why an organization trying to raise awareness for the student election and support philanthropic causes would be seen in a negative light. I’m beyond surprised that the Yee campaign has rejected the opportunity to aid a charity event.”

According to a report from Ben Sender ’18, founder of the LMAO Super PAQ , the group has spent a total of $4.92 for the Ozminkowski campaign and $3.86 for the Yee campaign on Facebook.com ads. Using metrics from an ad campaign for another student organization, this combined amount could have allowed targeted advertising to over 500 students.

Sender wrote that the LMAO website is only used to “inform the public about its operations and mission,” and that LMAO is trying to become “a key player in student elections around the country.” The website, as of publication, states that the group supports “all student leaders who embody the ideals of liberty and opportunity.”

However, the group also pledges to give $500 to a charity based on responses from only Princeton net IDs. As Sender considers the website to be external to the University, Sender declined to disclose how much he spent on the website, adding that LMAO’s “organizational expenditures are not only separate from particular candidates but from Princeton altogether.” When pressed, Sender deferred comment to LMAO public relations.

LMAO sent an automatic reply email in response to further request about the cost of the website that read, “Thank you for your message. Due to the large volume of emails, please expect a response within 72 hours.” As of publication, the ‘Prince’ has yet to receive a response.

Through its website, LMAO is running a charity campaign in which the $500 donation will be made to a GiveWell charity chosen by voters, according to Sender. Ozminkowski’s

Instagram account also invited students to The Princeton Charter Club’s “Charter Friday” on Dec. 8; the caption on this post stated, “Take part in a raff le, sponsored by the PAQ , with the winner donating $500 to the charity of their choice! #effectivealtruism.”

Sender is well-known for Effective Altruism Investments, his investment fund which manages around $100,000 that “seeks objectively good returns for objectively good causes,” according to its website.

“LMAO has nothing to do with EAI,” Sender noted.

“I regularly donate to GiveWell charities and am more than willing to pledge $500 to an effective cause,” Sender wrote in an email to the ‘Prince,’ when asked where the $500 comes from.

In addition, Halem, as a third party, purchased the domain names yeeforpresident.com and mattmillerforpresident.com, as the ‘Prince’ previously reported. He wrote that the domains respectively redirected to their campaign pages, but only after the two domains originally redirected to ozforpresident. com.

“I can validate that such donation has actively increased the views for Yee’s and Miller’s Facebook campaign materials,” Halem wrote. He explained that the ozforpresident.com was used just as “place holder” because it “never in fact went live while the other two domain names were redirecting to it.”

The two domains each cost a total of $14.99, which, if counted toward the Ozminkowski campaign expenditures, would put the campaign over the $50 limit. Halem wrote in his email that because the placeholder Ozminkowski website was not live, “it does not qualify as a promotion of Ryan Ozminkowski for USG president.”

According to a source familiar with the duties of the chief elections manager, these expenditures could be considered by the chief elections manager as part of Ozminkowski’s campaign expenses.

Current USG President Myesha Jemison ’18 said that these decisions are left up to current Chief Elections Manager Laura Hausman ’20. Hausman oversees USG presidential elections and candidates’ compliance with the rules, such as campaign finance regulations, as spelled out in the Elections Handbook.

In addition, Jemison explained that a candidate can appeal a decision by the chief elections manager, just as Ozminkowski did when he appealed to run for USG president after missing the filing deadline.

Hausman did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Sender did not disclose website costs for LMAO, and it is unclear whether these expenses would come under either of the two campaigns the group has endorsed. Jemison said that Hausman has not made a decision on this.

“At least from what I know from the Ozminkowski campaign, Sender’s PAQ support would be included as part of expenditures for the Oz campaign,” Jemison said.

It is not apparent if this support includes only the Facebook ads LMAO purchased or the expenses of LMAO itself as well.

Jemison said that because there is no proof that Yee acknowledged the group’s support or solicited the support, she is uncertain how that would be interpreted under USG elections rules.

Additionally, the two domain names that initially redirected to an inactive Ozminkowski website may be counted under the Ozminkowski campaign or under the two campaigns they benefit. If the expenses are counted toward the Yee and Miller campaigns, the expenses would put those campaigns over their budgets as well, since neither campaign has counted the domains Halem bought as part of their expenses.

At last Sunday’s USG meeting, Hausman was not present to health concerns. She told Vice President Dan Qian ’18 that USG parliamentarian Jonah Hyman ’20 could handle

Like sports? Write for the sports section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

anything that she was unable to address in her absence.

Hyman explained his role as USG parliamentarian in an email to the ‘Prince.’

According to Hyman, his job “is to advise members of the USG Senate, as well as those who interact with the Senate, about USG’s rules and procedures.”

“Since Laura’s job relies heavily on interpretations of the rules, she has asked me for advice during the elections cycle about the Elections and Referenda Handbooks, as well as other relevant rules,” wrote Hyman. “I have tried to give her my opinions based on my understanding of the rules, in order to help her make the most informed determinations.”

In the USG meeting, U-Councilor Samuel Vilchez Santiago ’19 said that discussion of the Honor Committee Referenda and USG presidential elections without the chief elections manager. was “unproductive.”

“The Chief Elections Manager is supposed to be the neutral arbiter of elections for Princeton undergraduates,” said Grant Golub ’17, who previously worked as chief elections manager.

Golub is also a former copy editor and reporter for the ‘Prince.’ “[The Chief Elections Manager is] there to uphold the fairness and integrity of the electoral process to ensure everyone runs a smooth campaign that follows USG Election Handbook guidelines,” Golub said. “If irregularities or allegations of campaign misconduct are reported, it is the obligation of the Chief Elections Manager to investigate these claims and rule on them promptly so that the process can continue.”

The chief elections manager is appointed by the USG president.

If there are concerns about elections improprieties, the elections manager can request expenditure receipts in advance. According to current rules, campaigns must submit all expenditure receipts at the end of the campaign period.

Tuesday December 12, 2017

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

In defense of the cake baker Thomas Clark

A

columnist

s for him who lacks the courage to defend even his own soul: Let him not brag of his progressive view … Let him say to himself plainly: I am cattle, I am a coward, I seek only warmth and to eat my fill.” So wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his essay Live not by Lies, urging resistance to all forms of ideological coercion. Vaclav Havel, the Czech dissident-turned-president, stated that authoritarian regimes are propped up by small instances of ideological submission, like the greengrocer who puts up a party slogan in his shop out of fear of nonconformity.

The topic of compelled speech recently made headlines as Jack Phillips, the Colorado cakeshop owner who refused to make a same-sex wedding cake, went before the Supreme Court. Amidst comparisons to racism and Jim Crow, serious mischaracterizations of Phillips’ position have spread.

The baker does not discriminate against gay people categorically. His lawyer admitted that it would be wrong and illegal for him to deny an off-theshelf product to a customer

T

simply because of the person’s sexual orientation. Rather, he does not accept commissions to custom-decorate cakes that have messages contrary to his beliefs. His stance is not at all unique to same-sex weddings, as he also refuses to decorate cakes for Halloween and divorce parties. While some argue that baking a rainbow cake does not fall under the category of First Amendment “speech,” legal precedent and intuition acknowledge that protected speech takes many forms: from burning a flag to kneeling during the national anthem, from the right to express an idea to the right not to.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the majority opinion, even while striking down bans on same-sex marriage, emphasized in its conclusion that those who oppose same-sex marriage “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that … samesex marriage should not be condoned.” Obergefell, even while updating the government’s definition of marriage, explicitly disavowed coercion to enforce this new definition.

The couple who brought the suit have every right to create social pressure by condemning Phillips on Yelp, Google Reviews, and the

sidewalk outside Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips can then decide whether to prioritize his convictions or his brand reputation. But it’s a different story when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission provides Phillips the choice of either shutting down part of his business or compromising his integrity of belief. If he were to acquiesce, he would be subordinating his conscience to the coercive power of the state. That the government should have the power to do this should trouble even the harshest critics of Phillips. It would be so simple for Phillips to give in, just as it was for the greengrocer in Havel’s anecdote. Yet the obstinacy of his stance points to his sincerity and depth of conviction.

Some might bristle at a comparison between dissidents under authoritarian regimes and a modern-day baker with traditional marriage views. But the First Amendment was not made to be selectively applied to ideas we like. It is meaningless unless it provides protections for beliefs that are unpopular or even offensive. Furthermore, a victory for Phillips would set a precedent that would also protect objecting T-shirt makers from having to print anti-gay shirts or

poster companies from producing white supremacist promotional materials.

I would rather live in a world where people who disagreed with me stated their views openly, rather than one in which they succumbed to social, economic, or legal pressure to state a certain belief. Coercion by any powerful institution, be it the state or the University, tries to gloss over real disagreements between people rather than encourage meaningful debate. In my personal experience, knowing that neither the government nor the University will compel me towards or prevent me from expressing a viewpoint has allowed me to speak with candor to those from very different walks of life. As vehemently as I may disagree with someone’s reasons for bucking social convention to live out their beliefs, anyone who does so wins my respect for their commitment to principle. Even if we disagree about what the truth is, we should recognize the good and true desire to achieve harmony between one’s beliefs and actions.

Thomas Clark is a senior in computer science from Herndon, Va. He can be reached at thclark@princeton.edu.

Editorial: Vote Yee for USG President

his Board welcomes the opportunity to continue in the tradition of formally endorsing a candidate for President of Undergraduate Student Government. In the Winter 2017 election cycle, the three candidates for President are: Matt Miller ’19, Ryan Ozminkowski ’19, and Rachel Yee ’19. After careful consideration of each candidate’s platform, the Board endorses Yee for President of USG. The USG President has the potential to create significant policy changes that impact the current and future student body at Princeton. In light of these considerations, we believe that Yee’s platform articulates the best understanding of the gravity of the position and its implications.

Miller states that his two primary reasons for seeking the position are to solve “problems with easy fixes” and “allow all students to be heard by USG.” He lists mental health initiatives as one of the line items he would

focus on if elected President.

However, it is clear that Yee’s emphasis on implementing “salient changes that will impact future Princetonians for decades to come” demonstrates that she has thought more carefully about the feasibility of implementing policy goals from her platform. While Miller’s goal of implementing mental health initiatives certainly mirrors Yee’s, it is evident that Yee has taken the initiative to consider the feasibility of her policy goals by outlining a plan for mental health reform in full detail on her website, which includes details on the progress that she has made previously in combatting the stigma of mental health issues on Princeton’s campus. Furthermore, Miller overemphasizes the role that the President ought to play in selecting a Lawnparties headliner, a task that has traditionally been reserved for the USG Social Chair. Yee’s focus on reducing the perception that USG’s sole focus is Lawnparties seems like a

more pragmatic approach toward viewing the potential magnitude of the role.

While neither Ozminkowski nor Yee hold previous Senate experience, Yee’s prior role on the 2018 Freshman Class Council gives her an advantage over Ozminkowski in terms of experience in delivering service-oriented results and promoting campus unity. Furthermore, Ozminkowski’s platform lacks clearly defined goals for improving USG’s communication efforts and promoting future projects in the coming year. The lack of depth within Ozminkowski’s platform is evident when compared to Yee’s willingness to implement items such as a USG table rotating at dinners in residential colleges and an updated version of the USG Constitution, plans which she notes have been thoroughly discussed “beforehand with faculty and administrators” to measure feasibility.

The Board fully supports Rachel Yee for President of

USG and we urge the student body to vote for her during USG elections, which last from Tuesday through Thursday of this week. Given that this marks Yee’s second time running for the position of President, it is clear that she is dedicated to achieving the policy goals outlined in her platform and has carefully weighed the amount of time and effort that it takes to lead Princeton’s USG. Signed, Emily Erdos ‘19 Nicholas Wu ‘18 Grace Rehaut ‘18 Sebastian Quiroz ‘20 Connor Pfeiffer ‘18 Crystal Liu ‘19 Ashley Reed ‘18 Sarah Sakha ‘18 and Sam Garfinkle ’19 abstained.

Editor’s Note: All of the USG presidential candidates answered a questionnaire circulated by the Daily Princetonian, which was then used to adjudicate endorsements.

Honor Committee Reform No. 1: Making cheating easier for Princetonians everywhere Sinan Ozbay

contributing columnist

A

nybody smart enough to be admitted to Princeton should have realized what really ought to have been an obvious fact about cheating at the University: people don’t refrain from cheating because of their impeccable moral compasses. Rather, they do so because they’re scared of the consequences that will follow if they do cheat.

People at Princeton are like people anywhere else — they’re selfish. When they think cheating will get them a better grade, they’ll do it barring grave consequences, because a better grade gets them their better consulting job, or better law school acceptance, or better fellowship opportunity. Reform number one,

which proposes dismembering existing penalties for cheating and reduces them to mere disciplinary probation — a sad joke of a punishment — is, without any doubt, going to increase the prevalence of cheating at Princeton, devaluing your work and mine.

Something I think you should know about disciplinary probation, the only punishment for cheating that proponents for reform would like: it doesn’t show up on student transcripts, which is what employers, graduate schools, and similar organizations look at when you — and your cheating peers — apply to them. It only appears on your “permanent record.”

So unless companies and law schools are going to start asking for the permanent record of every single student (hint: they won’t,

because nothing about an average applicant’s application could possibly tip them off), reform number one is going to reduce the standard penalty for cheating to nearly nothing.

Is over-punishment a bad thing? Yes, of course, that seems rather sensible to say.

Does that mean we should get rid of basically all of the effective punishment we currently have? No, that’s rather less sensible, because the results of under-punishment would be far more disastrous and affect far more people at Princeton. Additionally, the stakes here, at a university, are a bit different than those in the standard cases of over-punishment in society. For starters, you’re at an academic institution.

You had just one job! Do your work, and don’t cheat on it! It is hard to get convicted, and I’m sorry to say

this, but false positives are just rare given high standards for evidence and the adversarial process of the Honor Committee. Second, if we get rid of the harsh punishment we have now, however incommensurable with the violation committed, something tells me the students of tomorrow won’t vote to increase the penalty to something sensible like being forced to fail the class one cheats in, because frankly, that’s politically untenable here. So, while hearing the SPEAR President analogize Honor Code policy to criminal justice reform is interesting, and maybe even poetic if one is feeling generous, the comparison is just a bit disingenuous, and frankly ridiculous.

The upshot: people getting the grades that they deserve — in other words, those based on their abili-

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 Lydia Choi ‘21 Rachel Hazan ‘21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 Rachel Brill ‘19 Hannah Freid ‘21 design Diana Tang ‘21

ties and the work that they put in — is wholly contingent on their inability to gain unfair advantages by cheating on exams. The reason they don’t cheat is exactly because the punishment for cheating is severe.

Getting rid of that would just increase the amount of cheating, and severely devalue the hard work that most Princeton students put in by making sure they have nothing distinct to show for it. That’s why it’s important to vote against reform number one to the Honor Code.

Sinan Ozbay is a junior studying Philosophy from Princeton, N.J. He can be reached at sozbay@princeton. edu.

Tuesday December 12, 2017

Opinion

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Letter to the editor: My rape isn’t a joke

Editor’s note: The author of this column was granted anonymity due to the intensely personal nature of the piece.

I

totally got raped.”

It wasn’t the first time I had heard someone say this in a joking or mocking tone. Nor was it the last.

A freshman guy was saying this to a group of us, other freshmen, about a particularly hard exam.

Less than a full year later, I was groped by unseen hands multiple times, forcibly kissed by strangers three times, and raped by a “friend” once. Some of these incidents happened off-campus. Most of them didn’t.

The first person I opened up to about my assault was my then-boyfriend, several months after the fact. His response was a single nod and a gift the next week. He proudly presented me with a mini keychain of pepper spray, never mind that pepper spray wouldn’t have even helped me avoid my original assault. It wasn’t a joke, but it certainly felt cruel. I never brought it up to him again.

It took me nearly a year to get substantial help.

The sixth person I told about my assault was the first to tell me to go to Counseling and Psychological Services. At my first CPS appointment, I was told I was exhibiting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. My PTSD diagnosis crystallized the reality I had been trying to avoid: my assault had actually occurred, and it had deeply affected me. I was also told bluntly at my CPS meeting that because I was not suicidal, I should not return to CPS. I was told that the Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education office would be better equipped to help me. With final exams approaching, it was clear that CPS didn’t have any appointment slots to spare. With help from friends and SHARE counseling, I have largely recovered from my PTSD. But I wonder if I could have reached this point much earlier with additional meetings with a CPS psychiatrist.

Our “Orange Bubble” shouldn’t shield the University from entering national conversations on sexual assault and harassment. In fact, we have no choice but to enter the national conversation, given multiple cases occurring on our very own campus.

According to the recently released WeSpeak survey results, in the last year: 1. 16% of students (27% of undergraduate women) who responded had experienced nonconsensual sexual contact, stalking, sexual harassment and/or an abusive relationship.

2. 10% of students (18%

Done reading your ‘Prince’?

Recycle

of undergraduate women) experienced sexual assault.

3. 2% of students (5% of undergraduate women) experienced nonconsensual sexual penetration – commonly known as rape.

I should emphasize that these results only include the experience of students after one year, not their entire time at Princeton.

For those like me who may have needed more time to come to terms with their rape, assault, or other inappropriate sexual behavior, their experience may have been missed by the survey. WeSpeak has only been conducted for the past three years, and the University has now terminated it. Although the University has plans to conduct modified forms of a similar survey in the future, WeSpeak in its current state won’t be continued in the coming years.

Some think it should be.

While we have been

speaking about professors engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior and harassment within the electrical engineering and German departments, we’ve barely tapped into the conversations regarding sexual assault and harassment on the campus as a whole. While some of those conversations have been happening within the USG presidential election, they have been continually overshadowed by talks about how to make Princeton “more fun.”

Increased access to mental health care — which would help assault survivors and many more — is apparently just an “idea,” not an “ideal,” according to USG presidential candidate Ryan Ozminkowski.

In one of his campaign videos, titled “Inspirational Afternoon,” while a voice-over stated that mental health reform was a great thing that every candidate wants, a subti-

tle visible only when the video is muted reads that his campaign wants to bring back the “the nude Olympics.”

“Put NUDE OLYMPICS REFERENDUM on my platform!” Sadly, Ryan Ozminkowski’s campaign has continually advocated for joke policies more strongly than it has for increasing resources for students in actual need.

His tone-deaf jokes have continued even after facing multiple articles lambasting his behavior and comments from insulted friends. One student, another victim of assault, has told me she explicitly told Ryan that his behavior and campaign was insulting to her as a victim of sexual assault. Yet, even after confrontation, he has continually tried to distract students from more serious candidates and conversations through stunts and outrageous campaign promises.

While it will be up to the larger student body this week to elect the next USG president, I hope that I am not in the minority. I want a candidate who actually cares about me, not just about bringing in a big act for Lawnparties or making parody videos. If truly promoting “fun” is the primary goal of one or two of the USG candidates, I ask why they aren’t running for the uncontested Social Chair position?

It has taken me a long time to heal, but with the support of many friends and loved ones, my PTSDrelated anxiety attacks and nightmares are less frequent. I can see how someone who hasn’t been in my shoes might not take conversations of mental illness seriously. After all, it’s all in my head. But just because it’s my head doesn’t make it any less real. Mental illness isn’t a joke. My rape isn’t a joke.

Stop making it into one.

Tuesday December 12, 2017

Opinion

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

132 Woodrow Wilson School graduate students call for increased diversity and inclusion at WWS

T

his semester, a group of graduate students at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs has been working to improve diversity and inclusion at WWS as part of a new organization, Students for Educational Equity and Diversity. This organizing culminated in a letter, signed by 71.7 percent of all WWS graduate students and 79.7 percent of Masters in Public Affairs students, that was sent to the WWS administration and offered several proposals toward SEED’s goals.

The letter was shared with the Wilson School’s Dean, and SEED members are in open and productive communication with the administration regarding the letter’s contents. Moreover, over the past two weeks, two op-eds have been published by members of SEED referencing these efforts. In the spirit of openness and accountability, the full text of the letter is available here, and an abridged version is reproduced below. Faculty, alumni and undergraduate allies are welcomed to express their support by signing this support letter.

Dear Dean Rouse, We write as a group of

Woodrow Wilson School graduate students to call attention to the urgent need for further progress in creating a safe, supportive, and fair environment for marginalized students.

While we recognize the pressing need for improvement, we also acknowledge recent progress. The renaming of Dodds Auditorium for Arthur Lewis is an important step in recognizing the contributions of people of color at Princeton.

These efforts are in the context of campus-wide conversations about improving diversity and inclusion. The university community was urged to “recognize the importance of providing the resources necessary to achieve meaningful changes in campus climate and culture.” It is in this spirit that we write to you today.

I) Woodrow Wilson’s legacy is connected to concerns about diversity today at the WWS. Many people, including the Wilson School Naming Committee, emphasized Wilson’s role in establishing the Federal Reserve and creating international diplomacy after World War I. Those are not the parts of Wilson’s legacy that feel

most salient to us.

We remember that [Woodrow Wilson] resegregated federal workplaces; screened a film at the White House promoting the Ku Klux Klan; and that he ordered the occupation of nations, like Mexico and Haiti, that some of us call home. We realize that Wilson would not have admitted many of us to this school because of the color of our skin or our gender identity.

II) Student concerns and grievances indicate much work remains to make the WWS a safe, supportive, and fair environment for students.

Unfortunately, our experience as students leads us to believe the WWS bears the legacy of white supremacy both in name and practice.

Students from historically marginalized backgrounds and particularly students of color have been subject to microaggressions, discouragement, and invalidation of their concerns by program administrators. The MPA core curriculum does not sufficiently incorporate diverse perspectives, thereby failing to prepare students to be effective policymakers

in diverse societies.

III) Institutional diversity and inclusion at the WWS can be improved by increasing the administration’s capacity, expanding curricular offerings, and diversifying its faculty.

1) Increase the capacity of WWS administration to promote diversity and inclusion. a) Expand the position of diversity and inclusion coordinator to a full-time administrative position. b) Incorporate into this role the responsibility of planning twice-a-year diversity trainings for students. c) Coordinate regular professional development opportunities for all WWS staff related to diversity and inclusion. d) Solicit feedback on bias, discrimination, and harassment experienced by students and develop a consistent, transparent process to address those concerns.

2) Expand and institutionalize curricular offerings focused on public policy, identity and race. a) Make a new required MPA course analyzing systemic and institutional frameworks of power, such as race and colonialism, that explores their impact

on public policy. b) Expand pre-approved, cross-listed courses to include graduate classes offered in other departments, including but not limited to, African-American, Latino, Asian-American, and Gender & Sexuality Studies. c) Add courses that address identity, power, and privilege in the domestic and international context.

3) Diversify the faculty. a) Develop a faculty pipeline plan to prioritize the hiring and retention of lecturers and faculty who add racial, gender, and national diversity. b) Incorporate opportunities for student representation and feedback in the faculty hiring processes.

You accepted us to this program because you believed we wanted to make the world a better place, to “be in the service of humanity,” and to lead. You chose well, for that is also what we want. But we need our institution to provide us the tools to not only respond to the world as it is, but to build the world as it should be.

Sincerely, 132 Master of Public Affairs, Master of Public Policy, and Ph.D. Students

Editorial: Vote YES on Honor Code Reform

A

year and a half after the last referendum on the Honor Committee failed to reach threshold limitations, it is time

for a concrete change in policy. Each of the four referenda on the ballot this election cycle proposes an important change to the Constitution of the Hon-

or System. While the language of these referenda could be more specific, the proposals represent an honest effort to reform a dangerously flawed honor

system, and we urge students to vote for them.

Referendum 1 changes the mandatory minimum punishment for first and second violations of the University Honor Code to allow for a punishment that better fits the crime.

The disciplinary probation included as the new minimum for a first offense is a serious measure that remains on a student’s record indefinitely, is required to be disclosed on many internal University applications, and is requested by many potential employers. Without interrupting a student’s course of study, which could have disproportionate financial and mental health consequences, the proposed reform allows the committee to maintain a serious standard for punishment.

Referendum 2 requires that two pieces of evidence be presented in order to bring a student’s case to a hearing. Given the admissibility of verbal testimony, electronic records, and written materials as evidence, this measure will not restrict the availability of evidence for convictions with a high degree of certainty. It will, however, require that the case against an accused student be airtight enough to include information from multiple sources to corroborate one another. For this reason, it represents a clear improvement from the current policy, and should be supported with little dissent.

While the Honor Committee currently takes favorable instructor testimony into account when making decisions, recent revelations have shown that this does not always affect the verdict rendered.

Referendum 3 requires that the Honor Committee abide by instructor assurances that disputed activities were not in violation of course policy, ensuring that an undue burden is not placed on students to

adjudicate differences between presented expectations and the Honor Code.

In reality, course policy is often different from the the Honor Code, and this change will ensure that students are not punished in the event of such a divergence. Concerns about increased pressure placed on professors is unwarranted; these faculty members already provide testimony to the committee, likely with the expectation that it will be taken into serious consideration. A formalization of the role this testimony will play is a welcome addition to the Constitution.

Finally, Referendum 4 requires the Honor Committee to disclose a student’s status as the accused party or witness at first contact. As perhaps the most common sense reform of the referendum, the change eliminates undue emotional and mental stress associated with the current system of withholding information to retain control over the process. In the opinion of the Board, no small amount of control is worth the perpetuation of stress levels that raise concerns about students’ mental health.

This reform is a step in the right direction to ensure that the Honor Committee is not a source of fear for students on campus. It is time for change.

The Board urges students to vote “yes” on all four components of the Honor Code referendum. Voting begins at 12 p.m. EST on Tuesday, Dec. 12.

Signed, Emily Erdos ‘19 Sam Garfinkle ‘19 Crystal Liu ‘19 Sebastian Quiroz ‘20 Ashley Reed ‘18 Grace Rehaut ‘18 Sarah Sakha ‘18 Nicholas Wu ‘18 Connor Pfeiffer ‘18 recused himself from the writing of this editorial.

Opinion

Tuesday December 12, 2017

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

P

Letter to the Editor: A note from former Honor Committee Chairs

rinceton students,

We admire your passion for the Honor Code, and as alumni, we are deeply invested in the Code’s ability to create and maintain a positive academic climate on Princeton’s campus. Over time, it is important to revisit and revise the Code to ensure it remains fair and consistent for all students.

It’s also vital we continue to uphold the values of honesty and integrity that we share as a community.

The Code was created 124 years ago by students for students, to hold each other accountable in the exam room. As former Chairs of the Committee, we hope we can provide context behind how the Code has evolved so you can reform it responsibly and ensure it lives another 124 years.

In 1893, after a wave of cheating scandals, students developed the Honor Code in an effort to take responsibility for their education and academic culture. It’s why the Code

is twofold: students agree to not cheat on exams but also to uphold the Code by reporting any suspected violations. Because we promise to oversee the integrity of our education, the administration and professors play very limited roles and agree to leave the room during exams.

Every student who matriculates at Princeton agrees to adhere to and uphold the Code. We’ve seen there can be discrepancies between professors and what they believe is an Honor Code violation.

If we give professors the prerogative to determine whether a student’s actions gained an unfair advantage, we hand over ownership of what it means to adhere to the Code and remove the capacity to ask one another to take responsibility for our actions. As Princetonians, our student-driven approach to academic integrity is unique, even amongst our peer institutions with Honor Codes.

This provides consisten-

cy and transparency that transcends the opinions of individual professors.

In taking ownership of their education and academic integrity back in 1893, Princeton students settled on a consequence — one-year suspension — that they felt ref lected the severity of violating the Code and the trust they placed in each other. This consequence has been reaffirmed by thousands of students since 1893, all of whom have agreed to abide by the Code when they have matriculated at Princeton.

Over time, we’ve also seen that there are certain Honor Code violations that do not merit suspension. In 2012, the Honor Committee, in collaboration with USG and the student body, made disciplinary probation the standard penalty for all overtime violations.

However, we believe it would be a grave mistake to reduce the standard penalty for all forms of cheating to disciplinary probation. This erodes the Committee’s ability to

treat students fairly and consistently. Does the student who wrote over the allotted time merit the same punishment as the student who used a cellphone to access lecture slides during an exam? Or the student who modifies their exam before submitting it for a regrade?

We understand the concerns that a standard penalty of one-year suspension is too harsh. The proposed changes, however, are overly broad and tie the Committee’s hands to excessive leniency. Previous changes to penalty came out of thoughtful discussion, where all parties recognized the need to be specific. Otherwise, we harm the Honor Code’s ability to preserve academic integrity on campus.

In addition, we’ve seen firsthand the respect for honor, integrity, and commitment that Princeton alumni are routinely accorded because of our high standards and ideals. Any change diluting the meaningfulness of the Honor

Code could slowly erode the reputation that we will rely on for the rest of our careers and lives. Perhaps a better solution lessens the Committee’s obligation to issue a one-year suspension without requiring it only issue probation in every case.

We applaud your commitment as a student body to academic integrity and to improving the Honor Code. We encourage you to sit down with members of the Committee, members of the faculty, and your peers to understand how the Honor Code works — and doesn’t work — today, and collaborate together on a more perfect system for the current day.

Signed by former Honor Committe Chairs, Charles Jacobson ‘16 Luchi Mmegwa ‘14 Antonia Hyman ‘13 Pauline Nguyen ‘12 Alex Rosen ‘11 Peter Dunbar ‘10 Bennett Fox-Glassman ‘08 James Williamson, ‘07 Christopher Lloyd ‘06

Net Neutrality tashi treadway ’19 ..................................................

Letter to the Editor: Response to Spalding Michael Pratt

guest columnist

T

o the Editor,

Thanks to Emily Spalding for her profile on me; I do appreciate being able to talk about music at Princeton. One important thing to add, lest I offend some friends who don’t deserve it —

most of my interactions with pro orchestra were indeed dreary affairs, as I said, but one important exception is the New Jersey Symphony, who play frequent concerts on campus, and several of whose members now serve as Princeton performance faculty.

My five years as an associate conductor with them in the 1980’s was a time of

growth for me. Many of them I considered mentors who were kind, generous, and forgiving of a young conductor’s faults. I salute them as one of America’s great ensembles.

Michael Pratt Conductor, Princeton University Orchestra Director, Program in Musical Performance

T H E DA I LY

Enjoy drawing pretty pictures?

Like to work with Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign?

Join the ‘Prince’

Recycle your paper!

design team! join@dailyprincetonian.com

Tuesday December 12, 2017

Sports

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S WRESTLING

Men’s wrestling competes in annual Grapple at the Garden

By Owen Tedford staff writer

This past Sunday, the Princeton wrestling team continued its stretch against some of the top teams in the country when it traveled to New York City to take on No. 10 Virginia Tech in Madison Square Garden. The game represented the opening match at the Grapple at the Garden. Unfortunately, the unranked Tigers came out on the losing side of this match, defeated by a score of 26-12. Princeton did get victories from freshman Jonathan Gomez, sophomore Matthew Kolodzik, and junior Mike D’Angelo in the 125, 149, and 157 weight classes respectively.

The Tigers got off to a tough start in the match as the Hokies opened up with 13 unanswered points, aided by four of their upperweights, including seventh-ranked Zack Zavatsky, third-ranked Jared Haught, and seventeenthranked Andrew Dunn. A particularly great Princeton moment during this otherwise tough stretch came from freshman Patrick Brucki, who faced off against Haught in the 197 weight class. Brucki didn’t allow any takedowns to Haught and only ended up losing 2-0 in the decision.

Princeton was able to break out of this tough stretch when Gomez took the mat, ultimately winning 12-6 over Kyle Norstrem. Gomez started strong with a 4-1 lead in the first period, driven by his two takedowns, and he was able to stretch this to an 11-2 lead by the end of the second. While Norstrem made a bit of a comeback towards the end of

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Men’s wrestling lost to the University of Virgina at Madison Square Garden on Sunday.

the match, Gomez was in control the whole time and never lost his lead after he captured it in the first period.

Virginia Tech took control of the overall match with wins in the next two matches in the 133 and 141 weight classes, basically clinching the team win at that point. But, never out of a match, Princeton fought hard in the last three matches and

was able to pick up two more wins by Kolodzik and D’Angelo.

Seventh-ranked Kolodzik took a 6-0 lead after the first period and would eventually go on to win with an 18-3 technical fall. Building on this momentum, the Tigers were able to string together backto-back wins when D’Angelo took the mat next. D’Angelo rolled to a major decision by

a score of 14-2 over Ryan Blees.

This was his second in a row, after getting one in the previous match against Lehigh’s Ian Brown. Unfortunately, Princeton wasn’t able to finish in a clean sweep as the Hokies’ fourth-ranked David McFadden got a tech in the last match of the day.

Looking forward, Princeton’s schedule won’t get any

easier. This Friday, the team heads down to Delaware to take on No. 1 Ohio State in what will be a big chance for the Tigers to match themselves against some of the best in the country. This will be the wrestling team’s last match before heading to the Midlands Championships hosted by Northwestern the last weekend of December.

TRACK AND FIELD

Men’s and women’s track and field compete at first home meet

By Claire Coughlin associate sports editor

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Men’s and women’s track and field competed at Jadwin Gym in the New Year Invitational on Saturday.

Tweet of the Day “Haddonfield grad Carly Bonnet, now a Princeton junior, doesn’t run a lot of open 400s, but she did this weekend and earned her first collegiate 400 win.”

SJ Track (@ SJTrack), track

The men’s and women’s track and field teams competed in their first home meet of the indoor season this past Saturday, Dec. 11 at Jadwin Gym. Competing against the Tigers were runners from Monmouth, Penn, Rider, and the College of New Jersey. The teams split a total of 14 first and second place finishes between their runners, proving that the program is certainly ready for a successful season to come.

On the men’s side of things, the team had a total of six first and three second place finishes.

In the first event of the meet, junior Sebastian Silveira came in second at 8.29 seconds and senior James Burns placed third with a finish of 8.41s in the finals of the 60m hurdles. Then, sophomore football running-back and track sprinter Charlie Volker nabbed the silver medal in the finals of the 60m dash with a 6.86s finish.

Another second place finisher was junior Franklin Aririguzoh, who clocked in at 1:21.57 in the 600m dash. Sophomore Justice Dixon and senior Carrington Akosa both placed first in the

Stat of the Day

13 times Sophomore Bella Alarie won an Ivy League weekly honor for the 13th time yesterday.

400m and 300m dashes, respectively.

The Tigers killed it in the center of the track in their field events, placing first in four of the five events in which they contended.

Sophomore Adam Kelly placed first in the finals of the weight throw, senior Lane Russell placed first in the triple jump, senior August Kiles got the victory in the pole vault, and freshman Jeffrey Hollis won the high jump.

The women showed their competitive edge as well this weekend, with four first place finishes. The distance crew ran last weekend and took this meet off, so taking into consideration that half the team was not competing, this performance is even more impressive. Senior Katie DiFrancesco won the 300m dash, junior Carly Bonnet got the victory in the 400m dash, junior Ellie Randolph was first in the long jump, and freshman Katie Barnett won the triple. Senior Kennedy O’Dell was second in the weight throw and shot put.

The female Tigers will next compete at Ocean Breeze on Jan. 13 in the Great Dane Classic and the men will next compete Jan. 6 at Navy.

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