May 9, 2016

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday May 9, 2016 vol. cxl no. 61

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

U. responds to student parking permit concerns

By Amber Park staff writer

Jessica Li news edior

Since hitting multiple listserv threads last Tuesday, a petition against the decision to limit undergraduate parking by the Department of Transportation and Public Services has gathered more than 1,200 signatures, spurred upwards of fifty concerned emails addressed to the Undergraduate Student Government, and fueled social media uproar about the lack of transparency.

Under the new parking policy scheduled to go in effect next academic year, undergraduates will not be permitted to park on campus unless they receive an exemption for “compelling need.”

According to University Assistant Vice President for Communications

Daniel Day, discussions around limiting undergraduate parking emerged in the last two years during the course of campus and strategic planning conversations. Kimberly Jackson, Director of Transportation & Parking Services, had communicated the decision to the University Student Life Committee during its monthly meeting in February and later at the USG Senate Meeting on Apr. 24, according to Day. The decision, however, was not communicated to the wider student body until a few students noticed policy changes on the Transportation Service’s website.

Ben Falter ’17, an independent student, said that the lack of communication and transparency is deeply troubling.

“I am incredibly shocked with how little has been done to communicate See PARKING page 3

The Department of Computer Science within the School of Engineering and Applied Science continues its reign as the department with the highest number of concentrators, as 103 B.S.E. students from the Class of 2019 have indicated COS as their major, according to Colleen Kenny-McGinley, undergraduate coordinator in the computer science department.

Although the number is a decrease from last year’s reported 126 students, COS majors still make up 30 percent of the 2019 Engineering Class.

Peter Bogucki, associate dean for Undergraduate Affairs for the School of Engineering and Applied Science, noted that 344 students from the Class of 2019 have declared B.S.E. This is a slight increase from the 349 students who declared B.S.E. in the Class of 2018.

“Computer Science has again attracted a large group, while the other departments are all consistent with long-term historical patterns,” he added.

Jennifer Rexford ’91, chair of the Department of Computer Science, attributed the COS department’s

U N I V E R S I T Y A F FA I R S

Sprint Football alums dispute U. injury report conclusions

staff writer

COS attracts most number of BSE majors staff writer

RACHEL SPADY :: PHOTO EDITOR

Green ivy vines adorn Nassau Hall amidst a warm May afternoon.

By Kevin Agostinelli

ACADEMICS

By Catherine Wang

NASSAU HALL

strong numbers to not only the growing national interest in computer science, but also the department’s strong introductory curriculum.

“COS 126 course, the most popular course at Princeton with nearly 700 students per year, is an outward-facing, interdisciplinary introduction to computer science.

The students see all this — the intellectual excitement, the opportunity to effect change in the world, and the great professional opportunities — and are voting with their feet,” she said.

Rexford also noted that the department sees a higher representation of women than the national average, with 35 percent of the COS majors in the sophomore and junior classes being women. According to the National Girls Collaborative, about 18 percent of computer science majors are women.

According to Rexford, the increased representation of female COS majors is due to vibrant student groups, such as Princeton Women in Computer Science, which have fostered interest in technology.

“Our great Princeton Women in Computer Science group See BSE page 3

Rachel Glenn staff writer

Former and current members of Princeton’s sprint football team have joined together in an effort to oppose President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83’s decision to discontinue the sprint football program on the grounds that the verdict was not representative of the report provided by the evaluation committee.

According to the University’s press release, the committee – consisting of University administrators, athletic staff,

athletic medical directors and sprint football alumni – concluded, after a six-month-long review, to end the program.

The release cited “unacceptably high risk of injury” as a main reason behind the decision.

However, Joseph Salerno ’84 — a former sprint football player and an executive board member on the Friends of Princeton Sprint Football who participated in the committee — said that the press release is not an accurate reflection of the committee’s findings, particularly on the point of injury risks.

Referring to Eisgruber’s ex-

STUDENT LIFE

STUDENT LIFE

Cannon, Cottage clubs USG temporarily closed discusses following graffiti cases referenda turnout

By Katherine Oh senior writer

DANDELION CHRISTINA VOSBIKIAN :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

By Maya Wesby senior writer

RACHEL SPADY :: PHOTO EDITOR

In Opinion

The Editorial Board urges the University to reverse its new parking policy, senior columnist Samuel Parsons discusses USG referenda and voter apathy, guest contributor Arlene Gamio brings attention to the rejection of independent concentration in Latinx studies and an anonymous writer explains the need for gender-neutral housing to accommodate non-binary gender identities. PAGE 5-6

planation that he is canceling the program on grounds of “substantial risk of very serious injuries,” Salerno called the data, which the administration decided against releasing publicly, “misleading.”

According to Salerno, who described the injury data as “troubling and inconsistent,” the report includes consistent per-season injury totals for other sports, but not for sprint football. Many per-season totals for sprint football were not reported, preventing the reader from seeing sprint’s relatively modest injury totals and from assessing statistical See SPRINT page 2

Following recent cases of graffiti markings, Cannon Club and Cottage Club have closed and are off-tap to nonmembers, but will reconsider re-opening in time for Dean’s Date, according to sources within the club.

An unknown person or persons graffitied the cannon located on the front lawn of Cannon with the letters “UCC,” allegedly standing for “University Cottage Club.” The graffiti was easily cleaned off of the cannon with spray paint within a day of it being discovered.

Keelan Smithers ’17, president of Cannon, did not respond to requests for comment. Robert Casey ’67, Graduate Board chair of Cannon, was unavailable for comment.

On Thursday, graffiti also appeared on the columns of Cottage’s pillars with the letters “CDE,” allegedly standing for Cannon’s formal name, “Cannon Dial Elm.” The damage done to the columns will be difficult to repair, as they are made of aged marble that is difficult to wash. Several hours had passed by the time the letters were found and the paint had already seeped into the marble.

Danny Baer ’17, president of Cottage, did not respond to requests for comment. Carlos Ferrer ’76, Graduate Board chair of Cottage, did not respond to requests for comment.

Cottage was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1999 and it may take between $30,000 to $100,000 to repair the columns, according to sources within the club.

Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: Panel discussion with Maurizio Viroli, author of “How to Choose a Leader: Machiavelli’s Advice to Citizens”.

Lewis Library Bowl 120.

The Undergraduate Student Government Senate approved new appointments to the Honor Committee and Committee on Discipline and discussed referenda and sexual misconduct policies during its last meeting of the semester on Sunday.

The Spring 2016 USG elections saw a relatively low turnout of only 28.5 percent of the student body, according to chief elections manager Sung Won Chang ’18.

“There has been a constant downward trend [in turnout] since the Will Gansa campaign,” Chang said, adding that the seniors did not have the motivation to vote.

While neither referendum met the third-of-the-student-body threshold, Chang said that the SPEAR referendum came close. About 90 percent of the voters were in favor, whereas a previous referendum on divestment from companies “that maintain the infrastructure of the Israeli occupation of the See USG page 4

WEATHER

U N I V E R S I T Y A F FA I R S

HIGH

71˚

LOW

46˚

Partly cloudy. chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Monday May 9, 2016

Alumni agreed not to publish confidential injury data or report SPRINT

Continued from page 1

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

consistency, he said.

Additionally, certain injury data has “inexplicably” been excluded from the rate calculation.

Consequently, injury rates for sprint football were established based on data for a fewer seasons than most of the other sports in the report.

“Having seen the injury data, I can say that I don’t find it at all conclusive that the sport is unsafe to play, and I can also say that other sports had more total injuries and other sports had higher injury rates,” Salerno said.

“So I can’t see how it would be fair to come to the conclusion that sprint is unsafe to play given those other facts.”

To Salerno, not only do these discrepancies make the current data unreliable, but a more comprehensive analysis of the data may also lead to a different conclusion about the nature of sprint football, he said.

Kees Thompson ‘13, former sprint football captain and Vice President of Events for the Friends of Princeton Sprint Football, further attributed the alarm over allegedly high injury rates for sprint football in certain years as a testament to the priority placed on safety by sprint football head coach Sean Morey.

As an NFL player, Morey was a member of the Executive Committee of the NFL Players Association where, according to GoPrincetonTigers.com, he “devoted his energy towards advocating for comprehensive clinical research efforts intended to understand, quantify and treat pressing healthcare issues associated with the cumulative and compounding effect of repetitive and recurrent brain trauma.”

John Wolfe ’14, a former captain of the sprint football

team, echoed Salerno’s sentiments by questioning the University’s decision not to release the data.

“If the sport is so unsafe that these players have been in an unsafe environment for the last 18 years, then don’t the players have a right to access the injury data for their own personal health?” he asked.

Sprint football alumni have thus far mutually agreed with Mollie Marcoux, director of athletics, and University administrators not to publicize either the injury data or the report, indicating their commitment to the committee to respect that confidentiality.

Nonetheless, Eisgruber noted in an emailed statement that “the injury statistics for sprint football are deeply disturbing.”

But statistics alone tell only part of the story, he said.

“I received expert medical advice attesting to the risk of serious injury to our players, and the team’s coaching staff has more than once forfeited games when it would be unsafe to play. No other Princeton team is in a comparable position,” he said.

Though the press release stated that the decision was made in part by the committee, Mollie Marcoux ’91, director of athletics, acknowledged that the committee itself was not charged with making a specific recommendation.

Rather, the committee was set up to provide information on the state of sprint football and offer up different options to support the program to University Executive Vice President Treby Williams ’84, who would in turn make a recommendation to Eisgruber, she said.

Thompson stated that the committee was originally convened by Williams.

Thompson mentioned that though Williams attended several meetings, Eisgruber was not present at any of the committee sessions.

Williams declined to comment.

The evaluation committee was just one portion of the overall review, Marcoux said.

“The President also had more conversations and asked more questions and did his own homework from there,” Marcoux said.

Chad Cowden ’17, current captain and starting quarterback of the team, added that after the report was submitted to Eisgruber to make his final suggestion, the team received an email from Marcoux in January stating that in the current state it was in, the team could not continue.

The sport needed either help from the administration or it would be terminated.

Cowden said that he and a few other players subsequently discussed with Marcoux what they thought about the program, what the program needed, and their perspectives on the issue.

However, Cowden did admit besides the email and conversation with Marcoux, his and the team’s knowledge of the committee’s review was very limited. Furthermore, he did not know that the team’s termination was a realistic probability.

Salerno said that Sprint football alumni were also baffled by Eisgruber’s refusal to add more recruiting spots for the sprint football team as an alternative to shutting down the program entirely.

The decision leads to greater questions about the University’s attitude towards athletics as a whole, Salerno said.

Thompson said that the University differs from other Ivy League schools in that it self-caps at a lower number of recruited athletes than the Ivy League maximum.

Arthur Chew ’95, former captain of sprint football,member of Friends of Princeton Sprint Football for 15 years and the President of Save Princeton Sprint Football, a newly founded organi-

zation dedicated to fight the decision, said that the University’s internal policy of limiting recruiting spots plays a huge role in the demise of the sport.

According to Chew, former director of athletics Gary Walters ’67 decided in the late 1990s to gradually remove all recruiting spots from sprint football.

In 1996, six recruiting spots were allocated to sprint football. The number of recruits was decreased to two spots from 1997 to 1999. In 2000, recruitment was entirely eliminated.

Walters did not respond to request for comment.

Thompson argued that this lack of recruiting spots is a primary reason for the team’s struggles in the past two decades.

Princeton sprint football’s 106-game losing streak dates back to 1999.

According to Cowden, the majority of their recruitment effort rests in attempting to persuade students present at the Activities Fair to play football. He added that the team is “full of a lot of guys who are new to football.”

Sprint football is the only varsity sport with a table present at the Activities Fair.

“If the Athletic Department went back to the drawing board on all of its spots for all of its teams, I think it would be hard to argue that sprint – or any varsity team – deserves zero, while other sports deserve dozens,” Thompson said.

At an all-alumni gathering in Baltimore, Md., last Thursday, Chew spoke with Eisgruber about his decision to discontinue sprint football during a question and answer session.

According to Chew, Eisgruber defended his refusal to add more recruiting spots for athletes despite the University’s decision to expand the undergraduate student body by 125 students per class. Eis-

gruber also emphasized the need for more space for students who are very qualified academically, Chew said.

“I took this comment as offensive, as did others in the crowd, that the recruited athletes did not belong at Princeton and we were taking spots away from qualified students,” Chew explained.

To Salerno, Eisgruber’s decision demonstrates that the crux of the matter should not be about debating injury data, or a lack of competitiveness.

Instead, he believes that “the real issue is how we value athletes versus non-athletes on campus.”

Salerno and his fellow alumni are hoping that their efforts have resonated with all Princeton varsity athletic alumni, who can identify with the merits and value of the 82-year old sprint tradition.

Chew added that Save Princeton Sprint Football will be a large presence at upcoming Reunions and will work to garner further support from alumni, especially varsity athletic alumni.

“We thought [the administration] was going to help us as much as they could,” Cowden said. “I thought the ending [of sprint football] would be a last resort sort of thing like, ‘Oh, really nothing worked out, sorry.’ We didn’t really think [the discontinuation] was going to be the result of the report.”

The Friends of Princeton Sprint Football and the Save Princeton Sprint Football group have started a petition on Change.org addressed to Eisgruber and Marcoux to request that Eisgruber reconsider his decision.

The fact that the University waited 20 years before saying there are too few experienced players to play sprint football speaks for itself, Salerno said.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 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 paper the campus wakes up to.

Email join@ dailyprincetonian.com

The Daily Princetonian

Monday May 9, 2016

page 3

Day: No objections raised 344 students in Class of 2019 declared

by USG in two meetings majors within engineering school PARKING Continued from page 1

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

this change to students in an appropriate time frame for such a major policy change,” said Falter.

Brian McSwiggen ’18 said that student voices were not involved likely because the University didn’t consider it an important topic.

“We as students can’t expect to watch over every single action taken in the massive University administration,” McSwiggen said. “The issue is that this decision was a lot bigger than I suspect TPS realized it would be, and I think that definitely has happened before.”

“It feels doubly frustrating to see opinions from out of touch students and administrators presented as this grand truth,” said Falter.

Falter said that he is heavily impacted by this change.

“I use my car around every other day, between grocery trips, church, and to visit my girlfriend who lives in Ewing and see her perform in her shows at Rider University,” he said.

He added that the Saturday Shopper is often overcrowded and only serves a limited number of stores. A trip to get one or two items will take a minimum of an hour and a half, according to Falter.

However, Zachariah DeGiulio ’18 said that while many independent students cite the inaccessibility of grocery stores as a driving factor, such may not be the case.

“For the person who just needs to get to the supermarket once a week, the cost of a car share or an Uber is not really cost prohibitive when the costs of maintenance, permitting and car insurance are taken into account,” DeGiulio said.

“Perhaps thinking twice about the University’s change in policy and proposing alternative solutions would be more helpful than a complete and utter attack on the loss of ‘fundamental human rights,’” he added.

Furthermore, DeGiulio said that while students should have been given a say, lobbying ex post facto is unproductive.

In response to student concerns, Jackson said that she apologizes for the lack of communication on this matter.

“We have not done a good job at telling our story and have created a certain amount of angst within our undergraduate community. We apologize,” she wrote in an email to the Daily Princetonian. “We hope students will […] continue to give us feedback when we fall short in our communication efforts.”

McSwiggen also added that since the decision was issued, he had reached out to members of USG for clarification.

In an email sent to the undergraduate student body last Friday, an infographic stated that the new policy is not a ban on parking permits, but a procedural change in parking permit approvals. The email further claimed that the USG was not involved in the decision process to limit student vehicles only to those with exemptions.

“There was a lot of misleading information floating around the Listservs,” said USG president Aleksandra Czulak ’17, who had met with Jackson last Wednesday morning, along with the chair of the University Student Life Committee, Jenny Zhang ’18, to clarify implications of the decision. According to Czulak, compelling reasons constitute a wide range of possibilities, including religious purposes and support for independent and co-op students.

Nonetheless, Czulak noted that this is an impactful decision that not

only affects the three hundred or so vehicle owners, but also those who carpool in those cars.

“It’s incredible to see the active engagement from students on this issue, we need to make sure that students who need parking are not hurt by a process that they weren’t given a voice in,” Czulak said.

While the email addresses some aspects of the issue, it doesn’t change the stated policy on the TPS website, McSwiggen said.

“They can say that it will be interpreted in a certain way, but they still officially ban all vehicles, and exemptions are left up to TPS/the committee to decide,” McSwiggen added.

As of Sunday, the official TPS policy still states that “undergraduate students are not permitted to have a vehicle on campus during the academic year, including Holidays and weekends” and that “violation of this policy may result in disciplinary action, ticketing and/or vehicle towing.”

Clear and accurate descriptions about the policy should already be posted on the website, but are not as of now, Czulak said.

According to Day, no objections were raised by USG during the two times that Jackson introduced the new parking policy to the USLC and the USG Senate, respectively.

According to a recording of a USG Senate meeting on Apr. 24 which included an update by Jackson on transportation policies that included discussions of the new parking policy, only one member of the USG Senate questioned the scope of the decision.

However, according to Zhang, who currently plans to be an independent student next year, the decision, as presented by Jackson, appeared more like a procedural change, as opposed to a limit on undergraduate parking, and was presented as part of a larger conversation about campus transportation.

Additionally, unlike other campus issues, the parking permit decision was never presented to the committee for a vote, according to Zhang.

She added that Jackson also did not solicit student input or consult members of her committee.

Furthermore, Zhang stated that Jackson left the impression that the permit approval process will be generous in nature.

Jackson declined to comment on the expected number of permits to be issued next year, or whether the number will decrease from that of this year.

Czulak said that she will meet with Jackson again this coming week to bring up student concerns. She said that she is also committed to “fighting the decision” in the next two weeks.

According to Jackson and Day, currently, there are no plans to reverse the decision or to build on top of existing parking lots. However, a student committee will be formed in the fall to gauge conversation about the issue.

Jackson reiterated that the change is done in part to continue sustainability efforts on campus and to provide “more robust transit programs” that limit the need for a car on campus.

According to Jackson, TPS will expand the Enterprise car share program and number of vehicles on campus, negotiate pricing with service providers Enterprise and Zagster, and expand the current exemption policy.

She also stated that rising juniors and seniors will receive an email detailing the process and examples of exemptions next week.

News & Notes: Unarmed robbery near Forbes College A female undergraduate student was punched twice in the face and robbed by the traffic light in front of the Annex of Forbes College, along Alexander Street, on Sunday at 1:41 a.m., according to a University Department of Public Safety campus safety alert.

The male was reported to be wearing a black hooded

sweatshirt with a white drawstring. He took the student’s wallet and fled on foot into the Springdale golf course.

The DPS and Princeton Public Police Department responded immediately to search the area, but were unable to locate the suspect.

The student declined medical assistance that had been offered.

BSE

Continued from page 1

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

runs fantastic events, provides mentoring to first and second year students, sends a large group of students to the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, and generally fosters a wonderful sense of community,” she said.

Kathy Fan ’19, originally a potential CBE major due to her interest in chemistry and biology, decided to declare B.S.E. COS instead part-way through her fall semester, as she did not want to go through many technical courses that did not pique her interest. “[COS] will give me the flexibility to combined old and new interests by pursuing an engineering biology certificate as well,” she said.

Ajay Penmatcha ’19, who also switched into B.S.E. COS, switched from A.B. because he was interested in the ability of software to transform our world.

“From self-driving vehicles to new drug discoveries to landing rockets on autonomous drone ships, I just think there’s so much potential for computers to do these amazing things that people would have never imagined were possible,” he said.

The Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering has the next-highest number of concentrators, with 72 students in the Class of 2019. This is a significant increase from the 57 students who declared ORFE in the Class of 2018, but parallels the 72 juniors and 79 seniors in the department.

Rene Carmona, chair of the ORFE department, said that students are largely attracted to the ORFE’s combination of classes in probability, statistics and optimization, which are very quantitative but are grounded in applications of interest such as finance, energy, health care. He noted that after sophomores choose their majors, the ORFE department usually has a small inflow of students from the math, physics and economics

departments, attracted by the application-oriented nature of some of the classes.

However, Carmona said that the 2019 class size is worrisome, because the size of the faculty cannot accommodate so many students, which has been a problem for the Class of 2016.

“I fear that, given the size of ORFE’s faculty, our junior and senior classes are too large, and the number of senior theses per faculty is far too high. The department does not have the resources to handle so many students and faculty is stretched too thin,” he said.

He mentioned that he does expect the department to lose a few students to the COS department, which occurs every year due to the more restrictive nature of ORFE, which requires a senior thesis.

Sophia Chen ’19, an ORFE concentrator, said that she was attracted to the department because of her interest in applied math and her desire to follow in her father’s footsteps and work on Wall Street.

Fifty students declared in the Department of Electrical Engineering, which is “a healthy number that is comparable to recent years,” according to Andrew Hock ’00, the undergraduate departmental representative for ELE. The Class of 2018 saw 50 students declare ELE. Houck noted that students are attracted to ELE because of the interdisciplinary approach to engineering that combines aspects of computers and computer science, mathematics of information, novel materials and devices and applied physics and quantum engineering.

“Students can use electrical engineering to address many of the world’s most pressing challenges, including problems in health, energy, the environment, information security, the future of computing and cyberphysical systems,” he added.

Fifty one students declared Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering as their concentration, a slight decrease from 54 for the Class of 2018, according to department chair Howard Stone.

Victoria Ou’ 19 said she decided to concentrate in MAE because of the enthusiasm of the professors and the flexibility of being able to pursue additional engineering certificates relatively easily.

Another department which experienced a slight decrease in concentrators was the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, which had 50 students declare CBE, in comparison to last year’s 52, according to Bogucki.

The Class of 2017 and 2016, respectively, saw 37 and 45 students declare CBE. Richard Register, CBE department chair, declined to comment on the number of CBE concentrators.

Alexandra Cavazos ’19, a CBE concentrator, said she declared CBE because it seemed to represent the intersection of her favorite subjects, math and chemistry.

Additionally, she is interested in energy and the environment and the CBE department offers a track called “Energy and Environmental Technology,” which is perfectly suited to her interests.

The department with the lowest number of B.S.E. concentrators from all current classes is the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, with 19 students from the Class of 2019, 15 students from the Class of 2018 and 30 students from the Class of 2017.

James Smith, chair of the CEE Department, said that 21 students declared as CEE majors, but did not provide any further comment.

Robert Lussier ’19, a CEE concentrator, said that he became certain he wanted to declare CEE when he went to the open house a few weeks ago and saw that the professors seemed genuinely eager to work with students and teach them, and the department was so small that it seemed like the experience was much more intimate and personal than in other departments.

Engineers from the Class of 2019 had until Friday, May 6 to declare their concentration.

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

010111011010001001010010100100101001001011100010 101001011101101000100101001010010010100100101110 001010100101110110100010010100101001001010010010 111000101010010111011010001001010010100100101001 001011100010101001011101101000100101001010010010 100100101110001010100101110110100010010100101001 001010010010111000101010010111011010001001010010 100100101001001011100010101001011101101000100101 001010010010100100101110001010100101110110100010 010100101001001010010010111000101010010111011010 001001010010100100101001001011100010101001011101 101000100101001010010010100100101110001010100101 110110100010010100101001001010010010111000101010 010111011010001001010010100100101001001011100010 10100101110110100010010100101001001010010010111 000101010010111011010001001010010111011010001001 010010100100101001001011100010101001011101101000 100101001010010010100100101110001010100101110110 System.out.print(“Join ”); 100010010100101001001010010010111000101010010111 System.out.println(“Web!”); 011010001001010010100100101001001011100010101001 011101101000100101001010010010100100101110001010 100101110110100010010100101001001010010010111000 101010010111011010001001010010100100101001001011 100010101001011101101000100101001010010010100100 10111000101010010111011010001001010010100100101 001001011100010101001011101101000100101001010010 010100100101110001010100101110110100010010100101 001001010010010111000101010010111011010001001010 010100100101001001011100010101001011101101010010 100101001001010010010111000101010010111011010001 001010010100100101001001011100010101001011101101 000100101001010010010100100101110001010100101110 110100010010100101001001010010010111000101010010 111011010001001010010100100101001001011100010101 001011101101000100101001010010010100100101110001 010100101110110100010010100101001001010010010111 000101010010111011010001001010010100100101001001 011100010101001011101101000100101001010010010100 100101110001010100101110110100010010100101001001 010010010111000101010010111011010001001010010100 100101001001011100010101001011101101000100101001 010010010100100101110001010100101110110100010010 100101001001010010010111000101010010111011010001 001010010100100101001001011100010101001011101101 000100101001010010010100100101110001010100101110 110100010010100101001001010010010111000101010010

for (;;) { }

Dream in code?

Join the ‘Prince’ web staff

join@dailyprincetonian.com

Monday May 9, 2016

Senate approved new Honor Committee members USG

Continued from page 1

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

West Bank, facilitate Israel’s and Egypt’s collective punishment of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or facilitate state repression against Palestinians by Israeli, Egyptian, and Palestinian Authority security force” had seen 52.5 percent voting against.

“My personal speculation is that people opposed to it just didn’t vote,” Chang said.

He added that there could have been strategic abstentions.

“We shouldn’t be demonizing students,” U-Councilor Miranda Rosen ’18 said.

She noted that if USG is seeking a higher voter turnout, they should not denounce students who abstained.

USG President Aleksandra Czulak ’17 added that there was less publicity for the referenda this time around, compared to last year’s referendum.

“There’s a lot of room for troubleshooting,” Chang said, noting that this was the first election with new rules.

Czulak said she wanted to encourage USG Senate members to think about how USG, as a body, could make students interested in elections and help them to better understand what USG is working on.

USG approved a resolution on sexual misconduct policy during the meeting.

U-Councilor Pooja Patel ’18 explained that the resolution recommends that athletic teams, the Interclub Council and Greek life organizations work to improve sexual assault awareness.

Patel is a former staff writer for the Daily Princetonian.

For example, the resolution suggests that athletes participate in SHARE’s Strength in Coaching on Relationships, Respect, and Equality training program, in addition to recommending that the eating clubs adopt a policy to prevent those involved in sexual misconduct cases from joining.

This training is available to any student group, Czulak noted.

When asked why athletes have to do more for sexual misconduct, Patel said that the intention was not to target athletic communities, explaining that the athletes had expressed a concern that they had previously been left out of the conversation.

The Honor Committee added two new members, Elan Sykes ’18 and Elizabeth Haile ’19, while the Committee on Discipline added three members, Abby van Soest ’18, Ananya Joshi ’19 and Caleb South ’19.

Charles Jacobson ’16, chair of the Honor Committee, explained that both committees had actively reached out to potential applicants. According to Jacobson, in addition to the email that was sent to the student body by USG president Aleksandra Czulak ’17, the committees solicited applications by working with deans of the residential colleges, department representatives and faculty.

“We want to make sure we have an applicant pool that is representative of the student body,” Committee on Discipline representative Joshua Pitkoff ’16 said.

He explained that the students best equipped to do the job were selected from a diverse pool.

Jacobson noted that the interview process consisted of two rounds, the first of which was a group interview to analyze several cases; about half of those applicants were invited back for second-round individual interviews.

Pitkoff explained that the selected members demonstrated great analytical thinking and empathy during the application process.

Jacobson and Pitkoff said that while the Honor and Discipline Committees are not policymakers, members would be happy to participate in the conversations about how Rights, Rules, Responsibilities could be better structured.

USG additionally approved a resolution to improve support for student groups on campus, particularly their relationships with the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students.

Done reading your ‘Prince’?

Recycle

Opinion

Monday May 9, 2016

The athlete stigma: what’s the alternative?

Jacquelyn Thorbjornson columnist

T

his year, the University elected to make either Outdoor Action or Community Action mandatory components of pre-orientation for incoming freshmen – except for athletes. Athletes will participate in discussions and workshops on campus that mirror those taking place on OA and CA trips. This institutionalized division between athletes and non-athletes is of particular interest to me, because it seems to entrench an existing campus tension.

Most on this campus would acknowledge the existence of a social divide between athletes and non-athletes. Partly, this because athletes spend hours together at practices, lift sessions and traveling for games. The forced time together naturally establishes friendships and social groups. Another contributor to the divide is scheduling.

Many campus activities are scheduled between 4:30 and 7:30 p.m. because classes are not in session. Athletes have scheduled practice at this time every day, preventing them from integrating themselves into other campus activities.

This division is not limited to our social spheres. I have heard athlete friends discuss the discomfort they feel about speaking in precepts because they are often immediately dismissed as they are assumed to be, somehow, less qualified to answer. This only compounds the separation by isolating athletes from non-athletes, even in the classroom setting.

The justification, “they got in because they’re an athlete,” is thrown around with too much ease. We don’t realize the gravity of what we are implying. If there are negative connotations to this phrase – which, in my experience, there are – to this phrase, then we are implying, first, that it is likely that the individual in question isn’t up to the average academic standards at Princeton, and, second, that athletic talent is not valued as highly as academic talent at Princeton.

In order for the second premise to have any validity, we must fundamentally believe that Princeton is purely an institution for the elites of academia and nothing else. If we trivialize the accomplishments of athletes with the assumption that they are not up to par with some arbitrary academic standard we believe Princeton should enforce, we delegitimize the notion that some level of diversity is preferred over maintaining unduly rigorous academic standards.

The consequences of this belief system are more severe than we might realize. It naturally creeps toward the preference of campus homogeny by increasing preferred academic thresholds even within our own community.

Though athletes are the currently targeted group, who is to say where this belief will lead us next? Should we not also admit the excellent musician because he is not also an excellent math student?

Under that belief system, students admitted to the arts program would produce art more like the doodles I draw in lecture than the impressive work we see now. When we continue to socially enforce our subjective academic standards, we begin to strip ourselves of diversity and create unnecessary social partitions. We become less Princeton, and more Caltech.

The administration should consider the consequences of establishing this divide between athletes and non-athletes before the first week of freshman year. OA and CA trips should integrate athletes and non-athletes, preventing some of these stereotypes and divisive mentalities from forming early on. Rather than entrench division, we should aim to entrench diversity.

Jacquelyn Thorbjornson is a freshman from South Thomaston, Maine. She can be reached at jot@princeton.edu.

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } EDITORIAL

Put a brake on the new parking policy

R

vol. cxl

Do-Hyeong Myeong ’17

ecently, University Transportation and Parking Services announced a new policy that allows undergraduate students to have a car on campus only if they have a “compelling need.” This change in policy was released very suddenly to the University community, with no input from the broader student body or opportunity for discussion. The Board finds the policy’s standard of “compelling need” to be too narrow, unnecessarily restrictive of students’ use of cars and potentially intrusive to students’ privacy. The Board condemns the lack of transparency exhibited by University administration, TPS and Undergraduate Student Government on this important issue, and we urge a return to the former policy.

In the past, any upperclassman who wished to have a car on campus was able to do so. Students used their cars to buy food as independent students, for religious observances, to participate in club sports or other extracurricular activities, to travel and for a variety of other reasons. In short, students judged if it was beneficial for them to have a car on campus and made their own informed decisions.

Now, due to vague appeals to space concerns and sustainability, the University seeks to make this decision for students. In order to have a car on campus beginning this fall, students must submit an exemption request to a bureaucratic committee and convince it that they do in fact have a “compelling need” — as defined by the University — to park on campus. Though the list of what constitutes a compelling need has broadened following student reaction to the policy, the new policy still has the potential to prevent students who have good reasons to have a car on campus from doing so. Permission to park will only be granted to those students whose needs cannot be met by University or NJ Transit programs. But even for students who could take the Saturday Shopper or the train to fulfill their needs, doing so may be more expensive and time-consuming than driving.

What’s more, forcing any student to have their need to drive off campus from time to time scrutinized by University officials inappropriately and unfairly intrudes on students’ privacy.

If a student requires a car for a medical reason, for example, the new policy requires them to submit the details of their condition to a Committee that includes representatives from several offices, including Athletics, University Health Services, ODUS, TPS and more, all in the hope that they might be deemed worthy of a parking pass.

In addition to the many practical problems that this policy raises, the Board judges it to be motivated by in-

sufficient concerns. One of the primary announced reasons for the change was the amount of space currently occupied by student cars. However, the number of student cars on campus has decreased almost 40 percent over the last four years, down to only 290 cars this academic year. According to an email from Assistant Vice President for Communications, Daniel Day, the parking spots gained by this new policy will be utilized to provide more faculty and visitor parking. Especially given the small number of students who currently park on campus, the Board finds the administration’s prioritizing of visitor parking over student parking very concerning. The University also hopes to promote more “sustainable” transportation options through this policy change. But the alternatives mentioned — Zagster bike share, University buses, Enterprise CarShare — are either not feasible or simply lack the capacities of a privately owned car. Students cannot safely travel very far off campus using a bike and University bus routes are inconsistent and slow. CarShare requires a lengthy registration process and is expensive even for a short trip. The Board believes these supposedly more sustainable options are not adequate substitutes, particularly if students already own vehicles.

The Board commends the student-led movement discussing this change, but condemns the lack of opportunities for student input afforded by TPS and USG during the lengthy decision process.

While USG did not actively participate in the decision-making process, they were informed that changes would be made starting in February. Given the effect of the change on many students, the extent to which this change was obscured from the student body until it was made is extremely problematic.

Transparency and student involvement — beyond USG — are necessary whenever a policy change of this importance is being considered.

We hold that students should not have to prove that they do, in fact, have a compelling need to have a car on campus. It ought not to be left to a committee to judge whether or not the complex combination of factors that motivates students to decide they need to have a car is convincing and compelling.

Given the unduly restrictive approval process, the potential for violations of privacy, and the unconvincing motivations for change, the Board urges the administration to reverse this ill-advised policy.

editor-in-chief

Daniel Kim ’17

business manager

EDITORIAL BOARD chair Cydney Kim ’17 Allison Berger ’18 Elly Brown ’18 Thomas Clark ’18 Paul Draper ’18 Daniel Elkind ’17 Theodore Furchgott ’18 Wynne Kerridge ’16 Jeffrey Leibenhaut ’16 Sergio Leos ’17 Carolyn Liziewski ’18 Sam Mathews ’17 Connor Pfeiffer ’18 Ashley Reed ’18 Aditya Trivedi ’16

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 vice presidents John G. Horan ’74 Thomas E. Weber ’89 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Michael E. Seger ’71 Craig Bloom ’88 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Jerry Raymond ’73 Randall Rothenberg ’78 Annalyn Swan ’73 Douglas Widmann ’90

NIGHT STAFF 5.8.16 senior copy editor Samuel Garfinkle ‘19

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-inChief.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Latinx studies independent concentration

I

would like to bring attention to the fact that, after various meetings with University faculty and administrators and a committee review, my independent concentration proposal for Latinx Studies was rejected. This only adds to the mounting body of evidence, including the report by the Latinx Collective, the Princeton Latinos y Amigos and the Asian American Student Association report and a report by the Latino Coalition of Princeton, pointing to Princeton University’s lack of dedication and insufficient allocation of resources for initiatives that promote a more inclusive Princeton experience and improve the experiences of students of color on campus.

Not only were their reasons – insufficient faculty support and course requirements – unfounded, but their response entails a standard answer to all concerns regarding Latinx Studies that have been brought to the admin-

istration’s attention. The go-to response has been directing the student to the American Studies Task Force, which is not the same as the Latino Studies certificate. Even if American Studies is reformed to be comprehensive, it would not change the fact that there is no space for Latinx Studies space at Princeton. “Not enough resources,” as cited in the committee’s response via email, has come to connote “we’re not going to fix it.” This decision makes evident that even when students go through University channels and “play by the rules,” Princeton is unwilling to make space for necessary changes.

What are the “factors” and “adjustments,” as demanded by the committee, considered necessary for Princeton University to finally start caring about Latinx Studies and Latinx students?

Once again, the University continues to surprise me with its lack of support and consideration for students of color. Over the past year, various students have

expressed serious concerns with the current state of the Program in Latino Studies on campus, pleading with the University to make improvements to the lack of sufficient course offerings (that are not solely cross-listed courses), faculty hiring practices, research funding, etc. When faced with an opportunity to improve the situation through the allotment of an independent concentration in Latinx Studies, Princeton, once again, fails to make the right decision.

You can take a look at how individuals at Princeton and beyond feel about the issue at the following link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/latinx-studies.

Hoping for a better Princeton, Arlene B. Gamio Cuervo ’18

The Daily Princetonian

page 6

Monday May 9, 2016

Gender-neutral housing does not fully protect transgender and non-binary students Editor’s note: The author of this column was granted anonymity due to the intensely personal nature of the events described. uring room draw last month, many students developed strategies to draw into their dream rooms for next year. Sorry, seniors and students studying abroad next semester, but also not sorry that you don’t have to go through it — from the highly-popular Spelman Halls to upperclassmen dorms to deciding whether to have a shared meal plan, unlimited plan, block plan or no meal plan at all, room draw is an intensely stressful process.

One dimension where it should not be stressful, however, is “gender-neutral housing.” As listed on the University Housing and Real Estate Services website, “gender-neutral housing” allows students to “share a multiple-occupancy dorm room with no regard to the students’ sex or gender,” and it is available in Butler, Forbes, Mathey and Whitman Colleges, as well as upperclassmen housing. “Gender-neutral housing” would then make sense if a woman and a man want to room together for the following year.

However, the current “gender-neutral housing” system is particularly detrimental to transgender students on campus. As a third gender, gender nonbinary person, I do not identify with gender binary identities of woman and man. I use they/them/their pronouns. I would rather use gender-neutral bathrooms than men’s or women’s restrooms because I am not comfortable in either of those gendered bathrooms.

Going into room draw, I formed a draw group with two of my closest friends on campus, and among the three of us, there were two people who identified as men and one person who identified as third gender (me). Even though our draw group consisted of two gender identities, my draw group did not qualify for “gender-neutral housing” for room draw, which we needed in order to qualify to have a private bathroom.

After investigating with Housing and Real Estates Services and the Office of the Registrar, I deduced that the Housing Office determines “gender-neutral housing” qualification based on the sexes of the draw group members as listed under the Office of the Registrar. Thus, a draw group can only qualify for “gender-neutral housing” if there is at least one

D

Anonymous

guest contributor

female and one male in that group regardless of those students’ gender identities, which the Office of the Registrar has no way of recording because it only collects information on students’ sex.

For me and other gender non-binary students, there is no guarantee that our housing accommodations will include access to necessary gender-neutral bathrooms. As far as I know, the University does not have any gender-neutral dormitory bathrooms with showers, so private bathrooms are necessary for gender non-binary people to be comfortable while showering and performing other personal hygiene acts. Because gender non-binary students do not necessarily qualify for gender-neutral housing, they may not receive private bathrooms. In this case, gender non-binary persons without private bathrooms would have to shower in gendered bathrooms with which they do not identify, which leads to issues with discomfort, gender dysphoria and harassment.

Princeton University students need to be aware of the issue of gender-neutral housing on campus.

I have spoken to a number of gender non-binary students, and many of them have had to use public showers and bathrooms that do not align with their gender identity. They talk about the discomfort they feel as they enter by the gendered bathroom sign, reconfirming the exclusion of their gender identity by the gender binary. They talk about their dysphoria as they use bathrooms that may remind them of the gender they were assigned at birth. They talk about their fears of being harassed or assaulted.

I currently use men’s restrooms most of the time, even when I’m presenting more feminine, wearing makeup and women’s clothing. When I do so, I am often stared at and have been confronted aggressively several times by men on Princeton’s campus. If I am forced to use a gendered restroom every day, I will be very uncomfortable and afraid because of the possibility of harassment and assault, which are real and frequent issues that transgender people face, especially away from campus. Every morning would become a political

statement just because I need to use the bathroom to shower — but I don’t want this to be a political statement. I just want to be clean and take care of my body like the rest of my peers. For this upcoming year, I was fortunate enough to “luck out” — I ultimately drew into a room with a private bathroom. But I still worry about “lucking out” the following year, even with the assurance of a better draw time as a rising senior.

I believe that, in the future, gender-neutral housing should be expanded so that any male and female students who want to live together can do so, and so that transgender students who want to access gender-neutral housing can do so as well. For now, students who need gender-neutral housing to prevent discomfort and ensure their well-being should be given first consideration should there be limited gender-neutral housing. The University already offers Special Needs Housing to students with medical conditions or disabilities using similar logic.

Finally, I do recognize that there may be inherent inequality of access to housing with private bathrooms between transgender and cisgender students should reforms to the gender-neutral housing occur. It comes down to an infrastructure problem: there are no genderneutral dormitory showering facilities that I am aware of, but the University needs to provide showering and bathroom accommodations that align with students’ gender identities to all of its students. The University already has private bathroom, gender-neutral housing in place, which is, for now, the most logistically sound option for protection of transgender students in housing.

Room draw is stressful enough without having to rely on luck to ensure access to bathrooms that align with our gender identity. We should not, however, have to rely on luck to ensure student safety and wellbeing when the University can preserve them by enacting institutional changes to housing. The University wouldn’t force a man to use a women’s restroom to shower. The University wouldn’t force a woman to use a men’s restroom to shower. But the University does force gender non-binary students to use bathroom facilities that do not align with their gender identities. We need to reform sex-neutral housing so that it is inclusive of gender non-binary persons.

a song of ice and finals Tyler simko ’18

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

Representative referenda April’s referenda came and went with no great shock to the University community. Neither the appeal to divest from private prisons nor the call to create a taskforce to reevaluate disciplinary action around the Honor Code succeeded. However, controversy has arisen over the fact that, in both cases, there was a majority in favor of change among students who voted. The referenda failed because, in both cases, they did not achieve the required participation of a third of the student body.

It has been suggested that this threshold needs to be decreased. It is too hard to get enough people to participate in democracy at Princeton. Very few referenda succeed; thus, there must be a problem with the system.

The solution is to lower the minimum requirement for the size of the voting body to some figure less than a third of the student body.

But this is an absurd proposition. It mistakes equal access to political participation for equal representation. It confuses the fact that we can all vote for the idea that these referenda, with so view voters, actually indicate the opinion of the student body. Yes, anybody can vote, but if they do not vote, one simply cannot base the consensus on the verdict of a tiny minority and claim that it democratically represents the view of the population.

Those in favor of decreasing the voting requirement hold on to the fact that, of the people voting, the majority of people vote for change, and the ‘high’ one-third requirement prevents the consensus from manifesting in action. Yet this perspective makes a gross assumption about the views of those who abstain from voting and assumes that those who do vote are a representative sample of the community. This assumption is unfounded and self-serving in favor of those who would pass the referenda.

The fact that a majority of the students who vote are in favor does not mean that this represents the preferences of the entire student body. There are intuitive reasons why those in favor of a referendum would be more inclined to vote. Those who want change feel a greater urgency to act, because only by acting can change occur. Conversely, those who prefer the status quo feel secure in their position, as a lack of action generally leads to the status quo staying the same. It is less intuitive and motivating to ask ‘how do I prevent this?’

Samuel Parsons columnist

when in disagreement with a proposition, than it is to ask ‘how do I make this happen?’ when one is in favor.

Those in opposition are also less likely to vote because, as was the case in the last referenda, to participate would be against their interests. A small increase in the number of ‘no’ voters brings the referendum to the one-third requirement, but does not change the majority view of those voters. Thus, for an individual opposing the referenda, to vote without being sure that other ‘no’ voters will also vote would be against their interests.

All of this logic suggests that those who do not vote are more likely to oppose the referenda, though this too is based on speculation. There is no substitute for the votes of the vast majority of students who do not participate in referenda voting. The only valid way to represent their opinions is to know what their opinions are. We cannot claim to be representative if we give up and render non-voting students’ opinions redundant by allowing policy to pass with the consent of a vocal, but potentially non-representative, minority.

The only solution to the serial failure of Princeton referenda is to get students to vote. We need to determine why there is such a high level of apathy among Princeton students toward student politics. I would suggest that students are disenfranchised with democracy at Princeton in general. When we are voting in class elections that have only one candidate for each position, we develop the understanding that we’re not really voting for anything. From the class of 2017, Nathan Suek, Caroline Snowden, Nusrat Ahmed and Ariel Hsing ran uncontested for their positions. They were followed by Kevin Liu and Adnan Sachee in 2018, and Susan Liu, Nicole Kalhorn, Carly Bonnet and Chelsea Ng in 2019. All of these students walked into supposedly elected positions without competition, and each one of them could, hypothetically, have been elected with but a single vote from over 5000 undergraduates.

They make up 66 percent, 10 out of 15, of elected class government positions, excluding U-Councilors — an election which had only seven people running for 10 positions, with all seven attaining office.

A myriad of issues arises from this woefully uncompetitive election, but the most relevant one in this case is that in electing these ten people, our votes did not count. Assuming that at least one person voted in approval, there was nothing anyone could do to change the outcome. This does not create a motivated political culture, one in which voters feel enfranchised and empowered. It is more likely to leave students feeling that their participation is pointless. This is a problem because the class elections were launched in conjunction with the referenda. Consequently, students were faced with the choice of whether or not to vote on the referenda, having just participated in a class election in which they likely feel their vote hardly made a difference. It is no wonder that we have a problem with a lack of interest in student politics. Repairing the value of a vote at Princeton is a first of many steps to repairing this.

When faced with the issue of having less than a third of the student body participating in referenda, the solution is not to minimize the voting requirement so that the ranks of Government Club become sufficient to pass policy that affects all Princetonians. We need to take on the real challenge and get students to vote, because the only way to make political choices that reflect the views of students is to know the views of students. We need to get them interested, and this requires reevaluating the quality of student politics. Every week we hear of new task forces being created, new boards, offices and titles, but the task force we really need is one that critically evaluates the student political system and refines the system to the extent that students see it as useful.

If we held a referendum of Princeton’s parking policy tomorrow, it seems highly likely, based on the vigorous response to the policy announcement, that more than a third of the student body would be willing to vote.

The parking petition received more than 1,200 votes in less than 24 hours, with almost no campaigning or advertising at all. Clearly, we have the intrinsic motivation. We need to awaken this motivation, not give up on it, when the next pertinent campus political decision comes around.

Samuel Parsons is a freshman from Wangaratta, Australia. He can be reached at samueljp@princeton.edu.

Monday May 9, 2016

The Daily Princetonian

page 7

Track teams perform at Women’s lacrosse drops heartbreaker to Ivy League Heptagonals Cornell, looks toward NCAA tournament TRACK

Continued from page 8

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

also sent 8 qualifiers to the finals in the 100m hurdles, 400m hurdles, 400m, and 800m.

On the second day, the Tigers jumped to a strong start with the steeplechase. Senior Emily de La Bruyere, junior Lizzie Bird and junior Ally Markovich claimed second, third and fifth in the event, respectively.

Senior Cecilia Barowski easily won the 400 meter dash, setting a school record time of 52.97. The star senior finished over a second before second place.

The Tigers finished the meet strong with the 4x800 and 4x400 relays. Princeton took second in the 4x800m with a 2:09.67 from junior Zoe Sims. Princeton then won the 4x400, to end the meet on a sweet note.

Turning to the men, senior Adam Bragg was the highlight of Princeton’s performance on Day 1, not only winning the pole vault, but also setting a new meet and Ivy League record. Sophomore August Kiles took second place in the event after clearing 5.11.

While freshman Adam Kelly took second in the hammer throw with a toss of 67.50, junior Vic Youn came in sixth after six attempts.

Senior captain Jake Scinto jumped to 7.11 to earn fifth in the long jump, while juniors Chris Cook and Jared Bell took fourth and fifth in the discus, respectively.

After the first five events of the decathlon, senior Bryan Oslin was in fifth with 3,509 points, while

sophomore James Burns was in seventh with 3,178.

The men also performed impressively in the qualifying races, sending 14 athletes to compete in Day 2.

The second day featured a victory for the men’s 4x100 relay consisting of freshman Charles Volker, freshman Josh Billington, senior Daniel McCord and sophomore Carrington Akosa.

Sophomore Garrett O’Toole and senior Luke Brahm finished in fourth and sixth in the 1500m finals.

Princeton then jumped to an 18 point lead behind a 1-2 finish in the short put. Junior Chris Cook and sophomore Mitchell Charles continued to dominate the event.

Cornell rebounded with the 400 meter dash, but Princeton would respond with a second place finish in the 100 behind Akosa and a fourth place finish in the 800 behind sophomore Noah Kauppila.

The men then finished second in the 4x800 relay and took first through fifth, except for second, in the 400 meter hurdles.

Unfortunately, Cornell finished strong in the long jump and decathlon to secure the victory. With the second place finish, the Tigers have either won or claimed second for the past ten outdoor Heps.

Both the men and women are well on the track to the NCAA tournament as Akosa had hoped for at the beginning of the spring season, when he said, “we have great people on the track team, and we’re looking to do damage outdoors and hopefully go to nationals.”

LACROSSE Continued from page 8

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

and switch to a faster-paced offense; the changes worked well, and Princeton prevailed in the end. However, Cornell was no easy task, as the Big Red were dominant on the field; they outshot the Tigers, 29-17, and won both more draws and ground balls.

Cornell got off to an early lead on Friday afternoon, jumping off to a quick 3-0 start. The Tigers kept their composure, however, in the semifinal matchup and went on a four-goal tear to lead at halftime, 4-3. Senior Anya Gersoff got the scoring going for the Tigers at 22:45, and the fearsome midfielder pair of sophomore Colby Chanenchuk and Hompe worked together to net two more for the Tigers. Hompe led the of-

fense for the Tiger women, finishing with four goals, giving her a remarkable eighth hat-trick this season.

Princeton carried the momentum into the second half, scoring two more quickly within two minutes of the start of the half — sophomore Camille Sullivan added a goal before Hompe completed her hat-trick.

With a 6-3 lead in the second half, and a wall behind the net in goalie Ellie DeGarmo, victory seemed assured for the Tigers.

But the resolute Cornell team had other plans, and came for the upset win over the No. 2 Tigers on Friday.

Cornell freshman Taylor Reed carried the team, scoring three times in a span of 4:43 to pull her team within one, at 7-6. After Olivia Mattyasovszky eventually evened the score 7-7, the

game was a back and forth affair coming down to the very end. With 4:47 left, the duo of Chanenchuk and Hompe struck again, and Princeton was minutes away from victory. However, Emily Tripodi heroically saved the day, scoring a goal with 17 seconds left to send the incredible match into overtime, where Catherine Ellis eventually broke Princeton’s heart.

Though the loss is disappointing for the Tigers, Princeton was fortunate to receive one of the 13 at large bids for the NCAA tournament. Princeton is set to play UMass this Friday in Ithaca, N.Y., and looks to capture its first NCAA title since 2003 — with strong veteran experience and a stellar cast of new freshman, a national championship is certainly a plausible goal.

Monday May 9, 2016

Sports

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } LACROSSE

Women’s lacrosse falls to Cornell in Ivy League Tournament semifinal

By Hamza Chaudhry staff writer

The Princeton women’s lacrosse team lost a heartbreaker to Cornell this past Sunday in the Ivy League tournament, falling in overtime, 10-9. The newly instituted sudden death overtime rules hurt the Tigers in their first overtime contest this season, as Cornell’s Catherine Ellis knotted the game winner with a minute and half to go to send her team to the championship game against Penn.

The Tigers came riding a wave of momentum into the Ivy tournament, which features the top four teams in the league, capturing their third Ivy title in as many years last week with a triumph in Providence over Brown. Finishing with

a league record of 6-1, the women’s lacrosse team was able to share their 12th Ivy crown with Penn. On the defensive end, the Tigers were anchored by stalwart goalie, junior Ellie DeGarmo, while the fearsome attack was led by junior midfielder Olivia Hompe, who netted 41 goals and added 11 assists in the regular season. These two, both All-Ivy selections, are also nominees for the 2016 Tewaartaton award.

Given their last matchup with the Big Red in midApril, the Tigers probably anticipated they would have their hands full. On Apr. 16, Princeton won a nail-biter, 8-7, and were tested throughout the afternoon. Falling behind early, 4-2, the Tiger women were forced to make some defensive adjustments See LACROSSE page 7

DANIELA COSIO:: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Women’s lacrosse dropped a 10-9 heartbreaker to Cornell in this past weekend’s Ivy League semifinal.

TRACK AND FIELD

Track and field teams take second at Heps

By David Liu and Miranda Hasty sports editor and staff writer

OLIVIA TOBEASON :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

The track and field teams saw success at the Heptagonals this weekend.

After a weekend of hosting the most anticipated meet of the season, both the men’s and women’s track and field teams won second place at the Iv y League Heptagonals. The women’s team fell to Harvard, 139-160, while the men fell to Cornell, 211-157.

For the women, this past weekend marked the final Heps for long-time head coach Peter Farrell. The retiring coach has led the both the women’s track and field and cross country teams for 39 years, ever since the teams obtained varsity status.

The women’s track team was in first place after Day 1 of the Ivy League Outdoor Heptagonal Championships.

Sophomore Kennedy O’Dell and senior Brielle Rowe started the day off strongly in the hammer throw. O’Dell retained the first-place title for Princeton, while Rowe took third.

O’Dell and Rowe also finished the day with third and fourth in the discus.

Clearing 4.00m on her first attempt, junior Allison Harris won the pole vault, while senior Sara Ronde jumped into fourth place in the long jump.

Falling behind Cornell’s Caroline Kellner in the

last two laps of the 10k, senior Kathryn Fluehr took second place after a hardfought race.

Senior Taylor Morgan was first in the heptathlon after Day 1, having earned 3,305 points after first, second, and sixth place finishes in the shot put, hurdles, high jump, and the 200.

Senior Kerry Krause and sophomore Maia Craver didn’t finish far behind.

Krause was in fourth with 3,047 points, while Craver earned 2,918 points to take seventh.

In addition to the 38 points that earned them a first-place standing heading into Day 2, the Tigers See TRACK page 7

W. T E N N I S

Women’s tennis team to take on Georgia Tech in NCAA tournament

By Berthy Feng staff writer

The Princeton women’s tennis team will take on Georgia Tech this Friday in the first round of the NCAA tournament.

As of Apr. 26, Princeton was the No. 40 team in the country, and Georgia Tech stood at No. 16.

The match will mark a record third-straight NCAA appearance by the women’s tennis team. In 2014, the Tigers won a match at the tournament for the first time, beating Arizona State. Last year, they lost to South Carolina in a close 4-3 match.

The team’s record this year is 13-9 overall and 5-2 in the Ivy League. Three Tigers received Ivy League honors last month.

Senior Amanda Muliawan was named a second-team All-Ivy League honoree and first-team All-Ivy in singles. Muliawan plays at the No. 1 singles spot and is 19-13 overall in singles matches. She reached a national ITA ranking of No. 86 in February and has beaten three ITAranked players this year, including No. 36 Madison Westby of USC.

Sophomore Katrine Steffensen earned her first career Ivy League nod, receiving a place on second-team Ivy singles. She plays No. 2 singles and holds an overall singles record of 24-16 this year. Her highest national ranking is No. 87, which she reached in January and February.Head coach Laura Granville was named Coach of the Year for the second year in a row. Under her direction, the team climbed out of a hole in mid-February to reenter the ITA rankings. Over the spring, the Tigers have progressed through the top 75 to the No. 40 spot, and hold the top spot in the Ivy rankings.

“I think our drive and hard work got us through some of the tougher matches,” Katrine Steffensen said, explaining her team’s progression through the Ivy season. “I also believe our Fall Season and Spring Break trip helped a lot. We played some really good teams, like Alabama and Arizona State and even though we didn’t win, we saw that we could hang with them and really give them a run for their money. We also had a few good wins, like against Rice over Spring Break, that gave us

Tweet of the Day “just paid for a 39 cent charge with my debit card bc I didn’t have enough in cash or coins. never felt like less of an adult” taylor williams (@ preTAYY), senior forward, basketball

both confidence and momentum going into Ivy Season.”

The Georgia Tech women’s tennis team is 17-8 overall this season and 11-3 in their conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference. Georgia Tech boasts three ITA top-125 players: No. 32 sophomore Johnnise Renaud, No. 44 sophomore Paige Hourigan and No. 125 junior Rasheeda McAdoo. Hourigan and senior Kendal Woodard were the No. 12 doubles team.

In spite of Georgia Tech’s higher ranking, the Princeton women’s tennis team has high expectations for its trip to the NCAA tournament.

“I think the main thing for us is to have the mentality that we have nothing to lose, but at the same time to truly believe that we can win,” said Steffensen. “We plan to put pressure on Georgia Tech instead of on ourselves and see what happens, but that being said, we all have high expectations for NCAAs and hope to go far.”

The Tigers will play Georgia Tech in South Carolina at 2 p.m.

The winner will advance to face the winner of South Carolina vs.

Winthrop.

DANIELA COSIO:: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Princeton will take on No. 16 ranked Georgia Tech this Friday.

Stat of the Day

41 goals Junior midfielder Olivia Hompe scored 41 goals over the regular season for women’s lacrosse.

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