April 20, 2016

welcome class of 2020!

Wednesday april 20, 2016 vol. cxl no. 51

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } M A J O R D E C L A R AT I O N S

ACADEMICS

History largest within humanities

By Caroline Lippman staff writer

Around 250 students from the Class of 2018 declared concentrations in the humanities this year, compared to 284 last year from the Class of 2017.

The humanities include African American Studies, Architecture, Art and Archaeology, Classics, Comparative Literature, East Asian Studies, English, French and Italian, German, History, Music, Near Eastern Studies, Philosophy, Religion, Slavic Languages and Literatures and Spanish and Portuguese Languages and Cultures.

The History Department remains the largest in the humanities. According to departmental representative Yair Mintzker, the program is expecting around 80 history majors from the Class of 2018. Mintzker noted that this number is within the past decade’s range of 75 to 90 concentrators per year.

“We are happy with these numbers and are very proud of the overall excellent quality of these students,” Mintzker said.

“I immediately fell in love with the department when I went through the course listings — there was basically a course on anything you could

want. The professors are also not only the best in the world but extremely accessible and willing to engage with students in a dialogue — it’s a really dynamic department that wants to incorporate [its] students, not just lecture them,” Noah Mayerson ’18 said, explaining why he declared history.

The English Department received 40 sign-ins from the Class of 2018, an unofficial number gathered from the Residential College Facebook.

Director of Undergraduate Studies in English Tamsen Wolff indicated via email that the department expects 45-50 new majors this year.

Jessica Reed ’18, who just declared English, said that she began as an intended physics major and then considered other options, such as the Wilson School or the international relations track of the Politics department. However, she noted that in thinking about her favorite classes, she had most enjoyed her work in the English department.

Reed said that it was a difficult decision, especially given the conception that majoring in English does not offer as many later opportunities as other majors. She added that speaking to the departmental See HUMANITIES page 3

ACADEMICS

ACADEMICS

COS, NEU see growth in number of concentrators

Social Sciences majors see decrease in concentrators

By Claire Lee staff writer

The computer science department will have new 41 AB concentrators in addition to 121 BSE concentrators from the Class of 2018, compared to 28 AB concentrators and 102 BSE concentrators the previous year.

Chair of the Computer Science Department Jennifer Rexford said that this massive increase in AB COS majors is because computer science is universal, transforming our economy and rapidly becoming a crucial skill on the job market, far beyond information technology companies.

“The students see all this — the intellectual excitement, the opportunity to effect change in the world and the great professional opportunities — and are voting with their feet,” Rexford

said. “The increase in computer science majors and computer science course enrollments, is a national trend, not unique to Princeton,” she added.

Rexford also stated that the curriculum in the computer science department is flexible, with a range of upper-level departmental courses and relatively few prerequisites. She said the department also has a vibrant student culture, with various student groups, informal meetings and hackathons.

Neuroscience departmental representative Asif Ghazanfar said that 33 students declared neuroscience as their concentration. Last year, which marked the first year of the program, saw 19 students declare neuroscience.

The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology experienced a decline in the number

of concentrators. 45 students from the Class of 2018 declared a major in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, compared to 50 from the Class of 2017 and 61 from the Class of 2016.

Meredith Mihalopoulos ’18 recently declared a major in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

She said that she came to Princeton knowing she wanted to pursue the premedical track, so she wanted to choose a major that would allow her flexibility in her schedule so she could fulfill her pre-med requirements and also pursue other classes that were of interest to her.

“I took EEB 211 this fall and I thought it was a really nice way to be introduced to the department,” Mihalopoulos said. “It [the class] definitely solidified my interest that this was the major that I wanted to pursue,” See STEM page 2

By William Liu contributor

As of Wednesday, 325 students declared concentrations in the social sciences, a drop from last year’s 363.

Economics remain the largest department within social sciences, with around 114 new concentrators as of Wednesday, according to unofficial numbers from University College Facebook. This is a decrease from last year’s 130.

“Economics is an attractive major that provides a strong foundation in both theory and empirical analysis that can be used to understand a variety of socially important phenomena,” Economics professor Smita Brunnermeier said. “Since our training is both structured and flexible, our majors can either directly begin careers in banking, finance, consulting, gov-

ernment and industry or pursue further studies in diverse fields such as economics, finance, law, public policy, business and medicine.”

Kira Keating ’18, who declared economics, said she finds the balance of quantitative and qualitative aspects within the discipline intriguing.

“I’m concentrating in econ because I like how intuitive it is – the way models and theories make sense,” Melissa Reed ’18, another new economics concentrator, explained. She also noted her interest in studying the way that individuals’ thinking and decision-making processes interplay with these models.

The number of students concentrating in the Wilson School is 104 compared to last year’s 109, according to an estimate obtained from University College Facebook.

The Wilson School See SOCIAL page 5

LECTURE

Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka discusses diversity, religion contributor

Wole Soyinka, the first African Nobel laureate, discussed the pillars of human spirituality and diversity in religion in a lecture Tuesday.

Soyinka was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature in 1986. His work often tells stories of democracy, government, religion and tensions

around tradition and progress.

English professor Simon Gikandi, introduced Soyinka as the “creator of African library” as well as the one who represents a symbol of a towering tree with an invaluable reference.

Gikandi also noted how Soyinka was an activist and a writer who “intervened in the most troubled areas of

Africa in the late 20th century” as well as represented “its desire and more importantly voiced its frustration.”

Soyinka explained to the audiences the meaning behind the titles of his lectures.

Soyinka connected his work to the four hundred notation of Shakespeare and said that it was most gratifying for him to prepare this type of contribution.

He noted that the “sweet uses of diversity” that he acknowledges in his work can be found rooted in Shakespeare’s quote “sweet are the uses of adversity.”

“The seizure of the human condition is now moving towards its uplifting desire,” he said.

He added that nothing has produced as much diversity as the phenomenon of re-

In Opinion

Today on Campus

Columnists Azza Cohen and Sam Parsons take opposite views on the referendum for disciplinary reform, and guest columnist Alice Mar-Abe discusses the referendum to divest from private prisons. PAGE 6

4:30 p.m.: Former governor of Antioquia, Colombia and former mayor of Medellín Sergio Fajardo will deliver a lecture.

Robertson Hall.

ligion, which he called the “schism of schism.”

“Religion is the work of imagination,” Soyinka said.

He noted the spiritual constructs that spiritual diversity have imposed on the world as he argued that diversity is the lesson of the millennia and the product of schisms.

The talk highlighted these entities and themes of “corSee LECTURE page 4

WEATHER

By Amber Park

HIGH

70˚

LOW

42˚

Sunny. chance of rain:

0 percent

Sports

Wednesday april 20, 2016

page 10

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S TENNIS

Wins over Columbia, Cornell give women’s tennis historic Ivy League title

By Helen Zhang contributor

With two impressive victories over Columbia and Cornell this past weekend, Princeton Women’s Tennis claimed the Ivy League Title and won a bid to the NCAA Championships.

It is the first time in Princeton history that the Women’s Tennis team has won three consecutive Ivy League Championships.

With Columbia coming into the weekend atop the Ivy League ladder and Princeton tied second with Cornell on a 3-2 win-loss record, Princeton needed to win both matches to keep its Ivy League hopes alive. Princeton’s season hung in the balance after two tough losses to Harvard and Brown, causing the 50th-ranked Tigers to enter this must-win situation against the 34th-ranked

Columbia lineup. When asked about those losses and how the team bounced back, Senior Amanda Muliawan responded, “Those losses stung. We knew early in the season that [the] teams were pretty evenly matched, but were obviously hoping for better results early on. We focused on playing one match at a time and taking ownership of what we could control in the future. In retrospect, those tough matches may have actually helped us to finish stronger.”

This resiliency made the difference during Friday’s match as the Tigers played some spectacular, determined tennis to oust the Columbia Lions. To open the all-important match against Columbia, Princeton took the doubles point with impressive performances from pairs Caroline Joyce and See W. TENNIS page 9

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETIC COMMUNICATIONS

The women’s tennis team won their third consecutive Ivy League title this weekend, a program first.

SOFTBALL

Softball tops Penn to stay atop division

By Nolan Liu associate sports editor

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETIC COMMUNICATIONS

The softball team won three out of their four matches against Penn.

The Princeton softball team (14-22 overall, 7-5 Ivy) split their first doubleheader against Penn before defeating the Quakers (1519 overall, 3-9 Ivy) in two matches during their second meeting this past weekend, remaining atop the Ivy League South division.

The Tigers found themselves matched against a strong opponent in the Quakers, with Princeton’s two runs in the first being easily matched by a pair of Penn runs in the top of the second. From there, both squads remained neck and neck — Penn built a three-

WOMEN’S GOLF

run lead by the end of the second inning, but senior catcher Skye Jerpbak hammered in a two-run homer to make the score 5-4 by the end of the second. The Tigers would charge ahead with another two-run play from freshman outfielder Kaitlyn Waslawski, but the Quakers evened the score at 6-6 by the top of the seventh. With only the bottom of the seventh to go, senior first baseman Kayla Bose drove a shot to centerfield that brought sophomore second baseman Daniel Dockx in for a final run to give Princeton a 7-6 victory.

However, the Quakers took the second game on the strength of their

pitching. Penn senior Lauren Li successfully stranded six Princeton scoring attempts and ultimately left the Tigers scoreless over the game, while Penn knocked in two runs in the second and an additional pair of scores in the fourth to secure a 4-0 win in the second game. Nevertheless, the day’s 1-1 result left Princeton still ahead of both Penn and Columbia in the Ivy South as they prepared to face the Quakers again on Sunday.

In the second doubleheader, the Tigers’ third matchup against Penn proved as close as their first. After the Quakers opened up See SOFTBALL page 9

MEN’S TENNIS

Women’s golf wins third invitational Men’s tennis drops two of the year, defeats Brown and Penn Ivy League games

By Hamza Chaudhry contributor

The Princeton women’s golf team captured its third tournament of the 2015-2016 campaign at the Brown Bear Match Play Tournament. The Tigers handily defeated the Brown Bears on Saturday by a score of 6.5-1.5 to advance to the final where they edged out a resilient Penn Quaker squad 4.5-3.5, completing a successful weekend of action.

The golf team was riding a wave of momentum into last weekend, as it won the Georgetown Hoya Invitational, held April 4-5. At the Georgetown Tournament, the Tigers dominated and saw individual progress in addition to their collective triumph — Princeton got three players in the top seven, and all four scorers were tied for no lower than 12th overall.

The Brown Bear Match Play Tournament took place at the Carnegie Abbey Club in beautiful oceanside Portsmouth, RI. Eight players from each team

competed head to head, with two matches taking place Saturday — Brown vs. Princeton and Penn vs. Dartmouth.

On Saturday at 11 a.m., the Tigers sought to conquer the Bears over the 6,021 yard, par-71 course. And conquer they did.

Freshmen Amber Wang, Tiana Lau and Amanda Brown, juniors Hana Ku and Jordan Lippetz, and senior Sydney Kersten grabbed Princeton’s six-match wins, while sophomore Tenley Shield halved her match. Freshmen Brown, Wang and Lau have brought a wealth of experience to the team this year and their results on Saturday are sure to be only a harbinger of future success. Highlights from these new golfers’ high school days include Brown’s 64 top-10 finishes on the PGA of Southern California Junior Tour from 2009-2015, Wang’s eighth-place finish at the American Junior Golf Association Rolex Girls Junior Championship, and Lau’s junior title at the San Diego Junior Golf Association’s Tour

Tweet of the Day

Championship in 2013. Lippetz and Kersten also bring their veteran knowledge of the sport to the table and look to build on their past work.

Following their drubbing of the Bears, the Tigers faced a tougher challenge in the form of the Quakers. Lippetz, who was second-team All-Ivy last year, came through against Penn’s Franchesca de la Torre, and senior Alex Wong rebounded from her loss in the Brown match, taking care of Penn’s Sophia Chen. A fortunate forfeit coming from Kersten’s opponent proved crucial, as the Tigers prevailed 4.5-3.5.

Looking ahead, the Ivy League Championships are this weekend at the Stanwich Golf Club in Greenwich, Connecticut. Last season concluded for the Tigers with a fourth-place finish at the event. With three tournament victories this season, there is no doubt that the Tigers possess the capability to be real contenders at this year’s championships.

By Berthy Feng contributor

The men’s tennis team had a tough Iv y weekend, losing to Columbia 0-4 and Cornell 3-4.

On Friday, Princeton chal lenged 25th-ranked Columbia in New York.

Because the Lions are so far undefeated in the Iv y League, they were a challenging match for the Tigers. Columbia clinched the doubles point by winning all three of its doubles matches with a score of 6-4. In No. 1 doubles, the team of Michal Raski and Mike Vermeer beat Princeton duo Alex Day and Luke Gamble. The next doubles match to finish was at No. 3 doubles, with Columbia’s Christopher Grant and Richard Pham beating Princeton’s Tom Colautti and Joshua Yablon. At No. 2 doubles, Columbia’s Shawn Hadavi and Victor

Stat of the Day

“Thus, using that as a basis for grandiose notions 3 out of 3 of supremacy, falsely giving themselves the title of Women’s tennis has won 3 out of masters of the universe.” the past 3 Ivy League titles.

Anthony Gaffney (@ Agaff_2), senior defensiv e back, football

Pham defeated Princeton’s Jonathan Carcione and Diego Vives.

Columbia needed to win just three of its singles matches to secure the victory, and it managed to take singles 4, 1 and 3. At No. 4 singles, Columbia’s Mike Vermeer trumped Princeton’s Josh Yablon 6-3, 6-3. At No. 1, Shawn Hadavi defeated Diego Vives 6-2, 6-3. At No. 3, Eric Rubin defeated Alex Day 6-2, 7-6. While Luke Gamble of Princeton was up one set against Richard Pham at No. 5 singles, that match did not finish in time to contribute to the score line. The matches for No. 2 and No. 6 singles did not finish, either, but in both matches, Columbia was up one set.

Coming off this challenging loss against Columbia, Princeton looked to beat another Iv y team See M. TENNIS page 9

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

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday april 20, 2016

page 9

Softball defeats Penn Women’s tennis secures place in in two doubleheaders history with Ivy League three-peat SOFTBALL Continued from page 10

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

scoring with two runs in the top of the second, Jerpbak tallied two scores for the Tigers to tie the game.

However, Penn responded with unanswered runs in the fourth and fifth innings to build a 4-2 lead.

Princeton would not falter, however, with freshman outfielder Mikayla Blaska driving two runners in at the bottom of the sixth to tie the score. Penn failed to respond at the top of the seventh, and Princeton once again made good on their last scoring opportunity of the day when freshman first baseman Keeley Walsh drove Waslawski home with a single that gave the Tigers a 5-4 win.

In Princeton’s final match of the weekend, the Tigers retaliated against Lauren Li’s shutout of them in Saturday’s game, dishing out four consecutive hits and jumping to a 3-0 lead by the end of the first.

The Quakers switched to reliever Alexis Sargent, but she also proved ineffective against Princeton’s attack. Sophomore outfielder Kylee Pierce notched a two-run double to increase the Tigers’ lead to 5, and Princeton opened it up even further in the second.

Freshman third baseman Kaylee Grant hit a single to drive a sixth run home, and Dockx smashed a three-run homer that gave the Tigers a 9-0 lead. Penn managed four runs of their own in the ensuing innings, but it all proved too little and too late. After a final score in the sixth from Grant, Princeton walked away with a 10-4 victory to close out the weekend.

The 3-1 record against Penn puts the Tigers firmly in the lead in their Ivy South conference; they remain three games ahead of the second-place Quakers.

Princeton will face Lehigh University next in a doubleheader slated for this 3:00 p.m. this Wednesday.

W. TENNIS Continued from page 10

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

Nicole Kalhorn, and Emily Hahn and Catalina Vives. Columbia responded by claiming the first two singles points, despite brave efforts from Senior Amanda Muliawan and Joyce. Up against Columbia’s 36th-ranked Kania Vaidya, Muliawan put up a brave effort, falling short 6-2, 6-3. Sophomore Katrine Steffensen then equalized with a much-needed win, playing with resolve to triumph in straight sets 6-3, 6-3. Princeton and Columbia then split the next two points on offer, keeping the score tied at 3-3. Alanna Wolff put up a comprehensive performance, winning in straight sets 6-3, 6-1 while Kalhorn fought hard in a three set affair, falling short 6-4, 4-6, 6-1. The outcome of the match came down to Sivan Krems, who faced a tough opponent in a tense encounter.

Krems played some thrilling tennis to prevail 7-5, 7-5 and secure Princeton the decisive fourth point. Final score: Princeton 4, Columbia 3.

With the Ivy League Title on the line, the Tigers hoped to translate their impressive form to Sunday’s match against Cornell. Competition in the Ivy League was fierce this year, with no team notching more than five wins in the conference. To add to this, Muliawan commented, “Competition this year was tighter than it has ever been. League champions have traditionally won with a 7-0 or 6-1 record like our 2014 and 2015 seasons.

Heading into our last weekend, women’s tennis was the only Ivy League varsity sport in which all eight schools held national rankings. This year was incredibly special because it was a close sprint through the finish line between several teams.”

The Tigers started off well against the Bears, claiming the opening doubles with some dynamic play from Joyce and Kalhorn and Hahn and Vives. The Tigers then claimed three of the next four singles points on offer, with wins from Krems, Joyce and Wolff. All three Tigers prevailed after a tough three sets, playing with both

class and determination to defeat their Cornell challengers.

Muliawan clinched the win and the Ivy League Title for the Tigers with a stunning threeset victory on Court 1 with a final score of 6-3, 3-6, 6-1. Princeton triumphed over Cornell with a final score of 5-2.

Following the team’s historic win, Muliawan reflected back on the season, “Our team has improved and made changes in many tangible ways — trying out different doubles teams, working on shots off the ground, building up our strength and conditioning.

Ultimately, I think the most important improvements were more than just tennis.

We celebrated wins together and came together after losses. Our tough schedule forced the team to really support one another. We’ve had a more experienced team in the past as well, so more match play helped us naturally.”

The Tigers will compete in their third consecutive NCAA Championships on May 13th, hoping to push past the round of 16 and end the season on a high.

Men’s tennis drops tough matches to Cornell and Columbia M. TENNIS Continued from page 10

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

on Sunday, playing against 55th-ranked Brown at the Lenz Tennis Center at Princeton. Princeton won the doubles point, with Day and Gamble winning at No. 1 doubles (6-3) and Colautti and Yablon winning at No. 3 (6-3). The duo of Carcione and Vives lost

their match 1-6.

Princeton was two games away from securing the win, but Cornell rallied to take a 4-3 victory.

At No. 1 singles, David Volfson beat Vives 6-0, 1-6, 6-1. At No. 2, Colin Sinclair beat Colautti 6-1, 6-2 and at No. 3 Stefan Vinti beat Alex Day 6-1, 3-6, 6-4.

Bernardo Casares Rosa rallied in his No. 4 singles

match against Yablon 2-6, 6-3, 6-4, to grab the comefrom-behind v ictor y for the Bears. The only Princeton wins in singles came from Luke Gamble at No. 5 and Jimmy Wasserman at No. 6, who won 6-2, 6-4 and 7-5, 6-3, respectively.

The men’s tennis team will travel to Penn on Saturday.

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETIC COMMUNICATIONS

Men’s tennis lost two close matches against Ivy League competition..

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday april 20, 2016

Finlay: molecular biology is foundation of living systems STEM

Continued from page 1

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

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

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

she said.

The exact number of students who declared a major in the Department of Chemistry is still unavailable according to Tom Muir, the department chair.

Muir indicated that there have typically been around 35 students in the department each year. According to an unofficial number obtained from the University College Facebook, 14 students declared chemistry as of now.

Eric Fung ’18 said that he declared a concentration in chemistry because he has always loved the subject. “There really isn’t a better reason [to declare] than that,” he noted.

Departmental Representative of Astrophysical Sciences Neta Bahcall said that around 10 students will be majoring in astrophysics, compared to nine last year . He said this continues the trend of the larger classes of eight to 10 students per year in recent years.

“We and our students are proud and delighted by the excellent astro major program and the increased enrollment in re-

cent years,” Bahcall said.

According to estimates obtained from University College Facebook, mathematics has 33 concentrators so far compared to 31 last year; geoscience has 7 from the Class of 2018 compared to 18 last year; 17 students are concentrating in physics compared to 23 last year; and 54 students are concentrating in molecular biology, compared to 50 last year.

“I chose mol because I’ve always liked how biology and chemistry fit together on the molecular level,” Jack Finlay ’18 explained. “When things go wrong, they can almost always be attributed to mol bio concepts, which emphasizes the field’s importance in health and medicine,” he said, noting that molecular biology is the foundation for most living systems.

For Maddie Huber ’18, choosing to concentrate in molecular biology was a hard decision.

She explained that, though she isn’t pre-med, she is extremely interested in the entrepreneurial aspect of biotech and health care companies. “I still think mol is the most applicable [concentration to these fields],” she explained.

Personality Survey:

1) During lecture you are... a) asking the professor questions. b) doodling all over your notes. c) correcting grammar mistakes. d) watching videos on youtube.com e) calculating the opportunity cost of sitting in lecture.

2) Your favorite hidden pasttime is... a) getting the scoop on your roommate’s relationships. b) stalking people’s Facebook pictures. c) finding dangling modifiers in your readings. d) managing your blog. e) lurking outside 48 University Place.

3) The first thing that you noticed was... a) the word “survey.” b) the logo set in the background. c) the extra “t” in “pasttime.” d) the o’s and i’s that look like binary code from far away. e) the fact that this is a super-cool ad for The Daily Princetonian.

If you answered mostly “a,” you are a reporter in the making!

If you answered mostly “b,” you are a design connoisseur, with unlimited photography talents!

If you answered mostly “c,” you are anal enough to be a copy editor!

If you answered mostly “d,” you are a multimedia and web designing whiz!

And if you answered mostly “e,” you are obsessed with the ‘Prince’ and should come join the Editorial Board and Business staff!

Contact join@dailyprincetonian.com!

Wednesday april 20, 2016

Spanish and Portuguese concentrators increase HUMANITIES Continued from page 1

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

representative for the English department helped her decide what to declare, especially since she could individually cater her classes in the department to pursue what she was most interested in.

“The department is really small, so I’m always going to have that individual help that I need,” she said.

Natalie Tung ’18, another English concentrator, said that she has always been most passionate about English classes and also appreciates the skills one learns as an English major. She noted that while some students may declare a concentration in the Wilson School or within the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences because those majors tend to be viewed as more practical, a concentration in the English department is valuable and practical in that it teaches students to analyze texts and think critically.

Of the foreign languages, the Spanish and Portuguese Department has the most concentrators, with between 17 to 19 students according to departmental representative Germán Labrador Mendéz. He noted that this number represents an ascending trend in the department in the last few years.

“The remarkable augmentation in the number of majors goes against general tendencies in the humanities. However, it is consistent with other growing departmental numbers, increase in the number of certificates, number of students, numbers of students enrolled in advanced courses, numbers of students in summer programs abroad,” he stated.

He also explained that the department reflects one of the most diverse groups of students on campus in terms of cultural, ethnic, gender and racial diversity, which he attributes to growing internationalization, diversity and the increased

The Daily Princetonian

presence of Spanish language and culture in the United States.

The French and Italian Department has 10 new students, which marks an increase from seven last year and five in 2014, according to departmental representative Efthymia Rentzou.

Rentzou noted that the department has made a collective effort to increase the number of concentrators and is happy to have done so.

Slavic Languages and Literatures had five students declare this year, compared to three last year, according to undergraduate program contact Frances Carrol.

The Music Department has six new concentrators, according to departmental representative Donnacha Dennehy. There were seven last year.

Philosophy Departmental Representative John Burgess said that as of press time, the program had 21 concentrators, similar in number to the Class of 2016, which is about to graduate 23 concentrators. He noted that last year’s class of 37 majors was unprecedented in the 40 years that he has been at the University.

The Near Eastern Studies Department has eight concentrators this year, the same as last year, according to departmental representative Satyel Larson.

The School of Architecture has 10 concentrators, as opposed to nine last year, according to department manager Frances Yuan.

According to unofficial estimates obtained from University College Facebook, the new African American Studies Department has seven concentrators; Art and Archaeology has 16 concentrators, compared to last year’s 22; Classics has 10 concentrators, a decrease from last year’s 14; Comparative Literature has 10 concentrators compared to 17 last year; East Asian Studies has four concentrators, compared to seven last year; German has two concentrators compared with last year’s seven; and Religion has eight concentrators, the same as last year.

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

T HE DA ILY

The best place to Write Edit CODE Opine Design Produce Illustrate Photograph Create

on campus. join@dailyprincetonian.com

Take it like a polaroid picture.

Join the ‘Prince’ photo department. join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 3

page 4

Soyinka: Individual freedoms shape humanity LECTURE Continued from page 1

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

relative freedom,” which Soyinka described as “enhanced, adorned and rendered.”

Soyinka noted the power of choice as well as the profound emphasis on the internal dynamics of humanity.

“There is no escaping imperative of choice,” Soyinka said. Soyinka argued that not acknowledging this entity of choice is to deny one’s self of their existential will. He described this as an exercise that mandates on our behalf.

Soyinka noted the powers of internal freedom and the freedom of the individual. According to Soyinka, the underlining and thread-

The Daily Princetonian

ing of humanity is what has shaped the human condition.

He explained that this is a constant phenomenon of life.

When asked what his books were about during a question and answer session after the lecture, Soyinka said, “My books are about the very phenomenon of life… They are about you.”

The lecture, “Sweet are the Uses of Diversity,” is the second part of his three-part lecture series, “Commencement Rites at the Tree of Creativity,” which Soyinka is delivering as part of the annual Toni Morrison Lecture Series. The lecture was hosted

by Department of African American Studies and took place at 5:30 in McCosh 10.

Wednesday april 20, 2016

Wednesday april 20, 2016

Anthropology, sociology have drop in enrollment SOCIAL

Continued from page 1

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

Undergraduate Program Office did not respond to request for comment.

Jenny Mu ’18 noted that she decided to declare her concentration in the Wilson School because of its unique interdisciplinary curriculum that allows her to combine her interests in a single course of study.

According to Politics Department Director of Undergraduate Studies Markus Prior, a total of 70 sophomores have declared their major in politics, remaining constant with last year’s 68 and the prior year’s 70. Prior expects this number to rise slightly in the summer.

“There is no other major at Princeton in which students can study politics with as much breadth and depth. And because we are a big department, we can offer cutting-edge training in different methods and one-onone independent work advising starting in junior year,” he noted.

Both the anthropology department and the sociology department experienced a drop in numbers of concentrators.

According to numbers from University College Facebook, anthropology has 15 new concentrators compared to last year’s 22.

Morayo Odujinrin ’18 said that she declared anthropology

The Daily Princetonian

because of the classes she took with the department, which were more specific and catered towards her areas of interest.

“I’m in a class that’s only about technology, and another one that’s only about urban spaces and cities, which I really like, and they really align with my interest of wanting to be in a non-profit in the future,” she said.

Olivia Fiechter ’18, who also declared anthropology, said she liked the department’s atmosphere.

“I was torn between a few departments in the social sciences but at the end of the day, the intimate and supportive nature of the anthropology department and staff was the deciding factor in my concentration decision,” she explained.

Department of Anthropology Chair Elizabeth Davis did not respond to requests for comment.

The sociology department has 22 new concentrators as of Wednesday, compared to 34 last year.

“All of the professors that I’ve had so far have been incredible and because the study of sociology provides a different way of analyzing the world around us, which I find to be fascinating,” Ashley Forte ’18, who declared Sociology, said.

Deparment of Sociology Chair Mitchell Duneier did not respond to request for comment.

0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101 1100010101001011101101000100101 0010100100101001001011100010101 0010111011010001001010010100100 1010010010111000101010010111011 0100010010100101001001010010010 1110001010100101110110100010010 1001010010010100100101110001010 1001011101101000100101001010010 0101001001011100010101001011101 10100010010>1001010010010100100 1011100010101001011101101000100 1010010100100101001001011100010 1010010111011010001001010010100 1001010010010111000101010010111 0110100010010100101001001010010 0101110001010100101110110100010 0101001010010010100100101110001 0101001011101101000100101001010 0100101001001011100010101001011 1011010001001010010100100101001 0010111000101010010111011010001 0010100101110110100010010100101 0010010100100101110001010100101 1101101000100101001010010010100 1001011100010101001011101101000 100101001010010010100100101110 0010101001011101101000100101001 0100100101001001011100010101001 0111011010001001010010100100101 0010010111000101010010111011010 0010010100101001001010010010111 0001010100101110110100010010100 1010010010100100101110001010100 1011101101000100101001010010010 1001001011100010101001011101101 0001001010010100100101001001011 1000101010010111011010001001010 Dream in code?

0101001001010010010111000101010 0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101 Join the ‘Prince’ web staff 1100010101001011101101010010100 1010010010100100101110001010100 1011101101000100101001010010010 1001001011100010101001011101101 0001001010010100100101001001011 join@dailyprincetonian.com 1000101010010111011010001001010 0101001001010010010111000101010 0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101

sudo pip

install

web_staffer

page 5

Opinion

Wednesday april 20, 2016

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

In favor of academic integrity

vol. cxl

Samuel Parsons

Do-Hyeong Myeong ’17

columnist

editor-in-chief

A

Daniel Kim ’17

MONG THE myriad of new and unique experiences the Class of 2020 will have is the surprising and impressive level of trust that the University places in the academic honesty of its students.

The complete lack of a professor or preceptor in the room during our examinations contrasts sharply with the level of supervision we experienced in high school and that which our peers at other colleges experience.

The fact that this lack of supervision of examinations is, in fact, a requirement exemplifies the University’s commitment to trusting its students. Furthermore, professors’ use of take-home examinations and their trust that the essays and lab reports we submit are our own work sets us apart.

Yet this phenomenon of trust cannot exist without an understanding between students and the University that academic integrity is one of, if not the most, highly-valued principles in our community. We are not just trusted; we take pride in this trust.

The University pays us the respect of scholars, and in turn we pay respect to the scholarly world by being honest in the work we do.

We all accept this obligation and Princeton’s spirit of integrity before we even matriculate, by tacitly consenting in our commitment to Princeton and our understanding of this phenomenon grows over our time at the University.

There is one other obvious way we formalize our commitment to academic integrity, and that is signing the Honor Code.

In making this commitment, we

agree to both uphold the twofold expectations of the Honor Code and to answer to the consequences of not doing so: a year of suspension for violating the code and expulsion after two violations.

The Undergraduate Student Government has recently conducted a referendum on reforms to disciplinary action taken against those who violate the Honor Code. Technically, all that is proposed is to bolster the ranks of the USG by creating a task force to consider this topic. Yet the task force is to discuss, in a highly indirect choice of words, the proposition of considering altering the Honor Code to have “lesser [penalties]” for violations, specifically “finer gradation of punishment” such as “course failure,” and whether changes should be made to deal with mental health as a possible factor in violations. I will not open a debate on the mental health proposition, though I do find the notion of introducing lesser punishments for cheating to be contrary to our value of academic integrity.

The idea is to allow lower penalties for violating the Honor Code, be it cheating on an exam, plagiarizing in a paper or deciding not to report witnessing either act. However, this sends a message that cheating is a little more okay. Lowering penalties is lowering expectations. The University’s current policy is clear and communicative: we trust you, and if you break that trust, you will be greatly inconvenienced. Remove the “greatly” from that sentence, and the persuasiveness of that condition falters. Lowering the consequences

of Code violations or creating smaller and lesser increments of punishment shows a misunderstanding of the environment in which we are working, one that rejects cheating and upholds the honor named in the Honor Code.

The issue with sending this subtle message is that we don’t believe cheating is okay, not even a little bit. There is no grey line between honesty and falsehood. You put your pen down, or you don’t.

You cite the source of the idea, or you don’t. You keep your eyes on your own paper, or you don’t. Creating increments of punishment with lesser penalties convolutes our understanding of right and wrong and of academic integrity. It tells us that some cases of cheating are more acceptable than others, when there is no circumstance where cheating is acceptable at all. Our professors cannot publish papers with a little bit of intellectual theft or just a smidgen of unethical scholarly behavior. We hold ourselves to the same standard. The expectation is polar, and it is on the side of honesty.

It is also important to remember that for some students, the concept of “honor” alone is not enough to deter them from taking shortcuts. Yet the current Honor Code, for the most part, solves this problem by proposing clear and heavy consequences for infringements. This provides a cost-risk analysis for these students that clearly falls on the side of honesty, for though there may be a low chance of getting caught, a year off or even expulsion is simply not worth the risk.

Decreasing the penalties for cheat-

ing tips this balance to the side of misconduct and may cause this risk to be taken more often.

Fortunately, most students find their honor and a belief in academic integrity to be reason enough to behave ethically. For this majority, this debate is almost irrelevant; if people have no intention of breaking of the Honor Code, they need not be concerned about the year off they would have to take if they did cheat.

Some may fear that they’ll accidentally break the Honor Code and that such heavy penalties are disproportionate to such a circumstance. In response to this objection, I note that we not only read and sign the Honor Code, but are required to accurately summarize it in our own words, and that these summaries are reviewed by the Honor Committee to ensure that we all actually do understand it. We then take a writing seminar that, among other things, explains citation requirements. We all know what the Honor Code is.

We do need to ensure that we have an Honor Committee that is effective and transparent in its determination of whether the Honor Code has been broken so that nobody suffers a penalty unjustly. The Honor Committee has a serious responsibility. We need to be careful in determining the verdict of a potential violation, but when it is found that integrity and honor have been disregarded, we do not need to slacken our tolerance of cheating.

Samuel Parsons is a freshman from Wangaratta, Australia. He can be reached at samueljp@princeton.edu.

Investigation into disciplinary reform Azza Cohen

business manager

140TH BUSINESS BOARD

Business Manager Daniel Kim ‘17 Comptroller Denise Chan ’18

Head of Advertising Matthew McKinlay ‘18 Head of Operations Nicholas Yang ’18 Head of Subscriptions Vineeta Reddy ‘18

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 vice presidents John G. Horan ’74 Thomas E. Weber ’89 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Michael E. Seger ’71 Craig Bloom ’88 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 Jerry Raymond ’73 Randall Rothenberg ’78 Annalyn Swan ’73 Douglas Widmann ’90

NIGHT STAFF 4.19.16 staff copy editors Caroline Lippman ‘19 Hannah Waxman ‘19 Marina Latif ‘19

columnist

T

The shadows of the discipline process HE HONOR Code rules this campus, from when we enroll in this University to the very first performance we see of the Triangle Club to the statement of honor we write on our theses.

However, the disciplinary system is far from perfect, and this is why Justin Ziegler ’16 proposed a referendum to consider its reform. You can read his statement about the referendum here. The referendum would not actually make direct changes to the system; rather, it would set up a mechanism to make those changes.

After interviewing students, faculty and administrators about their experiences with the disciplinary process at Princeton, I strongly believe students should vote yes.

Last year, 28 students were suspended for violations ranging from drugs to academic violations to sexual misconduct. Punishments range from a Dean’s warning to expulsion, including disciplinary probation, oneyear suspension, one-year suspension with censure, two-year suspension or a withheld degree.

Stanley Katz, a professor in the Wilson School, strongly believes in reforming this system: “I have been advising students brought before the COD [Committee on Discipline] for decades, so I know the system pretty well. I think it is seriously flawed.

We have too few procedural protections for students accused of violations, the scale of penalties is much too harsh and the system is administered in a prosecutorial frame of mind. I think it is quite wrong to have such a harsh and unforgiving system of discipline in our great University,” he said.

The committees There are two committees that oversee disciplinary action: the Honor Committee (HC) and the Committee on Discipline (COD). The HC is currently comprised of 12 members, chaired by Charlie Jacobson ’16.

All class presidents serve on the HC, including former class presidents. Senior Associate Dean of the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students Victoria Jueds is the administrative advisor, but the student committee operates autonomously. The HC deals primarily with violations during inclass examinations. The standard punishment for violations of academic integrity is a one-year suspension on first offence and expulsion for a second offence.

Jacobson wrote in an email, “It’s often

hard for us to have nuanced conversations about the Code due to the confidential nature of our work. I think the Task Force is a great opportunity to facilitate a campuswide conversation about our community values and how they are embodied in the Code.”

The COD operates differently and deals with a more diverse range of cases, from plagiarism to assault to sexual misconduct.

Dean of Undergraduate Students Kathleen Deignan is the chair, and Dean Jueds acts as the secretary.

While it is clear that it would be inappropriate for members of either the HC or COD to discuss specific cases with the press, members are explicitly instructed to defer all comments, even personal opinions, to the Chair or Deans, respectively. Shortly after I requested individual interviews with each member of the HC and COD, they all received instruction not to speak with reporters for the ‘Prince.’ Although this referendum is not calling for transparency, the creation of a task force would spark a more public discussion.

The deans’ voice I sat down with Dean Jueds to discuss exactly how the process works and whether or not she supports the referendum. She indicated she would be happy to have a conversation through the task force if the referendum passes, but believes that the system is working as it should. “The disciplinary system is only as strong as it is consistent,” she commented.

She emphasized how there are finer gradations of punishment than just suspension or expulsion, but according to the discipline reports from 2012, 2013 and 2014, the punishment most frequently levied for academic infringements was a one-year suspension.

According to section 2.4.8 of “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” concerning violations of academic integrity, “The only adequate defense for a student accused of an academic violation is that the work in question does not, in fact, constitute a violation.”

This language harshly implies that the accused have no fair defense for their actions — essentially, guilty until proven innocent.

Neither Dean Deignan nor Dean Jueds would explicitly support the referendum.

Dean Deignan wrote in an email, “Our current policies and procedures are not the result of unexamined tradition, but are the product of reasoned deliberation and careful thought. Moreover, they are fairly applied on

a consistent basis — a characteristic I think essential to any disciplinary system.”

The students’ voice The referendum is not an attempt to fix a broken system, as current and former HC members wrote in a recent opinion piece, but an invitation for further discussion about the successes and the shadows of the discipline process. An anonymous member of one of the committees agrees, “By and large, it functions well, but we should absolutely have a public community discussion about the discipline process. This referendum is important because it will inform students.”

Students on both sides of the situation — those who are members of the HC or COD, as well as students who have been accused or have been called as witnesses or peer representatives — feel that a discussion is greatly needed.

“I believe changing the Honor Code to be more inclusive of students struggling with mental health challenges is a well-intended but misguided step. It is like putting a cotton ball on the end of a hammer and expecting it to soften the blow. . . [the Honor Code] cultivates a culture of fear and suspicion among students, many of whom are afraid to ask for help on anything for fear of punishment, which, especially since the only possible punishment is an automatic year suspension, the threat is terrifying,” an anonymous former student reflects. Due to the confidential nature of the cases, it is unclear how many students who face disciplinary charges are working through mental health challenges, but many students questions how sensitive the committees are to issues of mental health.

Ali Hayat ’16 is the chair of the peer representatives of the HC, and he is a staunch advocate of the referendum. Peer representatives are assigned to help students by providing information about the process, emotional counsel and representation at the hearing — “defense lawyers of sort,” he said. Hayat explained how they prepare a case and present it to the committee in defense of the accused. After hearing of bad experiences that students were having with the disciplinary process, he decided to get involved as a peer representative and then as Chair.

Hayat said he hopes students will vote in favor of the referendum. “The disciplinary process at Princeton never gets mentioned beyond hushed conversations between those who have been through it, or by those who either work on or with either of the two

committees. If nothing else, I hope this referendum gets people talking about it. I hope it can spur a debate on campus about an area that affects the student body in sharp ways, and I hope it leads to some questions being asked about some of the drawbacks and flaws of the current system, and how we can improve it.”

Peer representatives are not the only form of assistance that students provide other students. A graduate student with a law degree detailed to me how he served as a legal advisor to two students charged with sexual misconduct; both had reached out to this graduate student because they were not provided any other legal advice during their disciplinary process. “Coming from a legal background, I found it appalling — the process completely disregards the rights of the accused.”

This student was surprised that administrators and professors are charged with the task of levying justice and argued that the best solution would be to direct survivors of sexual assault to local law enforcement to ensure due process. “It seems like it’s just mimicking the criminal justice system.”

Restorative justice A few years ago, a group of DSLs (Directors of Student Life) wrote a proposal to the Princeton administration entitled, “Reframe Princeton University’s disciplinary system explicitly in terms of restorative justice.” The proposal argued that the system is retributive and ineffective. According to a copy of the report obtained by the Prince, they wrote, “The DSLs can speak from experience that the current disciplinary system often does not serve the community or the offenders… we don’t currently have a framework to have offenders realize how their actions have impact [on] the community and how best to restore themselves to the community.”

They recommended the creation of a restorative justice committee — a powerful call coming from administrators. Although restorative justice is not the explicit intention of this referendum, it could well be part of the conversation.

Whether or not you have personal experience with the disciplinary process, it directly affects students — and the faculty and administrators who advise the accused — in all corners of campus. It’s time to have this conversation.

Azza Cohen is a history major from Highland Park, Ill. She can be reached at accohen@princeton.edu.

Wednesday april 20, 2016

The Daily Princetonian

page 7

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Personhood must take precedence over profit Vote yes to divest from private prisons Alice Mar-Abe

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

O

N APRIL 24th, 2014, 26-year-old Madaline Pitkin died alone on the floor of her solitary cell at the Washington County Jail in Oregon. She was a young woman from north Portland who’d gotten addicted to heroin at the age of 24 but had been trying to get clean.

She was arrested for possession at a traffic stop seven days earlier. Once in prison, she quickly began to experience the typical symptoms of heroin withdrawal — aches, tremors, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, exhaustion, an endless craving for the drug. Her condition worsened day by day as her medication plan failed her and she grew weaker, more emaciated and more unstable.

Pitkin filled out a total of four medical request forms during those seven days. The final one read, “This is a 3rd or 4th call for help. I haven’t been able to keep food, liquids, meds down in 6 days . . . I feel like I am very close to death. Can’t hear, seeing lights, hearing voices. Please help me.”

The next morning at 10:00 am, she collapsed in her cell and could not be revived.

Although she was supposed to have been seen by nurses for seven days, according to The Oregonian in their investigation, none of the medical staff

managed to give her nutrition, liquids or medicine intravenously, an intervention that could have saved her life.

Pitkin’s death occurred under the oversight of Corizon Health, the corporation with which the Washington County Jail contracts all of its health care services.

Corizon calls itself “the nation’s leader in correctional health care.” They operate in 429 facilities across 25 states, and according to their website, they “improve the health and safety of our patients, reduce recidivism and better the communities where we live and work.”

Can these three claims really be compatible, or even true?

The first claim is blatantly false. Madaline Pitkin’s suffering was not unique; in fact, she was one of nine people who died in the custody of Oregon prisons in 2014. Private prisons and private contractors are notorious violators of basic human rights: these groups are first and foremost companies, highly incentivized to cut costs in any way they can. The first concessions come at the expense of those who have no power to protest: the prisoners. John Oliver’s incisive segment on private prisons featured a woman whose surgical care consisted of pouring kitchen sugar into her open wounds.

As for Corizon’s second claim, private prison corporations and contractors

have no incentive to reduce recidivism for similar reasons, namely profit.

Since they are paid for every bed they fill, their contracts with states usually include lockup quotas, which mandate that the state keep the prison filled to a certain capacity, sometimes as high as 90 percent. This guarantees the prison company a minimum profit. If the lockup quota is not met, they can sue the state for not sentencing enough people.

Finally, if recidivism rates stay high, “the communities where we live and work” will never heal as long as community members are trapped in a revolving door going in and out of prison. Perhaps Corizon was referring to the communities where their employees live and work, rather than the communities most impacted by mass incarceration — the ones where poor people of color live and work.

The USG referendum on divestment, as proposed by Students for Prison Education and Reform (SPEAR), would sever Princeton’s financial ties with companies like GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), as well as companies that exclusively contract with prisons and jails. In the last decade, GEO Group and CCA have spent $45 million lobbying for policies that further mass incarceration.

Regardless of your opinion of the

American criminal justice system and regardless of your political affiliation, it is clear that our current reliance on private prisons is not working. In our desire to fix the problem of overcrowded prisons with skyrocketing costs, we’ve created an imperfect system that incentivizes maltreatment of over 2.2 million incarcerated people. If the government sentences someone to time in prison, it assumes responsibility for the well-being of that person during their sentence.

The punishment of a prison sentence is supposed to be the restriction of free movement in the world. The punishment does not include torture through denial of adequate food and water, exploitation through virtually unpaid, forced labor or potential death mid-sentence due to a lack of basic health care.

We must ask ourselves whether we, as a university community, can claim to be “in the nation’s service” when our own institution condones others’ suffering in the name of profit margins. Divestment is not purely symbolic; it is an important step in the growing movement that refuses to recognize this exploitation as a legitimate or respectable way to make money.

If private prison companies are willing to use their money to create policies that turn people into vehicles for profit, we can use ours to say “no more.”

MODERN ART VALERIE WILSON ’18 ..................................................

Did you know...

that the ‘Prince’ has a Facebook page?

Like our page!

Procrastinate productively!

page 8

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday april 20, 2016