The Daily Princetonian - Mar. 29, 2019

Friday March 29, 2019 vol. cxliii no. 33

Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

STUDENT LIFE

U. accepts 5.7 percent of applicants

CHRISTOPHER LILLJA / OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

The applicant pool for the Class of 2023 was 7.3% smaller than that of the Class of 2022, but was still the second largest in U. history.

staff writer

At 7 p.m. tonight, the University will accept 1,152 new students to the Class of 2023, who, along with the 743 students offered admission during the single-choice early action, will comprise the accepted class. Overall, the University accepted 1,895 students out of an applicant pool of 32,804,

representing a 5.77 percent acceptance rate.

Of those offered admission, 56 percent have selfidentified as people of color and 63 percent went to public high schools.

Students come from all 50 states, in addition to Washington, D.C, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Fifty-two percent are women and 48 percent are men.

Jill Dolan, acting dean

STUDENT LIFE

of admission and dean of the college, commended the admissions staff for their efforts and their commitment to a holistic review of applications.

“We really are interested in where students come from, whether or not we think according to our criteria they’ll thrive at Princeton,” Dolan said.

“We’re very interested in the contributions they will make to campus and

Coffee Club plans to open student-run shop in April

By Mina Lee Contributor

Many University students are more than willing to hike uphill to Small World Coffee or Starbucks and cough up four or five dollars for a cup of joe. Starting April 14, however, an alternative option will be celebrating its grand opening.

A coffee shop named The Coffee Club, run and staffed entirely by Uni-

In Opinion

versity students, will be taking over the taproom in Campus Club.

Alex Kaplan ’21 is one of four members of Princeton Coffee Club’s business team. Kaplan has been working closely with Emily Yu ’22, Sara Miller ’22, and Josh Becker ’19 for nearly a year and a half to get the shop up and running.

The idea for the shop was born out of efforts See COFFEE page 2

Contributing columnist Julia Chaffers analyzes the various opportunity disparities exposed by the college admissions scandal, and managing editor Sam Aftel advoctaes for the University to Ban the Box. PAGE 4

See 2023 page 2

ON CAMPUS

Horn, founding director of ENV program, dies at 77

Ambassadors, former PM of Palestinian authority discuss Israeli elections

staff writer

The Club previously opened a one-week pop-up in Campus Club.

dents will be the first in their family to attend college. It is expected that around 60 percent will receive financial aid.

Twenty-three percent of admitted students are going to study engineering, and 15 percent are entering the humanities. Eleven percent are children of University alumni.

The expected class size for the Class of 2023 is

ON CAMPUS

By Katie Tam

PHOTO COURTESY OF CAITLIN CHENG ’20

the ways in which a Princeton education will have an effect on their lives that will let them go on to have an effect on more peoples’ lives.”

The University partners with several organizations to encourage high-achieving low income students, including QuestBridge and Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America. Eighteen percent of admitted stu-

Henry Horn, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and founding director of the Program in Environmental Studies, died in Princeton on March 14 at the age of 77.

Horn joined the faculty in 1966 and founded the Program in Environmental Studies in 1991. He transferred to emeritus status in 2011, although he continued to be active in teaching and research. Just two weeks before his death, Horn submitted a manuscript for his second book on the social behavior of butterflies.

Horn’s breakthrough work was on the geometry of trees, but he was a true naturalist with a deep knowledge of the ecology around him. Professor Emeritus of Geosciences Lincoln Hollister said that Horn transmitted his “keen curiosity of the natural world” to students, colleagues, and the community through walking tours, which he conducted in and around the University campus.

Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Cassie Stoddard said Horn was the first person she would tell about a unique bird or tree she came across. She remembers

Horn walking briskly down the hallway to tell her about his encounters with hummingbirds in Arizona.

“He was always with binoculars, a notebook, and a pen.

He loved observing the natural world and sharing it with others,” Stoddard said. Horn’s broad interests, passion, and curiosity “brought everyone together in the department.”

“He loved to communicate his love of nature to other people,” said James S. McDonnell Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Simon Levin.

Horn was born in Philadelphia on Nov. 12, 1941. He earned a Bachelor of Arts at Harvard University in 1962 and a Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Washington in 1966, where he completed a doctoral thesis on the social behavior of blackbirds.

Horn’s research was expansive, exploring everything from forest dynamics to insect behavior. His first book on tree shape and branching patterns, “The Adaptive Geometry of Trees,” was published in 1971.

The University’s campus and surrounding areas, including the Institute Woods and Carnegie Lake, served as areas for his fieldwork and teaching. Horn was known for givSee HORN page 3

Today on Campus 8:30a.m.: Love and Survival: Aspiration and Yearning in South Asian Anthropology.

219 Burr Hall

By Naomi Hess staff writer

“This is very much an election that’s a referendum on Netanyahu,” said Professor Daniel C. Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, less than two weeks before the April 9 election of the 21st Israeli Knesset.

“Has he stayed too long?

Is he perceived to be beyond the point at which Israelis are ready to give him another mandate? And perhaps most importantly in this calculation, are the legal issues that he faces going to come home to haunt him?” he continued.

In the March 28 event, “Up to the Minute Panel: Implications of the Israeli Elections,” Ambassador Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and Lebanon; Salam Fayyad, former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority; and Kurtzer discussed the upcoming Israeli election and the worldwide effects it could have.

See ISRAEL page 3

WEATHER

By Roberto Hasbun

HIGH

65˚

LOW

49˚

Cloudy chance of rain:

20 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Friday March 29, 2019

18% of those accepted are first generation students 2023

Continued from page 1

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

Revealing the truth, one story at a time. join@dailyprincetonian.com

1,296 students. Thirtyfive of these are expected to defer their enrollment and participate in the University’s Novogratz Bridge Year Program, which allows first-year students to engage in service work in Bolivia, China, India, Indonesia, or Senegal.

The University is hoping to expand the undergraduate class by 500 students, or 125 per class, in the near future. This will start in the fall of 2022, when Perelman College, a new residential facility, is inaugurated. This will allow the admissions office to admit more students.

Elizabeth Colagiuri, acting director of admission and deputy dean of the college, also said she is looking forward to welcoming transfer students. Last year, the University reinstated a transfer admissions program in search of students from low-income backgrounds, community college students, and U.S. military veterans.

The deadline for transfer applicants was March 1, and these applicants will be notified of their decision in early May. Twelve transfer students are ex-

pected to enroll in the fall of 2019.

Admitted students are invited to attend Princeton Preview, which will take place on April 9–10 and April 15–16. This is an opportunity to sit it on classes, meet current students, go to open houses with academic departments, and get a feel for campus life.

“We want to urge people to come to Preview because our best spokespeople for why anyone should come to Princeton are our students,” Dolan said.

The applicant pool this year was 7.3 percent smaller than that of last year’s, but is still the second largest in the University’s history. The applicant pool included students from 10,813 high schools from 161 countries.

Admitted students will have until May 1 to inform the University of their enrollment decision.

“My message to admitted students is that we are sure they have lots of choices, and we really hope they choose Princeton because, in our reading of their applications, they are students who would fit well on campus, who would bring a lot to campus, and who would get a lot out of being on campus,” Dolan said.

U. was only Ivy without student-run coffee shop COFFEE

Continued from page 1

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

to revitalize the Princeton Coffee Club, which was founded six years ago but, according to Kaplan, died out around a year later. When Kaplan arrived on campus as a firstyear, he connected with the founders of the club and worked to revamp its presence on campus.

Princeton Coffee Club has hosted professional tasting and sampling events and, most recently, a week-long pop-up coffee shop during 2019 Intersession. Amid all of this, they have also been working to make a student-run coffee shop a reality on campus.

“Princeton’s the only Ivy League school without a student-run coffee shop on campus,” Kaplan said. He believed it was time to change that.

The business team handled everything from garnering the support of University administration to learning how to handle the equipment side of the coffee business.

“The hardest thing has been coordinating this espresso machine. It’s the biggest, most prominent, most expensive equipment in the shop,” Kaplan said. “Tom Corcoran and the facilities office have done great things for us.

They guided us through all the crazy things we had no idea how to do.”

Kaplan explained that they also worked very closely with the Princeton Student Agencies Council.

“The Coffee Club will be managed by the newly-formed Coffee Agency, which is one of 15 studentrun businesses within Princeton Student Agencies,” Student Agencies Program Coordinator Jessica Popkin explained in an email to the Daily Princetonian. “It’s been so

much fun and incredibly rewarding to work with the students to bring this coffee shop to life.”

The club wants its shop to focus on inclusivity.

Kaplan and his team hope that the shop will become a comfortable and welcoming space to hang out.

Kaplan said the shop will also be committed to maintaining the lowest coffee prices both on and off campus while still serving high-quality drinks and snacks.

“We’re conditioned to expect to pay $3.50 or more for a really good cup of coffee,” Kaplan said.

“That doesn’t have to be the case, and it won’t be anymore.”

The club currently plans to charge two dollars for a cup of coffee.

Kaplan also hopes that the shop will become a space to celebrate the arts and plans on hosting open-mic nights, standup comedy events, and more in the shop.

Hoping to be contrary to what Kaplan describes as the “general air of f lakiness at Princeton,” he and his team hope that the student-run shop can instead become a constant and consistent feature of campus life.

Most of all, however, Kaplan and the Club’s primary focus will be coffee quality.

“I think we’ll have the best coffee in the town,” Kaplan said. “It’s important to us that we’re serving really good coffee.”

Miller closely echoed Kaplan’s sentiment and expressed optimism for the shop’s prospects.

“This is going to be a better coffee spot than the rest that are on campus,” Miller said. “I think it’s super exciting. I think the whole team is so passionate about it, and we all really just want to prove that this is legit, and this is going to be a real coffee shop on campus.”

The Daily Princetonian

Friday March 29, 2019

page 3

Morris: Horn was committed to making the program a family HORN

Continued from page 1

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

ing weekly walking tours on Friday mornings, sharing his knowledge on the local flora and fauna. Some of these tours were documented by the Office of Sustainability in a “Nature Walks” series, where Horn provided insight on trees, skunk cabbages, black squirrels, and more.

A modern lack of interaction with the natural world concerned Horn. Dan Rubenstein, Class of 1877 Professor in Zoology and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, said people today are raised to look at nature in a romantic sense, but do not truly understand the patterns and the species that live there.

“He felt that natural history was a lost art,” Rubenstein said of Horn. These nature walks were lessons into “how to read a landscape,” a way to share what he knew of the world with others.

The Friday morning after Horn’s death, Stoddard took a nature walk at Carnegie Lake with members of her lab to honor his legacy. While there, she bumped into another group doing the same.

“We needed to get out and celebrate Henry’s life and his love of natural history by being outside,” Stoddard explained.

Seeing another group, Stoddard said, “showed me what a huge impact Henry had on members of this community, on this campus.”

Stoddard, who co-taught a seminar class for first-year Ecology and Evolutionary Biology graduate students with Horn, remembers his devotion to mentoring the next generation of scientists. Horn made students feel comfortable, sharing not only scientific ideas but personal hopes, dreams, and fears.

“He was always striving to learn more, do more, share more, help more,” Stoddard said, “growing, and learning, and interacting,” even though he was an emeritus professor with a long career.

Dylan Morris GS was a student in one of these first-year classes, then co-taught by Horn and Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Christie Riehl.

Horn wasn’t afraid to challenge students and was willing to disagree, Morris said. This made Morris, and others, feel respected as scientists.

“He made me feel so welcomed and so valued as a scientist,” Morris said.

At graduate and department seminars, which Horn almost always attended, Rubenstein said Horn was known for being the first to ask questions — questions that made him stronger, more confident, and a better teacher.

One could always count on Horn for a brilliant, insightful question, Stoddard agreed.

David Parris GS ’70, Curator of Natural History at the New Jersey State Museum, recalls Horn grilling him with such thought-provoking questions during his Master of Arts General Examination. Parris, who took a class with Horn during his first semester, remembers Horn as an animated and engaging instructor. Horn told the class about his thesis work with blackbirds, and how he became so familiar with the population that he could identify each bird individually.

“He wasn’t just a brilliant theoretical biologist,” Parris said. “He still knew the ‘woodsy lore,’ as he called it.”

Horn also frequently attended department social events, arriving at Beer Hour with a homemade beer cozy, Morris said.

“He was committed to making this place a family,” Morris said. “He had an incredible commitment to showing up, both socially and academically.”

Horn was a sought-after source of information on environmental preservation for Princeton’s town council and zoning boards. According to Hollister, people looked to him for advice and often quoted him at meetings. Horn was also devoted to education and trained local science teachers during summer programs.

There, he focused on a handson approach, building a foundation for future learning based on the senses.

“He made a huge mark on many people,” Hollister said, “teaching from what you can feel and see.”

In 2000, when the natural history museum housed in Guyot was planned for remov-

JARED FLESHER / OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

Horn often took students and colleagues on walking tours around U.’s campus.

al, Horn and other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Geosciences faculty took a stand against it, Hollister said.

Horn felt the collections should be protected and saw the museum as a place for people to interact with the organic world, Parris said.

Parris used to lead tours of the museum on Alumni Day alongside Horn and his wife, Elizabeth.

“He knew the importance of people seeing real objects and real specimens,” Parris added.

In addition to his role as scientist and naturalist, Horn was an author, artist, and musician. He often performed alongside his family and was a member of the Chapel Choir and Musica Alta, and was director of the Madrigal Singers from 1975 to 1989.

Morris, who joined the Chapel Choir at Horn’s encouragement, said that Horn brought his sense of humor to rehearsals.

One piece they performed was about woodland animals blessing the Lord. Horn, poking fun at the lyrics, drew out an ecological analysis of the creatures involved. He concluded that the ecosystem had too many predators, Morris

said.

Horn often occupied alter egos to channel his creativity, with invented names like J. Charles Farnesworth and Elizabeth Seaport.

As Farnesworth, Horn made collages out of circuit boards and computer chips, shaping them into natural landscapes.

Horn also carved wooden animals, which he displayed in his office and used as teaching tools to get students excited about the “whimsy and magic” of the natural world, Stoddard said.

Horn also consulted for the “Nature’s Nation: American Art and the Environment” exhibition at the University Art Museum and was collaborating with Hollister and others on a 50th anniversary celebration of “Blue Marble,” a photograph of Earth taken on the Apollo 17 mission in 1972.

Horn served on the Princeton University Press Editorial Board from 1993 to 1998 and was chair in 1998. Along with Levin, he co-edited “Monographs in Population Biology,” a series of books examining plant and animal ecology.

Alison Kalett, Princeton University Press Editorial Director of Sciences who worked

with Horn and Levin on the Monographs, said that Horn could always be counted on for long, thoughtful responses to the proposals she sent him.

“What I will remember most is the generosity of his feedback and the depth of his thoughts,” Kalett said. “He was very deeply invested in the success of the series and us publishing the best books we could.”

For students, colleagues, and strangers alike, Horn was generous with his time and gracious with his advice and knowledge. Levin said Horn’s door was always open.

“He always placed other people’s interests before his and seemed to revel in being able to help,” Levin said.

Horn’s deep knowledge and generosity as an advisor and mentor made him an anchor for many of the diverse groups he was a part of.

“In a way, he was the tribal elder of all the groups he was in,” Rubenstein said. “He had a sense of history and continuity, so that you always had a slightly different perspective when you talked to him.”

“He was a community backbone for every community he was a part of,” Morris agreed.

Horn’s loss will be felt deeply

Panelists emphasized influence of U.S. on Israeli policies, elections

NAOMI HESS / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Professor Daniel C. Kurtzer, left, former PM Salam Fayyad, center, and ambassador Ryan Crocker, right, discuss elections in Friend 101.

ISRAEL

Benjamin Netanyahu, the inContinued from page 1 cumbent Prime .............

Minister of Israel, has served in his current office from 1996 to 1999 and from 2009 to the present. He now faces various legal claims related to bribery and fraud, which caused the Israeli attorney general to recommend indictment.

Kurtzer began with a presentation about the parties and the election system. There are 42 parties running in the election. In order to be elected to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, each party needs approximately 3.25 percent of the vote, he explained.

Kurtzer described Israel’s political ideologies as having shifted toward the right.

“This is a phenomenon that’s been ongoing for the last more than 20 years,” he said.

Kurtzer also emphasized the influence of the United States in the Israeli election.

“Trump is clearly voting Netanyahu,” he said. “The decision just the other day to have the United States recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights is not only an election gift to Netanyahu, but is a phenomenal change in America’s approach to international law.”

Kurtzer proceeded to discuss the 13 varied political parties that could win seats in the election. Likud, Netanyahu’s party, opposes a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, an opposing party, Meretz, supports a two-state solution and increased minority rights.

Fayyad said it is not likely that the next elected party will support Palestine.

“A meaningful political process with us Palestinians in a way that could lead to resolution of conflict can happen only if a platform like Meretz’s were to be the platform of the next government,” Fayyad said.

Crocker explained his perspective as a former ambassador to several other countries in

the Middle East, claiming that Israeli elections are far from the top concern for other countries in the region.

“The region is immersed in a turbulence [that] is quite without precedence in modern times,” he said.

“The Arab region is focused on itself.

It’s also focused on external threats, in which Israel does not figure prominently.”

“The Saudis are not losing sleep over who is going to emerge in this election in Israel.

They are losing sleep over what’s going on in Iraq,” Crocker continued.

All three panelists recognized the important policy and political interactions between Israel and the United States.

“As much as Trump has been supportive of Netanyahu, Netanyahu has been supportive of Trump and the Republican Party for several years. It didn’t start with Trump,” Kurtzer said.

Kurtzer also elaborated on the

debate Israel has caused in American politics.

“This has caused a great deal of concern in the American Jewish community, which is divided on this question on how a bipartisan issue of supporting Israel has become part of our partisan politics,” he said.

“You can see it in the way in which the Democratic Party is confronting some of the younger members, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and others who are raising questions about Israel that have not been raised before, and providing fodder for the Republicans to argue that the Democrats are no longer supportive of Israel,” Kurtzer continued.

Crocker then explained how the United States could affect Israeli policy.

“One impact I think [the U.S. position] has had is it may embolden further those in Israel who would seek formal annexation [of] the West Bank or at least parts of the West Bank,” he

said.

Kurtzer also described Netanyahu’s various legal troubles, which he believed would not have a substantial impact on the election.

“If you followed the legal issues that Netanyahu’s been facing, it appeared for some time that he was going to be in enough trouble that he might not be able to stand for election, and now it appears that he’s going to stand and maybe even come back,” he explained.

The reason for Netanyahu’s resilience, Kurtzer explained, was that the public has not expressed extreme opposition toward him.

“As far as the public is concerned, there’s been no big outcry,” Kurtzer said.

“There have not been demonstrations or major reflections of societal concern that you could measure as a form of opposition.”

The event took place on Thursday, March 28, at 4:30 p.m. in Friend 101.

Opinion

Friday March 29, 2019

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Admitting to the inequality in our schools Julia Chaffers

Contributing Columnist

A couple weeks ago, Operation Varsity Blues led to the indictment of 50 people, including parents, college coaches, and standardized test administrators, in a wide-ranging college admissions cheating and bribery scheme. The indicted included two famous actresses, the partner of a private equity firm, a partner at a top law firm, and many more.

This was the largest college admissions case ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice. As he announced the indictment, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts affirmed that “there can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy.”

But the truth is, one already exists. The bribery scandal is an extreme manifestation of an underlying reality: America’s education system is rife with inequality, where opportunity is largely defined by money and social capital.

The aspect of this case that is so infuriating to people is the fact that rich parents were able to literally buy their children spots at elite colleges, spots for which many other students work tirelessly over years, both inside and outside the classroom. But even if these families cut the line to get into schools, there are plenty of other ways to get ahead in the process, ways that are completely legal and widely accepted as part of the game of admissions.

As he proposed his scheme to potential parents, William Singer, the scam’s orchestrator, described a front door, a back door, and a side door for getting into elite schools.

The front door was getting in on your own. The side door was his way of guaranteeing

admission through cheating or bribery. But the back door, the legal ways of getting ahead, are what we really need to reconsider.

Take legacy admissions, for example. By favoring the children of alumni over other comparable students, colleges effectively create a system that perpetuates privilege, giving additional advantage to students already ahead.

According to The Guardian, at Harvard over the past five years, the admission rate for legacy students was over 33 percent — five times higher than the rate for non-legacies; and at Princeton, it’s about four times higher. Historically, many students in the legacy pool have been wealthy and white, meaning that the weight given to this status has reinforced the very racial and socioeconomic structures that education purports to transcend.

Even for non-legacy students who come from wealthy families, there are numerous ways to get a leg up. College counseling, test preparation, and the money and time to participate in a myriad of extracurriculars enable students with privilege to put forth the most polished college application they can, while other students are locked out of such opportunities.

In my high school, it was the norm to pay thousands of dollars for test-prep classes, one-on-one tutoring, and practice tests. Many paid to take standardized tests multiple times to get their target score and committed hours to practice. Additionally, many students met with counselors who helped form a balanced list of schools to apply to, brainstormed and assisted with essays, and answered questions along the way, taking much of the mystery and mythology out of the application process. But not everyone can do that. The problem, then, is that when

colleges reward the results of this investment over other measures of merit, students without access to these resources remain a step behind their peers, and consequently their opportunities are restricted.

And it’s not just the application process that is unfair. Long before the college admissions process even begins, children’s educational opportunities are determined by wealth. Because public schools are funded largely by local sources, geography defines opportunity. The majority of students in the United States attend schools that are racially homogenous, where students are either predominantly white or predominantly nonwhite; and, predominately, majority-nonwhite schools are under-resourced compared to majority-white ones.

A new study by the nonprofit EdBuild revealed vast disparities in educational opportunity. Due to a long history of residential segregation, one in five students lives in a school district that is at once poor and nonwhite.

This affects the quality of education students get, as the study found that white school districts get $23 billion more in funding than nonwhite school districts. That means nonwhite students, from an early age, have less access to opportunities that would set them up to go on to elite universities. Public schools, which are supposed to be the great equalizer, a chance for every child to climb the ranks into prosperity, merely reproduce existing inequalities.

The chance to break out of this cycle proves difficult as well. There are elite private schools, if you have tens of thousands of dollars to spare, but even well-resourced public schools disadvantage underserved students.

Stuyvesant, one of the most prestigious public schools in New York City and the coun-

try, admitted just seven black students and 33 Hispanic students out of 895 available spots, though black and Hispanic students comprise 66 percent of the city’s public school system. The numbers were similarly disproportionate for New York City’s other elite public schools.

In Massachusetts, black and Hispanic students are similarly underrepresented in prestigious public schools compared to the broader public school system. Boston Latin’s student body is 8 percent black, while the Boston Public Schools system is 33 percent black. Acceptance to these prestigious public schools is determined based on entrance exams, creating the same issues of inequality we see in the college process. This means that, once again, access to opportunity depends on a student’s resources, not on their merit.

We like to think that education can level the playing field, that it can allow a student to overcome their current status and work their way up the socioeconomic ladder. When the college bribery scandal hits, we delight in the schadenfreude of watching rich people get their due, and we criticize the illegal shortcuts they took. But we should look harder at the system they skirted and evaluate whether it really lives up to the values we espouse.

What we have now is far from a meritocracy. It’s no accident that more Princeton students come from the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent. This statistic is the logical result of the compounding inequities embedded in the education system.

To cultivate a more diverse campus community, we must work to reverse these underlying problems.

Julia Chaffers is a first-year from Wellesley Hills, Mass. She can be reached at chaffers@ princeton.edu.

Work for the most respected news source on campus.

vol. cxliii

editor-in-chief

Chris Murphy ’20 business manager

Taylor Jean-Jacques’20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Chris Murphy ’20 Taylor Jean-Jacques’20

143RD MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Aftel ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Jon Ort ’21 head news editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news editors Linh Nguyen ’21 Claire Silberman ’22 Katja Stroke-Adolphe ’20 head opinion editor Cy Watsky ’21 associate opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editor Samantha Shapiro ’21 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 cartoon editors Zaza Asatiani ’21 Jonathan Zhi ’21 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

NIGHT STAFF copy Lydia You ’22 Jordan Allen ’20 Jeremy Nelson ’20 design Chelsea Ding ’22 Mark Dodici ’22

join@dailyprincetonian.com

Recylce your ‘Prince’!

Opinion

Friday March 29, 2019

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Formerly incarcerated applicants deserve respect and empathy Samuel Aftel

Managing Editor

Despite the persistent advocacy of Students for Prison Education and Reform, the University has refused to “Ban the Box” — that is, eliminate a section on its application asking for prospective students’ criminal history. As SPEAR explained in The Daily Princetonian, students with criminal records are highly likely to experience rejection from institutions of higher education — and yet, paradoxically, access to higher education is critical to lessening recidivism.

Although the prospect of banning the box surely raises difficult legal, practical, and moral questions, the box should be banned.

To begin with, people who’ve committed a crime and served their time in the correctional system should once again obtain the rights of full citizenship and socio-legal equity. Disadvantaging exoffender applicants in the admissions process contradicts this fundamental democratic principle. Also, given the disproportionate

number of people of color — especially black men — who’ve been a part of the correctional system, such a disadvantage serves as a de facto form of racial and class-based bias in the admissions process.

Nonetheless, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 has pushed back against the Ban the Box campus movement by maintaining that asking applicants for their criminal history is essential to ensuring campus safety. “I think there are some kinds of criminal activity that may be related to risks that could occur on the campus. So we take those risks seriously,” Eisgruber explained at last November’s Council of the Princeton University Community meeting.

There is atrociously limited research on the impact of banning the box on campus crime rates. But the research that is available suggests that banning the box does not make campuses any less safe. And, more broadly, a fundamental social illogic undergirds the argument that campus safety risks justify excluding formerly incarcerated applicants.

If a person who has committed a violent crime and who has served his time in the correctional system is

rejected from Princeton because the University fears he is more likely to be violent, this individual will remain a threat to public safety in general, according to the University’s logic; he’ll just be more likely to commit violence outside of FitzRandolph Gate than on campus.

While the University may justify a “not in our backyard” stance by noting that it is tasked to protect the campus community above all else, I find it strange that the University would be de facto neutral to the prospect of this person assaulting people, so long as he is doing so off campus.

After all, isn’t the University in the service of humanity, not just in its own institutional interests?

Plus, the idea that a formerly incarcerated applicant is more likely to commit a crime on a college campus than in the general public is misguided — in fact, formerly incarcerated applicants are probably less likely to be violent on a college campus, given that universities, for a multitude of socio-cultural and structural reasons, are currently some of the safest places in the United States in terms of crime rates, and given that the limited number of universities

that already banned the box have remained just as safe.

More importantly, the need to mitigate the cruelty and systematic racism of the criminal justice system outweighs any alleged public safety risks posed by accepting formerly incarcerated applicants.

In a true liberal democracy, people who’ve done wrong ultimately deserve mercy, empathy, and second chances, especially after they have served their time. Once an individual has paid her “debt to society” by serving time in the correctional system, she should be able to genuinely move forward and live without fear of discrimination. If she’s denied the rights and liberties of life beyond the criminal justice system, she remains fundamentally incarcerated.

But despite the profound moral importance of the Ban the Box campaign, it does not go far enough in redressing the injustice of the American correctional system.

In fact, an individual who is academically qualified to go to a school like Princeton despite enduring the profoundly racist and classist inequities of the criminal justice system and the abject horrors of incarceration should be af-

firmatively advantaged in the admissions process.

Most of us would be incapable of surviving the blood-curdling cruelty of this country’s criminal justice system and being a competitive Ivy League applicant. Consequently, students who, despite the odds, shined academically while enduring the correctional system should be at the front of the line for admission — or, at the absolute least, they should not be disadvantaged by their criminal records.

Hence, the University should not only ban the box but also allow applicants the option to describe their engagement with the criminal justice system and regard otherwise qualified applicants who have survived the system as exceptional candidates for admission.

The way we treat the most vulnerable in our society most thoroughly illuminates the moral fabric of our intellectual community. Formerly incarcerated applicants are among the most vulnerable, and we should treat them with respect, if not admiration.

Samuel Aftel is a junior from East Northport, N.Y. He can be reached at saftel@ princeton.edu.

Don’t whine.

Opine.

Write for ‘Prince’ Opinion.

48 University Place Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Sports

Friday March 29, 2019

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S LACROSSE

Women’s lacrosse falls to No. 2 Maryland

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Kathryn Hallett and Princeton fell to Maryland Wednesday night.

By Nancy Tran Contributor

It’s always difficult going into a game where the opponent is undefeated and highly ranked in the nation, which is what No. 16 Princeton women’s lacrosse team (5–3) discovered Wednesday night against No. 2 Maryland (11–0).

Maryland’s Jen Giles and Kali Hartshorn scored four goals each, and Princeton fell 15–7 to the Terrapins in College Park, Md. Princeton and Maryland have a longstanding rivalry; the two teams have played every year since

1993. Maryland won last year’s contest 11–10, and Princeton went on to win its next six games and the Ivy League title.

This year, Princeton got off to a slow start. In the first three minutes, Maryland was able to put three in the net to take a 3–0 lead.

Princeton finally got on the board with a goal from Princeton’s senior attacker, Julia Haney, assisted by sophomore attacker Kyla Sears.

The Tigers were unable to match the score of the Terrapins before Maryland put in another three goals. By the end of the first half, Princeton was trailing by four to

Maryland’s total of eight goals.

Going into the second half, Maryland furthered its lead against the Tigers with the first four goals of the second half to take a 12–4 lead and turn the game into a blowout. The Tigers managed another three points, including two in the final minute by senior attacker Elizabeth George, to make the final score a more respectable loss of 15–7.

Leading the Tigers was George, with three goals and one assist.

Haney contributed two goals and an assist, and Sears added another goal and two assists.

Hartshorn and Giles led Maryland with their four goals apiece, and Brindi Griffin added one goal and three assists for the Terrapins.

With the defeat, the Tigers are on a two-game losing streak; they fell to Brown 12–11 at home Saturday after beginning the season 6–1.

In spite of the loss, the Tigers are working their way to winning the Ivy League and securing a bid to the NCAA tournament. Their biggest competition in the Ivy League is Penn (9–2), who is currently ranked fifth.

“Wednesday wasn’t our best

game,” Haney said. “But we’re super excited to have a chance to get back out on the field soon!”

The Tigers don’t play until April 2, when they’ll take on Villanova at Sherrerd Field at 7 p.m. Then, on the following Saturday, the team will be traveling to Dartmouth, looking to secure a win in the Ivy League. No. 20 Dartmouth defeated Brown earlier this month, a team Princeton fell to last Saturday by a mere one point.

Like last year, Princeton will hope a loss to Maryland can spark a series of wins in the final stretch of the season.

MEN’S LACROSSE

Men’s Lacrosse looks for first Ivy win of the season against Brown

By Tom Salotti

Associate Sports Editor

Men’s lacrosse (3–5, 0–2 Ivy) will take on Brown University (3–5, 1–0) this Saturday at Sherrerd Field.

Fresh off of a win against the University of Denver (5–3), the team looks to turn around its performance in the Ivy League after starting 0–2 in conference play.

When the teams first met in 1964, Princeton defeated Brown 8–7. The all-time record between the two teams sits at 32–25 in the Tigers’ favor. More recently though, Brown has given the Tigers a considerable challenge. In the past five years, the Bears hold a 5–1 record over Princeton in all matches.

Sparks flew the last time Brown and Princeton met. Last season, the Bears notched a win over the Tigers in Providence, after Brown’s Michael Panepinto broke the tie with 14.3 seconds left, ending the game 14–13.

Although Brown outshot Princeton 49–39, the Tigers only had one less shot on target than the Bears, at 31 versus 30.

To add to the stinging defeat, that game knocked Princeton out of contention for the Ivy League tournament and allowed Brown to earn a spot.

But when the teams last met at Princeton, things were different.

Two seasons ago, in 2017, the Tigers dominated Brown 21–11. Junior attacker Michael Sowers, then a firstyear, notched a whopping five goals for the Tigers during their romp.

Princeton outscored Brown in every single quarter too.

It is worth noting, however, that

when the two teams met again later in the season for the Ivy League Tournament semifinal, Brown defeated Princeton 17–15 in New Haven.

Although Brown currently has a better record in the Ivy League than Princeton, both teams have shared similar experiences this season.

For example, Virginia managed to defeat both teams in overtime, topping the Tigers 12–11 and Brown 14–13.

Brown is led offensively by junior attacker Luke McCaleb, who has 20 goals and nine assists this season, and first-year attacker Darian Cook, who has 18 goals and 10 assists. Brown’s starting goalie, junior Phil Goss, has allowed 11.76 goals per game this season with a .481 save percentage.

Princeton’s junior attacker Michael Sowers leads the Ivy League in scoring with 46 points on 17 goals and 29 assists. Sophomore goalie Erik Peters has started the last three games for Princeton, averaging 13.38 goals allowed and posting a .485 save percentage on the season.

Princeton has scored 107 goals this season and allowed 100, compared to 100 scored and 96 allowed for Brown. The teams are fourth and fifth in the Ivy League in average goal differential, respectively.

Despite the history between the two teams, the Tigers are going to approach this game no differently from any other.

“It’s a big one,” said head coach Matt Madalon. “But it’s the biggest one since it’s the next one.”

Princeton will take on Brown at 1 p.m. at Sherrerd Field at the Class of 1952 Stadium on Saturday.

Tweet of the Day

“While many @MLB teams have full time analysts and statisticians on the payroll, Jonathan Erlichman ‘12 is the first full-time analytics coach to join a major league staff.

He’ll be in the dugout wearing No. 97 for @RaysBaseball” Princeton University (@Princeton), Baseball

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Mike Morean and men’s lacrosse face Brown this Saturday.

Stat of the Day

Follow us

26.9

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

Princeton women’s lacrosse made just 7 of 26 shots against Maryland Wednesday night, just a 26.9 shooting percentage.