March 24, 2015

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Tuesday march 24, 2015 vol. cxxxix no. 31

WEATHER

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } HIGH

LOW

46˚ 28˚

Sunshine and clouds mixed. chance of rain: none

Follow us on Twitter @princetonian

STUDENT LIFE

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Terrace Club makes changes to smoking policy

By Grant Golub

In Opinion Marni Morse questions our lack of focus on women’s sports and Newby Parton warns against the “radical breed of extremists” who want to change the Fire Code.

PAGE 4

Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: Photojournalist Richard Ross delivers a lecture, “Girls in Justice: Gender, Mass Incarceration and Journalism Today”.

McCormick Hall, Room 101

The Archives

Mar. 24, 1955 The University announced a record 3400 total applications for the Class of 1959.

The University said that the Class of 1959 would be “normal sized, about 750 boys.”

got a tip?

Email it to: tips@dailyprincetonian.com

PRINCETON By the Numbers

150

The number of women who matriculated in the first coeducational class at the University for the Class of 1970.

News & Notes

staff writer

Terrace Club changed its smoking policy to ban smoking in most parts of the club, according to an email sent to members from club president Lucia Perasso ’16 on Sunday night.

“No smoking at any time, anywhere, except in the TV room and [on the outdoor] terrace,” the email reads, adding that a new “smoking-eating ventilator” was installed in the TV room and that this effectively means the library, green room and ball rooms are now smoke-free rooms, as is the rest of the club.

The old policy said smoking was never allowed on the first floor of the club or in the basement storage areas; that smoking was not allowed before 6 p.m. on weekdays on the second floor, except in the library by consensus or on the outdoor fireproof deck; that members must comply with any officer or employee requests regarding smoking; that additional restrictions may be enforced in special cases; and that ashtrays must be used to dispose of tobacco waste.

Perasso deferred comment to graduate board chair Sandy Harrison ’74.

“I think it will work,” Harrison said. “It is a set policy. We don’t plan to change it unless it’s not working.”

He said that after reading several articles on smoking in New Jersey, including a Nov. 24 article in The Daily Princetonian about smoking on campus, the graduate board decided the club’s smoking policy was out of compliance with state law.

The law, which stipulates that rooms have to be designated smoking or non-smoking rooms, prohibits the type of policy Terrace had previously, he said, noting that rooms cannot be designated as both smoking and non-smoking depending on the time of day.

In response to their examination of the issue, the board decided to amend the policy, Harrison said.

See TERRACE page 5

COURTESY OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Senator Ted Cruz ’92 officially announced his presidential candidacy at Liberty University in Virginia on Monday.

Ted Cruz ’92 announces presidential candidacy

By Zaynab Zaman staff writer

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz ’92 announced his presidential candidacy in a speech at Liberty University on Monday.

Cruz is the first major candidate to announce a presidential bid for the 2016 elections.

Liberty University was founded by the

televangelist Jerry Falwell, and its students were mandated to attend the convocation, according to the New York Times.

Cruz began his speech by talking about his parents. He explained that his mother was the first in her family to attend college even though she was raised by parents who believed that women should not be overly educated. His father, who had fought in the Cuban revolution as a teen-

STUDENT LIFE

Malia Obama spotted visiting campus

By Christina Vosbikian staff writer

Multiple eyewitnesses reported seeing Malia Obama, daughter of President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama ’85, on campus on Monday.

Malia Obama was first seen in Mathey Dining Hall between 10 and 11 a.m. and was then reportedly seen down campus at Frist Campus Center.

Emails to the Quadrangle Club and Nassau Weekly list-

servs cited seeing Malia Obama.

The University Press Club also published photographs of Malia Obama talking with former Undergraduate Student Government president Shawon Jackson ’15 and reported that they were talking about alumni engagement earlier.

Jackson declined to comment.

Malia Obama was also reportedly seen near 1879 Arch with a group of students.

University Spokesperson

Martin Mbugua deferred questions about Malia Obama’s visit to the First Lady’s Press Office at the White House. The First Lady’s Press Office did not respond to requests for comment.

Business Insider reported on Friday that Malia Obama would also be visiting Brown University this week.

Neither her father nor her mother were seen on campus.

Michelle Obama is currently visiting Asia as part of the Let Girls Lead Initiative but accom-

panied Malia Obama on a visit to New York University in February.

Malia Obama, who worked with Steven Spielberg last summer, may have been interested in NYU’s top-ranked film school.

She is a junior in high school, meaning she could submit an application to the University as early as later this calendar year.

Malia Obama also visited Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley last summer and Columbia Univer-

Q&A

sity in February.

Her father and her uncle, Craig Robinson ’83, attended the University’s women’s basketball team’s first round NCAA game against the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay Phoenix on Saturday at Xfinity Center on the University of Maryland’s campus. Forward Leslie Robinson ’18 is Malia Obama’s cousin.

Lindsey Bigoness, senior assistant dean of admission at the University, did not respond to a request for comment.

{ Feature }

Women’s History Month: Admissions and Residences

Rolling Stone to publish review of controversial article

Rolling Stone will publish a review of its disputed article on an alleged University of Virginia gang rape in the coming weeks, the magazine announced on Monday.

The article, “A Rape on Campus,” sparked widespread controversy when it was published in November. Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post and CNN brought to light a number of discrepancies in the story and questioned the publication’s choice not to contact the alleged perpetrators.

The main source for the article also allegedly had a previous history of fabrication.

In response to the criticism, Rolling Stone retracted the article in December and commissioned the Columbia University School of Journalism to conduct an independent review of Rolling Stone’s reporting process.

Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner said the Columbia investigation would have full access to the article’s authors, editors and fact-checkers.

The review is expected to run in Rolling Stone on April 8.

ager, escaped to America in 1957, he said.

He also said that his wife, Heidi Cruz, was raised in Africa, became an entrepreneur at a young age and is now a mother to their two children, Catherine and Caroline. She is also a managing director at Goldman Sachs, a job from which she has recently taken a leave of absence.

Cruz then explained his own backSee CRUZ page 3

By Shriya Sekhsaria staff writer

DOUG WALLACK :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

Executive director of Project on Government Oversight Danielle Brian spoke on campus on Monday.

Q&A: Danielle Brian, executive director of Project on Government Oversight

By Doug Wallack conributor

Danielle Brian is the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit organization that aims to expose government corruption and waste. She was on campus on Monday for a private dinner with the American Whig-Cliosophic Society and sat down with The Daily

Princetonian to discuss her experiences and government accountability.

The Daily Princetonian: How have your work experiences prior to the Project on Government Oversight informed the work you do now?

Danielle Brian: I started as an intern. It was between my sophomore and junior year,

and I came back after undergrad — I went to Smith [College] — and thought that I wanted to work in government or journalism and did a little bit of work on Capitol Hill, and for a telev ision investigative magazine, and concluded that I actually really preferred the non-profit space, so I have actually been there See Q&A page 2

Before women were admitted to the University as degree-earning students in 1969, their role evolved from sister college neighbors to party mates to a key part of the Critical Languages Program.

As their strength increased despite an all-male campus atmosphere and vocal conservative alumni, the women lived together at the Graduate College and at Pyne Hall before being integrated into the coeducational residential college system.

Orange and White: The Beginning of Evelyn College In 1887, Joshua Hall McIlvaine, Class of 1837 and a former University professor, founded the University’s sister college called the Evelyn College for Women, which graduated the first class of women in 1893.

While the University granted Evelyn students full access to the University’s libraries and museum, it also imposed many regulations on them, such

as a strict schedule and a formal dress code.

“The girls couldn’t come in town with smiles on their faces — they had no liberties at all,” Irving Mershon, a Princeton resident, told the Princeton Packet about Evelyn students, according to the book “Transforming the Tiger” by Catherine Keyser ’01.

University students would stand outside Evelyn College and shout, “Eva, Eva, l-y-n, Eva, Eva, let me in!”, according to the Princeton Companion published in 1978.

One of the Evelyn students also noted that a police force was employed around the clock to protect the college from the University’s men, according to an Oct. 21, 1969 article in The Daily Princetonian.

At the time, the men outnumbered women by a 50:1 ratio.

According to a paper entitled “Coeducation at Princeton,” many University men married Evelyn women.

The college finally closed in 1897 due to decreasing enrollment and increasing See FEATURE page 4

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Tuesday march 24, 2015

Brian discusses nonpartisanship, government accountability Q&A

Like Graphs?

Make graphics for the ‘Prince!’

Join the Design team!

Email:

join@dailyprincetonian.com

Continued from page 1

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

for 30 years.

DP: What was the nature of the work you were doing on Capitol Hill?

DB: I worked for the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus. I thought I was going to go into arms negotiations. It was before the Cold War ended, and that to me was the most important thing, and I actually went to grad school at Johns Hopkins in national security studies thinking this was what I was going to do. But I was actually working part time [at] POGO’s predecessor organization … the Project on Military Procurement, and I sort of thought that was just my temporary job until I got a real job. And when I worked on the Hill, working exactly in the field I thought I really wanted to work in — in arms control — I realized I hated it. So I was lucky to realize that when I was young. And what I hated about it was, even then — and this would be in the late eighties — it was already then so polarized politically on the Hill. And think about how much more it is now. But then, if a really good idea was coming from someone in the other party, people would just dismiss it because it wasn’t their idea, and I thought, aren’t we trying to fix problems? And that’s what I also found not that exciting about journalism, where I then thought I’d go: you have to have a very unusual platform in journalism to be an advocate as well, and I realized I wanted to fix things. So that’s why I ended up coming back and staying for all this time.

DP: Internally, what steps does POGO take to remain nonpartisan? Do you have certain ethics codes for the organization?

DB: We do. And actually being nonpartisan is important, but for non-profits, it’s almost more important — and less recognized — to maintain your integrity as an organization in terms of who has a financial interest in the outcome of your work. The political partisans have their organizations and their parties, but there’s a

“We need more young people in government. I would encourage people to consider non-profit advocacy as a career as well.”

Danielle Brian

less understood part of the non-profit world which is actually just a front for people with financial interests. So one of the things that we think is really important is we articulate who all our donors are on our annual report. We don’t take any money from corporations or governments … or labor unions. … In fact, there was someone last week who was very wealthy who offered to be a donor, but they had a financial interest in some of the work were doing, and I said I just can’t take your money.

DP: What are some of the biggest challenges within your line of work?

DB: One is that we’re clearly

outfunded by the entities, public or private, [for which] we’re trying to … either expose wrongdoing or slow the revolving door between the two.

DP: What reform in government do you think has worked especially well, and why?

DB: I would say there are two things that I think are very important. One is the Freedom of Information Act … [It] has been a central and hallmark feature of American democracy that other countries admire. … Another one that I think is important is the creation of the Inspectors General offices across the agencies.

DP: Lastly, as students and young adults here, what can we do to hold government accountable?

DB: Well, the easy answer for me to say is to join what we call our army of good government advocates. And we send out emails that let people know when something’s happening that they could get involved in. And … letting your members of Congress know how you feel actually really does matter.

It matters a lot. And finally, I would encourage everyone to consider coming and working in Washington. We don’t have enough people coming to Washington with the purpose of helping to make government work.

Many of them are there to put in some time so that they can make money, but if they can see [good governance] as a goal in itself, then that’s what I would most encourage people to do. We need more young people in government. I would encourage people to consider nonprofit advocacy as a career as well.

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday march 24, 2015

Cruz is first major candidate to announce 2016 bid CRUZ

Continued from page 1

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

ground, noting that he needed to work two jobs in order to attend the University because his family was going through bankruptcy at the time.

Cruz shifted into a discussion of policy, asking his audience to imagine a world in which students coming out of college would have up to six job offers waiting. He also commended Liberty University for filing a lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act hours after passing Congress.

“Imagine in 2017 a new president, signing legislation repealing every word of Obamacare,” Cruz

said. “Imagine health care reform that keeps government out of the way between you and your doctor and that makes health insurance personal and portable and affordable.”

There is also a need for a flat tax, and for the IRS to be abolished, he said, adding that U.S. borders need to be more secure and a more robust legal immigration system needs to be created.

He also reiterated his pro-life and anti-same sex marriage stance in his speech and mentioned his support of Second Amendment gun rights.

He added the federal government should repeal the Common Core, rather than try to dictate school curriculum through it, be-

fore moving into an outline of foreign policy goals.

“Instead of a president who boycotts Prime Minister Netanyahu, imagine a president who stands unapologetically with the nation of Israel,” Cruz said.

He also discussed enforcing Iran’s nuclear ban and hardening the United States’ stance against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Cruz then proceeded to outline his conception of the United States’ historical ideals and accomplishments, referencing the hopes of the Framers and detailing more recent successes, like economic growth after crushing stagnation during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

“The power of the American people when we rise up and stand for liberty knows no bounds,” Cruz said. “I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to reignite the promise of America.”

Following that statement, Cruz formally announced his intention to run for President of the United States.

He ended by saying the American people needed to stand together for liberty and for the principles of the Constitution because change will come from them and not from the federal government.

“We will get back and restore that shining city on a hill that is the United States of America,” Cruz said.

ISLAM AWARENESS WEEK BEGINS

YICHENG SUN :: PHOTO EDITOR

Princeton’s Muslim Student Association encourage students to ask questions about being Muslim over Thomas Sweets ice cream.

page 3

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2015, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

Tuesday march 24, 2015

First female students received attention but felt “isolated and marginalized” FEATURE Continued from page 1

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

debt, according to “A History of Evelyn College” by E.P. Healy.

‘Critters’ Charm the President: Women in the Critical Languages Program In 1963, five undergraduate women were admitted to the Critical Languages Program at the University, a program funded by the Ford Foundation to nurture and develop students who would later become experts in the critical languages — Chinese, Russian, Turkish, Persian, Japanese and Arabic — in the United States.

Peter Cohen ’70 said he thought the University admitted those five women as a public relations move to compete with its Ivy League counterparts and in order to avoid an appearance of “seeming backward” about coeducation.

While many people expressed excitement and happiness at the arrival of the “Critters,” as the women of the Critical Languages Program were called, Cohen said that the ratio of men to women created an artificial environment.

Melanie Pytlowany-Kordiuk ’70 said that the men that she hung out with were not hostile, and that the experience was “a great adventure.”

“I was very interested in attending the classes and seeing what resources were available and meeting the other young ladies that were there,” Pytlowany-Kordiuk said of her enrollment at the University.

“I know there were some [men] that were really curious about us, like about what sort of creatures we were and you know, what we were doing there and that sort of thing.”

However, some men had questionable intentions, Cohen said, noting that the mentality on campus was, “wow, we have sex objects near and close to us.”

Susan Craig ’70 said that when the University decided to become coeducational, the administration told the “critters” to return to their home schools.

“We invited President Goheen to come to dinner at the Graduate College thinking that we could charm him by cooking him a wonderful dinner and so we could convince him that we were worth keeping around [for our senior year],” she said.

Craig said that she decided to run for — and ultimately won — the office of secretary in the Undergraduate Assembly in order to try to stay at the University.

The University decided to admit nine of the critical language students to the undergraduate student body. Two of the students chose not to apply.

The Critical Languages Program ended in 1972 due to dwindling funding from the Ford Foundation, according to a June 19, 1971, ‘Prince’ article about the history of the program.

Importing Women for Dates On big football weekends, women from colleges like Vassar College and Bryn Mawr College would pile into buses and trains to socialize with the men at the University, Cohen said.

“It was a superficial culture of, ‘Here comes this girl who you either knew or you were fixed up with through a friend, who you were going to go with to these social events, dance with and hopefully develop some kind of closeness to,’ ” Cohen said.

There was a lot of activ-

ism and discussion on campus concerning the treatment of these so-called “imports,” Sally Frank ’80, who eventually successfully sued all-male eating clubs to admit women, said.

“There’d be a woman crying who had, you know, been unfairly treated by a man as an import, and she’d come running into the women’s dormitory,” Margery Hite ’73 said.

She added that women from the first few coeducational classes at the University would be a refuge for the “imports” who occasionally felt they had been sexually assaulted or pressured into doing things they were not comfortable with.

“We were always concerned about the treatment of imports and what happens to an import if she doesn’t want to spend the night with one of the men from a club and figure out how to be helpful in that regard,” Frank said.

The practice of “importing” ceased as more female undergraduates were admitted to the University in the seventies and eighties.

Coed Week: An experiment The University hosted an Undergraduate Assemblysponsored “Coed Week” from Feb. 9-14 in 1969, in which 800 out of 2,500 female applicants were allowed to live at and attend a week of activities at the University.

Cohen, one of the organizers of Coed Week, said the organizers capitalized on the fact that the University wanted to look like it was moving forward on the issue of coeducation.

With the support of the student body, the organizers pushed the idea through to administrators.

Cots were brought into

rooms and f lowered toilet paper was put into the bathrooms that the male students had vacated for the women during the course of the week, according to a Feb. 22, 1969, ‘Prince’ article.

Cohen said that while he was nervous about the possibility of problems like unwanted sexual activity, the week was like a giant party.

“You were getting to meet women in a more casual [environment] than kind of the pressurized, ‘this is a weekend and let’s see how far we can get … in our intimacy’,” Cohen said.

The men set off the fire alarms one night during Coed Week so that they could see the women in their nightgowns, according to “Transforming the Tiger,” a book by Catherine Keyser ’01.

Judith-Ann Corrente ’70, a critical language program member, called the weekend “weird.”

“It was like a long weekend, where all of the men’s dates came,” she said.

We Want Girls: The decisions leading to the first coeducational classes Students held several rallies fighting for coeducation throughout the 1950s, at which the men would scream, “We want girls!”, according to an Oct. 7, 1994 article in the ‘Prince’ about 25 years of coeducation.

Seventy-five percent of faculty and 83 percent of students polled said coeducation would make Princeton more appealing to male applicants, according to the Patterson Report, which was written by a committee of the same name that was set up to investigate the desirability and feasibility of coeducation.

Arthur Horton ’4 2 annotated the Patterson Report with comments against coeducation.

“Excuse me while I vomit,” he wrote on the report.

The main alumni complaints regarding coeducation involved claims that it would be expensive, that women were a distraction and that the University would strain its relationship with alumni, according to a Nov. 20, 1968, article in the ‘Prince’.

“There were a lot of conservative alumni who thought that Princeton was the best damn place on earth and it should only be the way it was when they were here, which is when it was for men,” Cohen said.

Cohen said the University chose to admit women to stay competitive with universities like Harvard and Yale.

“A Princeton which persisted in denying admission to women applicants probably could not long maintain a strong position of leadership in the nation,” the Board of Trustees declared in its Jan. 13, 1969, news conference when it made the official announcement admitting

female undergraduates.

Office of Admission personnel printed out two sets of letters to the women applicants, according to a April 2, 1969, ‘Prince’ article. One set informed the women of whether they had been admitted, and the other said the University was not accepting women that year.

“The problem was that they [the University administrators] didn’t think very strategically,” Corrente said. “The decision to admit women was more reactive than strategic.”

Corrente, who served on the Coeducation Admissions Committee, said working on the committee was strange, especially when officers would be impressed by potential candidates like a model who sent in pictures of herself.

The University received 784 applications from women, of which 190 were offered admission, according to a blog from Mudd Manuscript Library about the women of the Class of 1970. Around 150 women matriculated, joining the 3,258 men on campus.

The arrival of the ‘coeds’ Sara Sill ’73 said it seemed that there was a spotlight on the new undergraduate women, who were known as “coeds” for a significant period of time.

“There was a lot of press, there were special assemblies, there was a special welcome speech, they gave us all f lowers – which all seemed like a fuss to me at the time,” she said.

Hite said that she didn’t think that she would have applied if it hadn’t been for the first class of women, a feeling that was expressed by a number of women.

“I remember saying to my mother — and now I laugh about it — that I wanted to go to Princeton to be a pioneer,” Marsha Rosenthal ’74 said.

Hite said that for the first year and a half, there were not enough women to blend in and being singled out as a woman became tiring. She added that things like the women’s new dresses were often spotted and called out by men on campus.

“You did feel like you were on display all the time,” Hite said.

Michael Buchman ’73 said that while those who were opposed to women’s matriculation politically were in the minority, some students were still sexist and spoke about women in disrespectful ways.

During their first year at the University, all coeds lived in Pyne Hall.

Cynthia Chase ’75 said that in Pyne Hall, there were women on some f loors and men on the other f loors, some of whom partook in late night interactions and conversations.

“The atmosphere was good,” she said. “It was friendly and cheerful.”

However, she noted that the atmosphere was still largely like that of a men’s school due to their style of humor and the interactions between male students.

Marsha Lev y-Warren ’73 said there was no common space for interaction between women students within Pyne Hall, which led to a lack of camaraderie among the female students.

“This led to a feeling of being somewhat isolated and marginalized on campus,” she said.

Hite said that because Pyne Hall was the only place where women lived, there were men around a lot. She recalled a panty raid that was carried out on Pyne Hall, when there was a bunch of young men chanting in the courtyards that they were going to come into the women’s rooms and steal some underwear, which one of the girls eventually threw out of the window for them.

Hite also said that women suffered retaliation from male students who were unhappy about the institutional changes. One example included messages left in the laundry rooms in Pyne Hall.

“Coeds are just guys who have worked their balls off,” one of the messages read, Hite said.

An inclusive community As more women entered the University, they expanded to live in different parts of campus.

Rosenthal said the ratio of women to men was higher at Princeton Inn College — now called Forbes College — and Wilson College than it was in the dorms up-campus, due to structural issues like restroom location and the administration’s decision to concentrate women in the same areas on campus.

“Instead of being 10:1 or so or more, there were more women proportionately at Princeton Inn, and that meant that in the dining hall, in the lounge areas and so forth, it wasn’t as overwhelmingly male as it was in some of the up-campus areas,” she said.

Sue Perles ’75 said that very few women lived in Holder Hall, which is where she lived during her freshman year. She said that only two out of the 20 hall entryways were marked for use by women.

Frank said that during her time at Princeton in the late 70s, women resided in all of the dorms.

“It went pretty smoothly, and of course, there were the unofficial co-ed rooms,” she said. “Obviously, not as far as Housing Services was concerned, but there certainly were co-ed rooms.”

This article is the first in a four-part Women’s History Month feature series. Check back tomorrow for a look at women and academics at the University.

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday march 24, 2015

NO ALCOHOL BEFORE TATTOOS - Kanye West, Twitter.

have something better to say? say it with a ‘Prince’ ad.

Call (609)258-8110 or Email business@dailyprincetonian.com LUKE CHENG :: SENIOR STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

President of Terrace Club Lucia Perasso ’16 sent an email to club membership on Sunday about the policy change.

Changes to Terrace smoking policy comply with state laws TERRACE Continued from page 1

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

“The graduate board decided this, but the undergraduate officers were on board. We received their input,” he explained, adding the “overwhelming majority” of the board was in favor of the revised policy. “We think the student membership is receptive to this.”

Harrison declined to say which types of smoking were allowed in the designated areas.

“The graduate board wants to

respect the rights of non-smokers,” he said. “We think this is the best solution.”

However, not all students agreed with the new policy.

Mohamed Shalan ’17, who is not a member but frequents the club, said it is a part of Terrace’s reputation to be an environment friendly to smokers, and it would be losing one of its main draws with the new policy.

“It’s absurd because one of the main things that attracts Princeton students to Terrace is its lively spirit of smoking anywhere that you want to,” Shalan

said.

Under the New Jersey SmokeFree Air Act of 2006, almost all indoor workplaces are required to prohibit smoking.

The Princeton Board of Health is set to introduce an ordinance before the town council on Thursday that would prohibit sales of tobacco and electronic smoking devices to people under 21 years of age. The corresponding state age is 19.

The town hall for Terrace members about smoking policy scheduled for Tuesday was canceled in light of the new policy.

FORENSIC ARCHITECTURE

YICHENG SUN :: PHOTO EDITOR

Professor Eyal Weizman, Princeton Global Scholar, lectures on the field of forensic architecture to analyze urban destruction at places like Gaza, which has suffered numerous brutal military assaults in the past 6 years.

page 5

Paying attention to women’s sports Marni Morse columnist

I

f you had asked me a month ago if our women’s basketball team was any good, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you. And I even know someone on the team.

Admittedly, I don’t really follow sports much.

If you had asked me how our men’s team was doing this year, I couldn’t have told you that either.

It was only once it became clear that the women’s team was on track to be undefeated in the regular season that I started to pay attention. Granted, part, and perhaps even most, of my unawareness is due to my own indifference to sports; however, it is also clear that part of my unawareness is because we as a society don’t place as much of an emphasis on women’s sports teams.

This year, the only other undefeated Division I basketball team, University of Kentucky, is getting a lot more attention. A Google search of “2015 undefeated college basketball teams” brings up nine articles on the first page — eight of which are about Kentucky, only the ninth mentions Princeton in the headline, in addition to a news article about Obama picking Princeton. If media coverage is any indicator of interest, nationally the United States is simply much more interested in men’s teams than they are in the female equivalents.

Almost 43 years ago, Congress enacted Title IX, requiring federally funded schools to provide girls and women with equal opportunities to compete in sports. While this law has greatly expanded the resources available to female athletes, equal funds do not necessarily lead to equal support. The fan base and coverage continues to lag woefully behind that of male college teams.

For instance, according to the Women’s Sports Foundation, female college athletes receive $183 million less in NCAA scholarships than do male athletes.

This trend continues in professional sports as well where women players are paid much less than men are and where many of these female teams struggle mightily for media attention and loyal supporters beyond young girls seeking role models. The view persists that female athletes are not as skilled, as fast or as strong as the men are. We need a paradigm shift that recognizes that female athletes and teams are not inferior; they are just different.

Our women’s basketball team is the perfect example of this. In general, women’s teams place more emphasis on teamwork, and less on individual play. But that doesn’t mean that is or should be any less interesting to watch. Those who claim it is less interesting do so simply because we have been taught that a certain style of game play is interesting — not because it inherently is.

Val Ackerman, a former president of USA Basketball and the WNBA, released a report in 2013 recommending changes to women’s college basketball to generate more enthusiasm and interest. Her recommendations included joining the women’s Final Four games with the men’s, playing them simultaneously in the same city as is done with professional tennis Grand Slam events.

In the alternative, she offered that the women’s Final Four games could be played in Europe or China, where there is more interest in women’s sports. Although these solutions do not address changing our society’s learned male-centric interests, they are a step in the right direction.

I would not say that my experience deviates too much from the casual sports fans’ experience. I grew up being dragged to basketball games (both men’s and women’s — Go Mystics!) by my parents and watched some on TV too. So long as my parents pay the pool fee, I have filled out an NCAA men’s bracket every year since I was seven, though I pick largely based on schools I like or have a connection to, or remember as having done well in the previous year (so more or less like most of America, from my understanding).

But I have never completed a women’s NCAA tournament bracket or even thought about filling one out, frankly. This year my mom asked me if I wanted to, just for fun, because Princeton was in the tournament. It would have to be just for fun because there was no office pool for the women’s tournament. In perusing the women’s bracket, however, I realized all I was really interested in was seeing if Princeton could beat my home state, Maryland, and how far they would go (or to see perhaps if UConn would win, yet again).

I don’t have a huge interest in men’s basketball, but I’ve been taught to care about it enough that I want to fill out an NCAA bracket every year, despite being uninformed. But I never do this for the women’s tournament. Or pay any attention to women’s sports, college or professional. And I’m not the only one. A quick Google search reveals that this year 11.57 million brackets were filled out for the men’s tournament. For the women’s tournament, sites like ESPN do not even give a number, only revealing percentages instead.

Of course, at this point on campus, a lot of excitement exists for our team. Over break there were plenty of Facebook posts complaining about the seeding and then reveling in President Obama’s selection of Princeton rolling through the tournament and attendance at the first game.

Everyone loves to rally around a winning team, no matter its gender. But perhaps we, the avid and casual sports followers, should have been paying a bit more attention all along, and I certainly include myself in that guilty group.

Marni Morse is a sophomore from Washington, D.C. She can be reached at mlmorse@princeton.edu.

Opinion

Tuesday march 24, 2015

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Under the protection of the Fire Code she flourishes Newby Parton columnist

W

hen the day comes that the stones of Whitman College combust spontaneously, I will be ready. I will know where my door is because no posters obscure it. I will know how to exit the building because I practice in the University’s regular fire drill rituals.

I have a friend who says she could locate doors and exits without the Fire Code — but she’s an atheist. To the rest of us, the Code is sacred. Without it we might do something dangerous, like using a microwave that other New Jersey colleges deem safe, or leaving through an emergency exit immediately, without pausing for 15 seconds to admire the growing flames. Simply put, our faith in the Code saves us, and nonbelievers are going to burn.

Atheists like my friend are in the business of demanding “proof” that the Code protects us.

They point to contrary “evidence” like Montclair State University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology, which have better fire safety ratings than the University despite their less draconian fire policies. But here is all the proof you need: No University student has ever died in a campus fire.

Compare us to the other 139,203 American schools — especially

the 98,817 elementary schools, where unauthorized microwaves and door-posters abound — and you’ll realize just how unique our safety record is. Outside FitzRandolph gate, schoolchildren are burning like ants. In fact, a student has died in a school fire as recently as 1958. To an institution as venerable as the University, 57 years without a fire death is hardly longer than a week. A deadly fire could strike today, or tomorrow, or maybe it struck yesterday between my writing of this column and its publication. If our Code is relaxed, we will be in the same danger as the rest of the country’s students. It is a risk we cannot afford.

Sadly, I am one of the last students to believe fully in the sanctity of the Code. Many of my peers are cafeteria Coders at best, removing duct tape from their doors for fire inspections, and vocal atheists at worst. Then there are the polytheists. They accept what is written in the Code, but they want to practice other drills: an active shooter drill, for example.

They would pray to a golden calf because of shootings like the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre, where senior Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 victims to death.

Alas, the polytheists are misguided. They fail to see that the shooting at Virginia Tech, like the 114 shootings in American schools since then, was an isolated incident. We are safe. Our peers are

vol. cxxxix

safe, too: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has gone nearly two years without a deadly shooting, and no one has been shot to death on Harvard’s campus since 2009. How rash it would be for the University to adopt a policy preparing us to survive a shooting.

Gunmen are simply not a threat.

I have called on the administration to make changes in the past, but, because this is a matter concerning the Code, I am begging them to keep everything the same. Updating safety drills for the twenty-first century would ruin us. We must remember what is written in Matthew 5:18: “Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Fire Code until everything is accomplished.”

If we try to alter the Code, or if we begin to worship other codes, we will face the wrath of God. Nonbelievers are going to continue their cries for ostensibly safe microwaves and the right to place their posters willy-nilly, but we must not listen. We must also ignore the particularly radical breed of extremists who would like to modify the Fire Code in the interest of “safety.” Despite what they may claim, those doors that open after 15 seconds are safe. The fire, like a gunman, will politely wait.

Newby Parton is a freshman from McMinnville, Tenn. He can be reached at newby@princeton.edu.

Anna Mazarakis ’16 editor-in-chief

Matteo Kruijssen ’16 business manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 vice presidents John G. Horan ’74 Thomas E. Weber ’89 secretary Kathleen Kiely ’77 treasurer Michael E. Seger ’71 Craig Bloom ’88 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Richard P. Dzina, Jr. ’85 William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John G. Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Betsy J. Minkin ’77 Alexia Quadrani Jerry Raymond ’73 Annalyn Swan ’73 Douglas Widmann ’90

139TH BUSINESS BOARD head of outreach Justine Mauro ’17 Head of Client Management Vineeta Reddy ’18 Head of Operations Daniel Kim ’17

Small World Order Ryan Budnick ’16 ..................................................

Comptroller Nicolas Yang ’18 Head of Accounts Receivable Jessica Li ’18 Director of Circulation Kevin Liu ’18

NIGHT STAFF 3.23.15 senior copy editor Summer Ramsay-Burrough ’17 news Doug Wallack ’16

The last column about the commenters (hopefully) Zeena Mubarak columnist

T

his year, as I entered my second year writing for the ‘Prince,’ I have noticed a lot of articles discussing and criticizing the comments section below our articles. I am talking about articles like Sarah Sakha’s “Just Keep Scrolling,” Newby Parton’s “Thoughts on Freshman Columnists,” and Will Rivitz’s “Snark’s Inefficacy.” The most recent of these was published just this month.

All the articles share a similar theme, a criticism of the harshness of the commenters. On the one hand, I can empathize with these writers, particularly because all of them are freshmen.

I have received extremely harsh criticism from commenters as well. Some of the criticism was logical and earned; some of it was unfair. However, if we are to be an effective paper I believe we need to move on from dwelling on the commenters, because they are an unavoidable part of

any online publication.

I understand this column may come across as slightly ironic; after all, I am contributing one more article to the recent deluge of columns discussing the topic of critical commentary in response to other articles. However, I believe it is important to make this criticism in this forum, because the other articles were published here as well.

I have written in other online publications before. Whatever the blog or newspaper, whatever the size or demographic of the intended audience, all online publications have one thing in common: at least a few snarky, uncomplicated comments. It is these that are most often complained about.

However, to complain about them is to miss the point. They are not intended to strike up complicated debates or even really critique the author’s argument. They are just meant to draw attention or show general displeasure with any aspect of the article. To highlight these by writing multiple articles about them is to put a hundred times more thought into them than the

original commentator did. Discussing them can never have a fruitful ending because, again, they were never truly meant for discussion.

In fact, reactionary writing in response to the banal, intentionally inf lammatory comments gives them attention and makes the authors look defensive. Both of these things only encourage further snarky comments. In “Snark’s Inefficacy,” Will Rivitz mentions that snarky comments are defined by the fact that it is impossible to respond well to them in an intelligent, meaningful, thoughtful manner. As such, I propose that we don’t respond to them — either in the comments or in long articles.

Comments are an important part of online debate. Many of them are intended to add on to the articles or to seriously critique them, bringing up things the author overlooked, ignored or misinterpreted. These comments are useful to read and engage with.

I don’t generally like to write about my own writing, or about the way writing works in the opinion section of the ‘Prince’. I

believe the opinion page is best served if all of the opinion writers focus on larger issues of interest to the campus as a whole.

However, because the trend of articles complaining about commenters has continued, I think it is important to take a decisive stance in this venue. I hope that moving forward we choose to use this space in a more productive manner. This year’s freshmen will likely grow completely unaffected by comments soon — exposure makes you tough. But I hope next year’s new writers and those that come after them can skip that intermediary step. I hope they move straight to being as unaffected as possible by rude and unproductive comments.

Hopefully, in the upcoming semester, we can all decide to participate in meaningful and productive discussions, even in the comments sections of the ‘Prince’. Failing that, maybe we can at least learn to ignore such comments.

Zeena Mubarak is a sophomore from Fairfax, Va. She can be reached at zmubarak@princeton.edu.

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday march 24, 2015

page 7

TIFFANY RICHARDSON :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

Blake Dietrick, captain of the women’s basketball team, finished with 26 points on the game.

After a season marked by incredible efficiency, Tigers’ offense sputters in second half of game against Terps W. B-BALL Continued from page 8

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

watched this team would expect, the Tigers would not go down quietly. A small run sparked by the efforts of Dietrick would bring them within 13 points, down 4962 with just under 12 minutes remaining. For about a five minute period, Dietrick would have all 9 of the Tigers’ points.

However, Maryland would come right back, as some

timely offensive rebounds and more three point shots would push the lead out to 24 points, with only 7:35 to go in the game.

Again, the Tigers showed their mettle and would not allow the Terps a breakaway victory. They would go on a 10-0 run to bring the lead down to just 14 points. At this point, however, Maryland would begin to clamp its foot down on the Tigers. The Terps began to run the clock out, getting the rebounds they were missing out on in

the first half as the Tigers’ time, and their season, began to fade away before their eyes.

Despite a last minute spurt sparked by Dietrick and Smith, the Tigers wouldn’t be able to bring the lead down to single digits late in the game, bowing out of the tournament with this loss.

The Tigers conclude their season with a record of 31-1 , marked by a perfect regular season and a win over the University of Wisconsin - Green Bay in the NCAA tournament.

Women’s fencing team finishes season with five All-Americans FENCING Continued from page 8

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

epee would be the only weapon to send someone into the final stage. Lee and Stone would pick up 14 wins each across their bouts, and would

finish seventh and eighth respectively. Tsue and Singh would fare less well, winning 12 and 8 bouts to finish in 10th and 18th place, respectively.

Overall, the Tigers would finish fourth in the NCAA championship, and become

the only program to finish in the top four over each of the last five years. Princeton’s accolades would not end there, as Van Brummen, Ford, Stone, Tsue and Lee would earn All-American honors after their strong performances over the weekend.

DANIELA COSIO :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

The only loss the women’s team faced in their trip was to No. 11 ranked Oklahoma State.

Men’s team conquers No. 22 Harvard, women defeat No. 31 Long Beach TENNIS

Continued from page 8

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

Graff and Tang at first and fifth singles and losses by Muliawan, Wolff and Goepel, the match was tied at 3-3. Steffensen lost the first set 7-5 in the tiebreaker before winning the second set 6-3. Steffensen was a point away from taking a 6-5 lead in the third set before her opponent, Jana Buth, suffered an injury and was forced to retire giving the Tigers the fourth point.

The Tigers faced Oklahoma State in the finals of the invitational. The strongest opponent they have played all year, the Cowboys quickly swept the doubles point. The Tigers used the same lineup they had used throughout the tournament. The Tigers lost five of their six singles matches, however. The lone victory came from Amanda Muliawan at second singles by a score of 3-6, 6-4, 6-1.

The men, likewise, began the tournament with a tricky

match against the University of Indiana. The Tigers jumped on the Hoosiers early with victories at second and third doubles to secure the doubles point. Indiana, however, responded by taking the first singles point over sophomore Josh Yablon at fourth singles.

This did not faze Princeton though, as the team took the next three singles match for the victory. Freshman Kial Kaiser and senior Zack McCourt won their matches at sixth and first singles respectively before sophomore Alex Day won the match for the Tigers 4-6, 6-2, 6-3 at third singles.

Next, the Tigers suffered a loss to San Diego 4-0. The teams split the first two doubles matches off of the court before losing at first doubles against the ITA 40th ranked doubles tandem of San Diego.

The Toreros won the singles matches at second, third and fifth singles, all in straight sets, to seal the defeat for the Tigers. According to GoPrincetonTigers, Princeton head

coach, Billy Pate, stated after the match, “We really struggled to gain a foothold in any singles match early and just simply didn’t execute.

We’re disappointed in that, but we’ll bounce back and be ready for Harvard tomorrow.”

Pate was correct as the Tigers hopped out to an early lead after once again winning the doubles point against the Crimson. After Harvard took three of the first five singles matches, it came down to freshman Luke Gamble at sixth singles. Gamble did not play like a freshman, however, as he kept his cool under pressure and led the Tigers to victory with an exciting 6-4, 2-6, 6-4 victory. This was the highest ranked team the Tigers’ beat on the year and the highest ranked team the team beaten under head coach Billy Pate.

The men now look ahead to a match against the 61st ranked Penn Quakers at home, while the women will travel to Penn to play the Quakers next weekend.

Sports

Tuesday march 24, 2015

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

Tigers meet their match, fall to No. 1 seed Maryland

By Miles Hinson sports editor

The Tigers’ astonishing season came to a close on Monday night, as they fell to the No. 1 seeded Maryland Terrapins in College Park, Maryland.

A close first half turned into a large second half lead for the Terps, and the Tigers would ultimately fall to the tune of 85-70.

The first half was a neck-and-neck affair, as the two teams would have two very different strengths in their offensive efforts. Princeton would hit the Terps hard down low, as junior guard Alex Wheatley scored six early points. Her efforts would be followed later in the half by sophomore guard Vanessa Smith and senior guard Blake Dietrick, both of whom would finish with 9 points at the half.

Maryland, on the other hand, would build their lead with outside shots. The Terps would be hitting threes early on to keep the Tigers at bay. Maryland’s Lexie Brown, Lauren Mincy and Tierney Pfirman were all instrumental in keeping their team hot from deep. A combination of both deep twos and threes would prevent the Tigers from breaking away with their inside advantage.

Indeed, the inside advantage was evident in more ways than scoring.

The Tigers were incredibly solid in keeping the Terps from getting any second-chance shots. Cleaning the glass has been the Tigers’ specialty all season — they led the Ivy League

in rebounds per game, and sported a monstrous rebounder in junior forward Annie Tarakchian. In the first half of this contest, however, the star rebounder would be junior guard Michelle Miller, who pulled down seven boards in the first half alone.

Perhaps the sequence that most defined these teams’ respective first halves was a layup by senior guard and captain Blake Dietrick followed by a long two by Maryland’s Shatori Walker-Kimbrough. Each team appeared very specialized in the half, rather unusual since both the Tigers and the Terps were effective both inside and outside the paint all season.

The second half would feature a remarkable change from the closely fought battle of the first. After Wheatley and Mincy exchanged baskets to open the half, the Terps would go on a blazing run, scoring 15 unanswered points as the Tigers would not score for about 5 and a half minutes.

Princeton had not trailed by double digits this entire season, and were suddenly faced with a 19 point deficit with just under 14 minutes to go.

What made the Terps’ run tough to stop was that they added to their hot outside shooting a strong inside game, punishing the Tigers with a combination of layups and long jumpers. While the Tigers’ offense was coming out f lat-footed, Maryland had seemed to put it together and was poised to completely run away with this game.

However, as anyone who has See W. B-BALL page 7

TIFFANY RICHARDSON :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

The Tigers battled the Terrapins against a raucous home crowd in the second round of the NCAA championship.

TENNIS

FENCING

Fencing team earns fourth place at NCAA Championships

By Miles Hinson sports editor

DANIELA COSIO :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

Both the men’s and women’s tennis teams saw success in their trip to San Diego, each going 2 - 1 against very tough ranked teams.

Men’s, women’s tennis head out west

By Chris Grubbs contributor

The Princeton tennis teams travelled to San Diego for a final three matches before Ivy League play begins.

Both teams posted 2-1 records against three highly ranked opponents. The unranked women’s team (6-7) began the trip with a 6-1 upset victory over 31st ranked Long Beach State (8-1). The team then knocked off 67th ranked San Diego State (6-8) by a score

of 4-3 in the semifinals before suffering a 6-1 loss to 11th ranked Oklahoma State (14-3) in the finals. On the men’s side, the team (15-4) defeated 39th ranked University of Indiana (10-6) in the first round. In the semifinals, the host team, University of San Diego (11-4), ranked 30th in the nation, swept the Tigers 4-0. In the consolation match, the Tigers defeated Ivy League rival Harvard (125), ranked 22nd in the nation, 4-3.

The women began the week with a difficult match against Long Beach State, which was playing on its home courts. The Princeton women grabbed a 1-0 lead by claiming the doubles point with victories at the first and third spots despite a tiebreaker loss on court 2 from junior Amanda Muliawan and sophomore Dorothy Tang. All five singles matches that the Tigers won, with the exception of senior Lindsay Graff’s 6-3, 7-5 vic-

tory at first singles, came in three sets. Sophomore Alanna Wolff won 6-4, 2-6, 6-3 at third singles. Freshman Katrine Steffensen took her match 4-6, 6-4, 7-5 at fourth singles. Tang and senior Katie Goepel won their matches 6-4, 4-6, 6-4 and 6-1, 2-6, 6-2 respectively at fifth and sixth singles.

Princeton then swept the doubles matches against San Diego State to gain an early 1-0 lead. After victories by See TENNIS page 7

Traveling to Columbus, Ohio to conclude their season, the Princeton fencing team would place fourth in the NCAA championships.

Twenty-five teams were present at the event.

The Tigers had 11 total representatives at the event.

From the men’s team, they sent junior Jack Hudson and sophomore Alex House (epee), freshman Thomas Dudley (foil), and freshman Edward Chin and sophomore Peter Pak (sabre). From the women’s team, Princeton sent forth juniors Anna Van Brummen and Isabel Ford (epee), sophomore Ashley Tsue and senior Ambika Singh (foil), and freshman Allison Lee and junior Gracie Stone (sabre).

From the men’s team, only Hudson advanced to the semifinals for his weapon.

He won 17 of his bouts (for a winning percentage of .739), which earned him a spot in the final four. House would win 12 of his bouts, placing 11th.

In the semifinal round, Hudson edged Lewis Weiss of Ohio State by the tiniest of margins, eking out the win 14-13. After this battle, he would move on to face Jake Hoyle of the Columbia

Lions, the team that would ultimately place first overall in the tournament. Hudson would fall 15-11 to Hoyle, the new NCAA men’s epee champion.

As for foil, Dudley would place ninth, winning 14 bouts for a winning percentage of .609, but failing to qualify for the final four.

The same fate would befall Chin and Pak in the sabre category. They would finish right after one another in the standings - Chin won 14 of his bouts and Pak won 13, good for eighth and ninth place respectively overall but not high enough to compete for first place on the last day.

The results for the women’s team would heavily mirror the men’s results. Van Brummen, one of Princeton’s top performers on the season, won 17 bouts to move onto the final four. She would then face defeat at the hands of St. John’s Isis Washington, falling in the match by a single point, 15-14. Van Brummen would ultimately finish third overall for women’s epee. Her weaponmate Ford would finish seventh overall, not qualifying for a chance to compete for the top prize.

As with the men’s team,

Tweet of the day

Inside

Follow us

‘Congratulations to @CoachBanghart and the @PrincetonWBB on a tremendous season, which ends at 31 - 1.’

Read more about the women’s basketball team and their tough battle against Maryland.

SPORTS PAGE 7

‘Prince’ Sports is on Twitter!

Follow us at

Princeton university (@Princeton)

www.twitter.com/princesports

for live news and reports!