Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998
Monday may 4, 2015 vol. cxxxix no. 60
WEATHER
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } HIGH
LOW
84˚ 59˚
Mainly sunny except for a few afternoon clouds. chance of rain:
10 percent
Follow us on Twitter @princetonian
In Opinion The Editorial Board discusses the University’s sexual health orientation program, and Erica Choi argues for a reform for room draw. PAGE 6
STUDENT LIFE
Educational charities funneled clubs millions to pay for social facilities Eating clubs and their affiliated foundations A handful of charities have funneled $20 million in tax-deductible funds to the eating clubs in the past five years, spent mostly on renovating social facilities at the clubs. The charities allowed the clubs, which earmarked the funds for educational purposes, to offer donors tax deductions. Clubs have negligible educational expenses.
Breakdown of amount received by eating clubs from foundations
not including money received from the Princeton Prospect Foundation, amounting to
TI
$5,550,107
Ivy
$5,511,879
Cap
$5,249,416
Cottage 1886 Foundation paid at least $468,056 to two restoration The
firms and an interior design firm to renovate the clubhouse facilities since 2008. Not counting construction costs,
Cottage
$1,502,709
Other Clubs $2,063,876
Ivy 1879 Foundation has spent $17,810 on two separate the
Total money from affiliated foundations $20,043,625
The Archives
“Lectures of Leadership” events, in the past two years. In 2013, the Foundation also gave
$9,535 for a henley regatta competition.
May 4, 1967 Operators of the University’s student center announced plans to operate an ice cream store within the student center.
PRINCETON By the Numbers
$20 M
The approximate total amount of money from affiliated foundations received by the eatings since 2008.
got a tip? Email it to: tips@dailyprincetonian.com
News & Notes Former aide to Christie pleads guilty to two counts of conspiracy
David Wildstein, a former aide to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy on Friday in connection to the Bridgegate scandal, according to a press release by the Department of Justice. Christie is an ex officio trustee of the University. Wildstein faces up to 15 years in prison and fines. Bill Baroni, former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Bridget Anne Kelly, a former Christie chief of staff, have also been indicted in connection with the scandal. Alan Zegas, Wildstein’s attorney, said on Friday that Christie had knowledge of the George Washington Bridge lane closures before they happened, according to NJ Advance Media, which is contrary to what Christie has said on multiple occasions. Wildstein’s guilty plea could indicate that he may be cooperating with prosecutors, according to Bloomberg.
4.3% of
what the club received in educational grants.
Today on Campus 6 p.m.: A new student ensemble, Princeton Brass, will perform a concert with music from Verdi, Copland, Gabrieli and other composers. It is conducted by Wayne Dumaine, Chris Comer, Brian Brown, and Ben Herrington. Frist Campus Center South Lawn.
Highlighted Facts: From 2008 to 2013, Cap raised a total of $227,820 in direct donations,
AUSTIN LEE :: DESIGN EDITOR
By Marcelo Rochabrun editor-in-chief emeritus
When board members of the Cap & Gown Club sought town approval to build an addition to the clubhouse six years ago that would cost around $5 million, town officials raised half-hearted concerns about a proposed
tap room. At a Princeton Regional Planning Board meeting in 2009, they asked: Why would Cap want to build a tap room if it lacked a liquor license? Board members responded that club members “are allowed to bring their own alcoholic beverages.” Concerns about the tap room
STUDENT LIFE
were short-lived. Overall, the 5,175 square foot project seemed like a great addition to Cap’s social facilities, and the Planning Board approved the project unanimously, happy that the rear addition “harmoniously related in style and material” to the existing building and left the club’s historic facade un-
touched. The two-floor addition consisted of a large dining hall with a vaulted wood ceiling on the first and a new tap room in the basement with a “custom millwork bar” and a refrigerating room, labeled “KEG” in the architect’s plans. Expanded patio and terrace areas for “outdoor
entertainment events” would also be built. The purpose of the new dining hall, the club said, was to allow “at least 170 members of the club [to] dine simultaneously.” Cap would also “accommodate outside events booked by alumni members.” See TAXES page 4
LECTURE
Referendum result sees concerns over campaign finances By Cassidy Tucker staff writer
The referendum to divest from certain Israeli companies was the most heated and contested referendum the University has seen in the 21st century, Undergraduate Student Government chief elections manager Grant Golub ’17 said. Both USG and student activist organizations have been riled by controversy over campaign financing and allegations of biased referendum language, even though the referendum has officially concluded. Undergraduate students split nearly down the middle over whether to divest from certain Israeli companies, with 52.5 percent voting against divestment. Golub is a former staff writer and staff copy editor for The Daily Princetonian. The amount of money spent by No Divest raised questions, Lily Gellman ‘17, a member of the Alliance of Jewish Progressives and the Princeton Committee on Palestine who
worked closely with the Princeton Divests campaign, said. “I don’t know where the money is coming from but it is definitely a lot with all of the pizza, all of their expensive posters,” Gellman said. “They had targeted Facebook ads and ads in the ‘Prince’ online, which I’d heard cost $350 per day.” There is no concrete evidence that No Divest sought funding from an outside source. An attempt by the ‘Prince’ to verify who registered the No Divest website revealed it was registered through a private proxy service, meaning who paid for the website remains unknown. Gellman said she acknowledged that students themselves may have paid for all of the No Divest campaign efforts. “Students would have had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket which is a possibility, but even then — and I would never have thought to say this regarding a school See DIVESTMENT page 3
GABRIELLA CHU :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden joined Barton Gellman ‘82 on campus via telecast on Saturday.
Snowden discusses surveillance, whistle-blowing with Gellman ’82 By Kristen Qian staff writer
Edward Snowden and journalist Barton Gellman ’82 discussed mass surveillance and privacy in a public conversation on campus on Saturday morning. Snowden, a former contractor at the National Secu-
rity Agency who disclosed information about the NSA’s surveillance practices to Gellman and Glenn Greenwald, is in exile in Russia and joined the discussion via a live telecast. Since the disclosure of this information two years ago, “we’ve learned a lot that we didn’t know,” Gellman said.
The interview-styled conversation between Gellman and Snowden focused on questions of cryptography, mass surveillance and the ethics of whistle-blowing. “[The problem is that information is] increasingly getting into the hands of average citizens,” Snowden said. See LECTURE page 3
STUDENT LIFE
McCarthy ’06 third woman ever to chair eating club graduate board By Melissa Curtis staff writer
Caroline McCarthy ’06 will become the graduate board chair of Cloister Inn during Reunions, becoming the third woman ever to chair an eating club’s graduate board. She will be the University’s only female eating club graduate
board chair. She previously served as a member of the club’s graduate board. The first female graduate board chair was Kimberly Noble ’80, at Elm Club, which no longer exists as its own club, and the second was Anne Lester Trevisan ’86 of Campus Club, which has not been an eating club since
2005. Noble and Trevisan did not respond to requests for comment. McCarthy said she is aware of the low number of female chairs historically, but does not feel uncomfortable by being outnumbered in terms of gender. As the vice president of communications and content at true[X], an advertising and technology
company, she said she is used to working in a dominantly male environment. “I’m honestly not that intimidated given that I work in technology,” she said, adding that the documented issues with diversity in the technology industry are still important. “I’ve been in situations fairly often where I’m the only woman in
the room.” McCarthy said she thought the age disparity between herself and the other graduate board chairs was more consequential. “I think that what I find most daunting is that some of the grad board chairs were undergrads before the school even See GRAD BOARD page 3
page 2
The Daily Princetonian
Little Princeton, Big Sean by Christopher Ferri :: Associate Photo Editor Students relax to warm weather and great music at Spring Lawnparties. Big Sean performed in the back yard of Quadrangle Club while students elsewhere enjoyed ice cream, Taco Bell and games.
Monday may 4, 2015
The Daily Princetonian
Monday may 4, 2015
page 3
Appointment receives Human right to privacy is inherent, Snowden says LECTURE praise from students Continued from page 1
GRAD BOARD Continued from page 1
.............
went co-ed,” she said. “I’m trying to balance the fresh ideas I have with the fact that I want to show real, legitimate respect for the legacies of the other grad board chair members.” Sandy Harrison ’74, the graduate board chair of Terrace Club, said he believes the low number of female chairs is due to the previously unbalanced gender demographics in the University’s eating clubs. He added he was impressed by McCarthy. McCarthy’s appointment is a sign that the eating clubs are making social progress, Harrison said. “I would say that there will be more [female graduate board chairs]. I hope there’s more,” Harrison said. “I would be thrilled if my successor were a woman.” Current students are also excited and pleased to see McCarthy as the new grad board chair, and to witness progress in the University’s distribution of power between genders. Cloister president Ed Walker ‘16 did not respond to requests for comment. Andrew Frazier ‘15, former president of Cloister, said McCarthy’s achievements while serving on the graduate board have been impressive. “She has been a huge leader on the grad board since she took over,” Frazier said. “She was clearly the most qualified candidate in the area and has been a pivotal figure in the formation of Cloister’s fundraising plans and alumni relations since joining the grad board.” Frazier said women’s late admittance into eating clubs largely accounts for the low number of female grad board chairs. “Obviously the fact there have only been three is not all due to sample bias, but I think that we will see more female representation in the eating clubs as time
goes on,” Frazier said. “The eating clubs until the seventies, and some until the nineties, were all men, so the fact that the grad boards and grad board chairs were all men comes as no surprise.” Olivia Sayvetz ’15, a member of Cloister, said McCarthy’s appointment made her optimistic about women’s leadership at the University. While women do hold many of the leadership positions at the University, they rarely hold the most visible, publicized positions, Sayvetz said, adding she attributes this trend to a “boys’ club” culture. “It is my hope that Caroline McCarthy’s recent appointment as chairwoman will set a precedent for the rest of the eating clubs and for other campus organizations,” Sayvetz said. Erik Maritz ‘17 said having more women on eating club’s graduate boards would curb problems with misogyny on the Street. “I think that probably one of the biggest reasons why the eating clubs are so misogynistic is because they don’t have more women on their grad boards,” Maritz said. “I think that having more women oversee finances and make administrative decisions will definitely have a positive influence on the clubs, especially in the wake of a lot of scandals like sexual assault.” Edwin Rosales ‘17 noted that the number of women undergraduate students who have become club officers has not been reflected at the graduate board level. “So many clubs have elected female leadership, and I think this appointment is really saying something about how the Princeton culture needs to change in order to make women feel more included in their respective eating club communities,” Rosales said. Associate news editor Jasmine Wang contributed reporting.
.............
“Culturally, the government has adopted a worldview that if it is out there, we should know it, and we should have access to it.” Governments today have more investigative power than in the past, Snowden said. Looking up information in a database, as long as there is some justification for a search, has begun to be embedded into the culture and the fabric of the government, he said. “[Encryption is the] technological enforcement of historical liberties,” Snowden said, adding citizens should defend their rights to encryption. The problem with mass surveillance is that based on the evidence, it does not work, Snowden said. The fact that the NSA was monitoring everyone’s calls did not stop the Boston bomb-
ings, Snowden said. Part of the reason is that there is a finite amount of man-hours and there are f laws with bulk data collection, in which the government acquires infor-
“There is no question that these programs are controversial. This is something that needs to change.” Edward Snowden former nsa contractor
mation but does not necessarily look at it, Snowden explained. When Gellman asked whether the U.S. Constitution can protect everyone equally, Snowden said that the ques-
tion should be more about natural human rights. The human right to privacy is inherent, Snowden said. Gellman asked if Snowden’s coworkers and other members of the NSA believed in the goals of the NSA — protecting people and national security — at the time. Of his coworkers and other volunteers who decided to join the NSA, none of them were bad people, Snowden said. Snowden said he got thinking only about the problematic side of the NSA’s operations as a result of conversations with other coworkers and how everyone on the inside “was deeply unsettled.” However, Snowden said his coworkers had warned him that if he revealed anything, he would be “destroyed.” This led Gellman to ask about the ethics of whistleblowing and how do deal with transgressing the sharp line that exists in the intelligence community. “We’re modeled upon a sys-
tem of checks and balances,” Snowden said, adding he intended for his own actions to be a check and balance in the system. Instead of publishing things himself, he partnered with journalists and institutions that are well respected to “blow the whistle in the best way,” Snowden said. However, with freedom of press, there is always a risk, Snowden added. “There is no question that these programs are controversial,” Snowden said. “This is something that needs to change.” The event, “Edward Snowden in Conversation with Bart Gellman,” took place on Saturday at 10:30 a.m. in the Friend Center, and Snowden’s part was telecasted. The discussion was cosponsored by the University’s Center for Information Technology Policy, the Program in Law and Public Affairs and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Leaders of both movements support efforts to institute campaign finance reforms at U. DIVESTMENT Continued from page 1
.............
referendum — there should be some kind of campaign finance reform,” Gellman said. Hannelora Everett ‘17, president of Tigers For Israel and a leader of the No Divest movement, did not directly address the source of funding for No Divest’s website and advertising but said the allegations against No Divest were misleading. “Money for pizza at our information table, which was not very much money, came from our students,” Everett said, noting that the No Di-
vest website was of the same quality as the Princeton Divests website. “The resource that pushed our campaign to a victory was the work of the dozens of students who were determined to educate the student body.” She added that she thinks it is almost insulting to the student body to say that students voted a certain way because money convinced them to do so. Katie Horvath ‘15, Princeton Divests co-founder and Princeton Committee on Palestine board member, said she believed reform was in order but was not optimistic given the lack of success of campaign
finance reform efforts elsewhere in the country. “I don’t think it’s right for one side to be spending thousands of dollars,” Gellman said, noting that the website for Princeton Divests was close to free. “It’s not reasonable in a college election to have that kind of disparity.” Everett said she believed there was a need for some reform, just not in the area of campaign finance. “USG regulations should be reformed to protect against biased referendum language and unequal access to the undergraduate student body,” Everett said.
Golub said he believes that the wording of this referendum and all other USG referenda have not been biased. However, he said there was room for reform. “[The election and referendum rules in ‘Rights, Rules, Regulations’ are] outdated and we do plan on rewriting every line over the summer,” Golub said. However, the state of the current election rules did not adversely affect the legitimacy of the referendum’s outcome, Golub said. “The election did accurately portray the sentiment on campus,” Golub said. “Opinions were divided.”
The Daily Princetonian
page 4
Monday may 4, 2015
Ivy, TI and Cap received lion’s share of $20 million donated to clubs TAXES
Continued from page 1
.............
But when it was time for the club to pay the town the final fees to get the social addition approved, payment checks did not come from Cap. Instead, an educational foundation known as the Princeton Prospect Foundation — established exclusively to “stimulate and encourage the love of learning and pursuit of knowledge” at Princeton’s eating clubs — footed two bills for a total of $30,985.50, part of the cost of ob-
sands of pages worth of tax returns, identified individual donors and conducted interviews with club board members, donors and independent lawyers. Most notably, the investigation found that, since 2008, alumni donors have received tax deductions on $20 million worth of charitable donations that were eventually funneled to the eating clubs, the vast majority of which went to non-educational projects. These funds have been used to pay for the construction and renovation of eating club social facilities, such as dining halls, kitchens, lounges, sleep-
COURTESY PRINCETON PLANNING BOARD
Copy of a Prospect Foundation checked paid to the town of Princeton
taining a building license for the tap room, dining hall and terrace, according to copies of the checks obtained through public records requests. The money had been collected by the Foundation from tax-deductible contributions paid to the “Prospect Foundation - Cap & Gown Club Fund.” The funds came from donors who were virtually all club alumni — alumni who would have been unable to take a tax deduction had they donated directly to the club. The incentive worked both ways. Without taxdeductible donations, it would have been more difficult for the club to fund the project. That same year, the Prospect Foundation funneled an additional $1.6 million in funds to pay for Cap’s renovation and expansion project. In 2010, it sent over an extra $2.7 million. The entirety of these funds were labeled for “educational purposes” by the Foundation and were taxdeductible. This way of fundraising — using foundations to give tax deductions that the clubs themselves cannot offer — is common to the Prospect Avenue clubs. Otherwise known as the Street, these clubs are the places where Princeton undergraduates party at night and where upperclassmen eat and socialize during the day. The clubs also house dedicated study spaces. An investigation started in 2013 by The Daily Princetonian has found that the Prospect Foundation and a handful of other foundations funneled millions of dollars in tax-deductible contributions over the past few years for social, non-educational purposes at the eating clubs. Internal Revenue Service guidelines specifically bar these kinds of expenses. Without the participation of the foundations, donations would not have yielded a tax deduction for donors. The ‘Prince’ reviewed thou-
ing quarters and other social spaces — none of which qualify as educational donations under IRS guidelines. “The eating clubs at Princeton walk, talk, quack like exclusive private clubs,” said Dean Zerbe, a lawyer at Alliantgroup who worked for many years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance on tax legislation issues and who reviewed key records used in this story. “It raises real questions about whether the foundations supporting the eating clubs should benefit from charitable status and that the eating clubs should benefit from subsidies by the American taxpayer.” Some of the key findings of the ‘Prince’ review include: — Three clubs — Cap, Ivy Club and Tiger Inn — have received the lion’s share of the educational funds, a combined $16.3 million in tax-deductible contributions. This sum was used to pay for new dining facilities at Cap and TI. While Ivy did build a new library with tax-deductible money, it also built a much larger lounge, labeled the Great Hall, paid for from the same source of money. — The eating clubs have raised little money directly in comparison to the educational contributions that have been funneled by the foundations to the clubs, according to a review of IRS records. TI and Cap raised a combined $629,000 in direct donations since 2008. Ivy raised $11,839. These funds did not involve tax deductions. — Four educational foundations approved by the IRS exist solely to pass on educational funds to the eating clubs. These are the Prospect Foundation, the Ivy 1879 Foundation, the Cottage 1886 Foundation and the Princeton Charter Foundation. The existence of foundations to support, exclusively, the educational activities of the eating
clubs is legal. All four foundations have negligible expenses outside of supporting their affiliated clubs. — The Prospect Foundation went through an IRS audit in 1998, and the results of the audit put in place tailored regulations to explicitly prevent the disbursement of funds for non-educational purposes. Yet, according to interviews and a review of records, the Prospect Foundation has aggressively interpreted the regulations put in place 17 years ago and routinely funded the construction of social spaces, even though those are specifically barred by its agreement with the IRS. — The Cottage 1886 Foundation has directly spent close to $1.7 million in tax-deductible funds in the past five years to pay for the regular maintenance of the entire University Cottage Club clubhouse under the incorrect assumption, said legal experts consulted by the ‘Prince,’ that the status of Cottage as a historic clubhouse makes its maintenance expenses charitable. Cottage has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1999. — In 2010, TI failed to disclose in its annual balance sheets the receipt of a $4 million contribution from the Prospect Foundation that was used to pay for the construction of a dining hall addition. Instead, it said it had received a total of close to $47,000 in donations. — The rest of the clubs have received a combined $2 million from the four foundations since 2008. The use of these funds is harder to identify, and the individual amounts much smaller. The clubs do have certain educational expenses, according to interviews and records reviewed. Cannon Club has not received any foundation funds. All in all, these foundations have allowed eating club donors and board members to circumvent an inconvenient, albeit key, restriction: that because the eating clubs are legally registered as nonprofit social clubs with the IRS, they cannot offer donors a tax deduction in exchange for their money, a benefit that educational nonprofits such as the University do offer and consider a selling point. The eating clubs consider the possibility of a tax deduction a selling point for donors, too. “The mission of Princeton Prospect Foundation, from day one, has been overwhelmingly to be the tax-exempt vehicle for receiving donations,” said Sandy Harrison ’74, current chairman of both Terrace Club and the Prospect Foundation, the largest of the four educational foundations that currently exist exclusively to support the eating clubs. Eight of the 11 eating clubs have individual accounts within the Prospect Foundation which collect money from alumni donations and can only be touched by the respective eating clubs. Harrison said the Prospect Foundation has strict guide-
lines in place and a specific grants committee to ensure that funds are disbursed for the right causes — those considered educational by the IRS. They cannot pay for tap rooms, he said, but he maintains that dining halls and kitchens are fair game. John Bruestle ’78, a Prospect Foundation trustee, characterized the grants committee members as “sticklers” when it comes to “following the guidelines.” “There are some alumni who do pay contributions directly to the club,” Harrison added. “But the majority of the donations, certainly the big ones, are going to pass through the [Prospect Foundation] because donors want to be able to get the tax deduction.” However, lawyers interviewed for this story as well as IRS documents reviewed, paint a different picture of what expenses an eating club can claim to pass off as educational in nature and, as a result, offer a tax deduction. A review of records and series of interviews conducted by the ‘Prince’ show that foundations can only fund activities and facilities that are exclusively educational, mainly libraries and computer clusters. Dining facilities are explicitly
“Clearly you’ve got [an] issue in which the IRS would be very interested, frankly, whether the Foundation is funding the non-educational aspects of the eating clubs, and it certainly sounds like [the Foundation is] being very aggressive.” Marcus Owens
Former director of the IRS tax-exempt division
not allowed. Tax experts consulted said that if the IRS were to examine the donations and grants and conclude that some of them were improper, such a determination could lead to the foundations losing their tax-exempt status. Potential violations involving nonprofits generally carry a three-year statute of limitation, lawyers noted, a period of time that in most of these cases has already passed. Individuals who have obtained tax deductions by donating to the construction campaigns of their former eating clubs through these foundations include the CEO of an S&P 500 company, prominent University donors and University trustees. “If you can’t get a deduction for making a contribution directly to the club because it is a social organization, then funneling that same dollar amount to the club for the same non charitable purposes, it seems to
Ivy
me as just not an acceptable way of doing business,” said Peter Dickson ’73, a local tax lawyer who has also served as a preceptor at the University. Dickson reviewed all IRS filings and legal documents used in this story. ‘IRS guidelines are pretty liberal’ The main issue lies in IRS regulations about what can entitle donors to tax deductions and whether social clubs may also engage in educational activities. According to tax regulations, the eating clubs are institutions organized for “pleasure, recreation, and other similar purposes.” They pay no federal income tax, although they do pay local taxes and cannot offer tax deductions for contributions. Fraternities and sororities, including their Princeton chapters, are also organized in this manner, as are other clubs, like the Princeton Club of New York. Eating clubs are different from charities, such as the University, which can process taxdeductible donations. In order to achieve charity status, the IRS requires prospective organizations be “organized and operated exclusively” for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational or prevention of cruelty to children or animals purposes. To offer tax deductions, the organization must serve a public rather than a private interest, a regulation that exists in tension with the mission of a social club which, the IRS says, should serve private interests. The membership of a social club “must be limited,” the IRS adds. “Evidence that a club’s facilities will be open to the general public” may be a reason for the IRS to deny a prospective organization a social club status. The foundations affiliated with the eating clubs are all charities organized for educational purposes. “The phrase ‘education’ or ‘educational’ is defined in IRS regulations as instruction on matters that are useful to the individual … as indicative of an intentionally structured plan to convey knowledge,” said Marcus Owens, a partner at law firm Loeb & Loeb and a former director of the Exempt Organizations Division at the IRS, which oversees all nonprofit organizations. “A casual dinner conversation is not structured around any particular goal, other than a pleasant dining experience.” But the clubs’ informal relationship with the University, lawyers said, opens a window of possibility for the legitimate existence of educational activities at the clubs, such as occasional lectures. This situation is not unique to the University and has been replicated in the case of many sorority and fraternity houses around the country, which Owens noted were equivalent to the eating clubs in terms of their IRS status.
Contributions and Grants received from foundations
Calendar Year 2008
$2,993,585
Calendar Year 2009
$803,897
Calendar Year 2010
$62,600
Calendar Year 2011
$1,511,441
Calendar Year 2012
$140,356
Total
$5,511,879
At least two IRS publications have tried to draw clear lines to separate the educational from the social when a foundation is created to support a fraternity or sorority. “Laundry facilities, dining areas, sleeping quarters, dedicated social and recreational areas and mixed use areas are NOT permissible” as educational grants, reads one of the documents. “There is a direct nexus between providing these facilities, services, or goods and the social and recreational aspects of a fraternity.” The document, titled “Fraternity Foundation Grants,” asks IRS agents to pay attention to grants earmarked for facilities when they audit fraternity foundations. The document explained permissible grants would be for “dedicated study areas, wiring, individual computers, computer desks and computer chairs.” A separate document conveyed the same message. “A grant to a fraternity for the building or general renovation of a fraternity chapter house would not be in furtherance of a [charitable] purpose,” the document said. Cap’s addition consisted of a new dining hall and a tap room. TI’s addition included a dining hall, a tap room and two new dormitories for undergraduate officers. Other than the addition, TI also performed some renovations to its library and to its computer room. Over the past five years, the two clubs received a combined $10.8 million from the Prospect Foundation for their construction campaigns. TI graduate board chair Hap Cooper ’82 declined to comment for this story. “You’ve got a situation there where I think the Foundation has overstepped the statute,” Owens said. “Clearly you’ve got [an] issue in which the IRS would be very interested, frankly, whether the Foundation is funding the non-educational aspects of the eating clubs, and it certainly sounds like [the Foundation is] being very aggressive.” Board members of the eating clubs and the foundations have vehemently denied any case of impropriety, noting that the clubs do in fact organize sporadic educational activities and that, in their view, the IRS takes a broad approach to what can be considered educational. “[IRS] guidelines are pretty liberal,” Bruestle, who is also the chair of the Charter Club’s graduate board, said. “They include certain aspects of the kitchen and dining facilities because they are being used to feed students and also allow real estate taxes and insurance.” Harrison and other eating club board members interviewed took a similar position. “Eating clubs do serve educational functions — for example, if there are libraries where there is a lot of studying that goes on,” Harrison said. “You have to eat, so if you order improvements to the kitchen, that is considered
Renovations: 8,270 sq addition Great Hall Underground library
SOURCE: IVY 1870 FOUNDATION FORMS 990
COURTESY OF PRINCETON ALUMNI WEEKLY
Tiger Inn
Contributions and Grants received from foundations
Fiscal Year 2008
$178,111
Fiscal Year 2009
$297,931
Fiscal Year 2010
$4,005,936
Fiscal Year 2011
$1,008,082
Fiscal Year 2012
$60,047
Total
$5,550,107
Renovations: 6,000 sq addition Tap Room Dining hall for 110 people Two new dormitory rooms TI failed to disclose the reception of $4 million in its balance sheets for 2010, claiming that year the reception of only $46,785 in contributions. SOURCE: PRINCETON PROSPECT FOUNDATION FORMS 990
COURTESY OF JAMES BRADBURY ARCHITECTS
The Daily Princetonian
Monday may 4, 2015
Cap and Gown
Contributions and Grants received from foundations
Fiscal Year 2008
$422,444
Fiscal Year 2009
$1,561,506
Fiscal Year 2010
$2,699,678
Fiscal Year 2011
$565,788
Fiscal Year 2012
$0
Total
$5,249,416
page 5
Renovations: 5,175 sq addition Tap Room Dining hall for 170 people Outdoor renovations
SOURCE: PRINCETON PROSPECT FOUNDATION 990 FORMS
COURTESY OF THE UNIVERSITY COTTAGE CLUBE
Cottage
Contributions and Grants received from foundations
Fiscal Year 2008
$286,216
Fiscal Year 2009
$301,762
Fiscal Year 2010
$293,650
Fiscal Year 2011
$310,978
Fiscal Year 2012
$310,103
Total
$1,502,709
Seminars and periodicals For all the money that is coming in to the clubs from the affiliated foundations, lawyers who reviewed the clubs’ financial disclosure forms said that there is little evidence that the clubs are spending much on education. “If you go through the list of expenses for the clubs, the vast majority of the expenses are for meals, for salaries for the people who work in the clubs, for social events,” Dickson said. “I just don’t see any educational expenses listed or anything that is capable of being an educational expense.” For example, Cap spent $2,225 on “seminars” and $1,980 on “periodicals” in 2010 — the only educational expenses that year, according to its IRS returns — the same year it received $2.7 million from the Prospect Foundation in “educational grants.” The Ivy 1879 Foundation has funded two “Lectures on Leadership” for the past two years for a combined cost of $17,810. A new “Lecture on Leadership” took
place Thursday with the participation of embattled former CIA director David Petraeus GS ’87. In 2013, the 1879 Foundation also gave $9,535 to support a Henley Regatta competition. TI has not reported any educational expenses in its IRS returns. Meanwhile, the Cottage 1886 Foundation has not funneled money to Cottage. Instead, it has spent money directly on the club’s behalf. In the past five years, the 1886 Foundation has directly spent close to $1.7 million, reportedly for “lecture programs, seminars, cultural events and the enhancement of library facilities,” as well as to work on the “restoration and preservation” of the clubhouse, according to the Foundation’s general description of expenses in its IRS returns filed since 2008. The specifics of those educational expenses are unknown. But the 1886 Foundation has paid three firms, Masonry Preservation Group, C&H Restoration and Renovation, and J.K. Kling Associates, a combined $468,056 in restoration and interior design fees since 2008 while granting their donors tax deductions, according to a section of their returns that requires disclosure of certain independent contractors. The Foundation is only required to disclose its independent contractors when it pays them more than $100,000, so not all of such expenses are necessarily known. “The Cottage 1886 Foundation was established in 1999 specifically to fund the Clubhouse’s escalating maintenance costs and capital expenditures,” reads a brochure prepared as part of a Cottage fundraising campaign launched in 2010 to establish a permanent endowment for the club. “We encourage all of our alumni to designate the Cottage 1886 Foundation as one of the charities to which he or she donates a modest amount in each of the next few years.” The brochure does not mention any 1886 Foundation sponsorship of lecture programs, seminars or cultural events. The club has listed among its charitable expenses every year since 2008 the need to “restore and repair the exterior of the building [and of] the historically and architecturally significant interior public areas.” Cottage also unsuccessfully fought a nine-year legal battle in New Jersey to obtain historic status in the state, a recognition that would have allowed the club to avoid paying property taxes to the town of Princeton. Dickson said it was misguided to consider that repairing a clubhouse would count as a charitable or educational pursuit, even if it is a historical landmark. “My private house can be on the National Register of Historic Places,” Dickson said. “That will not let me deduct the money I spend fixing up my house or putting up a new roof because that is a private purpose.” According to the National Park Service, the federal organi-
zation that oversees the National Register, tax incentives do exist, but they are different from the tax deductions that the 1886 Foundation offers its donors. Cottage chairman Carlos Ferrer ’76 and 1886 Foundation chairman James Crawford ’57 did not respond to a request for comment. Terrace obtained Planning Board approval in 2014 for an addition that includes a dining room to seat the expanding membership all at once, a music room in the basement for shows and a new deck. The addition will require the club to raise $3.5 million. Harrison, current chairman of both the Prospect Foundation and Terrace, said the club planned to use the Foundation for the “vast, vast majority of donations.” Meet the donors The ‘Prince’ traced the identity of the donors of a total of $5.86 million donated to the foundations using text-searchable versions of family foundation IRS returns through the online databases Citizen Audit and Foundation Center. The list includes donors big and small, but some of the largest ones correspond to prominent businessmen, University donors and University trustees.
“It raises real questions about whether the foundations supporting the eating clubs should benefit from charitable status and that the eating clubs should benefit from subsidies by the American taxpayer.” Dean Zerbe
Former counsel to Senate Finance Committee
Celgene CEO and University Trustee Robert Hugin ’76 donated $513,315 to the Prospect Foundation in 2011 through his family foundation. Hugin is also a Prospect Foundation trustee. William Ford ’79, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, donated $250,000 to the Ivy 1879 Foundation in 2005, during the early stages of Ivy’s capital campaign. Shelby Davis ’58, a prominent University donor, contributed $1 million to TI’s renovation project, according to its website. At least half of his contribution carried a tax deduction, paid in 2010 to the “Prospect Foundation - Tiger Inn Account” by his family foundation, called the S and G Foundation. Dennis Keller ’63, prominent University donor and co-founder of the for-profit educational corporation DeVry, Inc. donated $200,000 to Cap in 2009. Only Davis responded to a request for comment.
The firms are: Masonry Preservation Group, C&H restoration and JK Kling Associates
SOURCE: PRINCETON PROSPECT FOUNDATION 990 FORMS
COURTESY OF PRINCETONEATINGCLUBS.ORG
educational.” None of the eating club board members interviewed provided documentation to support their statements. When asked, Harrison said there was no doubt in his mind about his interpretation of what the IRS considers educational. “I am the chairman of the Princeton Prospect Foundation, so I am sure, yes,” he said. Representatives of Ivy and the Ivy 1879 Foundation wrote in a joint statement that the club “serves an educational function in addition to its social function.” “Ivy 1879 Foundation was established specifically for the purpose of providing the Club with financial assistance in fulfilling its educational function,” wrote Ivy graduate board treasurer Corbin Miller ’71 and 1879 Foundation president John Cook ’63. While Ivy did build a library, it also built a much larger social hall that was funded through the Ivy 1879 Foundation. One of the architects of the project, James Bradberry, described the construction on his website as including “new lounges and a social hall, renovations to food service areas, a ground floor library, and outdoor terrace/landscape improvements.” Thomas Letizia, a lawyer hired to represent Ivy before the Planning Board in 2005 when it sought town approval for its addition, described the construction project in similar terms, according to the minutes of the meeting. “The applicant is proposing an 8,270 square foot addition to be used as a social gathering space,” the minutes read. Miller and Cook explained in the statement that their actions were the result of legal counsel. “We do not feel ourselves to be under any moral obligation to utilize the Foundation in this regard to a lesser extent than that permitted by applicable law,” they wrote.
Renovations: Cottage has paid at least $468,056 to two restoration firms and one interior design firm.
“I believe eating clubs are part of the educational experience at Princeton just like lacrosse, rowing, the arts, etc., all of which raise money for facilities under the Princeton banner,” Davis said. A Ford Motor Company spokesperson declined to comment on Ford’s behalf. The chair of the University Board of Trustees, Katie Hall ’80, one of two people after whom the Cap tap room is named, did not respond to requests for comment asking whether she received a tax deduction for her gift. Neither did Bill Powers ’79, the co-sponsor of the tap room. All eating club officials interviewed for this story said that the foundations could not fund tap rooms. Donors interviewed echoed Davis’ sentiment. In their view, the eating clubs are part of life at the University and part of a larger educational experience. “I have always, since my undergraduate days, considered the clubs an integral part of the University,” said Roger Sachs ’64, who has donated to the Prospect Foundation. “In my mind, there has been no distinction between donating to my club or to Annual Giving. Likewise, I see upgrades and improvements to club facilities as a legitimate use of donations.” Peter Singer, a philosophy professor at the University who is also an advocate of donating to charity, said he did not consider donations to the eating clubs to be particularly charitable or educational. He said he was worried, instead, that these donations only benefited those who are already wealthy. “The taxpayer in this case is subsidizing people who are already wealthy and whose interest is in benefiting other people who are already wealthy,” Singer said. “I think that that is unethical and I think eating clubs should not be taking advantage of that. They are clearly stretching a point here.” The audit and the agreement The Prospect Foundation was once the subject of an audit by the IRS, an examination that “threatened to end the foundation’s tax-exempt status,” the ‘Prince’ reported at the time. The results of the 1998 audit were put in writing in a Collateral Agreement, signed the same year, that instituted a series of regulations specific to the Prospect Foundation in order to allow the organization to maintain its charity status. The agreement was negotiated by a tax lawyer, Robert Haines ’61, who was hired to solve the matter but was previously unaffiliated with the Foundation. Haines became a trustee of the Prospect Foundation two years after successfully reaching the agreement and eventually became its chairman until his retirement in 2014. He provided the ‘Prince’ with a copy of the agreement in 2013. The Collateral Agreement accepts that the eating clubs engage in some educational ac-
tivities that the Prospect Foundation is legally allowed to fund, but attempts to create specific guidelines to distinguish those activities. “The line that this memorandum was attempting to draw is that charitable contributions could be solicited and used to maintain that library or study room, but could not be used for the rest of the facilities, which were social in nature,” Owens, the former director of the IRS tax-exempt division, said after reviewing the document. Bill McCarter ’71, current Cap legal counsel and the chairman of the club during the early stages of its renovation campaign, said the club had requested and relied on a legal opinion to justify the use of the Prospect Foundation. The opinion, dated 2006, concluded that the Prospect Foundation was within its rights to fund the club’s new dining hall, but not the tap room. The opinion was signed by Haines on the letterhead of his firm, Herold & Haines. At the same time, he was also the vice chairman of the Prospect Foundation, the educational nonprofit that, his opinion concluded, was allowed to fundraise for his client’s capital campaign. “It is, therefore, our opinion that the Foundation can fund dining room facilities,” Haines wrote at the end of his 300-word opinion. McCarter said he did not see a potential conflict of interest in the situation. “He was the one who negotiated the settlement with the IRS and knew more about it than anyone else on the planet,” McCarter explained. A close examination of Haines’ legal opinion, lawyers said, shows that he misinterpreted the Collateral Agreement and at least one other tax provision. The crux of the issue is spelled out on two paragraphs of the Collateral Agreement. One describes a test to determine whether a project can be funded by the Prospect Foundation. The test uses the example of a roof, saying that the Foundation can only fund a roof if it will cover an area that will be used at least 50 percent “solely and entirely for educational activities.” In that case, only the educational percentage can be funded. If less than 50 percent of the project is educational, then the Foundation is unable to fund any percentage of the project. However, in his legal opinion, Haines cites a different paragraph of the agreement, which said that the Foundation may not fund a “Club’s food and drink, food and drink services.” He concludes that the agreement bans services but says nothing about facilities. “The Collateral Agreement barred funding ‘food and drink and food and drink services’ but did not bar ‘food facilities,’ ” Haines wrote in the opinion. “That seems to be just a misreading,” Owens said. “If you look at paragraph 4 of the IRS agreement, facilities generally
don’t qualify. It has to be facilities used entirely for educational purposes. And so the lawyer’s opinion is going beyond the plain language of the agreement and extrapolating from the agreement … from a place that cannot be sustained on audit, that is, the IRS would challenge that conclusion.” Dickson raised some of the same issues upon his review. “No matter how you look at it, the Foundation is not allowed to make a contribution to noneducational activities or facilities,” he said. “And the example that is given in this agreement is a facilities example.” He also cited an IRS ruling — which can be used as precedent by taxpayers — as part of his conclusion. The ruling says that an educational nonprofit may fund “a training table for coaches and members of a university’s athletic teams,” including the funding of certain meals. “He is not interpreting the revenue ruling correctly,” Owens said. “The reason that the sports’ teams dining facility does qualify as an appropriate educational activity … [is based] on the assumption Congress has made that athletic activity in a university setting is an educational activity.” The eating clubs count many varsity athletes among their members, but club membership is open to all University students. McCarter, himself a lawyer, said he never checked the opinion that Haines gave him. “I was his client. He gave me a legal opinion. I’m entitled to rely on his legal opinion that he gave me in good faith,” McCarter said. Haines did not respond to more recent requests for comment with questions about his legal opinion and the agreement. “[The agreement] is a signal that if the IRS returns to conduct another examination, they are virtually certain to review those same issues,” Owens said. “And the degree of the adherence to how the IRS would interpret that collateral agreement is going to be important.” Asked about these observations in writing, Harrison released a one-sentence statement affirming that the Prospect Foundation has always played by the rules. “Princeton Prospect Foundation adheres at all times in good faith and with proper documentation to the provisions and underlying intent of the specific 1998 IRS collateral agreement with [the Prospect Foundation] in its determination of which eating club expenses are considered educationally-related and the extent to which such expenses may be paid from [Foundation] funds,” he wrote. He said as much in an earlier interview. “Keep in mind that the IRS, after that 1998 agreement which was 17 years ago and counting, they haven’t challenged anything, or come back or even audited us,” Harrison said. “And we don’t want to even tempt that to happen so we try to play by the book.”
EDITORIAL
P
Treat sex seriously
rinceton Preview has come and gone, and the University is preparing to welcome the Class of 2019 in September. For incoming freshmen, orientation week is a turbulent transition into a new social scene, and residential college advisers serve as guides to University policy and culture, including sexuality on campus. Next fall, RCAs will distribute a copy of “You’re So Sexy When You Aren’t Transmitting STDs,” a comic book meant to provide freshmen with information about consent and safe sex. Additionally, all freshmen will watch the play “The Way You Move,” which addresses campus sexual climate. While presenting this material engagingly is commendable, the University fails to treat the subject matter with the gravity it deserves and to include those who choose abstinence. Sexual well-being is no joking matter. Sure, people have different views about sex, but a handdrawn comic book with frivolous characters like “Dick McClean” and “Captain Buzzkill” — not to mention a cover adorned with penises growing on vines — is simply no way to discuss weighty matters like STDs or the psychological effects of sexual intimacy. During freshman week, the University treats other serious subjects — such as academic integrity, alcohol use, mental health and eating disorders — with due sensitivity, respect and gravity. Why not sex? Scrap the tasteless cartoons. A more concise but engaging booklet with simple, medically accurate diagrams would provide all the necessary information in a more dignified manner. A second problem with the comic book is its complete neglect to mention abstinence, let alone offer any strategies for maintaining abstinence if students so choose. Though the book explicitly addresses those who “have had sex, are having sex, or plan to have sex,” the fact that the book — with a condom taped to it — is mandatory handout material sends a message biased toward facilitating or even encouraging sexual activity. This fails to convey the full range of attitudes toward sex on campus and excludes students committed to or considering abstinence — whether for health reasons, moral reasons or both. Leaving off the gratuitous condom and including a section devoted to abstinence would remedy the problem. Besides the comic book, the mandatory orientation week play could also be improved. Currently titled “The Way You Move,” the play has been edited to focus increasingly on sexual assault in recent years; in last year’s revision of the play, however, the openly abstinent character was eliminated. Increased discussion of sexual assault in the play is valuable, but it does not require the removal of a character whose message is supportive toward a significant portion of the student body. Restoring this character would reduce the likelihood of alienating abstinent students, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be receptive to other key messages in the play. Besides simply being more welcoming, both the play and the comic book could steer students who are considering abstinence toward resources like Counseling and Psychological Services, the Office of Religious Life or Peer Health Advising. Since all freshmen are to receive the informational materials and to attend the play, the University should attend to the various needs of the incoming class, not just those planning to be sexually active. Treating sex seriously and incorporating abstinence into the freshman week curriculum that the University is now preparing would create a better, more inclusive environment for the incoming Tigers of 2019.
Opinion
Monday may 4, 2015
page 6
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
An Alternative to Big Sean
Rebecca Basaldua
guest contributor
A
bout three weeks ago, I co-organized a petition concerning Big Sean’s planned performance at this year’s Lawnparties. The primary aim was to ask the Undergraduate Student Government to rescind its invitation to Big Sean and replace his performance with one from an equally well-known artist. However, this was not the only goal: I also wanted to raise awareness about lyrics and actions that reflect and reinforce a broader culture of misogyny and homophobia. For those unfamiliar with Big Sean’s criminal history, it includes being arrested and charged with sex abuse in the third degree and forcible touching and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree of a female minor on August 4, 2011. The rapper and Willie Antonio “Sayitainttone” Hansbro pled guilty to a lesser crime: unlawful imprisonment. No less disturbing are Big Sean’s violently misogynistic and homophobic lyrics. As a member of the Faculty-Student Committee on Sexual Misconduct, I was particularly shocked that USG thought it was appropriate to announce Big Sean’s performance with a video highlighting lyrics such as “You little stupid ass bitch, I ain’t fuckin’ with you/You little, you little dumb ass bitch, I ain’t fuckin’ with you … Little stupid ass, I don’t give a fuck, I don’t give a fuck” during the time in which University students were taking the “We Speak” sexual misconduct climate survey. The Office for Civil Rights mandated the University to administer a climate survey it was found to be violating Title IX. The University, like over 50 other universities, has broken federal law by failing to treat the victims of sexual assault with the dignity and equity that they deserve. That our student government was bringing a singer with a history of sexual assault to campus and paying him with student tuition money while the student body was taking the “We Speak” survey was ironic and upsetting. Our initial attempts to voice our concerns were disheartening as well. University students dismissed Big Sean’s criminal past and reflexively questioned the women whom he was charged with sexually assaulting. Although studies such as the one by Kelly, Lovett & Reagan
(2005), show that only a tiny proportion of sexual assault reports are fabricated (see “False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assaults” for an indepth analysis on false reporting), some students on this campus automatically questioned whether the alleged victim tried to “frame” Big Sean and whether she lied about being assaulted because she was embarrassed after having consensual sex or sexual contact with him and/or Willie Antonio “Sayitainttone” Hansbro or because she wanted to gain attention. Unfortunately, this is an all too common and misogynistic narrative about women — they are liars out to get men. This pernicious myth silences victims of assault, leaving them to suffer alone, and exposes others to attack by the unchecked serial offender (studies find that rapists on average have 5.8 victims). Ending the typical practice of assuming an accusation of sexual assault is a lie is one step each of us can take. For those who doubt whether a performance by Big Sean would have a deleterious effect on campus, consider the impact that merely inviting him has had. Numerous survivors of sexual violence have approached organizers and me, expressing how “uncomfortable” they were with USG’s invitation. One peer discussed how the lyrics and Big Sean’s criminal background triggered memories of her sexual assault. Daily Princetonian columnist Tehila Wenger wrote that the invitation to Big Sean made her remember when she had been sexually harassed on the Street and triggered memories “of a high school girl [she] know[s] who deals with severe psychological trauma because her neighbor attacked her.” Since voicing our concerns, Duncan Hosie ’16 and I have both been subjected to repeated personal attacks and a strong backlash. Hosie has been called a “fag” or “faggot” and University students wrote on Yik Yak that they wished he would contract AIDS. I was called a “ho” on the Google Doc petition to show support against Big Sean’s performance. On Twitter, people tweeted me to say that I need “black dick.” One person wrote on the Google Doc that “women deserve rape, every year.” Duncan has been ridiculed and wished ill for his identity as a human being, and I was reduced to a sexual object. Some of the most passionate disagreement with the petition has come from students who feel that concerns about misogyny, on campus and in larger Ameri-
vol. cxxxix
can discourse, unfairly target black men. As a minority from the Mexican border, I am sympathetic to these concerns. It is undeniable that African-American men are disproportionately maligned within the media and popular culture as violent rapists and abusers. This portrayal is how America has rationalized its violent treatment toward people of color in the past, from slavery to lynch mobs to Jim Crow. Furthermore, it remains a dominant way Americans currently rationalize the brutal treatment of African-Americans by the police. We are not arguing that Big Sean’s lyrics are unique, nor do we believe that hip hop as a genre is particularly problematic. We would object just as vehemently if USG had invited a white singer whose music similarly celebrated misogyny. Furthermore, we think it must be acknowledged that much of the current music industry that produces this type of misogynistic music is composed of white men — not African-American men who are frequently associated with it. Big Sean’s performance perpetuates and affirms damaging stereotypes toward women and LGBT individuals and it will alienate survivors of sexual assault on our campus. It contradicts the University’s stated goals of empowering female students to participate actively in campus life. It rewards an individual who denies the humanity and dignity of others. Over the past couple of days, many students have asked us about the possibility of an alternative event for students to attend instead of the Big Sean concert. With the hard work of a diverse group of students and the generous financial and institutional support of the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students, we are happy to announce that during the Big Sean performance there will be an alternative event at Campus Club. A live band, GoodMan Fiske, will be performing in the Campus Club backyard from 4:15-6 p.m., and there will be a barbecue. We hope that students will come to eat, enjoy the live music and sing along to popular hits that do not demean women or perpetuate homophobia. We hope that our fellow students will attend this event, standing in solidarity with survivors of sexual assault who have experienced feelings of alienation because of Big Sean’s impending performance. Rebecca Basaldua is a senior in the politics department and a member of the FacultyStudent Committee on Sexual Misconduct. She can be reached at basaldua@princeton.edu
Anna Mazarakis ’16 editor-in-chief
Matteo Kruijssen ’16 business manager
EDITORIAL BOARD chair Jeffrey Leibenhaut ’16 Allison Berger ’18 Elly Brown ’18 Thomas Clark ’18 Paul Draper ’18 Daniel Elkind ’17 Theodore Furchgott ’18 James Haynes ’18 Zach Horton ’15 Mitchell Johnston ’15 Wynne Kerridge ’16 Cydney Kim ’17 Daphna Le Gall ’15 Sergio Leos ’17 Carolyn Liziewski ’18 Sam Mathews ’17 Connor Pfeiffer ’18 Ashley Reed ’18 Aditya Trivedi ’16 Andrew Tsukamoto ’15 Jillian Wilkowski ’15 Kevin Wong ’17
BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 vice presidents John G. Horan ’74 Thomas E. Weber ’89 secretary Kathleen Kiely ’77 treasurer Michael E. Seger ’71 Craig Bloom ’88 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Richard P. Dzina, Jr. ’85 William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John G. Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Betsy J. Minkin ’77 Alexia Quadrani Jerry Raymond ’73 Annalyn Swan ’73 Douglas Widmann ’90
Four Years Later Jack Moore ’15
..................................................
Cydney Kim ‘17, Kevin Wong ‘17, and Andrew Tsukamoto ‘15 abstained from the writing of this editorial.
Dissent We disagree for three reasons: (1) the objective of sex education is to educate incoming freshmen about sexual health and safety; (2) the programming employed by the University only needs to promote this objective; and (3) given the role of the University, distributing condoms to incoming freshmen is appropriate. Furthermore, we find the arguments made by the majority to be riddled with moral bias and to be devoid of objectivity. The University offers educational programming about sexual safety and health to promote communal health and well-being. Abstinence is not a matter of sexual health; rather, it is a matter of personal choice and morality. Since the relevant University interest is health, it would be unnecessary for the University to distribute materials related to morality. Condoms are a mechanism to promote sexual health; they facilitate and encourage safe sex on a campus where many students are sexually active. We recognize that the University must provide programming that is both informative and engaging. We agree that it would be imprudent to create comics about certain campus issues; however, we believe the comic book to which the majority has referred strikes the balance well. The majority fails to offer any reason beyond morality for always presenting sex education in stark medical terms. Would a sheet of statistics distributed in September spur this sort of discussion? We think not. For these reasons, we respectfully dissent. Signed by Daniel Elkind ‘17, Mitchell Johnston ‘15, Daphna Le Gall ’15, Jeffrey Leibenhaut ‘16, Carolyn Liziewski ‘18, Sam Mathews ‘17, Connor Pfeiffer ‘18, Aditya Trivedi ‘16 and Jillian Wilkowski ‘15 The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of The Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its Chair, the Opinion Editor and the Editor-In-Chief.
Erica Choi
Room Swap Period after Draw Time
columnist
M
y three future roommates and I had obsessively checked room reviews, floor plans and the kinds of rooms people got with our draw time last year. We clicked on the little hearts next to the room numbers that we liked and jotted our top choices (the quads with four singles known as Quingles, located in Bloomberg Hall for Butlerites). We were lucky enough to get the exact room we had wanted. But when my group chats with different friend groups started buzzing uncontrollably, I found that while some of my friends had been triumphant, many had not. While some did not get the type or size of the room they wanted, others had been separated from their friends. It seems like there could be ways to improve the status quo.
Currently, individual students need to request room improvements and switches after their draw has already taken place. The Princeton Housing & Real Estate Services says with regards to room improvement, “juniors and seniors, who participated in Upperclass Room Draw and had draw times in the bottom quarter of their class, may upgrade or “improve” their room selection. If you satisfy both of these conditions, you are eligible for reassignment to a room that becomes available after room draw and before July 1.” With regards to switching rooms, students are able to write requesting a room switch as long as they meet the following three criteria: one, “you may only switch rooms that were drawn with the same application weight”; two, “you may switch roommates within a group, but the integrity of the group must remain intact. For example, a mixed class group must have an older member in the suite”; three, “students who plan to cancel their contracts may not switch rooms.”
I suggest a room swap period after draw time, during which students can view the rooms that every student received publicly and request swaps with other students. This would be especially useful for room switches. There are many reasons why students would be interested in doing this. For one, a main criticism of draw group is that because it sets a maximum cap for the number of students in each draw group, it can split friend groups and leave one or two people away from their friends. For example, my friends wanted to live next to each other but could not. One of them would have been perfectly willing to live in a smaller room just so that he could have that proximity to the adjacent rooms. If there was a swap period, he could easily approach the student scheduled to live in the adjacent room, who might have liked the idea of getting a bigger room. Furthermore, students can change their minds after drawing due to shifts in friendship dynamics or living preferences. A room swap period
would make it easier for students to adjust accordingly. The only restriction to the room swap should be that it must take place within the student’s home residential college. In the room swap period, changes would be made with the consent of all parties involved in the swap. Therefore, the rules like “you have to maintain the integrity of a group” or “you may only switch with rooms that were drawn with the same application weight” would be irrelevant. If anything, these rules would hinder the student attempt to find the best living accommodation. Princeton room draw believes in the fairness coming from power of randomness. I, too, believe that the current system maximizes fairness. However, I do not believe that it is the most efficient. A small change like the addition of a room swap period could streamline the process significantly. Erica Choi is a freshman from Bronxville, N.Y. She can be reached at gc6@princeton.edu.
The Daily Princetonian
Monday may 4, 2015
page 7
Tigers follow up thrilling CWPA The difference between cheering for Championship with dominating win your city’s team and your college’s team WATER POLO Continued from page 8
.............
fenders and turned around to put in the shot. That play in itself might have defined the day for the Tigers — they just looked stronger, faster and more focused than their opponents. The last two goals on the game came from senior utility Jesse Holechek, concluding the fantastic performance.
Resting on their laurels, however, will do the Tigers little good as they prepare for next weekend. To advance to the semifinals of the NCAA Championships, they will have to defeat the hosts and reigning champions, the Stanford Cardinal. While the foe may be daunting, the results from the Tigers’ last four games means that they look incredibly promising going into next weekend. Particularly
important for them — if they are to remain successful — is to continue the aggression. Power plays were a large part of the Tigers’ ability to run away with this game and were a large reason they were able to take down Indiana to win the CWPA Championship. The Tigers have been in awesome form in the postseason so far. Tiger fans can only hope that the best is yet to come.
KIRA IVARRSON :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
The Tigers have to claw their way through the Stanford Cardinal, defending NCAA Champs, in the next round.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2015, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.
COLUMN Continued from page 8
be the personal connections between the fans and the
.............
our hockey teams”. Our attention tends to be far more spread out than the NYC fans I know. Granted, what I think of as an “average NYC fan” may not be representative of the city’s sports fans as a whole. Many of my friends are diehards for a certain sport, or at least are intensely passionate about 1 or 2 sports, tops. Casual fans from New York may have this same kind of mentality that I’ve seen in Princeton fans. However, even if this were so, I’d like to think that Princeton students pay attention to many different sports teams for a reason. That reason could very well
Watching your friends compete for greatness adds a whole new level of connectedness between you and your team. I think that many of us do pay attention to so many teams because we care more about the people in them. teams. Let’s be totally honest: most Knicks fans can’t
relate very well to Carmelo Anthony. The dude’s a multimillionaire, living a life we can only dream of. On the other hand, the people playing for a title-contending Princeton team might be the person in your SOC precept, or a girl in your zee group. Watching your friends compete for greatness adds a whole new level of connectedness between you and your team. I think that many of us do pay attention to so many teams because we care more about the people in them. It does make the losses a little more bitter to watch, but experiencing the victories becomes all the more sweet. So to all of you who play on a Princeton team, I’d like to say thank you. You make my life as a Knicks fan so much more bearable to endure.
Sports
Monday may 4, 2015
page 8
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } LACROSSE
Women’s lacrosse in first, men second at league championships By Miles Hinson sports editor
It was a thrilling weekend for Princeton lacrosse in the Ivy League Tournament, as the women’s team (14-3 overall, 7-0 Ivy League) earned first place. The men’s team (9-6, 4-2) fell in a thrilling championship round.
DANIELA COSIO :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
The Tigers were successful in getting their revenge against the Penn Quakers, winning the final round 14-11.
Women’s lacrosse Coming in first in the Ivy League tournament, The Tigers have earned an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. As Ivy League champions of the regular season, the women’s lacrosse team earned the right to host all the games of the Ivy League tournament. They made a statement to kick things off on Friday evening, defeating Harvard 15-8. With the game tied at 4-4 going into the second half, the Tigers came out and stained the field red with Crimson blood. After exchanging one goal apiece to start the half, Princeton went on a 9-0 run that absolutely put this game out of reach. Sophomore attack Olivia Hompe was a terror for the Crimson defense in this game. She put up a career high in
goals with six on the game, four of which coming in the aforementioned run. The game against Penn, however, was the match the Tigers were savoring. They were ready to redeem themselves after losing to the Quakers (13-4, 6-1) in the Ivy League Championship round last year. Unlike last year’s contest, which was a game primarily of runs (a 9-0 run from Penn, a 6-0 one from Princeton), this one was close throughout. Going into the half with a 6-4 lead, the Tigers ultimately pushed their lead out to 13-8 with just five minutes to go, a deficit Penn was unable to surmount with such little time. Hompe, who tied with senior midfielder Erin Slifer for most goals in with three, received MVP honors for the tournament. Men’s lacrosse The Tigers started off the tournament with some sweet revenge, grabbing an 11-7 win over Cornell (10-5, 4-2) who had just beaten them last Saturday to end the regular season. While the Tigers’ defense might have been struggling in that one — they gave up 15 goals to Cornell at Ithaca, N.Y.,
it was in full form on Friday evening. Much credit has to go to the performance of freshman goalie Tyler Blaisdell, who had a save percentage of 66.7 percent for the game. On the offensive side, the Tigers looked in strong form. Senior attack Mike MacDonald looked like he wanted to end his Princeton career with a bang. After a three-goal, two-assist performance in last weekend’s loss, he followed up with four goals and two assists. Sophomore attack Gavin McBride was second in scoring for the Tigers, putting in three on the game. MacDonald fared less well in the Tigers’ following match to Yale (11-4, 3-3). He made only one goal on nine shots in the game. While Orban stepped up his play, grabbing four goals, it wouldn’t be enough to surmount the Bulldogs. Going into the final quarter tied at 7, Orban scored the opening goals to give the Tigers the lead. It would be for naught, as Yale would outscore the Tigers 4-2 for the remainder of the period. The loss was doubly unfortunate in that it gave over to Yale the chance to clinch a spot in the NCAA Tournament.
W O M E N ’ S W AT E R P O L O
Tigers take down Wagner, on to NCAA Quaterfinals By Miles Hinson sports editor
It’s been a fantastic season for the Princeton women’s water polo team, and they look like they’re not ready for the fun to end. Playing at DeNunzio Pool on Saturday afternoon, the Tigers (30-3 overall, 12-1 Collegiate Water Polo Association) secured their spot in the championship bracket of the NCAA Tournament. They dominated the Wagner Seahawks (25-9, 10-2 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference) to the tune of 12-2, never even for a moment letting up on the visiting team. Surprisingly enough, the Tigers had to play in an atmosphere one might have
expected from a road game. Wagner fans were abundant and raucous on Saturday, cheering at every chance they could get. Those chances, however, were few and far between. The Tigers ended the first period already up 5-0, with senior utility Ashley Hatcher, freshman 2-meter Chelsea Johnson, junior utility Pippa Temple and freshman utility Emily Smith getting on the board. Johnson had a particularly good opening period, with two goals. The onslaught just continued thereupon. Smith would pick up two goals in the second period to complete her hat trick. Hatcher and senior utility Taylor Dunstan got in on the action in the second period as well
to bring the score to a whopping 9-0 by the halftime. While the Tigers’ defense was clearly very strong throughout this game (junior goalie Ashleigh Johnson had seven saves by halftime), it appeared that the Wagner players were quite hesitant to put up shots during the game. Whether intimidated by Johnson or just not trusting in themselves, they didn’t seem able to take advantage of the few opportunities afforded to them. The second half started out the same as the first. Hatcher opened up by completing her own hat trick, as she got deep into the Seahawks’ defense, outhustled the goalie and one of the deSee WATER POLO page 7
KIRA IVARRSON :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
The Tigers had an end-to-end victory on Saturday, defeating the MAAC champs Wagner Seahawks.
COLUMN
The Knicks and the Tigers - being a sports fan in two different contexts By Miles Hinson sports editor
As Princeton students, we are lucky for many reasons. We attend what is arguably the best university in the world. We have easy access to professors who are at the top of their fields. We are given the money to start clubs or pursue projects that most people can only dream of doing. The list, my friends, can go on and on. But I can add yet one more: we are very privileged sports fans. It’s rare for us to go a season without at least one team
captivating us with their wonderful play. See: the bonfire-bearing football team of the past two years, and the extraordinary women’s basketball team of the 2014-2015 season. As sports editor, it is my great honor to cover so many of these teams. Unfortunately, when I decide to take a break from writing for a while and return to my other daily activities, I have to come face-to-face with the darkest truth in my life: I am a New York Knicks fan. Prometheus, the Greek Titan who had his liver gnawed on daily by an eagle,
did not suffer the agony I did throughout the 2014-2015 basketball season. Waking up and seeing yet another loss by the Knicks ruined many a day for me this year. We are also paying an aging superstar (Carmelo Anthony) upwards of $24 million a year. Of course, he probably spends this money mostly on the suits that he will wear courtside, given that he played in less than half of the games in the season. I could go on and on about the agony of loving the Knicks. I could bring up our 17-65 record — worst in our conference, and second
worst in the NBA. I could describe in detail for you the pitiful roster we fielded this season, containing career journeymen, castaways from other teams and totally unproven rookies. This, however, is for another time. What I want to point out is that as a New Yorker, my emotional investment is almost completely on the Knicks. For example, the New York Rangers, one of the city’s hockey teams, reached the Stanley Cup Finals in the 2014 season, and nearly became champions of the NHL. I, however, was totally preoccupied with the
Knicks, and paid little attention. This phenomenon of going “all-in” with a given sports team is something I’ve noticed among many New York sports fans. There’s one team we live or die by — the other teams, barring the times they achieve massive levels of success, tend to fall by the wayside. There are, of course, noticeable exceptions. If the Jets go to the Super Bowl, obviously the entire city is going to have all eyes on them. Of course, if the Jets were to go to the Super Bowl, I’d probably build a nuclear bunker because it
would indicate that the End of Times is upon us. Forgive the digression. The point is, New York fans seem to be very different from sports fans at Princeton. Perhaps others have a totally different viewpoint from mine, but it seems that many Princeton students, no matter what sport they consider their “favorite”, are incredibly supportive of many sports at Princeton, provided those teams are doing well. I imagine very few Princeton students would say “I only follow our basketball team” or “I only follow See COLUMN page 7
Tweet of the day
Inside
Follow us
“My allergies are getting this W today”
Read more about the women’s water polo team and their 12-2 victor over Wagner. SPORTS PAGE 7
‘Prince’ Sports is on Twitter! Follow us at
Amir Bell (@A_Bell05), freshman guard on men’s basketball
www.twitter.com/princesports
for live news and reports!