Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998
Wednesday April 3, 2019 vol. cxliii no. 36
Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
STUDENT LIFE
ACADEMICS
DJKEDDIE / WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
Alexander Hall is part of the Princeton Theological Seminary.
Abel Prize awarded to visiting scholar Uhlenbeck By Allan Shen Staff Writer
The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters announced on March 19, 2019, that it has awarded the 2019 Abel Prize to University-affiliated mathematician Karen Keskulla Uhlenbeck. She is the first woman to receive the prize. Currently Professor of Mathematics, Emerita, and Sid W. Richardson Regents Chair at the University of Texas at Austin, Uhlenbeck is a visiting senior research scholar at the University’s Department of Mathematics and a Visitor at the Institute for Advanced Study, where she
has held multiple positions in the past. The Abel Prize was awarded to Uhlenbeck “for her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics.” Modeled after the Nobel Prize, for which mathematics is not a category, the Abel Prize was first awarded in 2003. The Abel Prize is named for Norwegian mathematician Niels Henrik Abel, and it “recognizes contributions to the field of mathematics that are of extraordinary depth
and influence.” The prize is accompanied by six million Norwegian kroner, which is equivalent to approximately $704,000. Uhlenbeck became the second woman, after Emmy Noether, to give a Plenary Lecture at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Kyoto, Japan, in 1990. Uhlenbeck also helped found the Park City Mathematics Institute at the IAS, a summer program which congregates mathematicians, mathematics teachers, and students to facilitate educational and scholarly immersion. Uhlenbeck is a co-founder of the IAS Women in MathSee UHLENBECK page 2
ON CAMPUS
US Deputy Solicitor General discusses upcoming cases for Supreme Court
CESSATOR / WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
Wall grew up in a blue-collar family in a small town in Georgia.
By Marie-Rose Sheinerman Assistant News Editor
Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and constitutional lawyer Jeffrey Wall discussed the potential importance of upcoming Supreme Court cases and shared experiences from his decades-long career during a Tuesday lecture. A small and independent division within the Department of Justice with a total of 21 law-
In Opinion
yers, the Office of the Solicitor General conducts government litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court and files up to 2,000 briefs for the Court each year, according to Wall. The Office’s only two political appointees are Wall and the Solicitor General, Noel Francisco, both of whom assumed their current positions under the Trump administration in September 2017. Previously, Wall worked for the Office as an attorney under the Obama
Columnist Winnie Brandfield-Harvey isn’t convinced by Joe Biden’s recent semi-apologies and past lack of action during the Anita Hill hearing, and contributing columnist Ben Gelman discusses the endurance of the anti-vaxxer hoax. PAGE 4
administration. Wall’s work in appellate law began with a clerkship with Justice Clarence Thomas right out of law school. He noted, however, that aspiring to be an appellate lawyer is “like planning to be a professional athlete.” There simply aren’t enough positions in the field for the number of talented young people who choose to pursue it. On a personal level, Wall noted a feeling of having really “lucked out”. Growing up in a blue-collar family in a small town in Georgia, he never could have imagined that, at age 32, he would be arguing before the Supreme Court, let alone that he would one day hold the position he does now. “I love the Solicitor General office,” he said. “It’s truly a humbling experience. We have the best lawyers in the country. I love that because you really have to check your ego at the door.” In the self-assessed “gloomy note” of the talk, Wall noted a recent significant shift of power toward the judiciary. He believes a number of trends have recently converged such that almost every policy coming from the executive branch faces a challenge in court. “It’s only going to get worse,” he said, explaining the danSee DEPUTY page 3
By Karolen Eid Staff Writer
A group of students at the Princeton Theological Seminary is demanding that the institution pay reparations in response to a report it published last year, which details its historical connections to slavery. The seminary’s Association of Black Seminarians (ABS) has released a petition calling for the institution to annually set aside 15 percent of the portion of its endowment used on operating expenses to fund tuition grants for black students. This proportion would amount to $5.3 million a year, based on an estimate derived from
See REPARATIONS page 2
ON CAMPUS
VEDIKA PATWARI / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
“Until the industry becomes more female-friendly, women should use collaboration to our advantage,” said Bryant.
Q&A with Kimberly Bryant, founder of Black Girls Code By Vedika Patwari Staff Writer
Kimberly Bryant, founder of Black Girls Code (BGC) and one of Business Insider’s “25 Most Inf luential African-Americans In Technology” has been working with young female coders, aged between 7–17 years, through her pioneering nonprofit since 2011. Aimed at combating the lack of opportunities and exposure
Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, discusses her book, “Make Trouble” Friend Center 101
the seminary’s expenses in the 2017–2018 school year. The petition also asks for the establishment of a Black Church Studies program. As of April 2, the petition has garnered 572 signatures. “The ABS encourages the Board of Trustees and the Administration to follow the instructions of Lev. 26:41 fully, in which the covenant people of God are called to make amends for the iniquity of their ancestors,” a section of the petition reads. The 2018 report leading to this petition was first launched by seminary president M. Craig Barnes in spring 2016.
that African-American girls face in STEM fields, BGC differentiates itself from other organizations with its model of working with students throughout the school year instead of organizing a typical summer camp. This model helps BGC provide sustained support and guidance to their students. During Bryant’s recent visit to the University, The Daily Princetonian had the See BRYANT page 3
WEATHER
DANIELLE ALIO / OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Karen Uhlenbeck is a visiting senior research scholar in mathematics.
Petition demands tuition reparations from Seminary
HIGH
63˚
LOW
38˚
Sunny and windy chance of rain:
10 percent
page 2
The Daily Princetonian
Wednesday April 3, 2019
Uhlenbeck first female recipient of Abel Prize UHLENBECK Continued from page 1
.............
ematics Program, which seeks to address gender imbalance in the mathematics field and to strengthen success among female mathematicians. Born in Cleveland, Ohio, in August of 1942, Uhlenbeck graduated from the University of Michigan with a B.S. in mathematics in 1964. She then pursued graduate studies at Brandeis University, where she received a M.A. in 1966, followed by her Ph.D. in 1968, under the guidance of Richard Palais. Having held academic appointments at institutions such as the University of Chicago, University of California at Berkeley, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Uhlenbeck is the recipient of numerous other accolades, including a MacArthur ‘Genius Grant’ Fellowship in 1983. “The fact that she is the first woman to win this prize is perhaps very encouraging to young women who are entering the field of mathematics; it’s important to have role models,” said David Gabai, the Hughes-Rogers Professor of Mathematics and the Chair of the Mathematics Department. “Professor Uhlenbeck has had a long track record of mentoring not only women, but all levels of students: undergraduate students, graduate students, even teachers.” Uhlenbeck’s contributions over a long career spans a wide range of fields, from topology to geometry to theoretical physics. Uhlenbeck is a pioneer in the field of geometric analysis, which draws insights from both differential equations, geometry, and topology to make new discoveries. Some of Uhlenbeck’s work deals with minimal surfaces and solves the shape of soap films in high-dimensional spaces. Sun-Yung Alice Chang, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Mathematics at the University and a member of the fiveperson prize committee that determined the recipient of the 2019 prize, remarked on the importance of Uhlenbeck’s contributions. “She works across and connects research in different fields and did a number of pioneer works in the gauge theory, her work laid the analytic foundation for future study of
the subject which nowadays still is an active area of research,” Chang said. Edward Witten, a mathematical physicist and 1990 Fields Medalist who serves as the Charles Simonyi Professor in the School of Natural Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study, explained the relevance of Uhlenbeck’s work in the discipline of theoretical physics. Witten noted Uhlenbeck’s contributions to the study of non-abelian gauge theory, or Yang-Mills theory, which he stated is the “framework for understanding elementary particles.” “Very little was understood about the Yang-Mills equations from a mathematical point of view,” said Witten. “Karen Uhlenbeck was one of the pioneers in establishing a mathematical understanding of these equations.” Yang-Mills theory is necessary for unifying two fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force and the weak force, and for understanding the strong force. Thus, the theory is fundamental to the current Standard Model in particle physics. “For physicists, Uhlenbeck’s work pinpointed the uniqueness of the small instanton singularity,” Witten explained. “Study of the small instanton singularity in string theory led to many important results in the 1990s.” Uhlenbeck is the seventh Abel Prize laureate to be associated with the University. Previous laureates associated with the University include former Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University Robert P. Langlands, who won the 2018 prize; Andrew Wiles, the James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus, who claimed the 2016 prize; the late University mathematician and Nobel laureate John F. Nash, who shared the 2015 prize with Louis Nirenberg; Professor of Mathematics Yakov Sinai, who won the 2014 prize; University alumnus and former mathematics faculty member John W. Milnor ’51 GS ’54, the 2011 prize recipient; and John Tate GS ’50, who received the 2010 prize. On May 21, Uhlenbeck will accept the Abel Prize from His Majesty King Harald V of Norway in a ceremony at the University Aula in Oslo, Norway.
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
The Daily Princetonian
Wednesday April 3, 2019
page 3
In ‘gloomy note,’ Wall discussed power shift DEPUTY
Continued from page 1
.............
ger of putting the country in a position where “we effectively disable the executive from acting.” “The tools you forge today will be used against you tomorrow,” he added. “I don’t think Republican lawyers in red states will forget this when a Democrat takes the White House.” When asked in Q&A if the president ever instructs the Office on what and how exactly to argue in court, Wall said, “I’m not going to say consultation with the president never happens, but it’s very, very rare.” He stressed throughout the talk that the Court is not as political as many believe and that people generally do not appreciate as much as they should the extent to which his office cuts across partisan lines. As an example, Wall said that a few days into his appointment in 2017 he found himself arguing in defense of an endangered species act, something not regularly associated with the party that appointed him. One case on the present docket that Wall believes will be significant is known commonly as the “Peace Cross” case. The case involves a large Christian cross visible from a public highway, initially erected in Bladensburg, Maryland, as part of a commemorative war memorial for fallen World War I soldiers. The constitutional question is whether it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit court has held that the Peace Cross “ex-
cessively entangles the government in religion,” thus failing the “Lemon test” for establishment clause jurisprudence, which comes from the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. However, the Lemon test may be challenged by the ruling on this case, said Wall. He believes the test has proved unsatisfying as a doctrine and that the justices may announce a new test. Wall also recalled a related New York case on legislative prayer from a few years ago in which the Court ruled the practice acceptable so long as different denominations were permitted and no coercion was involved. “I can see them doing something similar with this case,” he said. The Court will also be ruling on a pair of partisan gerrymandering cases this term. According to Wall, the Court has never been willing to accept such a case but never fully shut one down either, a thin line that he believes will be more difficult to walk this time around. “The legislators testified that the map was the most partisan map they could have drawn,” he said. “The facts are pretty favorable to the challengers.” When an audience member asked if Wall sees a possibility for changes to the number of judges on the Court and judges’ term limits, Wall admitted he doesn’t know. “Your guess is as good as mine,” he said, but noted it seemed like a “heavy lift,” considering the difficulty with which much less controversial legislation gets through Washington. The talk took place in Friend 004 at 5:30 p.m.
News. Opinions. Sports. Every day.
join@dailyprincetonian.com
It’s amazing!
The amount of news that happens every day always just exactly fits the newspaper.
Write for ‘Prince’ News.
Email join@dailyprincetonian.com
The Daily Princetonian
page 4
Wednesday April 3, 2019
Petition demands 15 percent of endowment used on operating expenses, $5.3M annually, go toward funding tuition grants REPARATIONS Continued from page 1
.............
Barnes commissioned a committee of faculty and administrators to research several topics, including the seminary founders’ ties to slavery, economic sources that financed seminary facilities, and student demographics. The committee found that although Ashbel Green, the first president of the Seminary Board of Directors, espoused antislavery views, he did own slaves. He also served as
president of Princeton University, then called the College of New Jersey, from 1812 to 1822. Three of the seminary’s first professors also employed slave labor. The committee discovered that 15 percent of the seminary’s total revenue in the antebellum era consisted of contributions from slave owners and the interest from these contributions. This discovery led to the ABS’s call for the seminary to set aside that same percentage for reparations. In its petition, the ABS demands that the money
used for reparations not only go toward African American students, but also toward funding tuition grants for 10 students from Liberia and other West African countries each year. Individuals associated with the seminary participated in the nineteenth century Colonization Movement, which helped to found Liberia. Additionally, the petition calls for the seminary to pursue partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and West African Universities. In a recent interview
with The Washington Post, Justin Henderson, the president of ABS, said that although the seminary had admitted to its involvement with slavery, “repentance doesn’t end with confession.” Black students comprise about 13 percent of the seminary’s student population. The seminary’s report came one year after the University’s own report on its historical relationship with slavery. The Princeton and Slavery Project, launched in November 2017, found many ties between the College
of New Jersey and slaveholders. The University’s seven founding trustees, as well as its first land donor, all owned slaves. Several University presidents were slaveholders, including John Witherspoon, the sixth president and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. On April 8 and 9, the seminary will hold a conference on the relationship between institutions of higher education and their complicated legacies, focusing on the seminary’s history in light of the report.
Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian 0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101 1100010101001011101101000100101 0010100100101001001011100010101 0010111011010001001010010100100 1010010010111000101010010111011 0100010010100101001001010010010 1110001010100101110110100010010 1001010010010100100101110001010 1001011101101000100101001010010 0101001001011100010101001011101 1010001001010010100100101001001 0111000101010010111011010001001 0100101001001010010010111000101 0100101110110100010010100101001 0010100100101110001010100101110 1101000100101001010010010100100 1011100010101001011101101000100 1010010100100101001001011100010 1010010111011010001001010010100 1001010010010111000101010010111 0110100010010100101001001010010 0101110001010100101110110100010 0101001011101101000100101001010 0100101001001011100010101001011 1011010001001010010100100101001 0010111000101010010111011010001 001010010100100101001001011100 0101010010111011010001001010010 1001001010010010111000101010010 for (;;) 1110110100010010100101001001010 { 0100101110001010100101110110100 System.out.print(“Join ”); 0100101001010010010100100101110 System.out.println(“Web!”); 0010101001011101101000100101001 } 0100100101001001011100010101001 0111011010001001010010100100101 0010010111000101010010111011010 0010010100101001001010010010111 0001010100101110110100010010100 Dream in code? 1010010010100100101110001010100 1011101101000100101001010010010 Join the ‘Prince’ web staff 1001001011100010101001011101101 0001001010010100100101001001011 1000101010010111011010100101001 0100100101001001011100010101001 0111011010001001010010100100101 0010010111000101010010111011010 join@dailyprincetonian.com 0010010100101001001010010010111 0001010100101110110100010010100 1010010010100100101110001010100 1011101101000100101001010010010 1001001011100010101001011101101 0001001010010100100101001001011 1000101010010111011010001001010 0101001001010010010111000101010 0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101 1100010101001011101101000100101 0010100100101001001011100010101 0010111011010001001010010100100 1010010010111000101010010111011 0100010010100101001001010010010 1110001010100101110110100010010 1001010010010100100101110001010
Wednesday April 3, 2019
The Daily Princetonian
page 5
Bryant: Unforunately, even today, I see a lot of the same things as I did when I was younger, horror stories, similar pathways BRYANT
Continued from page 1
.............
opportunity to speak with her about her journey of educating over 8,000 female technologists with BCG and her dream to reach one million young girls by 2040. The Daily Princetonian: You started BGC in 2011, and you’re very close to celebrating your 10th anniversary. What were your biggest challenges so far, and how did you overcome them? Kimberly Bryant: Our biggest challenges have always been related to growth and scale. Since day one, we have consistently had more demand than we can even begin to provide. We started out as a grassroots organization with nothing more than my savings account funding the program. Building sustainable growth has been an uphill battle for us. Even today, we get requests to start new chapters of BGC every day. This demand has always outpaced our ability to meet it. We don’t have the resources to be in all these places, and it’s been a consistent challenge for us. I always tell people that it’s a good problem to have, but it’s also somewhat frustrating. I realize that there’s so much need that we would love to be able to fill, but we just don’t have the capacity to provide all the things that people ask us to provide. For me, as a founder, it’s about understanding that while there are limitations to what we can do as an organization, we can try to get as far down that line – in terms of providing resources and support – as possible. DP: You’ve been a woman in STEM for several decades now. What changes have you noticed in the field and what specific changes would you like to see? KB: Unfortunately, even today, I see a lot of the same things as I did when I was younger. When I have this conversation with women in my generation, women a little bit older than my generation, and even women that are more contemporary, we all have similar stories, sometimes horror stories, and our pathways are so similar. Unfortunately, a lot of the structural issues that I faced in my career, and that a lot of women older than me faced in the same career, are still there. I think what may be changing is our capacity and our belief in our abilities. When the movie “Hidden Figures” came out, I remember going to see it with my daughter. When we were watching the movie, I remember thinking that the movie wouldn’t resonate with my daughter. I didn’t think the movie would connect with her because it’s about women who were in a similar field in the 1950s. But the movie did connect with her. It certainly connected with me, even though the women in the movie were trailblazers for me. I was surprised at how deeply the movie impacted my daughter and the other girls we took to watch the movie. I didn’t think they would get it, but they did. However, I think watching this movie made an important change because it showed my daughter and the other girls that even though they may only see themselves in their computer science classes, there were wom-
en like Katherine Johnson in the field before them. This movie showed them that women have been involved in technological innovations all along. Because we were hidden, women in general, from the dominant narrative about computer science and innovation, it made it seem like this career was not something women could do. In that sense, watching this movie helped shift the narrative about women in STEM. DP: If you had to narrate your journey using three turning points, which ones would you choose and why? KB: Without a doubt, the first turning point in my journey would be deciding to major in electrical engineering instead of civil engineering. I went to college with the expectation of studying industrial engineering because I saw it as more people-oriented. But the college I decided to go to, Vanderbilt University, didn’t offer an industrial engineering program, and I chose to study what I thought was the nextmost human-centered study in engineering, civil engineering, instead. In the first year, I decided it was not for me. I chose to study electrical engineering and, to be honest, I’m not really sure why. The digital industry was growing in 1985 and there was a lot of focus on solidstate technology because of Intel. I think it was a pivotal moment for me because it really opened up the opportunities to do a lot of the work that I’m doing now. The second turning point in my journey was in 1999, when I gave birth to my daughter. I felt a really strong connection to her success. This was long before she decided to become an engineer. Motherhood really created this intense sense of protection. I wanted to create a better world for my daughter and provide a strong support system for her. I was really adamant that she didn’t see any limitations on what she could do. I wanted her to find a certain freedom in being able to pursue her dreams. So becoming a mother allowed me to grow into this idea of creating opportunities for my daughter. Then, the third turning point was in 2010, when I realized that she wanted to become an engineer. Here, again, she made such a critical impact on my life journey and the work that I’m doing now with girls in computer science. I would not be doing this if not for her. DP: What does the path forward look like for BGC? KB: We’ve reached about 9,000 students to date and we hope to double that number in the next five years. This year, we’re also really focusing on tapping into the strong community of alumni students who are entrepreneurs and decision-makers in the companies they work for today. I see this as a tremendous opportunity to involve the next generation of women leaders in tech, who also have a background with Black Girls Code and who bring a certain value perspective to the companies they work for, which wouldn’t exist otherwise. I think these young women will be able to shift the discussion, and also the resources, at these companies. DP: What tips do you have for young female engi-
neers for overcoming barriers imposed by institutional sexism? KB: I’ll say what I always tell my daughter: we have to learn to ask for help. I think we, as women, put so much pressure on ourselves to be perfect and do things on our own instead of asking for help. But that’s not realistic, especially in a field like engineering, which is so hard. Engineering is difficult. It is meant to be difficult. But if we don’t ask for help, we may not get it. If we’re in maledominated classrooms, with male professors, we may get left behind if don’t go and ask for the help we need. I also think that we should give ourselves a little bit of room for failure. We take failure per-
sonally, even though it’s part of the learning process. Giving ourselves the permission of not taking failure as a personal indication of our value or our abilities is so important. Lastly, I think we, as women, tend to do our best when we can work in collaboration with others. It’s our superpower. I also think it’s the key to survival in this maledominated industry. Until there’s a shift and the industry becomes more female-friendly, I think women should latch onto that aspect of collaboration as a strength and use it to our advantage. DP: Is there any advice you’d like to end with? KB: I always like to end with this: I think the work that organizations, like BGC and others like Girls
Who Code, are doing is important because if we can ensure that there is access and equity for the most marginalized communities, we can help give them a voice and a space in the technology industry. It really creates opportunities and elevates the playing field for everyone. I think, sometimes, diversity and inclusion efforts are looked at with a negative lens, and there is the belief that it might take away from the dominant narrative. I don’t think that’s true. By making sure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute, we can make a more inclusive culture for everyone that sits in the space. This is an important point that is often missed or not spoken about as often.
Opinion
Wednesday April 3, 2019
page 6
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
When knowledge isn’t power Ben Gelman
Contributing Columnist
I
n a March 18 interview, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin revealed his decision to intentionally expose his children to chickenpox in an effort to make them immune, rather than giving them the vaccine recommended by the medical community. Apart from being an astoundingly foolish action from a man who should have much better judgement, these remarks illustrate a troubling trend in contemporary American politics and culture: the aggressive rejection of reality and common knowledge. This phenomenon should cause all of us to consider the state of our political discourse and how our efforts to make change through the straightforward presentation of the best arguments may be lacking in effectiveness. Governor Bevin’s comments did not just demonstrate his lack of scientific understanding; they also gave more credence to the anti-vaccine movement, one of the most dangerous political ideologies alive today. Its members believe that vaccines are dangerous and can cause diseases and disorders such as autism and that efforts to compel parents to vaccinate their children are an example of totalitarian government overreach. None of that is true. But
the crucial characteristic of this movement is that anti-vaxxers only seem to become more emboldened when facts are presented that contradict their case. They feel more validated by the fact that their stance strays from conventional wisdom. This could be funny if anti-vaxxer positions weren’t currently causing a resurgence in measles within the United States; hence, the anti-vaxxers’ insistence on living in their fantasy world is threatening herd immunity and putting lives at risk. We cannot attribute this to a lack of education or exposure to the correct information, as those who choose not to vaccinate their children tend to be more wealthy and educated. A similar trend appears in the American attitude towards climate change. We cannot blame lack of knowledge for the common American refusal to recognize climate change. Like the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, the existence and threat of climate change is not up for debate, yet there remains a substantial portion of the country that not only refuses to believe in it, but forges a portion of their political identity around acting as a contrarian to the scientific community that has been warning us about global warming for decades. This is further exemplified by President Trump denying his own government’s climate change report, or Texas Senator John Cornyn waff ling on the issue, despite the fact that his state was recently devastated by
Hurricane Harvey, a storm made worse by climate change. The same resistance to facts that makes parents put their children at risk also compels elected officials to ignore natural disasters that affect their constituents. This state of mind seems to find the denial of the obvious as a goal unto itself, as if there is something to be won or gained in showing the steadfastness of one’s beliefs even in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. How we are supposed to react to such attitudes? As college students, we are taught to have a great respect for academia and truth-seeking, and for those of us who want to enter into some sort of public service or advocacy career, this trend should be quite distressing. How can we hope to have any impact on the world if the knowledge we acquire on how to solve some of the most pressing issues, such as infectious diseases and global warming, is routinely ignored? The answer may lie in reexamining our definitions of what knowledge is. In an ideal, world we would be able to simply present the necessary evidence and convert others to our cause. However, this is unfortunately not the case. We live in a world in which convincing others to reevaluate their beliefs takes much more than proving them wrong. It requires an understanding of why they insist on their position and what they seem to be gaining by refus-
ing to concede. It demands an evaluation of our modern culture in which being opposed to the other side seems to takes precedence over the common good. This is another type of knowledge, a kind that is not practiced or taught nearly enough on college campuses such as our own. The ability to understand the nuances of why people believe what they do is just as important as developing the expertise necessary to improve their quality of life. If we are unable to relate to the outside world, then we will be unable to offer our services to it. This is a crucial idea to keep in mind as we spend our time at Princeton achieving a higher understanding of all sorts of subjects. If we do not possess the social skills necessary to present what we know in a manner acceptable to our fellow citizens, then our advice may be rejected, no matter how sound it is. I do not know if there is a right way to convince climate change deniers or antivaxxers of the error of their beliefs. We may be too far gone in the culture war for any kind of reconciliation on these controversies. Yet, if we want to avoid the next wedge issue that not only divides us as a populace but also threatens our lives, then it is essential that we start thinking more about how to argue with others, not just whether we are on the right side. Benjamin Gelman is a firstyear from Houston, Texas. He can be reached at bgelman@ princeton.edu.
Takin’ care of BU$INE$$.
vol. cxliii
editor-in-chief
Chris Murphy ’20 business manager
Taylor Jean-Jacques’20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Chris Murphy ’20 Taylor Jean-Jacques’20
143RD MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Aftel ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Jon Ort ’21 head news editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news editors Linh Nguyen ’21 Claire Silberman ’22 Katja Stroke-Adolphe ’20 head opinion editor Cy Watsky ’21 associate opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editor Samantha Shapiro ’21 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21
Join the ‘Prince’ business department.
head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 cartoon editors Zaza Asatiani ’21 Jonathan Zhi ’21 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20
NIGHT STAFF
48 University Place Email join@dailyprincetonian.com News - Sports - Street - Opinion - Business - Copy - Design - Web - Blogs - Multimedia - Photo
copy Lydia You ’22 Allie Mangel ’22 Isabel Segel ’22 Wells Carson ’22 design Helen So ’22 Isabel Hsu ’19
Wednesday April 3, 2019
Opinion
page 7
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
What Biden could have done Winnie Brandfield-Harvey Columnist
L
ast week, former Vice President Joe Biden expressed his regrets that Anita Hill, a distinguished law professor, did not receive fair treatment during her widely publicized 1991 testimony against Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who was then undergoing judicial confirmation. Hill, who will speak at the University later this month, accused Thomas of repeated sexual harassment. According to Hill, when Thomas was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he asked her out repeatedly. When she continually refused, he forced her to give justifications and explanations for turning him down. He would often bring up sexual topics in graphic detail and discuss pornographic images involving women and animals. He even boasted about his own “sexual prowess.” Hill’s efforts to shift the subject to more professional matters, such as education, proved futile. Thomas was confirmed, and Hill’s testimony was disregarded, a story we know all too well. With a level head and im-
pressive poise, Hill sat there while an all-white, all-male committee interrogated her with absurd and offensive questions. Former Senator Arlen Specter laughed and mitigated Thomas’s talk of “women’s large breasts” in the workplace, arguing they were commonly used words and “not so bad.” Specter continued to probe Hill and question the severity of her claims, picking apart little details in her FBI statement and using them against her. Instead of listening to her testimony, he was too focused on catching her in a lie. Former Senator Howell Heflin questioned her motives: “Are you a scorned woman?... Do you have a martyr complex?” Senator Orrin Hatch went so far as to accuse Hill of stealing material from the novel “The Exorcist.” Hatch is the same senator who later referred to Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who accused Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, as an “attractive” witness. Looking back on the hearing, Biden recently stated, “I wish I could have done something,” and explained that he regrets that Hill did not receive “the kind of hearing she deserved.” Biden’s language makes it seem as if he was just a spectator. He was, however, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee — the man who presided over Hill’s testimony.
The structure of the hearing was poor from the start, as Biden seemed set on getting it over with as fast as possible. As Hill’s family members filed in, he urged them to find seats on the side, instead of sitting in the front with her. He constantly insisted, “we must get this hearing moving.” When female lawyers expressed their frustrations to Biden about the rushed atmosphere, Biden said he gave his word to Thomas’ chief sponsor, Senator John Danforth ’58, at the gym that it would be a “very quick hearing” and be done before Columbus Day. Clearly, he cared more about maintaining relations with his friends, as he so called them during the hearing, than giving Hill the justice he now claims she deserved. Last year, Biden said he wished he could have done more to “prevent those questions” and “the way they asked them.” However, he had the ability to control the proceedings, but chose instead to succumb to those around him. During the hearing, he concluded, “it is appropriate to ask Professor Hill anything any member wishes to ask her,” setting the stage for her own degradation. When Specter, the senator who raised the most inappropriate questions, asked Biden to confirm his 30-minute limit, Biden granted Specter as much time as he wanted. Instead of supporting Hill
and elevating her voice, Biden allowed men to take up all the space in the room. He refused witness testimonies from three other women with corroborating stories. He perhaps decided that it would have taken too long. In his efforts to make a public apology, Biden blamed the era, saying that “we knew a lot less about the extent of sexual harassment back then, over 30 years ago.” He adds that the committee didn’t “fully understand what the hell it was all about.” I’m not buying it. Hill’s testimony was a revolutionary case, not because it was the first instance of harassment in the workplace; rather, because it was one of the first times when someone came forward about it on the national stage. During the hearing, former Senator Dennis DeConcini recalled his mother’s experience with sexual harassment 60 years prior to the hearing and how it had still affected her after all those years. Although sexual harassment has pervaded the workplace for decades and decades, it did not have an official name until 1975. By 1977, the courts had finally allowed women to sue their employers for this once unnamed phenomenon. Biden and his fellow senators had plenty of time — 16 years — to brush up on their “harassment knowledge” before the Hill-Thomas hearings. At the very least, Biden has
the eisgruber show nathan phan ’19
..................................................
acknowledged the severity of what happened to Hill in 1991, and when it comes to the rights of women, he has been a helpful leader. In 1994, he wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which improved the ways in which violence against women was investigated and handled. In 2014, he and Obama launched the “It’s On Us” campaign against the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses. And yet, after all this time, Biden has still failed to issue Hill a personal apology. “It’s become sort of a running joke in the household when someone rings the doorbell and we’re not expecting company,” says Hill. “‘Oh,’ we say, ‘is that Joe Biden coming to apologize?’” Biden has offered a couple of apologies in public. He even continues to mention that he voted against Thomas. And while this is more than some male politicians have done or will ever do, it’s about what happens behind closed doors, when no one is watching. It’s about what you say in the privacy of a locker room or a gym. It’s about what you stand up for in the sole company of your boys’ club. It’s about being a good man, whether or not you become the next president of the United States. Winnie Brandfield-Harvey is a junior Wilson School concentrator from Houston, Texas. She can be reached at wab2@princeton.edu.
Sports
Wednesday April 3, 2019
page 8
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } SOFTBALL
Despite strong offensive showing, softball drops 2 of 3 to Columbia By Sam Lee
Staff Writer
At home last weekend, softball (6–15 overall, 3–3 Ivy League) faced off against its Ivy League co-leader Columbia (12–12, 5–1) in a three-game series. The Tigers took the first of the weekend’s games but dropped the next two by just one run. Friday’s 11–5 victory saw a slew of multi-hit performances for the Tigers. Sophomore outfielder Mackenzie Meyer and junior outfielder Megan Donahey both recorded three hits; senior outfielder Kaitlyn Waslawski added another two. Meyer led the team last season with seven home runs, and logged her first of the year on Friday, with a two-out solo homer in the second inning; she finished the game with three runs scored and three RBI. Waslawski also recorded her first home run of the season with a three run shot in the fifth, and sophomore pitcher Allie Reynolds picked up her fourth win of the season.
The Tigers’ offense slowed considerably on Saturday, when Princeton lost the first game of the day 2–1 despite first-year pitcher Ali Blanchard’s effort. Blanchard struck out six and allowed only two hits and five walks. She is currently second in the Ivy League in total strikeouts this season with 50, and her .220 opposing batting average is the second lowest in the conference. Her strong performance bodes well for the rest of the season, and she will likely play a significant role in the team moving forward. Despite a strong offensive showing, Princeton dropped the second game of the day 5–4. After going down 5–1 in the fourth, the Tigers stormed back, scoring one in the fifth and two in the sixth. Ultimately, though, their comeback fell short. Three Tigers had multi-hit performances in the game, and the team had 12 hits in total. Junior infielder Allison Harvey led the charge with three hits and two RBI. Donahey continued her strong hitting with three
hits and two runs scored. Donahey is batting .362 this year with a .441 OBP, an improvement on her already impressive 2018 campaign, which saw her bat .328 and earn All-Ivy League Honors. Despite their offensive performance, however, the
Tigers struggled to drive in runs, stranding 11 runners on base. The loss on Saturday gave Princeton a 3–3 conference record; the Tigers fell from first to fifth in the Ivy League standings. But the team will look to rebound
on Wednesday when they face Rider (3–23 overall, 1–3 conference) for a doubleheader at Class of 1895 Field. The Broncs are coming off a three-game losing streak, and have posted a meager 2–12 away record this season.
JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
Kaylee Grant swings in the second leg of Saturday’s doubleheader against Columbia.
BASEBALL
Baseball loses series at Harvard, falls to 2–4 in Ivy play in ‘a tough weekend’ By Mark Dodici Staff Writer
Last weekend, for the second week in a row, a struggling Princeton baseball squad took on an Ivy League foe for a three-game set. And for the second week in a row, they returned to Princeton with just one win. “It was a tough weekend,” said head baseball coach
Scott Bradley, two days after the Tigers (5–15 overall, 2–4 Ivy) closed out their 1–2 series loss to Harvard (13–6, 4–2). “But the games were close.” While a brief check of the scoreboard might not immediately support that statement, a closer look at the box scores for the three games shows a series that could have gone either way. After Friday’s contest, a
BEVERLY SCHAEFER / GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM
Senior Ryan Smith pitched well against Harvard, but nonetheless endured 4 unearned runs.Wednesday.
Tweet of the Day “Princeton has six named to All-Region team #TigerUp” Princeton FH (@ TigerFH), field hockey
resounding 12–0 defeat for the Tigers, one might have expected a runaway series win for the Crimson. But, as Bradley pointed out, “It was a one-run game through five [innings], and a threerun game through six.” Junior RHP James Proctor started the game for Princeton, throwing five innings and allowing three runs (all earned) with six strikeouts and five walks. With no run support, he would go on to get the loss, falling to 1–3 on the season. It was not until the Harvard offense exploded in the seventh inning, however, that the game’s fate was sealed. The Crimson scored seven runs and sent ten batters to the plate in the frame. “Our bullpen kind of imploded,” said Bradley of that particular inning. Down 12, the Tiger lineup went quietly through the last two frames and looked ahead to Saturday’s doubleheader. A sunny Saturday morning in Cambridge saw Princeton’s top starter, senior LHP Ryan Smith, take the mound in an attempt to right the ship, squaring off against Harvard’s Buddy Hayward. A pitching duel ensued, with both hurlers scattering two runs through the first seven frames. Smith took the mound for the bottom of the eighth, with the game knotted at 2. After dispatching the first batter, however, he loaded the bases on a walk,
a single, and another walk, before an untimely error gave the Crimson a 4–2 lead. Freshman Eric Hoefer relieved Smith, letting the third runner score before closing the frame, but the damage had been done. Smith finished the day with 7.1 innings pitched, 11 strikeouts, and just one earned run. This time, however, the Tigers did not go quietly in the ninth, loading the bases with nobody out. Senior designated hitter Joseph Flynn hit a sacrifice f ly to right, which cut the deficit to two, but freshman second baseman Eric Marasheski bounced into a double play to end the game, cutting the rally just short. “We made a big error late in the ballgame that cost us,” said Bradley about the second game, “but Ryan Smith was terrific; he pitched really well.” It wasn’t until the third and final game of the series that Princeton truly settled in. Led by first baseman Flynn and freshman center fielder Nadir Lewis, both of whom went 3-for-5 with 3 RBI and a home run, and senior catcher Max West (2–4, 4 RBI, HR), the Tigers jumped to an early lead and never gave Harvard a chance. Small ball and smart base-running earned three runs in the first for the Tigers and three more over the next two frames, but
it was West’s fourth-inning grand slam that gave Princeton a 10–0 lead — plenty of breathing room. The only Harvard threat came with four runs in the sixth, which only brought them within nine of the Tigers. Freshman Reece Rabin earned the save, pitching four innings of relief to close out the 16–9 victory. “We finally really got the bats going,” said Bradley of the series-closing performance. It’s a trend the Tigers would undoubtedly be happy to continue, as they travel east to Monmouth on Wednesday for a mid-week matchup. However, it isn’t the biggest of Bradley’s concerns. “The mid-week games are just to get us some work,” he said of the squad’s afternoon jaunt to the Jersey shore. Slightly more pressing, however, is this weekend’s series against a familiar Ivy League foe from New York City. “Columbia’s very good,” he put simply. The Lions boast a 4–2 record in Ivy League play, having won series against Cornell and Dartmouth and currently sit in a three-way tie with Harvard and Yale atop the Ivy standings. “We’re gonna have to play our best. Swing the bats, score some runs.” The series starts with a doubleheader on Saturday at Princeton’s Clarke Field. First pitch is scheduled for 11:30 a.m.
Stat of the Day
Follow us
139 meetings
Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!
The Tigers and Bulldogs will clash for the 139th time this Saturday as they fight to keep their season hopes alive.