Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998
Tuesday April 4, 2017 vol. cxli no. 35
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } BEYOND THE BUBBLE
Judges, U. prof. discuss courts under Trump associate news editor and Science Contributor
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Judge David Tatel, former Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court Deborah Poritz, and Fordham University Professor of Law Jed Shugerman discussed the issues behind the nomination and confirmation of federal and state judges and proposed solutions to break the partisan logjams in the appointment process. The conversation was moderated by Leslie Gerwin, the University’s Associate Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs. Tatel began by discussing the increased partisanship involved in the process of nominating and confirming judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. He showed the audience a graph, which plotted the average number of “no” votes cast for each judge nominated to the Supreme Court during three periods of American history. From 1789 to 1967, the average number of “no” votes per judge was four, and Tatel noted that most judges were confirmed unanimously. This trend changed after 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate rejected Fortas’ nomination, since he had
personally advised President Johnson. In addition, Tatel said that 1968 was a pivotal year, as the height of President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” during the 1968 presidential election. These events help explain why there were four times as many “no” votes on Supreme Court nominations from 1967 to 2006. The final time period, 2006 to today, featured twice as many “no” votes as the period from 1967 to 2006. Tatel pointed out that the last three justices to be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, Associate Justices Samuel Alito ‘72, Sonia Sotomayor ‘76, and Elena Kagan ‘81, were all confirmed on partisan lines. “Why do nominations go from nonpartisan to partisan?” Tatel said. “The reason, I think, is that the country no longer sees our courts as institutions that decide cases based on the law. Decisions are unaffected by the parties’ or judges’ ideology or affiliation. Courts are seen as places where judges use their ideology to get a result you can’t get in the political realm.” Tatel then spoke about his court, the D.C. Circuit, and explained that the selection of judges to this court mirrors that of the nomination process for the U.S. Supreme Court, but that there is no senatorial courtesy. He displayed a See JUDGES page 3
BEYOND THE BUBBLE
COURTESY OF PNN
Heads of the PNN Outreach Committee welcomed fourth-graders to campus on Friday.
Neuroscience Network brings young students to U. By Nouran Ibrahim science contributor
On Friday, March 31, elementary school students without any previous exposure to the field of neuroscience were guided in constructing a network of neurons using pipe cleaners. The exercise was part of an effort by University students to expose students at the Christina Seix Academy to a field often excluded to more privileged environments. The Princeton Neuroscience Network, a student-led group that fosters greater awareness and appreciation for neuroscience, held its first major outreach event on March 31. The fourth-grade students from Christina Seix Academy, a school founded to provide education to children from
COURTESY OF SHARED VALUES INITIATIVE
Michael Porter ’69 criticized environmental deregulation.
Porter ’69 advocated for environmental regulations Since the beginning of his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump made his strong anti-regulatory stance known. In his first months in office, Trump has scaled back rules in all industries, from financial to energy to firearms. Yet, the economic hypothesis of Michael Porter ’69 is challenging Trump’s actions, especially those re-
In Opinion
See PNN page 3
Karanth discusses conservation science contributor
staff writer
year, when they started the Outreach Committee of Princeton Neuroscience Network after meeting one of PNN’s cofounders, Seong Jang ‘18. “We had this vision freshman year to expose younger students to neuroscience since neuroscience had never been introduced to us as children,” Azoba noted. Since its creation two years ago, PNN has been engaging with University students through study breaks, movie screenings with professors, and research symposiums. According to Jang, however, the group felt that it was time for PNN to engage with a wider community. “We want PNN to grow from all branches,” explained Jang, referring to PNN’s events, re-
ON CAMPUS
By Jackson Artis
By Norman Xiong
low-income, single-parent households, were brought to the Princeton Neuroscience Institute to engage in a series of activities about science and the brain during the University’s first Neuroscience Fair. Heads of the PNN Outreach Committee Chi-Chi Azoba ‘18 and Selam Zenebe-Gete ‘18 explained that it was important to them as STEM students to spread awareness of neuroscience and to share the University’s many resources. “As women of color, getting students to come here and see us perform as student leaders has been empowering” Azoba explained. Azoba and Zenebe-Gete, both juniors concentrating in Molecular Biology at the University, have been planning this event since their freshman
lated to environmental regulations. The Porter Hypothesis was published in a 1995 paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, according to the Harvard Business School. The hypothesis posits that tighter environmental regulations actually benefit industries by creating competition and incentivizing innovation, two effects that are well-evidenced by reguSee PORTER page 2
Princeton University Vice President and Secretary Durkee responds to the Princeton Private Prison Divest coalition, Guest Contributor Alis Yoo asks us not to jump to conclusions in the Rockville case, and Contributing Columnist Jessica Nyquist looks back on grade deflation.. PAGE 4
Often, one of the biggest challenges conservationists face is the conflict between local communities and the surrounding wildlife — especially in a country with a billion people. Conservation biologist Krithi Karanth, explaining her work at a lecture Monday, has devoted her life to addressing this problem in India. “I got a first-hand view of how amazing it is to watch animals and be outside in nature,” Karanth said. She explained that her childhood experiences with wildlife and wildlife reserves inspired her work today. “I had a very unusual childhood,” Karanth said. “My dad was a wildlife biologist and he started taking me to the jungle when I was a year old.” Karanth explained how she would spend hours with her father watching wildlife from his Jeep while studying. Karanth also said that she learned patience and witnessed the uglier sides of conservation. For example, Karanth explained how an angry group of local people destroyed a research facility in response to a poacher’s arrest. This confrontation, she said, is an example of how conservation affects local communities. Initially, the confrontation actually deterred Karanth from conservation work. Luckily, Karanth said, she eventually returned to the cause. Now, her work is devoted to providing safe habitats for animals. After doing research, Karanth saw shockingly uneven facts. First, in
locations such as Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, and India, less than 3 to 5 percent of land is set aside for animal life. “Our battle to save nature is on the front lines in places like this,” she said. Karanth talked about how her colleagues working in the Amazon and in the African continent have the luxury of fighting for 10 to 15 thousand square kilometers of land for the animals. Karanth was fighting for merely hundreds of square kilometers in the areas in which she worked, mainly in India. “What’s interesting is those areas we do have [in India] are very fragmented, very distant, and still are holding 70 percent of the world’s tigers, 50 percent of the world’s elephants, and a whole lot of other species,” she noted . Karanth’s work often deals with conflict between humans and wildlife. Specifically, Karanth said her main opponent to animal conservation is frequently to the desire communities have to retaliate against animals destroying their crops and housing and even occasionally injuring and killing humans. According to Karanth, there are 81,100 incidents of animals harming humans or otherwise interfering with humans’ lives reported in India. Karanth said that this number accounts for only 30 percent of the actual number of incidents in India. What’s more, only 5.3 million dollars are allocated for compensating those individuals who fall victim to these incidents, she said. Karanth cited the overwhelming amount of bureaucracy and paper-
Today on Campus 6 p.m.: Spiritually Fly: Accept Your Body, Embrace Your Flow, Free Your Spirit. Faith Hunter, yoga teacher and lifestylist will lead a talk and gentle yoga workshop. Carl A. Fields Center.
work as the main cause of a reluctance to report incidents and thus a desire on the part of communities to take matters into their own hands. As a result, Karanth has set in place a variety of measures to calm the people down and lessen their hurt and anger. Karanth combats this issue mainly through a program of her creation called Wild Seve. On behalf of affected communities, the program will respond to incident reports and file the necessary paperwork for compensation in an effort to increase report percentages and decrease the number of personal retaliations. When asked about the efficacy of this program, Karanth explained that all anecdotal evidence has pointed to the organization’s success. People reporting incidents now frequently refuse to make any decisions without having consulted Wild Seve first, she said. Karanth also mentioned a program in which she helps relocate willing families in an effort to establish wildlife reserves. The program has helped over 1,500 families resettle and acclimate to a new community, she said. She emphasizes, however, that conservation efforts should not negatively impact humans for the sake of animals, but instead make the situation advantageous for both parties. “Going forward, the challenge is fostering tolerance and sustaining wildlife,” she said. Karanth’s lecture, titled “Conserving Wildlife Amidst a Billion People: Challenges and Solutions,” took place at 4:30 p.m. in 10 Guyot Hall as part of the EEB 522 seminar series.
WEATHER
By Abhiram Karuppur and Ariel Chen
U . A F FA I R S
HIGH
71˚
LOW
49˚
Thunderstorm chance of rain:
80 percent
page 2
The Daily Princetonian
Tuesday April 4, 2017
Paper argues against Trump deregulation PORTER Continued from page 1
Yo, Taylor, I’m really happy for you ... Imma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time! One of the best videos of all time! - Kanye West Buy an ad. Say what you want.
For more information, contact ‘Prince’ business. Call (609)258-8110 or
Email business@dailyprincetonian.com
............. lations in various industries throughout history. “In this paper, we will argue that properly designed environmental standards can trigger innovation that may partially or more than fully offset the costs of complying with them,” the hypothesis states. “Such ‘innovation offsets,’ as we call them, can not only lower the net cost of meeting environmental regulations, but can even lead to absolute advantages over firms in foreign countries not subject to similar regulations.” Porter’s hypothesis ran counter to the popular belief at the time that more stringent environmental regulations would result in higher costs to companies and fewer jobs for domestic workers. Ronald Reagan’s intention of easing automobile manufacturing regulations in the 1980s was to counter these effects, and Trump’s intention in the current day is to do the same. Historical applications of Porter’s hypothesis, however, suggest that easing regulations is not the right strategy, according to The New York Times. The New York Times pointed to the 1970s as an example of the positive benefits of regulations, as tighter fuel economy standards for automobiles helped make American cars smaller and more fuel efficient. This helped domestic manufacturers compete with the large influx of imported European and Japanese cars. Woodrow Wilson School professor and Princeton Environmental Institute faculty member Lyndon Estes also disagrees with the beliefs that tighter environmental regulations decrease the number of jobs available to workers. “This is something that concerns me and which I have thought about, given the frequent claims made by politicians (almost exclusively from the GOP) about ‘job-killing’ environmental regulations, and I have yet to hear them provide any evidence to support this claim,” Estes noted in an email. “Regulations may result in job losses in a particular sector, but these tend to be offset by gains in other sectors.” Estes cited the progression of the coal industry in recent years as an example of this trade-off in jobs between various sectors. Trump’s plan to revitalize America’s coal industry is to repeal regulations like the Clean Power Plan in an attempt to bring back jobs to the coal industry. According to Estes, however, the coal industry is in decline not because of regulations, but because natural gas is a cheaper alternative, and any jobs lost by the coal industry will be
gained back by the solar and wind energy industries. “Jobs, however, are just one part of the equation that needs to be fully considered when examining the costs and benefits of environmental regulations, which above all else strive to minimize the very real (but often hard to precisely quantify) costs to human health and key environmental services,” Estes added. “Critics of such regulation fail to consider such costs, and thus do not acknowledge the larger share of benefits provided by environmental regulation.” The Porter hypothesis is especially relevant for Trump’s intended treatment of the budding electric car industry. According to US News, Trump held a meeting in late January with several top American business executives such as Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank and Tesla CEO Elon Musk to make it clear that he would cut corporate regulations by “75 percent — maybe more” to protect domestic companies. Ironically, the Porter hypothesis states that companies like Elon Musk’s Tesla are the very ones that benefit from heavier regulations. Existing regulations, such as California’s Zero Emission Vehicle program, help electric car manufacturers by allowing them to sell “credits” to other makers for selling more than a minimum standard of electric cars. Regulations like these allow electric car companies to survive in an automobile industry and national infrastructure dominated by more profitable gas-powered cars. The exact effects of Trump’s plans to scale back regulations remain to be seen. Popular resistance to his environmental policies, however, is already increasing. “It is unbelievable that, immediately after experiencing the second-hottest February on record, the Trump administration decides to repeatedly ignore the will of the entire scientific community,” Conservation Society president Noah Mihan ’19 said. “Trump’s repeal of these regulations is simply a gift to the fossil fuel industry...Trump is digging humanity’s grave, one signature at a time.” Porter did not respond to requests for comment. Porter concentrated in mechanical and aerospace engineering, played for the varsity golf team, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa during his time in college. After graduating first in his class in 1969, Porter received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School in 1971 and a Ph.D. in business economics from Harvard University in 1973. Porter is now an eminent American economist and professor at Harvard Business School.
Oop s, sorly, Dos theeS butherr u?
Join the ‘Prince’ copy department. Email join@dailyprincetonian.com
The Daily Princetonian
Tuesday April 4, 2017
page 3
Tatel: Twice as many “no” votes in last 10 years as in previous 40 JUDGES
Continued from page 1
............. chart showing statistics about judges nominated to the D.C. Circuit from 1981 onward, specifically focusing on the number of “no” votes and the length of time each nomination was pending. Tatel said that there were some takeaways from this graph. The first is that prior to 1995, every nominee to the D.C. Circuit was confirmed in a relatively short amount of time
and virtually unanimously. After 1995, Tatel noted that there were six failed nominations, and the ones who were confirmed were confirmed on partisan lines and took a longer time to be confirmed. Most notably, the last three nominees to the D.C. Circuit were confirmed only after the Senate invoked the “nuclear option,” which ended the filibuster and enabled the judges to be confirmed by simple majority vote. Tatel pointed out that again, these confirmation votes occurred on mostly par-
tisan lines. Tatel finished by pointing to the recent confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, which featured Senators asking Gorsuch how he would rule on certain cases, as well as the statements from 2016 presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on how they would use litmus tests to select judges to the Supreme Court to illustrate the increasing partisanship of confirmation votes. Poritz began her remarks by talking about the importance
of state courts, since most people don’t know much about them. She explained that state courts decide 95 percent of cases in the United States and create the public perception of justice. She noted that state courts also decide cases on redistricting for elections at the state and national level. Poritz pointed out that certain states elect their judges, so there is a high amount of money spent campaigning for judges who could be the deciding vote on high profile cases, including redistricting.
“State courts are involved in redistricting, which is in part why there’s been a particular interest in states where judges are elected both in what kind of decisions those judges are making, and the role that those courts play in the redistricting process,” she said. The event, titled “Selecting Judges in the Trump Era,” was sponsored by the Program in Law and Public Affairs and held at 4:30 p.m. at Dodds Auditorium, Robertson Hall.
Like what you see? Join the ‘Prince’! Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com
Elementary schoolers saw sheep brain dissection PNN
Continued from page 1
............. search, and outreach efforts. Jang hopes that through outreach efforts such as this fair, those interested in neuroscience at the University can enhance their experiences while positively impacting the surrounding community. Consisting of a series of blocks or activities the children rotated through, the Neuroscience Fair engaged students in a variety of ways as they learned about the different parts of the brain, their functions, and how these parts of the brain affect perception and understanding. For example, one block allowed the children to watch Princeton students dissect a sheep brain, during which PNN volunteers showed them the functions of each part of the brain. Another block allowed the children to monitor the electrical activity of muscles using a Muscle SpikerBox. Students of Christina Seix Academy left the University not only with a stronger understanding of the brain and of the field of neuroscience, but with an appreciation for science and a desire to pursue neuroscience in the future. In addition, exposure to the University community delighted Academy
students, who expressed their fascination with the campus. “Have you seen the movie “Groundhog Day”? I wish today was my groundhog day so I could come here every day!” said Academy student Justin Hogue. Some children, according to teachers at the academy, have even set goals since their visit of becoming students at the University someday. “The Neuroscience Fair sparked something in our students. It made them curious and excited to learn more about their brain and learning, “ said Nicole Morillo, a teacher at Christina Seix. “The students absolutely loved every minute of the Neuroscience Fair. It broadened their understanding and increased their enthusiasm about science,” said Ashley Umberger, another teacher at the Academy. Seeing their project come to fruition with such success, PNN leaders said they encourage and are optimistic about their organizational goals. One of these goals is to hold a conference here at the University that will bring together professors, students, and researchers from other institutions who are interested in neuroscience.
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
(if(equal? web love) (join the ‘Prince’ now) (join anyway)) Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team. Email join@dailyprincetonian.com
Tuesday April 4, 2017
Opinion
page 4
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
More feedback can cure our fixation on GPA Jessica Nyquist
Contributing columnist
It’s tempting to speculate that the lingering artifacts of grade def lation are still at play on campus — when the orgo exam is curved down, when your professor boasts about a 50 percent average on the math midterm, when the “Harvard easy A” jokes are forever funny. The policy of grade def lation is the common enemy and the most reliable scapegoat. As part of the generation that never faced the policy, I am confronted with the question of its legacy. What does the failed experiment show us about our campus culture? With or without def lation, Princeton students depend on grades as a measure of selfworth. When I researched the policy, I expected evidence to affirm our fears: def lated grades diminished our prospects for jobs and graduate programs. But the administration’s report repealing def lation attributed the discontinuation to “psychological factors and campus atmosphere,” rather than effects on opportunities outside the Princeton bubble. The policy’s life and death reveal students’ dependence on their GPAs for validation. Motivated by a goal to deliver “clear signals from their teachers about the dif-
ference between their ordinarily good work and their very best work,” the def lation policy instead heightened anxieties surrounding the letter grade, rather than what it represented. The policy forced a numerical antidote to a cultural problem. If changing the metric could not change our relationship with grades, what could? After the discontinuation of the policy in 2014, the Nassau Weekly reported an underwhelming, rather than celebratory, campus atmosphere. In the article, half-sarcastic students mourn, “If we’re getting rid of grade def lation, we need a new excuse for poor grades.” The article comments that terminating the policy “ultimately reinforced the idea that students’ stress levels should ref lect their GPAs,” and calls on students to “try and divorce our transcripts from our sense of self-worth.” In 2017, Janelle Tam ’17 wrote a relatable ref lection on the perpetual struggle of caring more about your GPA than the illustrious academic pursuit, yet feeling helpless to change. She encourages an “attitude change,” a conscious decision to focus “on intellectual exploration rather than getting As.” But how much can students, as individuals, do to change the GPA-centric culture? In
the administration’s report, the Undergraduate Student Government suggested that the policy placed an “emphasis on the letter grade rather than substantive instructor feedback.” The policy sought to provide “clear signals” to students regarding their performance. But, to cultivate more illuminating feedback, why not give us more feedback? I am embarrassed to admit that this week, I called my mom crying after I got a politics paper back. I wasn’t really interested in the score, but I did take the commentary a little too personally, to say the least; never have I ever seen “no’s” aggressively annotating an essay. While I got the same letter grade on an English essay and decided to P/D/F the class, the plentiful, though unpleasant, feedback on my politics essay spurred an eagerness to redeem myself on the next assignment. While grades are easy to dismiss and rationalize, descriptive feedback speaks to the University’s mission of motivating academic excellence — a push for the student’s absolute best work. Grade def lation poorly embodied this mission, but the goal could be met by having professors and preceptors provide more guidelines and expectations for direct critique,
perhaps through written comments for students accompanying midterm/final grades. In high school, we received copious and constant feedback. For better or for worse, Princeton is not high school. But, the impact of personal feedback on a student’s psyche can not be understated. How should we distinguish good work from excellent work? Tell us. Rather than suggest a quota on grades, departments should encourage a framework of robust communication between students and professors/preceptors. The University would then return the ball to the students’ court by choosing to focus on qualitative feedback, rather than the often uninformative mark on the transcript. It’s difficult not to internalize a score if a score is all you get. We students hold a responsibility to pursue excellence rather than validation – superior work, rather than an easy A. But the administration should play a role in curing our GPA obsession and improving mental health. With a culture defined by feedback and communication rather than definitive scores, we can refocus our academic pursuits. Jessica Nyquist is a sophomore from Houston, Texas. She can be reached at jnyquist@princeton. edu.
Close enough
vol. cxli
Sarah Sakha ’18
editor-in-chief
Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager
BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Randall Rothenberg ’78 Annalyn Swan ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73
141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 Head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 news editors Abhiram Karuppur ’19 opinion editor Newby Parton ‘18
Rita Fang ’17
..................................................
sports editor David Xin ‘19 street editor Jianing Zhao ‘20 photography editor Rachel Spady ‘18 web editor David Liu ‘18 chief copy editors Isabel Hsu ‘19 Omkar Shende ‘18 Chief design editor Quinn Donohue ‘20 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Nicholas Wu ’18 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Claire Coughlin ’19 associate street editor Andie Ayala ‘19 Catherine Wang ’19 associate chief copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 editorial board co-chairs Ashley Reed ‘18 Connor Pfeiffer ’18
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Response to Princeton Private Prison Divest Bob Durkee ’69
Guest Constributor
In your edition on April 3, you published an open letter to me from the Princeton Private Prison Divest Coalition. The letter raised a number of questions that I know are of interest to many members of the campus community. I have addressed those questions in the following open letter to the PPPDC. Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Princeton Private Prison Divest Coalition. You are correct that the issue of divestment focuses on whether the University should prohibit any future investment or association with a specified set of companies. It is my understanding that this question remains under consideration by the CPUC Resources Committee, which, as you know, consists of three faculty members, two undergraduates, a graduate stu-
dent, and two members of the administrative staff. It is that committee to which the trustees look for advice on divestment-related issues. At the CPUC meeting last week and on its website, the Resources Committee has invited the PPPDC to provide additional information, and it also has welcomed the views of other members of the community. My understanding is that other groups, including the Undergraduate Student Government and the WhigCliosophic Society, are discussing the issue, and the Resources Committee itself has at least two remaining meetings this year. As you point out, the trustees have final authority to decide whether to divest from a particular set of companies, and they have established criteria for making that decision. Because there is a general presumption against the
University taking such actions, other than in exceptional cases, the standards set a very high bar. The Resources Committee is guided by those standards in determining whether, and on what grounds, to bring forward a recommendation to the trustees. The trustees take their responsibilities very seriously, but they do not begin their decisionmaking process until the Resources Committee has completed its work. You made reference to the statement by President Eisgruber at the CPUC meeting that the University does not hold investments in the 11 companies specified in your proposal and it does not intend to obtain such holdings. He made this statement, in part, because an opinion column in last Monday’s Daily Princetonian asserted that the University had current investments. His clarification that the University
does not currently have any such investments allowed the discussion to focus on the question of policy going forward. I can assure you that the President would not have made this statement without being absolutely certain that the University, in fact, has no investments of any kind, direct or indirect, in any of the 11 companies. As a member of the CPUC, I thought last week’s update from the Resources Committee had the effect of focusing community attention on the question of divestment from private prison companies and of broadening the discussion. I appreciate the time that the members of the PPPDC have invested in this issue, and I hope that you, along with others, will engage with the committee in the continuing discussion. Bob Durkee ’69 Vice President and Secretary
cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ‘19
NIGHT STAFF 4.3.17 copy Alexandra Wilson ’20 Alexandra Levinger ’20 Alia Wood ’20 Savannah McIntosh ’20 Douglas Corzine ’20 Abigail Denton ’20
Tuesday April 4, 2017
The Daily Princetonian
page 5
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Public outrage at the cost of private exploitation Alis Yoo
guest columnist
In her March 29 opinion column titled “Outrage,” Jacquelyn Thorbjornson demands that we be in an uproar over the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl by two of her classmates because liberal media organizations are protecting the defendants, due to their status as undocumented immigrants. The article is calling for outrage on the Maryland rape case, but more specifically the alleged failings of liberal media, itself perpetuating the
unconsented exploitation of private tragedy for public, partisan attacks. A 14-year-old may have just been raped in a high school bathroom. Should the conversation on that focus on attacks on undocumented immigrants and attacks on liberal media outlets? Should we be having a national conversation on that at all? The article disproportionately focuses on the actions and assumed motives of liberal media outlets, when the political motive of Fox News is much easier to see than the alleged liberal bias.
It is sensationalizing and exploiting an alleged rape and abandoning “innocent before proven guilty” to attack 11 million undocumented immigrants. The crime at hand is rape, not illegal entry. Yet the nationwide rhetoric surrounding the case now implies that individual crimes are something that we can hold other undocumented immigrants accountable for. It is unfortunate for a case like this to reach this level of extensive national coverage before the court makes a decision. In his response to
“Outrage,” Ryan Chavez succinctly explained why national coverage of the Brock Turner case cannot be applied to the alleged Maryland rape, for publicization happened after the case was decided and because the victim shared her testimony on Buzzfeed. Until the victim willingly steps into the public spotlight, reports on the alleged Maryland rape are not providing “information” for public debate or creating a more informed polity. Instead, we are devaluing and exploiting a 14-year-old rape victim to
Primary Productive Force of the 21st Century Shirley Fu ’17
..................................................
reinforce a stance in the undocumented immigration debate. It is understandable to feel outrage when we hear “14-year-old student allegedly raped by two people.” But that outrage should not go public without the consent of the victim, and it certainly should not be wielded against 11 million innocent people with a coincidental relation, like citizenship status, to the alleged wrongdoers. Alis Yoo is a sophomore from Palisades Park, N.J. She can be reached at ayoo@ princeton.edu.
Tuesday April 4, 2017
Sports
page 6
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S VOLLEYBALL
Men’s volleyball splits weekend against NJIT, Coker By David Xin Head Sports Editor
The men’s volleyball team split the weekend this Friday and Saturday. The Tigers (6-3 EIVA, 9-8 overall) lost a hard-fought match against conference rivals NJIT (4-3, 9-7) on Friday, but quickly responded the following day to sweep Coker College, 3-0. The EIVA conference loss to NJIT proved to be a major setback for the Princeton team. Tied last week for the top spot in the league, the Tigers have fallen to third as rivals Penn State and Sacred Heart managed to capitalize on the Princeton defeat. However, the Tigers are still in a comfortable position to secure a playoff spot. Despite strong performances from Princeton’s freshman, including nine kills and four blocks from middle blocker George Huhmann, the Tigers were unable to fend off a surge from the Highlanders. NJIT started the match strong, securing the first set comfortably 25-16. While Princeton quickly rebounded in the second set, the Highlanders grabbed a thrilling 29-27 victory by the end of the set. Led by Jabarry Goodridge’s 20 kills, NJIT would go on to win the third set and sweep the Tigers 3-0. Coming off a disappointing performance, the Tigers hosted Coker at home. If Friday’s match bothered them, the Princeton squad did not let it show on the court. The Orange and Black swept Coker in three sets, showing signs of their earlier brilliant performances. This was a crucial win for the Tigers, as they will no doubt carry this momentum into a sixmatch road trip. These games include three crucial EIVA conference games against the likes of Penn State, St. Francis, and George Mason. The Tigers will need to show their resilience and resolve as they head into hostile territory against these tough opponents. With the playoffs hanging in the balance, fans of Princeton volleyball will have plenty to look forward to.
COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETICS
Men’s Volleyball lost to NJIT on Friday but came out on top against Coker College on Saturday.
W O M E N ’ S W AT E R P O L O
Women’s waterpolo goes 2-1 for weekend play against St. Francis, Bucknell, and Colgate By Grace Baylis Staff Writer
Last weekend, the woman’s water polo team played three games, winning two and losing one. Princeton beat St. Francis and Bucknell on Saturday, but fell to No. 7 Michigan on Sunday. The Tigers now have a 3-1 overall record in the CWPA. The first game saw Princeton fell St. Francis 10-5, with seven different players netting goals. Junior Chelsea Johnson scored two, with senior classmates Morgan Hallock and Hannah Lapkin getting two. Freshman goalkeeper Kasey Bersh made her second collegiate career start for the Tigers, making a total of four saves. The win helped create confidence going into the Bucknell game later that day.
Junior Haley Wan buried a total of five goals against Bucknell which took her goal tally up to 41, to ensure Princeton beat the Bison, 9-3. Wan, the All-CWPA Second Team player, was top goal scorer for the Tigers last season, ending with 58 goals. The game was not all about Princeton, though; Bucknell tested the Tigers’ defense, forcing senior Ashleigh Johnson to make seven saves in the game. However, the weekend did not end on the note Princeton would have liked, as the Tigers lost against Michigan. Despite Ashleigh Johnson making seven saves again, Michigan managed to score 14 points against Princeton’s six. Michigan came out
Tweet of the Day “WLAX: Ivy League Defensive Player of the Week...@princetonwlax Madeline Rodriguez! #IvyLax http://ivyleaguesports.com/x/fnfga ” Women’s Lax @IvyLeague
strong in the first period, scoring five, and Princeton struggled to recover from the quick start, never closing the gap to take the lead. By the half, Princeton was seven goals behind. Wan scored three in the game, giving her eight hat tricks in the last nine games, while Chelsea Johnson got two goals. No. 10 Princeton was disappointed by the performance on Sunday, but is having a successful season so far, at 18-3 overall. The Tigers will need to bounce back quickly as they face further CWPA competition on the road this coming weekend against two top 20 ranked teams, No. 15 Indiana and No. 19 Hartwick, as well as Ivy League-rival Brown.
Women’s Waterpolo matched St. Francis, Bucknell , and Colgate.
Stat of the Day
20 Goals Micheal Sowers has become the first Princeton freshman lacrosse player to ever have at least 20 goals and at least 20 assists in a season.
Follow us Check us out on Twitter at @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram on @ princetoniansports for photos!