April 14, 2017 by The Daily Princetonian

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Friday April 14, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 43

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } ON CAMPUS

New online system for thesis uploads Allie Spensley staff writer

Members of the Class of 2017 will be the first students to use Thesis Central, a newly created online system that allows seniors to upload their theses directly into the University’s digital archives. The site, which is the result of a collaborative effort between the University Archives, the Office of Information Technology, and the Office of the Dean of the College, was launched on Monday, March 27. “Designed to assist students and administrators with the archival process, the site will ensure a more complete, accurate, and streamlined collection of senior theses from across campus,” Dean of the College Jill Dolan wrote in an email. The new system aims to standardize the thesis submission process, a departure from previous years in which digital collection methods varied across departments. “There’s now one place that students, department administrators, and others who are involved in the thesis process can get their theses to the University archives,” University Archivist and Curator of Public Policy Papers Daniel Linke said.

Linke described Thesis Central as the next step in increasing digitization of the University archives. The archives in Mudd Library, which serve as the central repository for senior theses, began collecting theses in digital form in 2013. The collection currently holds about 3,000 downloadable theses; last year there were 14,000 downloads from the system, which can only be accessed on campus. “Before we built this system a few years ago, we would get about 1,000 theses looked at in the reading room at Mudd Library,” Linke said. “Each year that we add theses to it, there will be more uses, because there’s a deeper pool for students to look at. But it’s obvious that students are really using this for the pedagogical purpose that we hoped they would.” One advantage of Thesis Central is a reduction of the steps needed to upload and archive senior theses for both students and department administrators. “We are prepopulating the system with data so students have very little to actually do,” Linke said. “In fact, the typical student has only three things to do: Put in their title, load up the file, and then just affirm their See THESIS page 2

S T U D E N T A F FA I R S

COURTESY OF TRUMAN FOUNDATION

Rosen is involved with a variety of leadership positions on campus, including in USG and the CJL.

Rosen ’18 named Truman Scholar Catherine Benedict staff writer

Miranda Rosen ’18 was named one of 62 2017 Harry S. Truman Scholars on Wednesday, April 12. Rosen is a history major pursuing certificates in European Cultural Studies, Judaic Studies, and the History and Practice of Diplomacy from Henderson, Nev. The Truman Scholarship is the “premier graduate scholarship for aspiring public service leaders in the United States,” and was created by Congress

in 1975 as a living memorial to President Harry Truman. The scholarship is awarded to mostly college juniors, and each new scholar receives up to $30,000 for graduate study, as well as priority admission and extra financial aid at some graduate programs, leadership training and counseling, and access to exclusive internships within the federal government. 3,139 Truman Scholars have been named since the scholarship was first awarded in 1977, and notable Truman Scholars include Supreme Court Asso-

ON CAMPUS

ciate Justice Neil Gorsuch, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. The Daily Princetonian sat down with Rosen to discuss her academic and extracurricular path at the University and her career goals. The Daily Princetonian: What was your reaction when you learned you had won? Miranda Rosen: I was in shock. It’s the most incredible thing. I couldn’t believe it, and I still can’t really believe it. It’s my dream to be able to help people, and the Truman will greatly assist me in doing so. I learned the results on Tuesday. In order to preserve the fun of the surprise for future Princeton Truman Scholars, I will just share that I was surprised at noon, and that it was really wonderful. After I heard the news, I told my family, but I couldn’t tell my friends until at 5 p.m. on Wednesday. DP: What was the application process like? MR: You have to go through both Princeton and a national screening. It started in September. It’s been a very long process, but a very cool process. There was a big information session, and then a number of people applied through the Princeton application. They picked around 10 to interview and four to nominate. We were interviewed by the Director of Fellowships and a series of professors. They are the best people; they have been awesome and helped me a lot with the application. We sent in the application in January, I found out in the beginning of February that I was a finalist, See TRUMAN page 2

ON CAMPUS

McClain, Anderson ’04 debate religious liberty, WWF CEO Roberts ’82 anti-discrimination law, values in marriage contributor

“Questions of religious liberty have animated our politics for centuries and that shows no sign of ending,” said Stephen Macedo, professor of politics and of the University Center for Human Values, in a debate on Wednesday. “Indeed, as everyone here likely knows, developments in the Obama administration, including the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate and

the Supreme Court’s historic mandate to recognize the equal right of same-sex couples to marry, have renewed these controversies.” Macedo’s statement was part of a debate hosted by the Princeton Tory about state anti-discrimination laws and religious liberty. The event, which was moderated by Macedo, featured Dr. Ryan Anderson ‘04, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Professor Linda McClain, a visiting faculty fellow at the University Cen-

ter for Human Values. The 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling by the Supreme Court, which exempted corporations with religious owners from paying for contraceptive insurance, and the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges court ruling, which legalized gay marriage nationwide, were watershed legal events that informed the basis for the debate. Anderson, who has written two books on marriage and religious liberty, identified himself as a “liberal

Aristotelian” who considers politics to be about “fostering the common good — creating the conditions necessary for citizens to f lourish” while “placing an emphasis on individual liberty.” Religion, he noted, is part of the common good, which he described as “multi-faceted,” meaning that the “Good Life” means different things for different people. Policies that advance the common good, however, can place an undue burden on a minorSee LIBERTY page 3

ON CAMPUS

U. Art Museum hosts activism event Emily Spalding staff writer

The connection between social engagement and art were evident as the Student Advisory Board hosted its annual Inspiration Night in the Princeton University Art Museum Thursday evening. This year’s theme, “Art & Activism: Get socially engaged in art,” aimed to highlight the intersection of visual art and social activism by bringing together various social justice campus groups to speak about pieces in the exhibition “Revealing Pictures: Photographs from the Christopher E. Olofson Collection.” Charlotte Reynders ’19,

In Opinion

Chair of Academic Outreach for SAB, explained her goals for the evening. “When I was helping plan the event, I envisioned a night where students from actual social justice groups on campus could just come together and talk about their various issues and areas of interests and their sort of versions of activism,” Reynders said. She added that she hoped these groups would then “invite other students in the community to speak with them and learn more about what they’re doing, and then use the photos in the actual exhibition as a talking point or a conversaSee MUSEUM page 3

Beni Snow makes the case for a single room draw to cover all housing options, Max Grear dissects what the U. means by “apolitical,” and the Editorial Board discourages professors from using closed-note takehome exams.

IMAGE BY EMILY SPALDING

Students engaged with photography at SAB event on Thursday.

Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: Chree filmmakers will host a screening and panel discussion of their environmental films-in-progress during “Standing Rock From the Eyes of Three Filmmakers” at 4:30 p.m. Friday, April 14, in McCormick Hall, Room 101.

talks about climate By Jacob Tyles contributor

“Climate change is hard because you can’t see it like you can see trash in the streets — the most vulnerable people in the world feel it, but they are so far away from us,” said World Wildlife Fund CEO Carter Roberts ‘82. The Princeton University Conservation Society hosted a Q&A with Roberts onThursday in McCosh 10. Wilson School Professor David Wilcove moderated. The Q&A focused on the importance of shifting our attention toward international sustainability, as well as Roberts’ experience as CEO of the WWF. Roberts said nature and the immediacy of the outdoors inf luenced his decision to work for an environmental agency. “I tried to start a business in 1988 to deliver to mothers products that were both good for the children and for the planet,” he explained. “I love nature and wanted to combine that with business.” Roberts said that business, along with a strong relationship with other countries in their sustainable food production, is a key See CLIMATE page 3

WEATHER

By Rebecca Ngu

HIGH

66˚

LOW

41˚

Partly cloudy. chance of rain:

0 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Friday April 14, 2017

Linke: New system doesn’t add any Rosen is passionate stress or pressure at thesis deadline about civil rights, plans THESIS to become lawyer Continued from page 1

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

honor code observance and submit. Because they log in through their netID, it prepopulates their department, adviser, and class year. There’s a lot of advantages in terms of getting very uniform data into the system and less chance for errors from keystrokes as things get passed from one person to another.” “We tried to make it as simple as possible for students to do the upload, so it doesn’t add any stress and pressure at the thesis deadline,” Linke added. “We wanted to have a system that when students are done, the whole upload process takes literally a few minutes.” The system allows department administrators to quickly check whether a student has submitted their thesis to the archives. “Thesis Central has eliminated the need for me to create a Blackboard site for History seniors to deposit their thesis and

for me to later transmit those to Mudd Library,” Undergraduate Program Administrator in History Etta Recke wrote in an email. “The former process also required me to essentially complete for each senior the online submission form that 2017 seniors did for themselves. It would take me at least two or three days with approximately 80 concentrators to input that information.” Another advantage of the new system is its ability to use the same access restriction information that students use for other University systems, such as TigerHub. “We wanted to capture information on access restriction requests and the thesis information such that we could connect them correctly together,” Academic Services and Digital Repository Architect Mark Ratliff said. “Department administrators from around campus who are responsible for managing the thesis submission process for their departments each have an account in that system where

they login and see only the theses that they’re responsible for.” The new system accommodates for departmental variations in thesis requirements, such as those permitting theses written by multiple authors and in languages other than English, by allowing users to specify different department preferences. It will also help increase accessibility to thesis submission and grant access at any time of day. “The demand for having things in digital form is quite high. What we’re doing here is just trying to bring this important resource into a form that students can look at at 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Just being able to provide that 24/7 access to the entire campus is the real effect,” Linke said. “We have almost 300 theses and we’ve had no problems or hiccups yet,” Linke added. About 1,000 more theses are due to be uploaded to the system in the coming four weeks.

The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@ dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

TRUMAN Continued from page 1

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

during spring break I went to Phoenix to be interviewed, and then I found out the results on Tuesday. It’s been this entire year. DP: Your biography mentions that you want to be a civil rights lawyer. Have you always wanted to do that, or has your time at Princeton influenced you in that direction? MR: I always knew I wanted to help people, but I didn’t realize specifically in what way until last summer when I worked for Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the Anti-Defamation League. These internships helped me realize that civil rights law was something I was passionate about. And some courses I have taken at Princeton have assisted with that as well, such as HIS 383: The United States, 1920–1974, and HIS 361: The United States Since 1974. Specifically, in 1920–1974, you see the civil rights movement of women, African Americans, and other minority groups, and that was integral for me in understanding activism and civil rights. I wrote my JP on the National Organization for Women and how in the 1970s their women’s rights project helped create much of the landmark legislation you know today, like Roe v. Wade. DP: Why did you choose to major in history? MR: Because history is the best department at Princeton. (laughs) The summer after my freshman year, I went on an archaeological dig through Princeton, ART 304: Archaeology in the Field, in Greece. That experience of being able to understand and literally dig up pieces of an ancient civilization of those who came before me was very eye-opening, and made me love history. I’m just so happy; I tell everyone it’s the best department. DP: Can you talk about the diversity work you’ve done? MR: That’s been mainly through USG [the Undergraduate Student Government]. Through a variety of task forces and opportunities, I’ve been able to gather opinions of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds and campus groups. My sophomore

year, I worked on increasing financial aid for students in eating clubs. This past year, with the Women’s Leadership Task Force [of which Rosen is the founder and chair], we just passed two resolutions, and I’ve been able to access the opinions of a variety of students. I was elected as a UCouncilor at the end of freshman year, re-elected, and am up for re-election next week. DP: Do you want to go to law school immediately after graduation? MR: No, I want to take a gap year. Truman has this really cool gap year program that helps set Scholars up with a federal agency. I want to take time off so I can have experience in the real world and help people, immediately. In the long run, I want to work for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which helps people who have been discriminated against in the workforce. DP: Have you been able to meet any of the other Truman Scholars? MR: I know four others, because they interviewed in the same region as me, and five finalists were selected from the Phoenix region. They’re awesome. I’m excited to meet everyone and become friends in May in Missouri. I think the Truman Scholarship really succeeds in making people feel like a family. I’m really excited; the people I know so far are honestly the most amazing people. DP: What will you be doing this summer? MR: I’ll be working at Congressional Research Services, at the Library of Congress. DP: How has your mother’s political career affected you? MR: My mom [Congresswoman Jacky Rosen, Nevada’s 3rd District] was recently elected this past November. Additionally, I’ve been involved in Nevada politics since I was a sophomore in high school through a variety of different ways. It’s been very insightful to be with her, and what inspires me the most was being able to talk to members of our community — and specifically this past summer, to talk to people around us and understand what is important to them.

T HE DA ILY

Enjoy drawing pretty pictures? Like to work with Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign? Join the ‘Prince’ design team! join@dailyprincetonian.com

Friday April 14, 2017

The Daily Princetonian

Draper: The issue of religious liberty will become increasingly important LIBERTY Continued from page 1

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

ity of citizens. “We need to be attentive to that,” Anderson said. “So that’s where religious liberty exemptions might come into play.” “The government can only substantially burden the free exercise of religion — even an incidental burden can be substantial — for a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way possible,” Anderson said. The Obergefell case, he argued, did not meet this threshold. As comparison, Anderson offered an example of a justified anti-discrimination law, in his view: the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this case, Congress recognized that people were engaging in “immoral and unjust forms of discrimination” that led to both material harms and stigmatization against AfricanAmericans, Anderson said. Given that the rest of society — Hollywood, academia, media, etc. — was also racist, the racism would not fade away through regular civil society. Therefore, Anderson argued, anti-discrimination protection via the legal system was justified. In contrast, as of now, only a “handful” of cases of alleged discrimination against LGBT people have arisen in the Supreme Court, Anderson noted. He mentioned that we live in a society where the major cultural players already support gay rights. “The Human Rights Campaign [has found] that over 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies have already adopted anti-discrimination statutes as a voluntary matter,” Anderson said. He argued that creating protected category status for LGBT people is unnecessary, given that society at large already supports gay rights. In the discussion, Anderson ultimately steered away from religious objections to non-heterosexual orientation, instead discussing models of marriage and parenting. He offered the example of a Catholic charity that only places children with married heterosexual couples because “the two best dads in the world can’t replace a missing mom. The two best moms can’t replace a missing dad.” “Mothers and fathers are different, and they’re not interchangeable,” Anderson explained. “And a child deserves both a mother and a father.” McClain, however, argued that the U.S. family law system, in which she specializes, has outgrown and disavowed this gender complementarian interpretation of marriage. “The way our family laws evolved in the last 50 years or so has been away from

... gender complementarian parenting to the point that when a judge has to decide a custody case, gender is not supposed to be a factor taken into account,” McClain said. “In family law, we don’t embody this idea that only a mother and a father can give children the proper gifts,” she said. When state legislatures moved toward samesex marriage, they were recognizing steps that had already been taken toward a more “gender-neutral vision” of marriage. McClain offered a historical perspective on the matter, pointing to the long and evolving tradition of anti-discrimination in the United States. She framed the Obergefell decision not as a radical break or inconsistency, but as continuation of this progressive tradition. “Anti-discrimination laws have a long history prior to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964,” she said. “The scope of state and federal laws evolves over time, both in terms of who is protected and which areas of everyday life are covered, as society’s understanding of prejudice, discrimination, and barriers to equal opportunity evolve.” While race has served as a paradigm for anti-discrimination laws since 1954, McClain emphasized that a “protected category does not have to be 100 percent analogous to race to warrant protection.” She noted that anti-discrimination laws are rooted in “common law tradition about the responsibility of innkeepers, taverns, etc. who served the public with open doors,” she said. “They had to serve customers unless they had a reasonable basis not to.” Moreover, while the 1964 Civil Rights Act is assumed to have been the mainstream beginning of the anti-discrimination movement, 32 states had already passed anti-discrimination laws before Congress acted, McClain said. New Jersey passed its anti-discrimination law in 1945. She added that laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity are not new. McClain added, “New Jersey added sexual orientation to its anti-discrimination law in 1991, over 25 years ago.” She cited a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that said, “[The] implicit recognition that discrimination based on ‘archaic’ and ‘stereotypical’ notions about homosexuals that bear no relationship to reality cannot be countenanced and gay men and lesbians feel stigmatizing injury and denial of equal opportunities.” McClain emphasized the necessity of setting up clear boundaries as to the scope of religious liberty. “The free exercise of reli-

gion does not include an absolute freedom to act based on your religious beliefs,” she said. “In a religiously diverse society, a rule that allowed such absolute freedom ... would conf lict with rights of every person and lead to religious exemptions that would seriously undercut goals of anti-discrimination laws.” McClain also questioned how far religious exemption laws should be allowed to reach in society. If [states] do have such exemptions, how far do they extend? For example, is it simply that merchant shouldn’t have to bake a cake or do something wedding-related? Or is it also that an employer shouldn’t have to hire a married gay man, or if they hired one, shouldn’t have to give insurance benefits to their spouse or treat them as married for purpose of employment? Should a landlord not have to rent to a newly married lesbian couple? How far are they allowed to live out their faith 24/7?” Additionally, McClain repeatedly brought up the long legal tradition of public accommodation in the United States. “If you open the doors to the public, if you advertise to the public, if you’re outward facing, you serve all customers. Specifically, you can’t turn away customers in these categories,” she explained. “We want a marketplace that’s not balkanized. We want to people to know that if they go into a business, they will be served.” Paul Draper ’18, editor in chief of the Tory, expressed satisfaction over the debate and the arguments that both debaters presented. He observed that about two thirds of the lecture hall was full. Draper was particularly happy that professors from different departments came out for the talk. “For the most part it was very civil,” he added. “People in particular during the Q&A asked good questions. I’m glad we had genuine intellectual investigation into the issue. I’m just happy that the debate went well and there wasn’t any name calling or anything and people are trying to hear out the other side.” He predicted that that the issue of religious liberty will become an increasingly important national concern in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges. “How do we live now in the world where [gay marriage] is codified into law, but there are people who have deeply held objections to it?” he said. “You already see [court] cases coming up through the pipeline. It’s going to come up a lot more.” The debate, entitled “Religious Liberty or a License to Discriminate?” took place on Wednesday, April 12, in McCormick 101 at 4:30 p.m.

page 3

Roberts: The rest of the world is watching CLIMATE Continued from page 1

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

part in forming a reliable model for living with the threat of rising temperatures and dynamic environments. The mission statement of the WWF broadly points to this, exhorting action to “build a future where people live in harmony with nature.” Wilcove asked Roberts what he has done as CEO of the WWF to meet its mission statement. The answers were both numerous and impressive. “We wanted to build up a program on sustainable food production, to change the way food is produced, as well as build relationships with companies in order to ensure our goals were met,” Roberts said. Select companies have disproportionate inf luence over whether or not products are sustainably produced, he added. “We devoted a lot more time and resources to sustainable agriculture,” added Roberts. The WWF has close relationships with major retailers and companies such as Walmart, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, and so forth. Roberts launched Project Gigaton with Walmart, where they are working to reduce their emissions by as much as the project name implies. Roberts has also worked extensively on policy. He took part in the Paris agreement, was a part of bilateral agreements between the US and China such as the recent ivory ban, and has launched clean energy programs in Mexico and Indonesia. Coming up with solutions for environmental issues is different for each country, Roberts said. He added that China has played a pivotal role in climate change in comparison to the rest of the world, and has recently seen a comparative economic advantage as it strives for renewable energy in its markets. Wilcove asked how countries typically respond to these plans. Again, Roberts’ answers illustrated why the environment remains a politically delicate issue. Many countries, when approached with environmentally friendly alternatives to their market structures, are quick to point out that the consumption of the United States is much larger per capita than most countries, Roberts noted. “More of the world wants to live like we do,” he explained.

Roberts noted that countries such as India quickly ask why they should give up an opportunity to improve their country when the United States has done so at the cost of implementing many environmentally damaging policies in the past. In essence, the key to comprise lies in the popularity of the policy, Roberts said. Roberts cited an example in China when the basketball star Yao Ming ran an ad against the consumption of shark fin soup, a popular ceremonial item used in many high-end venues across several countries. He said the country’s obsession with shark fin soup led to the endangerment of a quarter of the shark species and resulted in innumerable cruel deaths; however, the ad had a positive impact and nearly halved the shark fin consumption in China. Roberts explained that this campaign not only created a force for positive change, but also broke a rigid system deeply rooted within many countries across the world. “The rest of the world is watching,” said Roberts. “The only conservation that’s going to last is the conservation that begins with people.” Roberts added that governments and businesses come and go, but people are the ones that are going to survive. When asked about the current Trump administration, he affirmed that poor administration will affect environmental politics, but not as intensely as we might think. “Cities and other localities will get after climate change no matter the circumstance,” said Roberts. “It’s not over, but it’s not apocalyptic — we have a lot of work to do.” James Currah ’19, a board member of the Princeton Conservation society, said that it is wonderful to have brought such a leading figure in the world of conservation to the University. “We feel really fortunate,” he said. “Carter Roberts was a pleasure to have on campus, always open to tough questions and took the time to meet every student,” said Noah Mihan ’19, the founder of the Princeton Conservation Society. “It was even hard to pull him away from conversations when it was time to leave,” he remarked. The lecture took place in McCosh 10 at 5 p.m. on Thursday, April 12.

Fleming: We talked about the connection between art and activism MUSEUM Continued from page 1

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

tion piece to guide those discussions.” While the annual event normally centers around a more academic approach, featuring lectures and talk-backs from professors, president of SAB Sarah Cho ’18 explained that the nature of the Revealing Pictures exhibit as one focusing on social justice in a unique lens lent itself to a different format for the event this year. “A great way to really learn about the photographs would be to really engage with [them], know a little bit more about the

background of the image. And [SAB] thought we can’t necessarily provide all the background information. So we wanted to reach out to different student organizations on campus and have them be involved and maybe give a different perspective that we wouldn’t be able to provide while talking about the pictures,” she added. Thus, the first half of the two-hour program featured “Inspiration Stations,” in which patrons were encouraged to engage with the photographs through casual discussions facilitated by student group and SAB members. One such student facilitator was Katherine Flem-

ing ’19, who was representing Princeton Students for Gender Equality. Fleming led discussions on Mickalene Thomas’ photograph “Le déjeuner sur l’herbe: Les trois femmes noires.” Fleming said that the photograph’s theme and the photographer herself are closely linked to PSGE. “Something that we try to make a priority at [PSGE] is recognizing the intersectionality of oppressions and of identities,” she said. “So we try to look at how we can not just look for patriarchy in things, but also see racial hierarchies and classist hierarchies and things like that.” Thus, PSGE was “really interested to be able to talk

about this [photograph] because [Thomas] is someone who’s a female artist intervening in a male art canon and a black artist intervening in a white art canon.” Fleming also noted that this event served as a platform for continuing a dialogue on campus. “Something that we’re trying to talk about in our discussions at PSGE this semester is art and its connection to activism, and how we can spotlight the contributions of female artists within the Princeton Art Museum, as well as ... in the world more generally,” she said. “I think there is a lot of talk about iconography on campus and how to make it more representative and

inclusive, so I think it’s really cool that we’re able to talk about the connection between art and activism here when there is this wider movement on campus,” she explained. Aside from social justice groups, other campus groups including the Katzenjammers, Songline Slam Poetry, and the Grind Arts Company were involved in the event as well, performing a selection of pieces in one of the gallery spaces during the second half of the evening. “Art & Activism: Get socially engaged in art” was presented by SAB and took place at the Art Museum from 7 to 9 p.m. on Thursday, April 13.

Opinion

Friday April 14, 2017

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

EDITORIAL

Reforming take-home exam policies

The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of The Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its CoChairs, the Opinion Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. It can be reached at editorialboard@ dailyprincetonian.com.

he Honor Committee and the FacultyStudent Committee on Discipline are two bodies on campus that are responsible for enforcing disciplinary actions following violations of student standards outlined in “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities.” According to the official website of the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students, the Honor Committee is specifically responsible for “all undergraduate written examinations, tests and quizzes that take place in class,” while the Committee on Discipline deals with “violations of rules and regulations pertaining to any academic work that is not performed in class, including essays, term papers, problem sets, homework, laboratory reports and independent work.” During midterm and final exam periods, the Honor Committee handles in-class exams and the Committee on Discipline out-of-class, or “take-home,” exams. In many classes, pro-

fessors assign take-home exams that are are “closed-note,” restricting the access of class notes, book notes, the Internet, and any other outside sources. The Board calls upon professors to not administer closed-note take-home exams, regardless of whether they are timed or untimed, because the Committee on Discipline lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms to uphold academic integrity standards on these examinations. Exam periods are a stressful time for Princeton students, so professors may assign closed-note take-home exams as a means of granting more f lexibility to students with busy exam schedules. However, a major problem with these exams is the potential for undetected cheating. The professor administering the exam has no way of controlling whether a student, in the solitude of their dorm room or another secluded area, uses a textbook, notebook, study guide, or even strategically placed Post-it notes with essential information during the take-home exam. Yet, the professor trusts that the student will abide by the closednote requirement. This type of cheating can be done surreptitiously, which makes it almost impossible for the Committee on Discipline to enforce these policies and to put together

enough evidence to prosecute students who are not abiding by the closed-note rule. Because other students predict that their classmates can easily use notes or an Internet source without being caught, it increases the temptation for them to cheat as well. In addition, those who abide by the rules may be slighted in the grading process when those who may have cheated receive the same, or higher, grades. Altogether, this is a very problematic incentive structure, regardless of the actual cheating rates. In order to achieve a grade above the curve, students might feel obligated to break the rules in order to ensure they are helping themselves. The Board recommends that instead of closed-note takehome exams, professors who see the benefits of administering out-of-class exams should administer open-note, untimed take-home exams or papers due on Dean’s Date, which would eliminate advantages gained from cheating on closed-note take-home exams because every student would be allowed to use their notes. The Board also suggests opennote timed take-home exams that can be downloaded from Blackboard as an alternative. When the student downloads and opens the file from Blackboard, the time opened and

submitted can be tracked in order to ensure the student is only using the allowed period of time. The Board also believes that open-note take-home exams have pedagogical advantages over closed-note take-home exams. The use of notes allows for more thorough analysis of content and reduces the focus on rote memorization, forcing students to understand the material better and practice higher-level thinking, logic, and analytical skills. In general, the work submitted by students will be closer to their best work if they are able to use all the materials at their disposal. This should not discount the value of closed-note in-class exams, but we believe that in an out-of-class setting, open-note assessments make more sense. If a professor prefers closed-note exams, the Board recommends that they administer these exams in class instead, where the Honor Code is enforceable. The Board believes professors should implement these recommendations to improve exam administration and ensure fairness for all students. These changes will also reduce unnecessary stress to students during midterm and final exam periods.

A more perfect housing system Beni Snow

senior columnist

he University’s housing system is a strange and convoluted beast. Our system is unlike that of Yale, where the residential college system is for four years, or Brown, where there are no residential colleges and many students live off campus. The system is needlessly complicated and, for the students who risk a poor draw time each year, it could be much fairer. The University places all first-years and sophomores in residential colleges. As upperclassmen, students can leave the residential college system, but they don’t have too. But if they want to stay, they have to move to a four-year residential college, and their options narrow to only three of the six. Alternatively, students can go into upperclassman housing, or independent housing, which is frequently in the same building as upperclassman housing and sometimes the rooms are even next to each other. Finally, students can look for housing in Spelman, which operates on its

own system. Residential colleges, upperclassmen housing, Spelman, and independent housing all have their own draws. Add in gender-neutral, substancefree, and married student housing, plus officers in eating clubs and off-campus accommodation, and the system is so complex that one wonders how anyone ever gets a room. The system is complex so that students have choice. Having the option to stay on a meal plan as an upperclassman is good, as is the option to have a kitchen as an independent. But the system need not be complicated to preserve choice, as choice could still exist under one comprehensive room draw. With one university-wide draw, students could pick the appropriate housing option when their turn came. Naturally, some students, like underclassmen, would not be able to select certain rooms, but an intelligent system would know which students could draw into which rooms and easily deal with that issue. Having one room draw would solve the problem of having to guess which draw is the best to pursue. Many upperclassman enter two or

three draws, and, once the draw times are released, they have to decide if they will select a room in the draw in which they have the earliest draw time, or to wait for another, later draw and take the risk of missing the room they want. Multiple draws makes an already complicated decision even harder. The current system also creates a lot of inequality in the quality of rooms. Seniority decides who goes first, and this is fairly non-controversial, but there are so many other factors that raise questions of fairness. As a sophomore in Mathey, I probably ended up with a worse room than I would have had if I had been in Rocky. Rocky is a two-year residential college, so sophomores get first crack at the best rooms. Mathey is a fouryear college, so every junior and senior had the chance to pick before me. Letting seniors pick before juniors, and onwards and downwards, is designed to prevent a student from getting an awful room for all four years. But a student can still lose in a relative way. There is nothing to prevent a student from being near last in their

draws for all four years. A single draw would make it much easier to track a student’s luck each year, and it would allow for some system of weighting to ensure that a terrible time one year makes a better time more likely the next year. Such a system of weighting should not be implemented in a way to discourage friends from forming a draw group. That could happen if some members of the group worry that, due to their friends’ favorable draw times one year, they will bring down the luck of the group in the next year. Regardless, some method of ensuring that a student doesn’t receive below average housing for all four years would be fair, and should be examined. The University offers a lot of housing choice, and that’s a good thing. But the current system is difficult to navigate, results in unfairness, and could be greatly simplified and improved. There are better potential systems. Let’s switch to one. Beni Snow is a mechanical and aerospace engineering major from Newton Center, Mass. He can be reached at bsnow@princeton.edu.

T HE DA ILY

Whatever your talent, the ‘Prince’ has a place for you. join@dailyprincetonian.com

vol. cxli

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Randall Rothenberg ’78 Annalyn Swan ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73

141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 Head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 news editors Abhiram Karuppur ’19 Claire Lee ’19 opinion editor Newby Parton ’18 sports editor David Xin ’19 street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 web editor David Liu ’18 chief copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 design editors Rachel Brill ’19 Abigail Kostalansky ’20 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Nicholas Wu ’18 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Claire Coughlin ’19 associate street editor Andie Ayala ’19 Catherine Wang ’19 associate chief copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 editorial board co-chairs Ashley Reed ’18 Connor Pfeiffer ’18 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19

NIGHT STAFF 4.13.17 copy Marina Latif ’19 Douglas Corzine ’19 Jordan Antebi ’19 Minh Hoang ’19

The Daily Princetonian

Friday April 14, 2017

University evasion tactics: The politics of the “apolitical”

page 5

heat wave grace koh ’19

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

Max Grear

senior columnist

he notion of nonpartisan neutrality can be particularly slippery on the University’s campus. As past and recent public debates have shown, it’s a familiar trick to disguise political agendas under the guise of neutrality. The Editorial Board recently characterized divestment as a “political end” which would damage the University’s educational capacities. In doing so, it argued against the prevailing campus consensus in support of private prison divestment, demonstrated by a successful faculty petition and vast majorities of undergraduate and graduate referenda participants. Ironically, the Board makes its own political agenda clear when it claims that “the contracting of certain government services ... can have negative, even disastrous effects,” but still fails to be “inherently immoral.” In other words, the Board believes that contractors should not be held morally accountable for any “disastrous effects” they inf lict upon the populations that these companies purportedly serve. This statement succinctly outlines a market-based ideology that excuses companies of responsibility for the human suffering from which they profit. Inf lammatory editorials, however, are far less harmful than the diversions from institutional accountability favored by administrators. Troublingly, administrators have used the cover of supposed institutional neutrality to renege on their commitment to the core University values of “integrity, respect for others, diversity, and freedom from bias and harassment.” Past and present divestment campaigns strikingly illustrate the use of this evasion tactic. In 1985 — after 16 years of student protest — President Bowen continued to oppose full divestiture from South African apartheid, claiming that such an action would be inconsistent with the University’s position as an “apolitical” institution. Over 30 years later, administrators continue to argue against divestment from corporations that perpetrate widespread violations of human rights. Appeals to the notion of an “apolitical” institution represent a time-tested political strategy for resisting needed change. Over the past 50 years, charges of inappropriate political advocacy have been levelled against a wide variety of campus initiatives — sex education, institutional resources for women, ethnic studies programs and departments, and even divestment from South African apartheid — that have been accepted by all but a vocal minority as important features of the University. In 1973, a pamphlet on birth control distributed by the University Sex Education and Health Program became the object of anti-Communist hysteria. “According to reliable sources,” noted press coverage at the time, “the trustees engaged in a highly emotional discussion of the booklet, with some saying it ‘followed the Communist line’ and was ‘un-American.’” Former University president William Bowen called the pamphlet’s distribution a mistake and it was promptly halted. Now accepted as commonplace by all but a few hardline conservatives, basic sex education resources

were once considered radical leftwing politics by University administrators. The incident described above may seem archaic even by the standards of the ’70s, but one must take into account the University’s tendency to lag a few decades behind the social currents of the day. Let’s not forget that by the time of that “un-American” birth control pamphlet, the University had yet to see a graduating class with women. In fact, the University began admitting women decades (or centuries) behind institutions like Brown, Cornell, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, and the University of Chicago. A decade after this incident, the Women*s Center came under fire from Concerned Alumni of Princeton, the notoriously rightwing and inf luential alumni organization. The Women*s Center was labeled a “narrow, political organization” run by “feminist automatons.” Not much has changed. The Editorial Board is the most recent group to unfairly target the Women*s Center for a perceived lack of political neutrality. The fact that the Board grossly overestimated, without any substantiation, the amount of Women*s Center programming focused on sex underscores the Board’s political opposition to sexpositive dialogue. By the ’90s, campus reactionaries had become preoccupied with the advent of multiculturalism. At the end of that decade, a ‘Prince’ columnist argued that “ethnic departments” were the product of a “political agenda.” Just this past fall, the Board majority argued that “the decision to mandate the study of differences and structural inequality would replace intellectual training with political ideology as the purpose of a Princeton education.” One can only wonder whether the Board views the large majority of course in the humanities and social sciences as experiments in leftist indoctrination. To summarize past arguments for “political neutrality”: sex education is Communist propaganda, the Women*s Center is a haven for sex-obsessed “feminist automatons,” and advocates for departments like African American Studies are “hy per-political ly-correct” agents of ideological indoctrination. The charge of inappropriate political advocacy is a highly suspect response to calls for greater institutional commitment to core University values, in the name of equality and respect for women, people of color, incarcerated or undocumented individuals, and other historically marginalized groups on- and off-campus. Any truly significant question which comes to bear on the University’s commitment to its core values will inevitably have political repercussions. Rather than defaulting to dismissive accusations of political intent, students and administrators alike should be transparent about their own motivations, respect the legitimacy of community members’ perspectives, and fulfill the University’s ethical commitment to “the nation’s service and the service of humanity.” Max Grear is a Spanish and Portuguese major from Wakefield, R.I. He can be reached at mgrear@princeton. edu.

Done reading your ‘Prince’? Recycle!

Sports

Friday April 14, 2017

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S LACROSSE

Men’s lacrosse set to face off against Dartmouth

Owen Tedford Staff Writer

After splitting two nonconference games this past week with a win at Stony Brook (5-5 overall) on Saturday and a loss at Lehigh (6-5) on Tuesday, the men’s lacrosse team will be looking to continue what has been a good season so far through the last three regular season games against Dartmouth (2-8 overall, 0-3 Ivy), Harvard (5-5, 1-2), and Cornell (3-7, 2-2). First, Princeton (7-4, 2-1) will travel to Hanover to take on the Big Green at noon on Saturday. The Tigers’ season so far has earned them a No. 13 ranking in the USILA/ Nike Coaches Poll, the highest of any Ivy League team and a strong ranking for a team that started the season unranked and without receiving any votes. This set of rankings was released before Princeton’s loss to unranked Lehigh, but a strong performance against Dartmouth can work to even out any possible drop that may have resulted from the loss. The Big Green have had a tough season so far, but they won their most recent game to end a six-game losing streak dating back to March 4. No doubt, this will give Dartmouth some energy going into Saturday’s game; the team will be looking to defend its home turf, where its two wins this season have come, and to pick up its first Ivy League win of the season. A big part of this recent win was Dartmouth goalie George Christopher, who has had 15 saves while only allowing eight goals. Christopher currently ranks third in the conference in saves per game, averaging 12.1. Dartmouth Attack Ben Martin was also electric for the Big Green on Tuesday night, scoring seven goals, including four in a

five-minute span in the first quarter. Both Christopher and Martin are freshmen, promising a strong future for the team. Princeton’s success this season has too been heavily inf luenced by the performance of freshman, including freshman attack Michael Sowers. On Tuesday night, Sowers made Princeton history when he broke Kevin Lowe’s 26-yearold school record for points by a freshman with a fourpoint night (one goal, three assists). Sowers has also tied the record for goals by a Tiger freshman, set by Mike Chanenchuk in 2010. Sowers’ historic season will be even more special if he scores two more goals, which will make him the third player in program history to record at least 30 goals and 30 assists in the same season. In addition to Sowers, senior attack Gavin McBride and junior goalie Tyler Blaisdell have been instrumental in Princeton’s accomplishments thus far. On Tuesday night, McBride lost a school-record streak of four consecutive games with at least five goals, but he still added three goals and an assist, giving him at least three goals in 13 of his last 16 games. Blaisdell has in turn anchored the Tigers’ defense, leading the Ivy League in save percentages, at 55 percent. Last year against Dartmouth, Blaisdell made 15 saves and had an 83.3 percent save percentage, a performance that brought the Tigers to victory over the Big Green last year and one he will no doubt be looking to replicate this year. Saturday’s game will be streamed live on the Ivy League Digital Network for those that are unable to make the trip up to Dartmouth.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The men’s lacrosse team is scheduled to compete against Dartmouth, Harvard, and Cornell to conclude regular season play.

MEN’S VOLLEYBALL

Men’s volleyball hopes to clinch spot in EIVA postseason Grace Baylis

Staff Writer

This weekend, the men’s volleyball team will play home games against Harvard and Sacred Heart, on Friday and Saturday, respectively. The men have faced a tough season so far; they are 11-12 overall, though they are 7-5 in conference play. It is the final weekend of the Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association’s regular season, and the Tigers control whether they will qualify for postseason play. The Tigers beat Harvard 3-2 earlier in the season, but fell to Sacred Heart 3-1. Both games were close, and Princeton will be looking to increase its win percentage this weekend. Harvard currently holds a 9-12 overall record, but lost twice last weekend, including once in conference play. Harvard’s recent underperformance will help the Tigers, who ended a threegame losing streak by beating George Mason last Saturday, 3-1. The Tigers hope that win will provide them enough momentum to win

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

both of this weekend’s home games, which would make them level with the No. 3 seed in the conference. Sacred Heart (13-10) holds the best overall record in the conference, but lost its most recent game against Saint Francis University. That loss makes Princeton the only team entering the weekend on a winning streak. The conference is close this season, with four teams fighting for a postseason berth. One of them will clinch the final spot; another will finish second-to-last. This weekend, Princeton will face two of those teams — Harvard and Sacred Heart. This weekend is also senior weekend, honoring two Princeton players: setter Jonah May and setter/opposite Kurt Thiemann, who are looking to extend their final season by qualifying for next weekend’s EIVA Championships. The team will play Harvard on Friday at 7 p.m. and Sacred Heart on Saturday at 4 p.m. at Dillon Gymnasium.

The Tigers are looking to conclude their regular season with a spot in the EIVA Championships.regionals and advancing to nationals.

Tweet of the Day “Gehrig Division action gets underway this weekend at @PennBaseball #GoTigers #TigerUp” Princeton Baseball (@PUTigerBaseball)

Stat of the Day

.329

Freshman David Harding leads the baseball team with a .329 average heading into this weekend’s matches against Penn.

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