Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998
Monday May 13, 2019 vol. cxliii no. 62
Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
U . A F FA I R S
U. announces external review of Title IX office By Benjamin Ball Head News Editor
The University’s Title IX office is set to undergo an external review, according to a University statement released on Friday afternoon. Provost Deborah Prentice will oversee the review. The statement comes after almost four days of the Title IX office sit-in outside of Nassau Hall in which students have demanded a list of eleven reforms. External review is the second demand in that list. In light of this activism, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Michele Minter recently wrote to President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83 to request that he authorize an external review of the University’s Title IX office. Eisgruber has since granted her request. “We appreciate, support, and join you in your efforts to make our campus safe for all who work or study on this campus, and to ensure that our procedures are fair and respectful to everyone,“ Eisgruber wrote. “We accordingly grant your request.” “We also appreciate your desire to seek continued improvement of our Title IX processes and to facilitate constructive
dialogue, through appropriate and inclusive processes, with our larger community,“ he added. This announcement comes two days after an initial University statement on the sit-in. In that statement, the University wrote that it is “committed to ensuring that all of its community members can learn, work and thrive in a safe, supportive and fair environment, free from sexual misconduct and all forms of discrimination.” The statement also noted that the University will refer the concerns raised by the student activists to the appropriate committees, such as the University Student Life Committee and the Faculty-Student Committee on Sexual Misconduct. The Title IX office protesters, however, were largely dissatisfied with this initial statement. According to a tweet that has accumulated 1,600 likes by the time of publication, Rebecca Sobel ’19, a participant in the protest, had edited the University statement as if it were an essay, giving the statement a failing grade. “We are really disappointed in this subpar work,” she wrote.
ON CAMPUS
ON CAMPUS
ZACHARY SHEVIN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
Students protested throughout the weekend, as demonstrations continued into the sixth day.
PIXR protesters call for U. statement signed by Eisgruber By Zack Shevin Assistant News Editor
After over 100 hours of protest in front of Nassau Hall, Princeton Students for Title IX Reform (PIXR) updated their list of demands. Additionally, PIXR has called for a public statement from the University, signed by President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, “in order to demonstrate the University’s commitment to addressing students’ persistent suffering.” In their press release sent to The Daily Princetonian at 4:01 p.m., PIXR called for
Eisgruber’s signature on three actions: a “convening of a neutrally moderated town hall” with Eisgruber, Vice President for Campus Life Rochelle Calhoun, and Provost Deborah A. Prentice present by 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 16; a series of five meetings from June 2 to Sept. 9 between PIXR representatives and Eisgruber, Calhoun, and Prentice; and a formal written report from the University with a detailed response to each of PIXR’s 11 demands by Sept. 23. “PIXR will continue gathering in community in front
of Nassau Hall until receiving this signature affirming the University’s commitment to fulfilling these three requests,” the statement concludes. At 4 p.m., protesters gathered in front of Nassau Hall to release their “final calls to action.” Eleven students read aloud each of the revised demands. After explaining a demand, each student placed an orange flower on the steps of Nassau Hall beside a copy of their call to action. For most of the revised demands, only slight changSee PROTEST page 3
ON CAMPUS
Free menstrual products to be placed in 56 bathrooms next fall
COURTESY OF BRAD SPICHER
U-Councilor Andres Larrieu ’22
USG discusses Project Board work, Room Draw error Contributor
The Undergraduate Student Government (USG) recapped Projects Board work, studentathlete student relations, and problems with room draw during its last weekly meeting of the academic year on Sunday, May 12. The Student Groups Recognition Committee (SGRC) announced it had approved two new clubs. The first discussed was B+ Princeton, an advocacy and service group that aims to aid awareness and support of children with pediatric cancer. The next was the Princeton European Union Forum, a group that seeks to promote knowledge of the EU on campus. The Projects Board then re-
capped the work completed in the past semester. Projects Board Co-Chair Rachel Hazan ’21 reported that they funded 77 groups and more than 100 events with $132,000 requested in total for events this semester and a median request of $1,863. Hazan is a former staff copy editor for The Daily Princetonian. Hazan noted that identity groups were the largest category of funded group this past semester. The chairs discussed their policy to inform USG of their practices which includes approving funding which includes approving only events that are enriching to students and not covering the costs of advertising or See USG page 3
By Yael Marans Staff Writer
Next fall, 56 bathrooms in seven different buildings on campus will feature free menstrual products. This marks the first stage implementation of the Menstrual Products Task Force’s longterm project to provide free products on campus. The bathrooms included in the first stage of the rollout will include women’s bathrooms, men’s bathrooms, and gender neutral bathrooms. The products will be in the Frist Campus Center, the Friend Center, Frick Chemistry Lab, Firestone, Lewis, Dillon, and the New Lewis Center.
The Menstrual Products Taskforce is a group of students led by Preeti Iyer ’20, Katherine Fleming ’19, Wendy Zhao ’19, and Sarah Pacilio ’19 that has been working for the past two years to make this rollout possible. Formerly under the leadership of USG Senator Cailin Hong ’17, the taskforce is technically under the umbrella of USG, but has operated fairly independently, working directly with Vice President for Student Life Rochelle Calhoun and various members of the maintenance staff, most recently Richard Brown. According to the task force’s official project proposal, their aim is to help students live a healthier,
In Opinion
Today on Campus
Columnist Ben Gelman calls for greater condemnation of white supremacy in the wake of the New Zealand and Poway shootings, while columnist Gabe Lipkowitz criticizes a recent McCosh redesign student survey. PAGE 4
12:00p.m.: Welcome Additions: Selected Acquisitions 2012-18; a retrospective of recent addition’s to Princeton University Library’s special collections. 216 Burr Hall
more dignified lifestyle and keep students from sacrificing other material needs, or missing class, to be able to obtain menstrual products. A number of students have supported the campaign with testimonials about struggling to afford these products or having unpleasant experiences in which they need them unexpectedly throughout the day. In the “Why This Would Benefit Princeton” section of the proposal, the taskforce also said that this effort fits into the University’s recent efforts to be more accessible and inclusive. The task force hopes that after the first stage impleSee PRODUCTS page 2
WEATHER
By Walker Stamps
COURTESY OF PREETI IYER ’20
From left to right, Mike Asparrin ’19, Katherine Fleming ’19, Preeti Iyer ’20, Wendy Zhao ’19, and Kevin Zheng ’21, members of the Menstrual Products Taskforce.
HIGH
50˚
LOW
44˚
Rain chance of rain:
100 percent
The Daily Princetonian
page 2
Monday May 13, 2019
Q&A
Q&A with Valedictorian Kate Reed ’19 KR: I think probably the most important thing is to remember that the thesis is not everything and that it’s also your senior year and all of the connections and friendships and conversations that you’ve been having for three years are so important to continue. And so letting those kind of sustain you and also inform your work I think is really important.
COURTESY OF KATHARINE REED
Cutline goes here for photo. Cutline goes here for photo. Cutline
By Paige Allen Contributor
Katharine (Kate) Reed ’19 was recently named the valedictorian of the University’s Class of 2019. Hailing from Arnold, Md., Reed is concentrating in history with certificates in Latin American Studies and Spanish. Outside of class, she acts on her passions for language learning and immigrant rights by helping to run El Centro (a program offering ESL classes to immigrant communities in Princeton and Trenton), teaching ESL-adapted history classes at Princeton High School. After graduation, Reed will pursue an MPhil in Development Studies at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and will continue thinking about the relationship between social, economic, civil, and political rights in Latin America. Recently, Reed spoke to The Daily Princetonian about her studies, her experiences at the University, and her hopes for the future. The Daily Princetonian (DP): What drew you to history, Latin American Studies, and Spanish? Kate Reed (KR): I came to Princeton, as I think a fair number of people do, thinking I was going to major in Woody Woo which that was basically my way of saying, “I have no idea what I’m going to do, but this sounds kind of cool.” And then I took a course with Professor Karl called “Modern Latin American History” and I was just so drawn to historical analysis and the ways that it emphasizes empathy and understanding of others and really more imaginative kinds of research and thinking than the other majors I was considering. So that course switched me to history, and I’ve loved the department ever since.
I grew up taking Spanish classes, and it was something I just knew I wanted to continue here, so the Spanish certificate was, for me, a pretty easy decision. And then the course in Latin American history also sort of pushed me toward the Program in Latin American Studies, but that has been just such a great and vibrant community, especially because the History Department itself doesn’t have a super strong program in Latin American history, so PLAS has been a really great community and source of friendship and support over the last few years. DP: What have you studied through your independent work? KR: My independent work has focused mostly on state violence and its relationship to economic development in Mexico with an emphasis on the 1970s and understanding the ways in which different scales of analysis, from the the local to the national to the international, are connected. My thesis grew out of a document I actually found here in Princeton’s archives because we have the personal papers of the Mexican author Carlos Fuentes. So I wrote my first JP about him, and I came across this really interesting document that had to do with sort of anti-imperialism and the Third World Movement in Mexico, and I became interested in that, and so I decided to do my thesis sort of thinking about the ways in which the anti-imperialist discourse related to or did not relate to state violence within Mexico. DP: Do you have any advice regarding the process of writing a thesis?
DP: What was it like finding out that you were valedictorian? KR: It was a total surprise. So I knew for a few weeks before it became public. I got an email from the Dean of the College that just said, “Please come see me.” And I was like, “Oh my god, what is this? What is happening?” So I went to see her and she was like, “You’re valedictorian!” And I’m like, “I’m sorry, like, what?” So I don’t think I managed to get anything out besides, like, thank you, I’m so surprised, thank you. And then I left and I called my parents — I was allowed to tell my family — and my mom started screaming and my dad was like, “That’s cool.” My dad’s a character. He’s like, “I’m proud of you.” It was just a really big surprise; I had no idea. But it’s been really cool to have sort of all the different people in my life that are proud of me and excited for me and to have that be something that we can share. DP: What does being valedictorian mean to you? KR: It’s a heavy thing in some ways to give a speech in front of a graduating class and to know that for really arbitrary reasons my voice is being elevated. So I’m thinking a lot right now about what that means and what that looks like and how to have this platform and this privilege and this honor that is very humbling but also very intimidating and sort of think about exactly how to manage all that. DP: When and how did you discover the social justice issues that you are passionate about? KR: I think a lot of it actually came through Spanish. The people who I met by virtue of being able to speak another language, it really made me more aware of and empathetic to issues that were faced by the immigrant community, especially once I got to college and I was able to be in spaces like that more systematically. Also being at Princeton, I think with all of the advantages that come with being a Princeton student sort of comes an awareness of the systemic injustices that Princeton also perpetuates. And so that’s something that I think a lot about when I do
work with El Centro and realize that Princeton makes it possible, but it also constrains that kind of work in certain ways. DP: What has been your biggest challenge at Princeton? KR: Really thinking hard about what I want to do and who I want to be and what that looks like, and I think sort of coming to terms with the fact that it’s not going to be easy. And you know, being at Princeton is hard. It’s hard academically, it’s hard personally, and it’s hard from sort of an institutional perspective. It’s not always an easy place to be if you care about particular things and want things to change in certain ways. DP: What advice would you give your first-year self? KR: There is a lot! You’d be surprised how many times I get this question because people think that I have some great wisdom which, I mean, first of all, I don’t think I do. I think part of any journey is the journey and I don’t know that I would tell myself to do it differently because I think doing it the way your gut instinct tells you to do is part of learning. But I would say don’t be afraid to do what you love even if it doesn’t seem to make sense. I know that I get really attached to a particular narrative of who I am and how I organize the world, and then there are things that I’m like, “Wow! I want to do this! But it doesn’t really fit.” So I think letting go of that and letting the narrative sort of unfold retrospectively more than trying to force yourself into it. Be grateful but not afraid to challenge the way things work. Because I think Princeton is an intimidating place, but to not take for granted or for given the way that courses divide knowledge or communicate knowledge and to recognize that part of an education is learning to decide for yourself what you want to learn and how you want to learn it and being willing to advocate for that. I think there have definitely been times that I have been disappointed in myself for prioritizing things in a way that I looked back on and I regretted. You know, putting schoolwork or official extracurricular commitments before personal relationships. I think that’s just another thing that I would tell my younger self: people matter first and your relationships matter first. DP: How did you manage the difficulties of life at Princeton? KR: First of all, I don’t know that I do. And second of all, you will forget everything, so write it down. Which I also don’t do, so
I forget things. But that’s I guess the pragmatic: write it down … But I think more existentially, I think it comes back again to if you love it, it won’t feel so hard. Which isn’t to say it won’t be hard and there won’t be moments when you go back to your room and cry for an hour because you just need to. But then you find your roommate and she gives you a hug and it’s okay. So giving yourself those moments when it’s just not okay and then going back to the people who let you know that it is and that it will be. DP: Do you think Princeton has changed you? And how? KR: I mean, yes, of course! I’ve spent almost a fifth of my life here. So I think Princeton has made me much more sensitive or aware of what I don’t know and of how much I don’t know — both in the academic sense but, more importantly, in the sense of people’s life experiences. And sort of the continuation of that is the need to approach those lived experiences with as much empathy as I can muster and I think to be willing to be vulnerable. That’s something that’s really hard, and I struggle with all the time … By putting me in a position where it’s important [to be vulnerable] but also by not being vulnerable itself, Princeton has illustrated how important that is. DP: What responsibility do you think you have as a Princeton graduate entering the “real world”? KR: I think it’s a great question, and I think it’s one that everyone here grapples with in their own way on their own time, and there’s no one-sizefits-all answer to that. I think for me personally — especially because of the position I’m in, having this weird voice now that people listen to more than they should I think, because I’m like, I don’t know what I’m doing! But it’s a tough question and an important question, and I think I’m still working out the answer, but I do feel a sense of obligation. And I think that it’s an obligation, but it’s one that I hope to be able to sort of fulfill in a way that’s also meaningful to me. And to me, that means if I end up being an historian of Latin America, like how does that work? How can that work inform and possibly help create a more kind and empathetic world — especially in this country where issues of race and immigration and language are just so divisive and fraught and cruel? So I think long-term, finding a way to conjugate the things that are so deeply meaningful to me with that sense of obligation is I think something I’m working on.
Pacilio: We ran into a lot of red tape with the administration PRODUCTS Continued from page 1
.............
mentation the campaign can expand to include even more bathrooms.The bathrooms in the first stage were chosen strategically to accommodate students in different areas of campus. “We laid out a map of campus and said ‘We want people to be able to go to each corner of campus and not end up stranded,’” Katherine Fleming ’19 said. “So even if there can’t be something in every building at this point, if you’re in Fine Hall and you’re really in a bind, rather than running back to your room you can pop over to Lewis.” The first stage implementation will build upon the pilot program which was run on campus two years ago. The leaders of the task force emphasized that they have tried to make their efforts as gender inclusive as possible. “It’s important to realize that this whole dialogue around menstrual equity,
providing menstrual products, is really from a place of making Princeton a more equitable campus, making Princeton a place where any student feels comfortable,” Preeti Iyer ’20 said. “We don’t want to have these core ideas of equity, but at the same time marginalize certain groups of students by only providing products in female restrooms because the fact is that at Princeton University we do have menstruators who do identify as male or who use male restrooms.” The task force also strives to use gender neutral language and think more broadly about an inclusive sense of menstrual equity. “While we do symbolically link this with the fiftieth anniversary of undergraduate women coming to Princeton, as a really exciting and significant moment to be doing this, we also recognize that this is not about women. This is about creating a campus climate that is sensitive on issues of gender, on issues of health, and on issues of dig-
nity,” Fleming said. “It’s not just about making campus better for women. It’s about making campus better for everyone.” According to students on the taskforce, their biggest challenges were navigating University bureaucracy and convincing the administration that free menstrual products would be an important addition to campus life. “At first, I think we thought we had to try to convince the administrators that free menstrual products needed to be provided on campus and we focused a lot of our efforts on trying to demonstrate that,” Wendy Zhao ’19 wrote in an email. “Once they understood the need, we eventually transitioned to demonstrating the feasibility of implementing free menstrual products, which meant contacting vendors, determining costs, funding sources, etc.” The task force’s leaders said they were often told they should be speaking to a different member of the ad-
ministration, or a different member of the facilities staff, and felt that they had to work hard to stay on the administration’s agenda. “We ran into a lot of red tape with the administration, and saw firsthand how opaque Princeton University’s bureaucracy can be,” Sarah Pacilio ’19 wrote in an email. “However, after a lot of hard work and discussions with members of the administration, we are thrilled with the outcome – the successful implementation of this campaign.” The task force worked to determine the best vendor from economic, environmental, and equity standpoints. The student leaders wanted to work with Aunt Flow, an environmentally friendly menstrual products start-up, and were pleased that Aunt Flow is the vendor that the University eventually approved. “For every 10 tampons and pads sold, we donate one to a menstruator living in poverty in the USA through our beneficiary organization,
Period.org,” Claire Coder, Founder and CEO of Aunt Flow, wrote in an email. “We are thrilled that Princeton is working with us to change the world, one ‘cycle’ at a time.” Other students on campus also connected with Coder through avenues like Company of Female Founders and other entrepreneurship-focused groups on campus. Vice President Calhoun thanked the task force for their devotion to student needs and their persistence throughout the process. “I really appreciate the way the students who conceived of the program really worked earnestly to test the program with their peers and hear their peers’ needs,” Vice President Calhoun said. Richard Brown deferred comments to Vice President Calhoun. The Menstrual Products Task Force held a Menstrual Products Pre-Launch Party last Saturday to celebrate the rollout of the first stage implementation next fall.
The Daily Princetonian
Monday May 13, 2019
page 3
Tahir: There’s a larger USG proposed ad-hoc room-draw movement, and we’re investigation committee in latest meeting USG figuring out an end goal Continued from page 1
.............
PROTEST Continued from page 1
.............
es were made between this most recent call to action and the past list. Most notably, however, PIXR’s eleventh demand changed in its entirety. Previously, the group demanded “the immediate dismissal of Reagan Crotty as the Title IX Coordinator, and the review of Michele Minter as Chief Compliance Officer of Title IX.” That demand has been removed and replaced with a call for the University to “publicly maintain its commitment to protecting survivors’ rights as outlined in current Title IX policies, in spite of proposed national rollback efforts.” Aisha Tahir ’21 said there was a long discussion amongst PIXR about the change. Tahir said that the removal was personally painful for her because, she says, “there are a lot of personal stories, anonymous stories, of [Crotty] acting egregiously.” On May 10, Eisgruber authorized a request for an external review of the University’s Title IX office make by Minter, somewhat addressing the previous eleventh demand. “In an act of good faith, we are going to accept, right now, an external review of her,” Tahir said. “There’s a larger movement, and we’re trying to figure out how we get to that end goal.” Regarding the new eleventh demand, Tahir said she and other students realized that some very serious national conversations about Title IX were going to start happening and wanted to ensure that the University is prepared for those conversations and willing to keep current policies in place despite the possible loosening of minimum restrictions. In November, Eisgruber co-authored a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in support of legal protections for transgender individuals in relation to Title IX, and in February, the University contributed to the drafting of comments critical of DeVos’ proposed changes to Title IX. “The current implementation of Title IX is not good enough, so what happens when Obama’s policy of Title IX becomes even looser? Then the University is on even greater grounds to loosen it and violate even more,” Tahir said. The eleventh demand calls for the University to protect currently existing rights under Title IX. Previously, PIXR’s fourth demand was that “Title IX cases that deal with compounded violations be considered with an intersectional framework.” This demand has been altered in the revised list, and the group is now calling “for the University to create a fully-staffed Office of Intersectional Violence Investigation.” Also in their call to action, PIXR writes that “We have reason to believe that Princeton’s Title IX office has violated FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) and Princeton’s own regulations listed in ‘Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities.’” In an email to the ‘Prince’, the leadership of PIXR pointed to the anonymous stories on their website as examples of such violations. The ‘Prince’ cannot indepen-
dently confirm the veracity of these stories. University Spokesperson Ben Chang said the University is not aware of any such violations at this time. “We take very seriously student privacy issues and complying with federal law,” Chang said. “We are aware of a recent concern raised regarding FERPA, but we are aware of no violations.” The Department of Education found the University in violation of Title IX in 2014, but, according to a Department of Education press release, the University “implemented new consolidated policies and procedures that correct many of the deficiencies identified in [the Office for Civil Rights’] investigation.” According to Chang, every requirement in the University’s resolution agreement with the Department of Education has been met and documented with the department. After reading the demands in front of Nassau Hall, the protesters chanted “In the service of survivors, fix Title IX.” Afterwards, Nathan Poland ’20 spoke to the rest of the protesters about keeping their movement confined to the area surrounding Nassau Hall. “These can be very triggering and sensitive topics, so please ensure that we’re preserving survivors’ rights to go about their daily business on the rest of campus,” he said. “If you see posters around campus that could be potentially triggering, please remove them. If you see people harassing tour groups, please don’t let them do that.” Tahir said that these comments were not made in reference to a confrontation that occurred between PIXR protesters and University officials outside of Vice President Robert K. Durkee’s retirement reception in Frick Chemistry Laboratory on May 10. “I think Frick was not in any way triggering for anyone, from what I understand. We were simply just trying to get into Frick,” she said, noting that the comments were more in reference to confrontations between PIXR protesters and Orange Key tour guides outside of Firestone Library. “It’s not okay that we’re asking an independent organization to be answering for the University. It is not okay that, in some ways, our members are, in a way, pushing and yelling at them to confront and talk to these tour groups,” Tahir said. “We’re trying to be very careful about that moving forward.” Chang reiterated that the University Student Life Committee and the FacultyStudent Committee on Sexual Misconduct are meeting next week and warned against “prejudging the outcomes of those discussions.” Chang also pointed out that although the committees do act in an advisory capacity, all of the recommendations made by the 2014-15 and 2015-16 reports were fully implemented, and all but three recommendations in the 2016-17 report were also implemented. As of the time of this publication, Eisgruber has not signed the three actions put forward by PIXR, and protesters still remain in front of Nassau Hall, where they have been since 10 a.m. on May 7.
Recycle your paper!
off campus events. Allen Liu ’22 inquired the chairs how the Projects Board considers the carbon impact of student events who responded that they were looking into solutions such as disseminating guidelines on emissions. The USG Senate voted in approval of the three internal referenda recently approved by the Honor Committee. The senate then voted on the reapproval of existing Honor Committee members and approved Samuel Fendler ’21 and Munisa Said ’22. Assistant Director of Marketing Information of Athletics, Marketing and Community Relations Macall Martin
presented a plan to create a Princeton University fan club monikered the “Tiger Den” which would be an open club free to all University students with the intention to create greater community cohesion. Undergraduates Lachlan McCarty ’22, Betsy Pu ’22, and Yafah Edelman ’20 then proposed the formation of an ad-hoc committee to further investigate and resolve the problems with room draw. “We looked at the 2018 and 2019 upperclass draw and found correlation in ranks across the years inconsistent with randomization,” McCarty said. They also noted from their own investigation that in addition to upperclassmen room draw being non random underclassmen room draw times were non random as well.
The advocates declared that there were lots of issues of communication between housing and students and the public release given were unclear and contained inaccurate numbers of how many students were affected. After lengthy discussion USG voted to approve the adhoc committee and finalize how it will be administered via an electronic vote next week. USG President Zarnab Virk ’20 then moved into an executive session to elect the new U-Council Chair. Hazan, Ben Press ’20, and Isabella Faccone ’21 gave speeches for candidacy. The election results have not been announced. The USG meeting was held in Lewis Library 138 at 8 p.m. on May 12.
Opinion
Monday May 13, 2019
page 4
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
Confront, don’t ignore, the far right Ben Gelman
Contributing Columnist
I
n the months following the attacks on New
Zealand mosques on March 15, and the days since charges were brought against the alleged shooter in a Poway, California synagogue, there has been a rigorous debate as to how society should treat the ideas that inspired the hatred fueling these alleged attackers. Many have advocated for doing everything we can to deny mass shooters the notoriety and infamy that they so clearly desire. This is accomplished by refusing to name them on television and by not reading the manifestos they often leave behind. Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, refuses to name the Christchurch shooter, and this USA Today op-ed advises against reading his manifesto, instead opting for a larger public focus on remembering the victims. While this instinct to deny murderers such as the Christchurch or Poway shooters fame is admirable, it does not consider the need to fully understand the ideology that motivates them. This method fails to acknowledge that public galvanization against the ideological virus of white-supremacy is necessary for an effective response.
In 2016, more Americans were killed by a white-supremacist or far-right terrorist than an Islamic one. One might not think this is the case, however, based on common conversations and beliefs regarding terrorism. After Sept. 11, 2001, our generation grew up scared of Islamic terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, and we all know the names of organizations like al Qaeda and the Taliban. But do we know the names of the white-supremacist ones? This misconception has been dangerously co-opted by the Trump administration to promote Trump’s “America First” ideology. Whether it is President Trump’s initial refusal to condemn NeoNazis in Charlottesville, his administration’s fear-mongering over the non-existent threat of Muslim refugees, or the fact that the FBI has apparently been investigating so-called “Black Identity Extremists,” this government clearly has no intention of prioritizing the issue of rising white-supremacist violence. If anything, the President has a vested interest in keeping Americans ignorant of far-right terrorists, as he instead often tries to use the perceived threat of Muslims and immigrants to scare Americans into supporting his racist policies, such as the proposed Muslim ban. It is essential to push back and appeal for our government to respond to the more
serious national security threat: white nationalism. But how can we do so if we know little about this danger? How many of us know the names of the most popular white-supremacist organizations in the country? What do we know about their beliefs, or how they spread these beliefs online? We have been exposed far less to these groups than to al Qaeda, despite them being far more likely to actually cause us harm. To be sure, a campaign to educate Americans about the rising popularity of whitesupremacist ideology runs the risk of inspiring copycats, but I would argue that some sort of public campaign is necessary if we want the government to do anything about this issue. Additionally, I for one am not worried about this government overreacting to the threat of white supremacy the way the Bush administration overreacted to the threat of al Qaeda. Whether it is Poway, Christchurch, Pittsburgh, or Charleston, these attacks are not isolated incidents. These terrorists may not be part of a larger organized group the way the 9/11 perpetrators were, but they are all motivated by a similar ideology that must be confronted in the public domain, not banned from our discourse. Those who seek these disgusting ideas will always be able to find them in the dark corners of the internet, and it is therefore the responsibility
of the media and citizens in general to confront and defeat these beliefs out in the open. It is naive to think that white-supremacist outlooks have been eliminated already within our society. To continue to treat each of these attacks as an isolated incident, while maintaining that the age of violent racism is long over, only serves to maintain the status quo and empower those who would rather have us fearing needy refugees instead of domestic terrorists. We must treat this as a pressing, dangerous problem that must be addressed by both the government and the public without delay. The only way to motivate any kind of government response is not through ignoring these terrorists’ beliefs, but through educating citizens of their pervasiveness within American society, and how we must always be vigilant to their resurgence. As students who spend most of our time in the fairly liberal, cosmopolitan environment of Princeton, it can be too easy to dismiss white supremacy as a dying movement with a negligible number of adherents. It is crucial to recognize the uncomfortable fact that they remain appealing to many within the U.S, and that ignoring them has dire consequences. Ben Gelman is a first-year from Houston, Texas. He can be reached at bgelman@princeton. edu.
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
Don’t whine. Opine. Write for ‘Prince’ Opinion.
head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editor Samantha Shapiro ’21 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 cartoon editors Zaza Asatiani ’21 Jonathan Zhi ’21 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20
NIGHT STAFF copy Emma Treadway ’22 Design Mark Dodici ’22 Ava Jiang ’21
48 University Place Email join@dailyprincetonian.com
Recycle your ‘Prince’!
Monday May 13, 2019
Opinion
page 5
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
The McCosh infirmary redesign: Are we incorporating student feedback the right way? Gabe Lipkowitz
Contributing Columnist
O
ver the past week,
several undergraduates have sent emails to residential college listservs calling for suggestions for what they call the “redesign” of McCosh Health Center. While not specifying in any further detail the extent of this apparent “redesign,” or describing in any detail how such feedback will be incorporated, they state that University Health Services (UHS) “is undergoing a major remodeling” and “they want student input.” As is typical for such mass emails requesting student feedback, they reassure students that the survey, whose link they provide, is “super short.” Their particular survey poses questions such as: “Are you satisfied with the current design of UHS?” followed by a rather unattractive photograph of the front of McCosh that cuts off the building’s edges. “Should UHS have separate entrances for students who want more privacy?” beneath another evidently iPhone-taken photograph of the entrance to the infirmary, shot at a crooked angle, and, “Do you like the current blue/ glassy color of McCosh?” While I applaud these students’ efforts to engage the student body in the design pro-
cess, their current attempts to solicit student feedback for the infirmary “redesign” demonstrate clear shortcomings. Other approaches, which I will briefly propose below, are likely to be far more successful. It goes without saying that the design of healing environments like McCosh is both very important and very difficult. Indeed, a good deal of recent, and not-so-recent published architectural research has gone into considering how the design of public health spaces, including hospitals, clinics, and infirmaries, can facilitate, or conversely hinder, their ability to be truly salubrious environments. More often than not, as the Dutch architectural historian Cor Wagenaar writes in “The Architecture of Hospitals”, hospitals are designed without taking such factors into consideration, leading to “an alienating experience that separates the patient from his family, relatives and friends, [and] confronts him with a labyrinthine structure that makes him feel lost […]” All the more reason, therefore, that the University should take great care in any redesign of McCosh, and that student feedback — since students, after all, are most often the patients — should be thoughtful and meaningful. I question whether the present attempts to solicit such feedback promise to fulfill this important goal. Is a “super short” opinion poll a suitable format for encouraging serious and worthwhile thought from our stu-
dent body? Perhaps such responses would come in the form of longer, thoughtful writing, but far more likely, I am almost certain, such an approach will yield knee-jerk complaints with little constructive criticism, as such online venues all too often encourage. In response to this criticism, some may claim that abbreviating discussion in this way is a necessary plug to get students to take an online poll in the first place. To this, I would in turn respond by questioning whether online polls — if they do indeed require such truncated conversation — are a suitable or productive format in the first place. Are virtual questionnaires, in which students have no real incentive to provide thoughtful feedback and no opportunity to interact with their peers or participate in any direct way in the design process, truly an appropriate design methodology? Or will they inevitably yield superficial comments with little impact? Beyond the format of the call for student feedback, I also worry that the questions these students ask reduces the design process itself to a series of cheap associations. Is whether we “like” the blue color scheme of McCosh relevant? What does it even mean if we “like” a color, anyways? And why is it important to a design that we subjectively “like” some color in the first place? Such superficial opinions and pure matters of taste, lacking in analytical precision, have little place in such an impor-
tant design process. Perhaps even more worrisome is a second, follow-up call for similar feedback about the redesign from a separate group of students, this time about “what buildings on campus currently make you feel safe and included.” These students’ survey contains a laundry list of once again evidently iPhone-taken pictures of disparate campus structures, accompanied by the same nonspecific question about “safety and inclusivity” every time. And once again, the survey concludes with a rather unattractive picture of McCosh, the edges of which are again cut off on both sides and whose front is again presented to the viewer at a crooked angle. This is hardly an adequate presentation of a work of architecture, and fails to do justice to its charming, while antiquated, brick Collegiate Gothic style. As for the survey questions themselves, how do these students define “safety” and “inclusivity,” and why are these at all important in a McCosh infirmary redesign? Recognizing the obvious fact that these terms are inherently political, I question whether it is wise to politicize architecture in this way, fearing that framing a design discussion this way only threatens to alienate some students from the process altogether. To reiterate, I do not object to the general idea of incorporating undergraduate feedback into the redesign of McCosh. But we clearly need a more insightful and productive methodology.
In devising a better solution, a first step would be to articulate what exactly the scope of this design project is, so that feedback can be constructive and specific. Next, since precise visuals are crucial to thinking about space, it is crucial to carry out a more complete study of the various qualities of the existing structure, with closer attention paid to capturing, through drawing or photography, the current infirmary. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we need to hold a public gathering, in a physical space in which students can actively and publicly pose questions and provide feedback to the architect(s) chosen to redesign the McCosh. Such would be the equivalent of a community outreach initiative that architects and urban planners often hold when making an important design addition to or intervention in a community. If I were not graduating from the University in a matter of weeks, I would, understanding the profound impact of the design of an infirmary, take it upon myself to attempt such an initiative. Nevertheless, I hope that this short piece will motivate other students, in particular those whom I commend for starting this conversation in the first place, to plan and carry out such a more architecturally-nuanced campus project. Gabe Lipkowitz is a senior concentrator in molecular biology. He can be reached at gel@princeton.edu.
Work for the most respected news source on campus.
join@dailyprincetonian.com
Sports
Monday May 13, 2019
page 6
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } F E AT U R E
By Josephine de La Bruyère Assistant Sports Editor
On the wrestling mat, Joe Dubuque is at still only for a second. He lunges, he bounces, he spins. He folds himself in two. He drops to his hands and knees, springs back up. He flinches at each move Princeton’s opponent makes. But Dubuque isn’t Princeton’s wrestler; he puts on his nonstop, kinetic show from the coaches’ corner. “I can’t help it,” he said. “I’m a maniac.” A native of Bloomfield, New Jersey, associate head wrestling coach Dubuque grew up an athlete. He played baseball and football from the earliest moment he could. But Dubuque — who sits decidedly closer to five feet than to six — found himself dwarfed on the diamond and the field. He was good, nothing more. He started looking for other options. He found one close to home. Five years his elder, Dubuque’s brother was a high school wrestler. As the sport favours those closer to the ground, he thought it might be a good fit for his kid brother. The younger Dubuque began following the elder one to practices, to clubs, to tournaments. He was hooked. He put on a singlet for the first time when he was 12. At 13, he won New Jersey’s junior state tournament. He ended his high school career a twotime New Jersey state champion and a national title-holder. He fielded recruiting offers from powerhouse programs
All In: Joe Dubuque like Rutgers and UNC. And Princeton? “Are you kidding?” He laughed. “I could never go to school here.” In the end, 125-pounder Dubuque committed to wrestle at Indiana University. It seemed a strange choice for such a highly touted recruit. He’d be 750 miles from home and locked into four years with a floundering program; his senior year of high school, the Hoosiers had finished their season No. 57 in the country. But Dubuque had his sights set on a national title. There was no better place to hunt for one than the Big Ten Conference. And the Hoosiers’ struggle wasn’t a drawback to him. If anything, it was a boon. “I want to be somewhere where I can have the biggest impact possible,” he said. “What I’m drawn to is building.” For the next four years, Dubuque did exactly that. At the first tournament of his redshirt freshman season, he beat an All-American ranked sixth in the country. It was downhill from there. In his own words, he was “uncourageous, undisciplined, uncoachable.” He partook too often in what he called, with a smirk, “extracurricular activities.” His regular freshman season ended early because of a concussion. At the Big Ten championship, he served as the team water-boy and watched with bitter regret as his rivals medalled. He sat down with his coaches after the tournament and promised to get tougher.
“Whatever you want, I’ll do,” he said. “I’m all in.” His sophomore season, a newly courageous, disciplined, coachable — and strictly curricular — Dubuque entered the NCAA tournament seeded eighth. He was a nervous wreck. Once his first opponent pinned him —for the only pin of Dubuque’s collegiate career — Dubuque was out of the running for a title. To earn All-American status, he’d have to win five straight matches. In his first consolation match, Dubuque tore his ACL. He could feel his knee moving around with every step. He knew exactly what he’d done. But when the team trainer looked him in the eye and told the onlookers it was just a strain, Dubuque got the message: all in. He won five straight matches. Then he kept going. His junior year, Dubuque took home Indiana’s first individual NCAA title since 1990 and led the team to a No. 9 finish. In four years with Dubuque at the helm, the Hoosiers had jumped 48 spots in the national rankings. The next season saw Dubuque become Indiana’s second ever two-time national champion and its first back-to-back national champion. Dubuque had entered college with dreams of becoming a businessman. But as graduation loomed, he realized he hadn’t grown out of that twelve-year-old’s wrestling addiction just yet. He took on a coaching job at Hofstra University. In 2007, at the urging of his
girlfriend — now wife — Jaimie, he made an Olympic run. Two herniated discs in his neck and a baby on the way cut his training short. He spent two more years coaching at Hofstra, and two more at Indiana. Then, in 2012, he got a call from a number with a familiar area code. Head wrestling coach Christopher Ayres was six years into heading Princeton’s wrestling program, and the Tigers were floundering. They’d finished 1—4 in the Ivy League, No. 11 at the EIWA championships. They hadn’t produced an NCAA champion in 59 years. But they were on the come-up. Ayres knew how Dubuque felt about building. Here, he promised, would be an opportunity to do so. Dubuque was sold. “I’ve always been overlooked,” he said. “I like that role. I like being the guy with the chip on his shoulder. It’s what I do best.” Dubuque’s six years with the program have seen its historic turnaround. In March, for only the third time in school history, Princeton pulled off a top-15 finish at the NCAA Championship. It left the tournament with a program-high two semifinalists and three All-Americans. One of those All-Americans was 125-pound first-year Patrick Glory. A two-time New Jersey state champion, he grew up 40 minutes from Dubuque. His little brother wrestles against Dubuque’s son, Chase, who wins “every time.” Both men come from Italian families, and value their Sunday dinners. The two are train-
ing partners in the wrestling room and friends outside of it. To Dubuque, Glory seems a younger version of himself — albeit a more coachable and more focused one. Glory agrees with that assessment on most fronts. “He’s been in my shoes,“ he said. “He can relate to what I go through — well, maybe not academically. I mean, I’m sure he had to some work.” Dubuque was all in on winning a title for Indiana, even when that meant wrestling a tournament on a torn ACL. He was all in on turning Princeton’s wrestling program around, even if it meant uprooting his family for a longdistance move. And he’s all in on all of his athletes. “If you show the athlete that you’re willing to do anything and everything for him,” he said, “he’ll be willing to do anything and everything for you. I’m all in, always. Not just for Pat: for everyone. I’m all in.” Off the mat, Dubuque drives his athletes to MRI appointments, gets their laundry, cuts weight with them if they’re in need of company. On it, his passion turns into raw energy. He spins, jumps, pumps his fists. He screams and barks: sometimes, Ayres physically restrains him. “In the matches,” said Glory, “the only people I hear are the coaches and the ref. Especially Dubuque.” “Yeah,“ said Dubuque. “I’m fricken passionate. I wear my emotions on my sleeve. I’m all in. I’m a maniac. Have I said that yet?”
WOMEN’S LACROSSE
Women’s lacrosse defeats Loyola Maryland, sets up NCAA quarterfinal rematch with BC By Nancy Tran Staff Writer
In cold and rainy weather, Princeton women’s lacrosse (16–3, 6–1 Ivy) defeated Loyola Maryland (16–5, 9–0 Patriot) 17–13 in the second round of the NCAA tournament. This game was the second time that the Tigers faced the Greyhounds after previously winning 14–10. The Tigers’ NCAA journey will continue next weekend as they advance to the quarterfinals for a rematch against the Boston College Eagles, who beat Princeton in the NCAA quarterfinals last season. This weekend’s game started with two goals from the Greyhounds within the first two minutes, but they were also quick to be handed a yellow card. Taking advantage of the man up situation, Princeton answered with a goal from senior attacker Elizabeth George. Following George was senior midfielder, Izzy Mangan with two goals of her own. By the end of the first half, Princeton was leading Loyola by one point. The second half of the game played out much like the Tigers’ NCAA tourna-
ment opener on Friday. Their dominant win over Wagner mirrored the team’s performance in most of the second half against Loyola. Princeton scored the first six goals of the second half and held an eight-goal lead at one point, eventually winning 17–13. “I thought we got off to a great start in the second half,” head coach Chris Sailer said. “The kids really came out hard and we were finding good looks, and we were making quick stops down on the defensive end. That lead was awesome that we were able to build up.” Leading the Tigers was George with six goals and seven draw controls. “She was just phenomenal,” Sailer praised. “She said after the game to me, ‘I don’t want this season to end,’ and she really played like that. She played her heart out and I thought she had a phenomenal day.” Following George was sophomore attacker Kyla Sears with three goals and four assists. Junior attacker Tess D’Orsi managed to put three in the net and gave the Tigers an assist as well. Mangan had a total of three goals. Senior defender
SHELLEY M. SZWAST / GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM
Women’s lacrosse against Loyola Maryland in the NCAA tournament.
Nonie Andersen also helped the Tigers secure the win with eight draw controls, and sophomore goalie Sam Fish ended the game with 11 saves. While Princeton was battling for a spot in the quarterfinals, Boston Col-
lege secured theirs, beating Colorado 21–9. “We’re excited to play them,” Sailer said. “They’re a top team. They have some of the best players in the country, but we’re excited to play them. Last year, they were rested and we only had
a day to prepare, so it’s great that we have this week ahead of us to really watch a lot of film and prepare. When you get to the quarterfinals, you’re going to be playing a great team. Regardless of who it is, we’re happy to go out there and compete.”
Tweet of the Day
Stat of the Day
Follow us
“Princeton advances to the #NCAAWLAX quarterfinals with a 17-13 win over Loyola #EarnYourStripes”
11 games
Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!
Princeton WLAX (@ PrincetonWLAX), Women’s Lacrosse
Princeton’s women’s lacrosse team has now won its last eleven games.