May 8, 2017

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday May 8, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 59

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Rain drops, drop top, drop the beat: Spring Lawnparties 2017

By Marcia Brown head news editor

Grey skies, chilly air, and even a few showers could not keep University students from flocking to see and hear spring 2017 Lawnparties artists at many of the eating clubs on Sunday.

Students stood in line near 1879 Arch to pick up fluorescent purple wristbands that would allow them to take advantage of more than a dozen artists and food options. Because wristbands were available as early as 10 a.m., breakfast bagels were available for students to grab on their way to their respective eating clubs or the various artists.

With options ranging from Taco Bell, to Tico’s Juice Bar, to Nomad Pizza, students were overwhelmed with food choices to help them make it through a day that started as early as 9 a.m. for some.

“Despite the weather, I feel that today’s Lawnparties festivities went very well,” wrote U-Councilor Devin Kilpatrick ‘19 in an email.

“In particular, the student acts at the various eating clubs and student opener for Jeremih were very well received.”

Doors opened for Jeremih at Quadrangle Club at 2:30 p.m., but he didn’t take the stage until around 3:30 p.m., performing until well after 5 p.m. J.I.D., a rapper who recently signed with rapper J. Cole’s Dreamville label, opened for Jeremih, getting the audience in Quad’s backyard focused and ready for Jeremih.

RYAN YAO :: DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Jeremih showcased several of his past top-ten hits as the Spring Lawnparties headliner.

Asking the crowd if they would like to hear old or new songs, Jeremih invited heavy audience participation. The crowd told him they wanted his old songs, and he obliged.

His act featured female backup dancers, a live drummer, as well as his own piano skills. Dressed in a t-shirt, jacket and black Russian fur hat, Jeremih was able to rally the crowd even in the cold.

Jeremih performed many

of his hits, including “oui,” “Don’t Tell ‘Em,” “Birthday Sex,” “Planez,” and “Down on Me.” A Chicago artist, Jeremih has been known for hit songs like “Don’t Tell ‘Em” and “Birthday Sex” during his eight-year career. He is also an iHeart Music Award winner and has had several songs on the Billboard Hot 100, including three top-ten hits.

Other acts included Steel

Drums at Cloister Inn, Never Shout Never at Tower Club, student DJ Jovan Jeremic ’17 at Tiger Inn, R. City at Colonial Club, Rubix Kube at Cottage Club, Prinze George at Charter Club, Michael Carsley at Cloister Club and DJ Gazzo at Ivy Club. DJ Relley Rozay, also known as Durelle Napier ‘17, was the undergraduate student headliner this year.

Terrace featured acts including Sensemaya Afrobeat All-

U . A F FA I R S

U. defends Handshake in face of privacy concerns

COURTESY OF PRINCETON CAREER SERVICES

Handshake, a widely-recognized platform for career services and talent recruitment, faces concerns over sharing users’ personal information without their consent.

By Kevin Agostinelli staff writer

An Inside Higher Ed article published March 30, 2017, sparked some anxiety about students’ privacy on Handshake, the partnering recruitment platform for University Career Services and one of the fastest-growing talent-recruitment startups in the country.

Inside Higher Ed interviewed a sample of students and alumni from universities across the country that utilize Handshake. According to the report, many claimed they did not remember uploading personal information such as their GPA onto Handshake or

In Opinion

even signing up for the service altogether.

The universities accused of disclosing information about their students’ grades without their written consent – which would be a violation of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act – maintain that at some point the students gave Handshake permission to display that information.

The Inside Higher Ed article suggests that this disconnect may be because of users’ cursory reading of the specific terms of service on Handshake’s website, combined with the fact that each college uploads a certain level of in-

Guest Contributor Brett Williams Fitz Randolph comments on the Honor Code’s penalties, Columnist Emily Erdos examines the University’s proposed transfer program, Senior Columnist Bhaamati Borkhetaria defends her arguments about conservative viewpoint suppression, and The Editorial Board proposes that a session be added to Orientation programming on engaging with opposing viewpoints in academic and nonacademic settings. PAGE 4

formation about students.

However, a former head at the U.S. Department of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office pointed out that a potential FERPA violation could arise if Handshake received student data from a college that was not specified in the privacy policy and then shared that data with recruiters.

Even if these colleges are not technically liable, students argue that universities should not be hiding under the legal curtain of the terms and conditions of Handshake’s website. Instead, they should be much more transparent and

responsible about what student information they release to recruiting platforms and other third-party members.

Yet the story at the University is quite different. In contrast with the disconnect at other institutions, Director of Princeton Career Services Eva Kubu confirmed that the University’s relationship with Handshake is a much safer one, aimed at protecting as much personal student information as possible.

According to Kubu, the University only shares “directory-level information” – name, residential college, and expected year of graduation – with Handshake and nothing more. Any other personal information, including GPA, must be manually inputted by students.

In terms of profiles, Handshake allows all students to choose whether they want to publicly share their profile or have it remain private. However, University student profiles are never fully “public”; employers can only find student profiles if the student has connected directly to their company through Handshake’s application process and already agreed to share their profile publicly on the site, according to Michael Caddell, Senior Associate Director of Strategic Communications & Marketing at Princeton Career Services.

Kubu also emphasized that there is a strict vetting proSee HANDSHAKE page 3

Today on Campus 7:30 p.m.: Princeton University Wind Ensemble Spring Concert. Richardson Auditorium in Alexander Hall.

Stars, Thumpasaurus, and Mornings. Bendheim also hosted special guests, including Caroline Reese and Astro Lasso.

“Lawnparties is just one example of the great things that can come out of cooperation between the USG and the Eating Clubs that benefit all students — not just students affiliated with one of the 11 Eating Clubs,” Kilpatrick wrote.

USG Social Chair Lavinia Liang ’18 said she was pleased with the way lawnparties turned out and was happy to see the school year end well for students.

Tom Hoopes ’20, a member of the Lawnparties team within the USG Social Committee, was tasked with buying supplies for the star.

“I had to buy anything between three cases of smart water, lemons, tea, bananas, and mouthwash for Jeremih,” Hoopes wrote in an email.

It seemed to work, however, because students voiced enthusiasm for the act.

“After a few technical difficulties, Jeremih turned out to be a fun performer and his hat really made the show,” said Simone Downs ’20.

“Lawnparties is always one of the highlights of my semester,” said Katherine Trout ‘19.

For many students, this was their favorite lawn parties yet.

“This was the first time I stayed out the entire time,” said Pelumi Odimayo ’19. “It was lit.”

Staff writers Katie Peterson and Jackson Artis contributed reporting.

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

U. physics professor wins Cottrell Scholar Award

By Samuel Garfinkle staff writer

One of the greatest remaining mysteries of the universe is the nature of socalled “dark matter.” First proposed by Lord Kelvin and Henri Poincaré in the early 20th century, dark matter, which is thought to account for nearly 85 percent of matter in the universe, has defied understanding ever since.

For assistant professor of physics Mariangela Lisanti, the question of dark matter has been a key driver of her research, especially after she came to the University in 2010. Now, having won a 2017 Cottrell Scholar Award, Lisanti will help bring enthusiasm for this question to a new generation of students.

The Cottrell Scholar Award, presented by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, honors professors for both research and teaching, selecting those “who produce significant research and educational outcomes,” according to the Research Corporation website.

Lisanti was one of 24 award recipients for the year 2017, and the only one from the See PHYSICS page 2

WEATHER

ON CAMPUS

HIGH

59˚

LOW

39˚

Partly Cloudy chance of rain:

11 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Monday May 8, 2017

Lawnparties 2017: Headliner

RYAN YAO :: DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Students gathered in the Quad backyard despite dreary conditions.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

The Daily Princetonian

Monday May 8, 2017

Lisanti: Goal is to involve students in high-level research PHYSICS Continued from page 1

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

University. The award provides $100,000 over three years and is to be used for both research and teaching.

In terms of her research, Lisanti will continue her work on improving sensitivity to dark matter annihilation signals. Using data from the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Lisanti says she will explore both traditional and alternative modes of dark matter, which will allow for a broader search, according to a press release.

Lisanti will also use a portion of the grant to fund development of a new seminar class in the physics department. The physics department already has three underclassmen seminars — PHY 209, 210, and 211 — which serve as introductions to computational, experimental, and theoretical physics, respectively. This new seminar, however, aims to provide a different set of skills, focusing even more heavily on research and less on specific analytical tools, according to Lisanti.

“The primary goal … is to help students get involved

in high-level research early on as undergraduates and to teach them the necessary skills to succeed at this, regardless of the specific area they choose to pursue,” Lisanti wrote in an email to the ‘Prince.’

While the course is intended for prospective physics majors, it will be open to students from other disciplines as well, Lisanti said. Furthermore, the course will aim to cover a broad range of techniques, as well as both experimental and theoretical research, through different projects during the semester.

“The course will introduce programming and numerical techniques, as well as scientific writing and presentation skills,” Lisanti wrote in the email. “So that students can simultaneously learn about current open questions in the field, these projects will be designed around one of the greatest mysteries in physics today: the nature of dark matter.”

The seminar, which is scheduled to be offered in the spring of 2018, will be open to first-year students and sophomores.

Kubu: U. protecting student safety HANDSHAKE Continued from page 1

............. cess for all employers who request access to the University’s Handshake platform.

These employers and recruiters who engage with University students are obligated to follow specific best practices guidelines set by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, as well as the University’s nondiscrimination policies and Career Services’ policies.

Apart from these guidelines, these employers must show that they can provide a “substantive learning opportunity” for University students, Kubu added. According to the Career Services privacy policy, no third-party recruiters such as executive search firms are eligible to participate in Handshake.

“We want to make sure that we are truly protecting student safety when it comes to these opportunities,” Kubu said.

The University has been utilizing Handshake after its agreement with the career services platform since September 2015. Career Services involved current University students in the decision-making process to partner with Handshake, inviting them to the Handshake demo to try out the site and factoring in their feedback from the very beginning, Kubu explained.

Students were most impressed by Handshake’s social interface, allowing it to be much more interactive and user-friendly than traditional recruitment platforms, Kubu added.

The site has grown in popularity every year at the University. Caddell mentioned that as of March 2017, 93 percent of the undergraduate student body has been participating in Handshake to some degree. 84 percent of the current freshman class is already engaged with the system.

Because every University student receives a Handshake profile, all parents of the incoming Class of 2021 were invited to attend a Career Services event during Princeton Preview in April, Caddell said.

There, Career Services explained the basics of Handshake and informed all parents that more information on how

incoming freshmen students can sign up while protecting their private data arrives the summer before attending the University.

Career Services is still constantly absorbing student feedback about the site in order and forming it into operational recommendations for Handshake’s executives, Caddell added.

Both Caddell and Kubu explained that new employers are being added to the system all the time based on student demand, and students have recently shown a greater interest in jobs relating to arts and engineering.

In addition, Career Services is actively working to add more and more companies led

by University alumni to the Handshake system in an effort to further strengthen the University’s robust alumni network. Furthermore, Career Services is trying to expand its programs such as Princeton in Washington, which promotes student-alumni engagement in the D.C. area during the summer.

“We are trying to make sure that every student has substantive contact with alums, from the beginning of their time at Princeton all the way through connecting with their full first-time opportunity,” Kubu said.

Handshake was founded in 2014 by three engineering students at Michigan Technological University with the goal of providing the 20 million higher education students across the country an equal opportunity to any employer, no matter where they go to school, the Handshake website reads.

According to its main website Handshake has partnered with more than 170 university career centers and more than 3.5 million students since its founding, not only aiding the students but making it easier for more than 120,000 companies to recruit most efficiently beyond their traditional “core” schools.

In a continued effort to make the site easier for the average user to understand, Handshake is preparing to update its terms of service ahead of the National Association of Colleges and Employers conference in June 2017, according to the Inside Higher Ed article.

page 3

Opinion

Monday May 8, 2017

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Where will the apple fall?

Emily Erdos columnist

P

rinceton’s exclusivity is old news, and it seems as if it’s embedded in the University culture. For at least two decades, Princeton has not accepted undergraduate transfer students. Today, Princeton is the only Ivy League school that does not. It keeps us exclusive, once again.

But, according to the University’s Strategic Framework for 2016, “the board [of Trustees] authorized the reinstatement of a small transfer admissions program.” This is radical. Accepting transfers would mean that Princeton would allow students to apply to enter the University as undergraduate second- or third-year students, rather than first-years.

The framework is taciturn on the details of the transfer program other than to say that, “Experience at other universities shows that transfer programs can provide a vehicle to attract students with diverse backgrounds and experiences, such as qualified military veterans and students from lowincome backgrounds, including some who might begin their careers at community colleges.”

Transfer students have not been admitted to Princeton since 1990. The plan cites student body diversity and expansion as the motivation for the restoration of the program. This decision is part of a broader initiative in the Strategic Framework to increase the undergraduate student body by 125 students per class, or 500 total. There is no specific timeline for reinstitution, as the plan just says, “for 2018.”

Last year, the Editorial Board made recommendations for a small transfer program, including admitting transfer students to boost diversity, improve athletic teams, and be as competitive a pool as regular admission.

Princeton needs to take this reinstatement step gingerly.

The Board’s recommendations for reinstatement offer a lot of opportunity to reinforce exclusivity at Princeton.

University administration needs to look beyond these recommendations and look to its neighbor institutions for guidance. Other elite schools with transfer programs should serve

as learning material for Princeton. The way the program is implemented will decide where the apple will fall: will Princeton further its culture of exclusivity? Or will it follow through with its promise of diversity?

The way that Princeton defines “diversity” here does not match the word’s typical connotation. From the context in the strategic plan, diversity describes students who could not choose a private university as a high school senior, typically due to financial reasons. This would allow those who chose a military institution — which are typically “free” with five years of service — or an affordable community college the opportunity to re-apply to private institutions from a more financially stable position, or, alternatively, to receive more attention and consideration than they may have received in regular application.

The other Ivy League schools have admirable programs for transfer students. Each has a unique policy from which Princeton can learn from.

Yale has Transfer Student Counselors, or “TroCos,” who are students who transferred to Yale previously and are “designed to help incoming transfer students adjust to life at Yale and explore the full realm of their interests.”

In a typical year, Yale accepts 20 to 30 transfer students out of approximately 1,000 applicants, making for a 2–3 percent acceptance rate. But acceptance rate isn’t a good yardstick for inclusivity, because each school has a different undergraduate population, a different amount of student housing, and a different capacity of students that it is able to enroll. These varying factors are quantified by the range of transfer student acceptance rates among Ivy League schools.

With the second lowest acceptance rate, Yale is candid about the fact that they “must deny admission to most qualified applicants.” They also have a statement remarkably similar to the one in the Strategic Framework, saying, “diversity within the student body is important, and the Admissions Committee works to select a class of contributing individuals from as broad a range of backgrounds as possible.”

Of the 18 Yale TroCos for this year, there are only three who

previously attended a two-year college or military academy before enrolling at Yale. The other 15 students are from well-established four-year institutions, either private or public, with most being of similar caliber to Yale.

Undoubtedly, from reading their bios, these TroCos are unique and come from a range of diverse backgrounds. Unlike Princeton, Yale makes no statement directly referencing community colleges and military background as transfer student assets. However, I think given its statement in the Strategic Framework, Princeton has the opportunity to have a higher ratio of students from twoyear and military institutions.

These applicants are currently outliers at the University, but could become common on campus if the transfer program made them a priority.

At Cornell, transfers are welcomed with open arms, no matter why they are transferring and no matter the place from where they are transferring. Cornell’s transfer student acceptance rate is higher than the regular applicant acceptance rate; approximately 650 transfer students join the Cornell campus each year.

The first female graduate of Cornell was a transfer student and transferring has been part of Cornell since its founding.

According to Cornell’s admissions website, “whatever the reason, Cornell University welcomes transfer students to a degree unmatched in the Ivy League.” Unlike Brown or Yale, Cornell makes no commitment to background diversity in transfer admissions.

Princeton could learn from the high acceptance rate. Although the number of applications makes this difficult to control, to the maximum of the campus’ capacity, the admissions committee should admit as many qualified applicants as possible. Give as many students as possible the opportunity for an elite education, and deprioritize the notoriously low acceptance rate that already exists for regular applicants.

Brown has a column on its undergraduate student blog, entitled “Second Time Around,” where two female transfer students reflect and share their experiences as transfer students, with articles as simple — yet, significant — as “Brown abbv’ns + A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S.” to

more pragmatic comments on “Getting Involved on Campus.”

The blog references the higher transfer acceptance rate of 100–200 students per year.

Although Brown has a higher acceptance rate than all the other Ivies besides Cornell, its transfer application program is “need-aware.” Unlike “needblind,” this means that your financial situation is taken into account when they consider your admission. “Need-aware” is typically seen as discriminatory towards applicants from lower-income backgrounds, in that applying for financial aid may weaken their application.

This isn’t a judgment of Brown for being “need-aware” — that’s Brown’s decision, and I respect it. It’s not cheap to admit 200 students on full financial aid. However, I think that Princeton can find it within the 22 billion dollar endowment to be need-blind and accept students purely based on merit and diversity.

This is no critique of the systems at Yale, Cornell, and Brown. Rather, it’s information that Princeton can learn from.

Princeton has the distinction of going last. We can observe, learn, emulate, and evaluate the programs around us as we re-mold our own transfer program. This is Princeton’s opportunity to break out of its stereotyped exclusivity — the Princeton transfer program has the potential to be revolutionarily inclusive.

Here’s hoping the apple falls far from the tree. Here’s hoping the inclusivity of our transfer bites at the exclusivity that exists on campus.

Although we may not be able to control the acceptance rate due to finite amounts of campus resources and possibly infinite numbers of applications, there are other aspects of transfer admission that we can, and should, control to meet the vague criteria that the plan outlines. Selecting diverse students from institutions unlike Princeton and making the admission process “need-blind” is certainly a start.

If this apple falls far from the tree, then maybe its seed will inspire a whole new tree entirely: a tree of inclusivity.

Emily Erdos is a sophomore studying Sociology from Harvard, Mass. and be contacted at eerdos@ princeton.edu.

(noun)parties

vol. cxli

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 William R. Elfers ’71 Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Joshua Katz Kathleen Crown Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Randall Rothenberg ’78 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Annalyn Swan ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Jerry Raymond ’73

141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 associate news editors Abhiram Karuppur ’19 Claire Lee ‘19 head opinion editor Newby Parton ’18 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Nicholas Wu ’18 head sports editor David Xin ’19 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Claire Coughlin ’19 head street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 associate street editors Andie Ayala ’19 Catherine Wang ’19 web editor Sarah Bowen ’20 head copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 associate copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 chief design editor Quinn Donohue ’20 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19

Marisa Chow ’17

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

NIGHT STAFF managing editors Chritina Vosbikian ’18 news editors Marcia Brown ’19 Claire Lee ’19 design editors Quinn Donohue ’20 sports David Xin ’19 copy Jordan Antebi ’19 Alexandra Wilson ’20 Marina Latif ’19 Arthur Mateos ’19 Minh Hoang ’19

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Defending the Honor Code’s standard penalty

Brett Williams Fitz Randolph Guest Contributor

W

hile I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, my grandfather Alan Fitz Randolph

(B.S., Chemistry, Princeton, 1913), a descendant of Nathaniel Fitz Randolph, who had contributed the original land for Princeton University in 1753, spoke often of his pride in the University.

It wasn’t until I was nineteen

years old that I discovered, by accident, that he had received a degree in Chemical Engineering from Columbia University in 1916. When I asked my parents why my grandfather never talked about his time at Columbia,

they told me that he never discussed it because he did not feel it was a gentlemen’s school, due to having monitors in the exam rooms, instead of an honor code like Princeton.

Sincerely,

Brett Williams Fitz Randolph Cambridge, Mass.

Monday May 8, 2017

Bhaamati Borkhetaria

Correcting the record: a response

senior columnist

T

The Daily Princetonian

he following article clarifies and elaborates on certain points I made in an article I recently wrote and responds to some of the criticism it has received.

First of all, I’d like to clarify that nowhere in my article do I make the broad claim that all conservatives are racist, misogynistic, or ignorant. I am not evaluating what the spectrum of conservative nuance looks like — that is an article for another day.

My exact quotes, if taken in context, designate certain aspects of conservative belief as being harmful and make the claim that conservatism upholds existing power structures which benefit rich, white, heterosexual, men. When I use the following words: “racist, misogynistic, and often ignorant views,” I am referring to people who do not want to “pay for birth control under the Affordable Care Act or … share a bathroom with a transgender individual or who [believe that] their religion is not represented by corporate America.” Certainly, these issues warrant more nuanced conversations but these views are inherently harmful to women, trans women and men, and anyone who is not Christian.

I would like to clarify that my last paragraph’s negative qualifiers refer more to

the President and people of similar beliefs than to all conservatives in general.

I certainly don’t shy away from labelling the alt-right and our President as racist and misogynistic but even that is not the point.

I am more concerned with certain conservative ideologies, which are empirically harmful to certain demographics of people.

My point is that conservatives cannot claim oppression from people who are harmed by their views.

The way I use the words “sexist” and “racist” is as a way to denote qualifiers of people who knowingly or unknowingly hold views that could cause harm to a certain designated group of people. Motivation is not something I believe needs to be factored in. Take this example: if I really believe in a study about a tooth fairy who grants people’s deepest, darkest wishes, then can I go around knocking people’s teeth out at will as long as I believe that I’m doing these people a favor and my heart’s in the right place? And can I blame you for wanting to protect your teeth from me? Racism and homophobia are both quite like this example — when someone has views that harm other people, it is not necessary to go looking for a positive motivation. If someone is racist towards me, I will react accordingly by taking offense whether the racism comes from disproven

studies or not. And I cannot and should not be accused of reverse-oppression.

The view that Ryan Anderson ’04 espouses, as Isaac Martinez ’19 points out in his response column, is based on outdated studies but is still homophobic in its intent if not its delivery. To validate his views (no matter his motivation) without allowing affected individuals (queer people and allies) to label him as homophobic is extremely unfair. And labelling this designation of Anderson’s homophobia as an oppression is deplorable.

In my article, I do not mean to suggest that conversations going forward about controversial topics should literally involve name-calling. But I am strongly for the rights of individuals to speak out against and be offended by views that might be politically or personally harmful to them or to the people they care about. And in turn these individuals — whether they be part of a majority or a minority — cannot be labelled as the oppressor.

Considering that conservatism is an amalgam of ideologies that canonically support existing power systems — these ideologies are present in our course material and are even present in day-to-day interactions we have with other people living within the system. For example, the existing patriarchal sys-

tem means that sometimes a female professor is not given the same authority as a male professor on campus. It is a system that we live with. For someone to suggest, on campus, that a woman’s role is in the home is not to espouse to a radically new and easily persecuted thought; rather, the effects of this way of thinking can be seen loosely in my example of the female professor. Therefore, when I (along with a good portion of campus) passionately oppose the view of the domestic woman as an ideal, I am by no means creating a system of oppression.

I am not suggesting that all conservatives believe in this ideal or support the patriarchal system, but I am making the claim that conservatives who share similar views that bolster an existing hegemony cannot claim oppression merely because their ideas are designated as sexist or racist by the very people who are hurt by them. If conservatives clamor for freedom of speech then they must also support our right to freedom of speech.

If they have the freedom to express certain sexist and racist ideas, we should have the freedom to call those ideas sexist and racist.

Here, the words sexist and racist are not expletives meant to shut people down who disagree with me but rather to designate the type of harm being committed by certain ideas.

page 5

Certainly, even as the minority, conservatives are given a voice on our campus through both existing systems and through evident freedom of speech and press. If a conservative feels reluctant to voice a racist or sexist opinion, it’s not a suppression so much as the shame of being found out by your peers as someone who does not care about those who are indeed oppressed in our society. This phenomenon is being framed by certain people as an oppression of the conservative minority by the majority — but actually this is just the backlash by historically oppressed minorities (and allies) against the existing power structures that still create an unfair and unbalanced society. That being said, I firmly believe that everyone should, by all means, voice their opinion — in fact, please, please do! Balanced discussions are the backbone of intellectual progress. But please be open to conversation and do not claim that you are oppressed if your ideas are labelled as sexist, racist, or homophobic in that they have been historically and academically proven harmful to certain demographics.

Bhaamati Borkhetaria is a sophomore from Jersey City, N.J. She can be reached at bhaamati@princeton.edu.

EDITORIAL

Engage with opposing viewpoints during orientation 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 Co-Chairs, the Opinion Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. It can be reached at editorialboard@dailyprincetonian.com.

A

s the 2016-2017 academic year comes to an end, the University is already preparing to welcome the next incoming class in the fall. First-years will participate in a host of activities that comprises the University’s orientation program.

This program is designed to ease the transition to campus life “by introducing first-year students to the values, expectations, and resources of the inclusive Princeton community.” Some of the objectives outlined on the orientation website are “Intellectual Engagement and Scholarly Inquiry,” “Community values, expectations and standards,” and “Inclusion and Belonging.” Presentations and activities at the university-wide, residential college, and zee group level seek to achieve these objectives. Part of the orientation process includes discussions on the Preread, where students will engage in small groups and be introduced to “thoughtful discussion.” While the Pre-read discussion might foster debate from different viewpoints concerning the Pre-read, there is no activity specifically dedicated to introducing students to engaging with ideas that they disagree with in either an academic or non-academic context.

The Board believes that orientation should include a presentation on engaging with opposing viewpoints.

Due to the great diversity of Princeton’s community, students are likely to encounter ideas and speech with which they disagree during their four years here. Each incoming first-year student will be exposed to new classmates

from all around the world as well as different ideas from professors and guest speakers. Further, learning how to engage with different viewpoints is critical not only to fostering a cohesive campus community, but also for engaging in effective scholarship.

Princeton’s Statement on Free Expression, which outlines the University’s stance on free speech, recognizes that “fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.”

The right to free expression and the proper academic response to opposing ideas are inextricably linked. Unscholarly reactions to opposing ideas may end up suppressing free speech, if students are not willing to present contrarian and unpopular viewpoints under the fear of intimidation. The University should place equal importance on conveying the right to free expression and the responsibility to engage with opposing views appropriately throughout the orientation program.

The Board recommends that the University expose incoming first-years to student groups and faculty that are involved in debates on campus to explain the important role of intellectual discourse in University values. These students and faculty would be able to explain through their Princeton experience the best means of engaging with opposing views. The presentations made by students and faculty involved in debate are not limited to political discourse. On the contrary, this orientation activity should cover engagement with differing views in all settings on campus, including precept discussions, scholarly reviews, formal debates, and even op-ed writing. For instance, Professor Robert P. George and Cornel West GS ’80 have held many dis-

cussions in the past on engaging with different ideas besides their personal disagreements on many issues.

Outside of the classroom, engaging with opposing viewpoints has practical implications in students’ everyday lives. If students are emotionally distressed by opposing viewpoints, the University should do more to teach students how to engage constructively with opposing views.

In addition, bringing these groups to the orientation process would enhance the program. This presentation would reinforce the close student-faculty relations that are unique to Princeton, and it would improve orientation by including more non-first-year students and faculty.

The dissent contends that such an orientation program would only truly be neutral if it included “every possible form of discourse that students might engage in.” At an academic institution, it is necessary for students to learn how to disagree with each other using academic methods, such as scholarly review and debate. This does not mean that other means of disagreement, such as non-violent protests and sitins, ought to be banned. It simply means that academic engagement falls under the University’s mission to train scholars.

While the University hopes that incoming firstyear students will “reflect on best practices for meaningful engagement” during the orientation process, it is necessary to prepare incoming students to engage with opposing ideas at Princeton.

The University should take advantage of the many students and faculty on campus who would be best able to introduce incoming firstyear students to this fundamental principle of free expression. A presentation to first-year students during orientation week would enhance the orientation process and better prepare students for their time at Princeton.

E

Dissent

ngaging with opposing viewpoints is an essential part of the academic experience.

However, the dissent opposes the notion that the University should present students with any particular mode, standard, or best practice in which to engage in proper intellectual discourse as this would be an act of politicizing the University. The Majority’s proposal would only be feasible, apolitical, and neutral if the University were to provide every possible form of discourse that students might engage in, including written petitions, town halls, nonviolent protests, and sit-ins among others.

There are many ways to engage with opposing viewpoints, and the University ought not instruct students on how to do so. Doing so would limit free speech despite the Majority’s determination to protect this right. There is no one form of correct or appropriate speech in the academic institution.

As long as the University community is not threatened with violence, various forms of speech and discourse are permissible. Therefore, the University ought not establish any correct or proper form of discourse through an Orientation proceeding.

The Majority cited previous discussions between Professors Robert P. George and Cornel West GS ’80 as an ideal model for academic discourse.

While greatly disagreeing on a myriad of topics, the two are able to debate openly and remain close friends. Though we do not deny that their example is admirable, we believe that there exists other forms of engagement such as peaceful sit ins and protests that can also be used to resolve conflict.

When the course of events necessitates drastic change, intellectual discourse may not be the best way to address such concerns. A mere conversation did not lead to American independence, civil rights for Blacks, or marriage equality for the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes came through pressure, conversation, but above all, these changes took

action. We applaud the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students for continually sponsoring events on speech, discourse, and direct action from areas across the political spectrum. The University currently does a tremendous job in supporting the needs of its students whose voices demand to be heard. Through financially supporting viewpoints from across the spectrum, the University is not taking an official stance on the most appropriate form of speech.

While the dissent values the need for students to engage with opposing viewpoints on campus via conversation, we charge that a University stance on how to do so would limit the acceptability of other, perhaps more nonconventional, forms of engagement on college campuses such as walkouts or strikes. The previous conversations, petitions, protests and sit-ins of Princeton’s Black Justice League placed pressure on the University to create change in the following areas: the formation of the African American Studies department in 2015, increased funding for campus identity centers, the formation of the Task Force on General Education requirements, and the creation of committees to diversify the names of various buildings on campus. These changes were spurred through private conversations between students and administrators, but also through direct forms of protest. If the University were to create an orientation program endorsing one single form of discourse, the work done by groups such as the BJL across college campuses would be diminished. In a country built upon various forms of speech, the University ought not take an official stance on the issue through the Majority’s proposed orientation programming because doing so invalidates the important role of student activism.

Signed by William Pugh ’20, Ashley Reed ’18

Sports

Monday May 8, 2017

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S LACROSSE

Men’s Lacrosse falls to Brown, Sowers and McBride break program records

By Chris Murphy staff writer

Last weekend, the men’s lacrosse team faced a heartbreaking loss to Brown in the semifinals of the Ivy League tournament.

Despite the rainsoaked field and the downpour that ensued all game, the Tigers were able to generate tons of chances to score. Unfortunately, Brown goalie Phil Goss had other plans, turning away 20 shots on goal and sending the Tigers home with a 17-15 loss.

For most of the game, Princeton looked as if they were going to punch their ticket to the tournament finals. The Tigers dominated game on multiple fronts, forcing more ground balls, winning most of the faceoffs and generating way more shots on goal than the Bears did. Unfortunately for the Tigers, Goss was determined to prevent Princeton from taking a commanding lead and had what was perhaps the game of his life.

It was a frustrating day for the Tigers as, despite plenty of scoring, they never seemed to be able to overwhelm Brown and force them

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETICS COMMUNICATIONS

Despite a strong performance, dominating possession, and face-offs, the Tigers fell to Brown 15-17.

into submission. Three players had hat tricks for the Tigers: sophomore midfielder Charlie Durbin, senior attackman Gavin McBride, and freshman attackman Michael Sowers, who had four goals.

However, at times when the game looked like it was about to be broken open, Goss turned shots away and gave his team a chance to get back in it. This was never more apparent than in the third quarter. With the Tigers up 10-7, Goss made incredible backto-back saves that prevented Princeton from

extending their lead to five. Instead, Brown would rally off three goals to tie the game heading into the fourth.

Heading into the fourth quarter, Durbin scored twice to open up a 12-10 Princeton lead.

However, in what would become the back breaking run, Brown responded with seven straight goals and held Princeton scoreless from the 11:38 mark of the fourth until the final minute of the game. Even in the final minutes, Princeton was not quite done.

The Tigers scored three goals in the span of 40

seconds — including two in eight seconds — and got to within two with under a minute to go. It seemed as if they had finally broken through Goss. It was too little to late, though, as Brown forced a turnover which iced the game for the Bears.

While the game was not the result that the Tigers wanted, there were some bright spots on the individual side.

McBride and Sowers each broke Princeton records, while senior midfielder Zach Currier nearly broke a record as well. McBride scored his

54th goal of the season in the game, breaking the school record held

by Jesse Hubbard, Class of 1998, for most goals in a season. Pairing this with 17 assists, McBride became the fifth player in school history with 70 points in a season.

Sowers — Ivy League Rookie of the Year and First Team All-Ivy League — finished with a school record 82 points in a single season and became the first player with over 40 goals and assists in the same season; he finished with 41 each. Currier finished his final season one off of the record set by Greg Waller for most ground balls in a single season; Currier finished with 130 on the year after a career-high 16 ground balls in the loss.

Princeton finished the season with a respectable 9-6 record overall and 4-2 in conference play. The Tigers also finished with a solid 6-2 record at home with notable wins over Johns Hopkins and Harvard. And while the Tigers may not be playing in the national tournament, there is plenty to build on as they look to challenge again next year.

WOMEN’S LACROSSE

Tigers storm past Quakers 17-8 with record-setting performance

By David Xin head sports editor

The women’s lacrosse team swept through Penn with a record-setting performance in the Ivy League Women’s Lacrosse Tournament. No. 6 Princeton managed to find the net 17 times, beating the Quakers by an impressive 17-8 margin. The Tigers will now face Cornell in the Ivy League Championship for an automatic NCAA bid. The Princeton team previously won the title in 2011 and 2015.

The Tigers set a new Ivy League Tournament record with their 17 goals. In addition to team records, the Princeton side also set new individual records. Senior midfielder Olivia Hompe set a tournament record for with here nine-point haul.

Hompe notched three goals and six assists in the Princeton victory. Her six assists were also the most in a tournament game.

Hompe will have the opportunity to make history on Sunday as she is one point behind the all-time program points record 270. The record is currently held by Crista Samaras — set in 1999.

Eight Tigers scored in the Princeton effort. Sophomore midfielder Elizabeth George and senior midfielder Anna Doherty led the offensive effort with four goals apiece. The Princeton team also showed

strength on the defensive end, holding Penn’s top scorer to a single goal. Senior goalie Ellie DeGarmo made 12 saves during the game.

Princeton opened the match against Penn with a 5-1 run. The Quakers would claw their way back into the game with backto-back goals and cut the lead to 2 by halftime. The Tiger headed back to the locker room with a 6-4 advantage over the Quakers.

However, the Tigers would find their momentum coming out of halftime. Princeton scored seven unanswered goals, which included a natural hat trick from George. While Penn would eventually break the run, the Princeton squad managed to maintain a comfortable seven-goal margin throughout the game.

The Princeton team will now face Ivy rivals Cornell. The two teams last met in the regular season this year when the Tigers edged out Big Red in a double overtime thriller. The Princeton team narrowly beat out Cornell 12-11 after a game winner from junior attack Colby Chanenchuk.

With a NCAA bid on the line, this coming meeting between the Tigers and Big Red promises to be another thriller. The Princeton team will travel to Ithaca on Sunday to face Cornell.

Tweet of the Day “Migh be playing another year of D1 soccer omggggg I thought that chapter closed but I guess its back on the table, craziness” Hannah Winner (@ HannahisaWinner), Soccer

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETICS COMMUNICATIONS

The women’s lacrosse team faces Cornell in the championship game with an automatic NCAA bid on the line.

Stat of the Day

17 goals The women’s lacrosse team set a new Ivy Tournament record with 17 goals in their victory over Penn.

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