January 7, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday January 7, 2019 vol. CXLII no. 120

Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

STUDENT LIFE

STUDENT LIFE

‘Ty Ger’ discusses Tiger Confessions Facebook page

By Paige Allen Contributor

Ty Ger, the sole administrator of the Tiger Confessions Facebook page, started the page on Oct. 30 because they wanted to compliment someone anonymously.

Since then, the culture of the page has changed significantly. Anonymous compliments about fellow Princetonians morphed into more serious confessions on topics such as eating disorders, mental health, and family problems.

Confessions are submitted through an anonymous Google form. From there, Ty Ger numbers and posts confessions to the page.

Ty Ger, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Daily Princetonian that daily submissions have increased from about 10 to about 70 since the start of winter break. The page currently has over 2,500 members.

Last Thursday, Ty Ger spoke with the ‘Prince’ about how the page’s current culture has changed dramatically from its original purpose.

The Daily Princetonian: In your words, what is Tiger Confessions?

Ty Ger: It’s a forum where students who have something on their mind can get something off their mind. Something that they’ve been thinking about, that they either don’t feel comfortable talking about in person or that they just want other opinions on.

DP: Who started the page and when?

TG: I started it earlier this semester very, very impulsively because I actually had

this desire to compliment someone anonymously. I was looking for the previous Tiger Admirers page, and that one wasn’t active anymore. I was frustrated that the admin of that page just left without doing anything, so I wanted to take matters into my own hands and create a new page.

DP: What was the intended purpose of Tiger Confessions?

TG: It initially started out as just an admirers page, so it was specifically for people to compliment people on campus.

DP: Do you think the page is still fulfilling that purpose?

TG: It’s really evolved from that. I think it has been shifting toward what people want to talk about. But it really wasn’t something that I was expecting, so it’s definitely interesting how that kind of happened naturally without any prompting.

DP: Many of the confessions recently have touched on particularly serious issues, such as issues of racism, sexual abuse, and mental health. Do you feel like Tiger Confessions is the right place for students to voice those experiences?

TG: That’s something that I’ve had to be much more careful of recently. Sometimes, I think there are a few confessions that voice a very deep hopelessness. Some of them are very detailed, and I’m not sure if I should post them. But I also feel like I have an obligation to post them. Because, the last thing you want for See CONFESSIONS page 5

COURTESY OF JUSTIN RIPLEY

Members of the Princeton Citizen Scientists after meeting with members of the National Academy of Sciences during their annual D.C. science advocacy and professional development trip.

Citizen Scientists president Justin Ripley on D.C. trip

By Rebecca Han Contributor

On Dec. 5 and 6, 18 graduate students and members of the Princeton Citizen Scientists, a student organization formed in 2016 seeking to promote scientific engagement and affect scientific policy, traveled to Washington, D.C., to advocate for issues relating to climate change, science education, and healthcare.

On Saturday, the Citizen Scientists’ president, Justin Ripley, spoke with the Daily Princetonian about the trip and the other work of the Citizen Scientists.

The Daily Princetonian: What was the goal of the Princeton Citizen Scientists’ trip to Washington, D.C, and what specific impacts do you wish to see?

Justin Ripley: We’re partly funded by the Office of

STUDENT LIFE

Career Services, so one of the goals was to take graduate students and undergraduate students in the sciences and expose them to the workings of U.S. government by taking them to various government agencies and having a talk with their lawmakers about the issues they care about. The other goal was to actually successfully advocate for science issues that we cared about, so, for example, climate change, science funding, science education, nuclear weapons, and disarmament.

DP: How long has PCS been traveling to D.C. to meet with policymakers?

How were these trips first organized?

JR: The trips have been going on since 2016, and since the group’s founding, I think we’ve gone on a few trips now, about one a year. They were first organized by just a small group of graduate students who thought that people in the sciences should be more aware of how the government works and that we should learn how to advocate for issues we care about.

DP: How was the trip structured, and who were among the representatives

and organizations that you met with? How did the representatives you met with receive the proposals?

JR: First, it was a two-day trip in the middle of the week near the end of the semester, at the beginning of December. I think it was Dec. 5 and 6, a Wednesday and Thursday. We met with four different organizations. First, we met with some program managers at the National Academy of Sciences.Then, we met with the president of the Federation of American Scientists, Ali Nouri, who, incidentally enough, is a Princeton alum. He got a Ph.D. here, and he talked to us about how to effectively advocate for science issues.

On the next day, we met with our local reps. We did this by asking everyone who went on the trip to email or call their local staff, representative, or senator from the state they were from and schedule a meeting for that day. We met with staffers and some representatives and senators on Thursday morning, and on Thursday afternoon, we met with some staff members from the Library of Congress, and they talked to us about how they interact with See RIPLEY page 2

ON CAMPUS

Sprinkler leak affects hundreds of books in Firestone Library Contributor

BRAD SPICHER :: PRINCETONIAN STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Zarnab Virk ‘20 will be the fifth female USG president in an iteration of five to serve the class of 2019.

Virk ’20 wins USG presidency after 30 percent voter turnout

By Zack Shevin Contributor

After only 30 percent of undergraduates participated in last week’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) runoff elections, Zarnab Virk ’20 was elected USG president, and Heavyn Jennings ’20 was elected USG social

In Opinion

chairperson.

Virk continues a trend of female USG presidents, and will represent the fifth female president in as many years. She will serve the Class of 2019.

Virk received 64.3 percent of the vote in the presidential election, with 1023 votes, whereas Nate Lambert ’20 re-

ceived 568.

In the first-round election, Virk received only four more votes than Lambert.

In an email to the The Daily Princetonian, Virk wrote that she learned a lot from her campaign experience and plans to continue working hard to execute her platform

Associate Editor Jon Ort criticizes the University’s decision to open a joint AI lab with Google, Editorial Assistant Sam Aftel argues for a more honor-based Honor Code, Contributing Columnist Makailyn Jones advocates that students exercise, and Senior columnist Rachel Kennedy reflects on the meaning and possible motivation of rejection. PAGE 6

See VIRK page 3

Several hundred books on Firestone Library’s basement A f loor suffered a watery fate on Monday, December 17, after a sprinkler f looded the library’s ground level Trustee Reading Room.

Some books will require conservation work because of the damage.

Water accumulated in the Trustee Reading Room and f looded sections of A f loor, according to Library Communications Manager Barbara Valenza.

Richard Anderson GS ’18 filmed a video of the leakage from the A f loor.

According to the video, Firestone’s small trash and

Today on Campus

7:00 p.m.: In a concert curated by Gustavo Dudamel, Mozart’s music will be placed side-by-side with that of Estonian composer Arvo Pärt Richardson Auditorium

recycling cans were placed in most aisles to catch water that was pouring from the ceiling. But the tactic wasn’t adequate and large pools of water accumulated.

Anderson said he was writing on the A f loor while this incident occurred. A part-time employee at Firestone himself, Anderson said he was struck by the speed with which other University employees responded to the accident.

“In my time at Princeton I saw several emergencies of varying degrees of severity, and it always strikes me how many employees put in hard work to make sure that the campus can See SPRINKLER page 3

WEATHER

By Hannah Baynesan

HIGH

37˚

LOW

30˚

Partly Cloudy chance of rain:

0 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Monday January 7, 2019

Ripley: Our organization tries to provide a framework for students RIPLEY

Continued from page 1

............. the government, how they provide information and resources to lawmakers and staffers. The trip was a bit of a professional development trip, talking to agencies ... and the trip was also advocating for science issues.

DP: Why did you chose those topics in particular?

How were members assigned to groups?

JR: The issues we chose were entirely determined by those who signed up to go on our trip. We had 18 people go on our trip, and they came from a variety of what was essentially all STEM fields this year. In previous years, it’s been more of a mixture.

There were a lot of people on our trip who worked at the [Princeton] Plasma Physics Lab and they care a lot about climate issues and nuclear weapons security and disarmament, so we had a group form on climate issues and we had a group form on nuclear issues. Some of our members cared about science education ... so we had a group talk about student use of all of those other things that were important. There was a group that talked about healthcare issues as well, be-

cause we had some students at Princeton who are doing a joint Ph.D.-M.D. with Rutgers, and we had people who cared about healthcare, so they formed a group. I think we had four groups in total.

It was all student-driven. We didn’t dictate what people talked about, we didn’t tell them what they had to say, we didn’t have an agenda, we just provided a platform for students to learn about an issue they cared about and advocate for it.

DP: What’s next for the group, and are there more planned upcoming meetings with policy-makers? Could you tell us more about your ongoing project, “Briefing on Solar Energy Policy for N.J. lawmakers”?

JR: In terms of follow-up, in January, we’re going to meet again and follow-up via email with the staffers we talked to. Some of our meetings were better received than others, and we may actually get some things moving in terms of having lawmakers, say, sign some letters. With regards to the solar energy development, we are working with a primarily undergraduate group, the Princeton Student Climate Initiative. We’re trying to help them, working with them on their goal to draft legislation, clean en-

ergy legislation, and interest legislators, so we’re helping do some research for them ...

It is something we’re trying to collaborate with them on.

DP: On your website, you say that you have organized the group to understand what we “can do to tackle the societal issues we face today and promote democratic participation and evidence-based policy making.”

In your opinion, what is the relationship between science and public policy? What responsibility, if any, do scientists have to affect policy and engage civically?

JR: Firstly, we hopefully will have the president of the Federation of American Scientists come talk about that in February. At least personally, I see the role of, in terms of science and public policy, at least with issues with regards to, say, if the government’s gonna get involved in things like energy, or education, or how we use land, these are all issues where technical expertise in those issues is quite important. So, at least at a level of people with technical expertise informing policymakers on issues that are relevant to the legislation they’re trying to pass and enforce, that’s an incredibly important interaction that

is fairly well established. On the other hand, scientific funding in the national labs and all these resources are a lot of times provided by the government, so on those ends, they are useful for each other, and it’s important for both ends to understand the interests. Why do lawmakers decide what is relevant and salient to lawmakers, what is relevant and salient to scientists — both of these things are important with regards to the functioning and funding of science and the laws that will actually impact the way one will go. For example, clean air, clean energy, clean water, food, all these things fit in each other.

DP: The Citizen Scientists’ task forces cover topics from the obviously science-related, such as climate change, to the less apparently “scientific,” such as human rights and prison reform. How would the Citizen Scientists characterize the intersection between science and topics such as child welfare, prison reform, education policy, and the like?

JR: So, those tasks forces were formed a few years ago. We actually haven’t had as much activity on those.

The website is quite out of date, and we’re working to update that. Let me scroll

through these task forces to see what we have followed up on. Climate change, inclusive science, education policy — at least with regards to education policy, you want to educate new students, new minds, the latest information and the latest pedagogical techniques, you want to have them. Plus, science is involved in how you test and evaluate teaching techniques that work most effectively, so at least on that end, there’s some science. Educating students about science and math, of course, so I would say just loosely on that end, you want to have students well-educated in the STEM fields, at least to a certain degree, just because ... it’s important to have some basic knowledge there. And, just in terms of, on the f lipside, just evaluating good teaching techniques. In the news, you always hear about how we’ve fallen behind certain countries and their education systems, so how do we actually find methods that work well?

Nuclear ban treaty, that’s about nuclear weapons, one of our members from our group worked in mechanical engineering and plasma physics, and their work, at least indirectly, touches on nuclear issues. At least a lot of their funding comes from, for example, the DOE, and a lot of the DOE is tasked with actually maintaining the nuclear weapons arsenal, so there’s a lot of people who are interested in how their work actually relates to this issues ... A lot of these issues are driven by particular individuals, and we try to work them into our broader goal, that being empowering people in the sciences to be more aware of how the government works and figuring out ways how we can actively and helpfully inform policymakers.

The specifics are driven by students.

DP: Among other critics, the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists says the current administration is “sidelining science from decision-making and weakening the federal scientific enterprise.” Movements such as the March for Science have emerged in response to the perceived devaluation of fact-based policy-making.

How does the current political climate affect the demand for scientific advocacy and the actions of Citizen Scientists?

JR: The group was formed by a few students in the Center on Science and Global Security in the wake of the election, so in a very direct way, this group exists because of that and the current political climate. I would say, when we go to Washington, D.C., and talk to staffers, everyone is happy that there are people who are advocating on behalf of the sciences. There’s always a lot of industries, farming and pharmaceuticals, for example, where the majority are advocating for their issues very strongly, but on terms of the level of just say, science and basic research advocating for themself, there are fewer people doing that, but just having a few people there, I think, regardless of political climate, it always seems to be encouraged. With regards to the current climate, I would say our group, like March for Science and a lot of these things that have formed in the last couple of years, is a response to that and the outgrowth of a community of students on campus who wanted to have an organization that made people aware of how the government works. A lot of people and students were trying to figure out how they could do something, and they also felt like they didn’t know a lot about how the government functions, all the different knobs that were turned, and our organization is trying to See RIPLEY page 3

The Daily Princetonian

Monday January 7, 2019

page 3

Valenza: Several hundred books were damp but dried overnight SPRINKLER Continued from page 1

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

continue to function,” Anderson said.

Many of the books affected on the A level simply dried overnight, according to Valenza.

“Several hundred books

were damp but dried overnight. About 130 books will require additional drying,” Valenza said. “Only a handful were very wet and will need conservation work.

None of the books were rare or of significant replacement value.”

According to Valenza, little damage occurred in the

Trustee Reading Room, an area that has not yet been renovated.

“The Trustee Reading Room was scheduled to open towards the end of January and is still on schedule to meet that opening date. In the meantime, books in the affected area have been moved and are

still accessible,” Valenza explained.

Director of Library Finance and Administration Jeff Rowlands said he was grateful for staff’s diligent response after the incident.

“A number of staff were here until late last night sorting and inspecting the books. Their dedication and

support is greatly appreciated,” Rowlands said.

The University Office of Communications did not respond to request for comment from The Daily Princetonian.

This story was originally published on December 18, 2018.

COURTESY OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

Ripley: It is important to advocate for issues you care about RIPLEY

Continued from page 2

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

help sort of increase knowledge on how the government works, because that’ll help us more effectively advocate for the issues we care about and understand better how these things work. So I think it’s very pertinent now, but even, like climate change is, it’ll still be important.

DP: How can undergraduates interested in the sciences impact policy-making?

JR: I would say advocating for issues you care about in terms of calling your representative or senator and writ-

ing letters. Those things actually do matter. Sometimes, it’s not always obvious when it matters, but those things can actually cause changes in smaller things — changing the wording on the website, or changing the wording in the law. A lot of these things are at least indirectly driven by who is calling, who is saying, ‘this is important to me, this is why.’ Besides calling and writing letters, for example, I think getting involved in local organizations, so for example, the Princeton township is working on drafting new rules ... they want to become cleaner.

Students can get involved

Virk: I feel honored to serve the student body VIRK

Continued from page 1

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

and represent University students.

“I feel honored to have this ability to serve the student body, and I’m so thankful for everyone that helped make it happen,” she wrote.

Virk plans on connecting with current USG members and her new team over winter break “to outline priorities and craft a plan to tackle issues on campus.”

Lambert told the ‘Prince’ that he is proud of the campaign he ran, thankful to everyone who supported him, and excited to explore new things on campus beyond USG. “Having worked closely with the many members of USG who will be returning next year, I’m confident that they will continue to produce great work for the undergraduate community,” he wrote in an email.

Current USG president Rachel Yee ’19 said she is proud of all of the candidates for “taking a step in being civically engaged.”

“Obviously, elections are a very public process, and you’re putting yourself out there for public scrutiny,” Yee said. “So every single person, regardless of the outcome of the election, I am very thankful that they stepped up to run.”

Yee declined to comment on the specific outcome of the USG presidential election.

In the runoff election for social chairperson, Jennings received 65.7 percent of votes.

In the first-round election, Jennings received 47.8 percent of the vote, just 2.2 percent short of an outright victory.

“While I wasn’t particularly nervous, I was anxious to find out the results,” Jennings wrote in an email state-

ment to the ‘Prince.’

Jennings added that she is excited to take on the position and “can’t wait to start brainstorming with everyone on the upcoming social events.”

In the runoff, she received 1057 total votes. Ans Nawaz ’21 received 551.

Nawaz did not respond to request for comment. Nawaz is a former photographer for the ‘Prince.’

In total, 1,622 ballots were cast. Thirty percent of undergraduate students voted, a decrease from the 38 percent turnout in the first round.

Yee said she was disappointed in the turnout.

“We were really aiming for over 50 [percent]. That’s always been the goal,” she said.

“I really do believe that if we are encouraging people to be civically engaged, that also means being civically engaged in our own elections.”

Yee said that she agreed in part with a recent ‘Prince’ editorial in which the Editorial Board refrained from endorsing a candidate in the USG presidential election because “none of the candidates’ platforms contend with one another.” The Board also expressed regret for the fact that six of the 10 USG first-round races were uncontested.

“I do hear what they were saying in terms of the lack of engagement, and this is not just something that is unique to this election,” Yee said. “If you look back historically, there are so many positions that are unopposed, and I want to understand why and what we can do to change that.”

Voting was open from Monday, Dec. 10, at noon to Wednesday, Dec. 12, at noon for the winter runoff elections.

This story was originally published on December 21, 2018.

with that, they always welcome students’ input, and I would say just being vocal about things you care about and trying to inform oneself about it. It’s not always going to have a huge, big impact, but that’s sort of the messy nature of the system ... On a local level, it’s much more clear how to impact policy.

There is an undergraduate group, again, the PSCI, and they are actively right now working on climate legislation. That’s an undergraduate group that is very actively trying to shape policy in New Jersey.

DP: Is there anything else you would like to add?

JR: These D.C. trips we take are open to all. We don’t typically have a lot of undergraduates join us, but we have in the past, and it’s always great. Again, our organization is trying to provide a framework, a scaffolding to allow students in Princeton to inform themselves and engage with policy-makers and just be better informed about it and try to impact the policy itself. Through the Wilson School, there are official programs for students to kind of get involved, but we’re trying to show that even if you wanted to, say, pursue a career in research, science, or whatever your

career is, you can still have an impact, and it’s important to be aware and engaged in that, and we’re trying to help bridge that gap and show that it’s actually not as difficult as it might sound. Hopefully, we’ll continue doing these trips and having talks and get some advertisements and hopefully the president of the Federation of American Scientists will come to Princeton and give a talk on this as well.

I was definitely not the lead organizer of this. Katja Luxem, she did a lot of work as well, so I helped her out, but she was a huge asset in organizing a lot of this trip.

page 4

The Daily Princetonian

T HE DA ILY

News. Opinions. Sports. Every day. join@dailyprincetonian.com

Monday January 7, 2019

Monday January 7, 2019

The Daily Princetonian

page 5

TASHI TREADWAY :: DAILY PRINCETONIAN CARTOONS EDITOR

Ty Ger: I just want to post submissions, not influence the page CONFESSIONS Continued from page 1

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

someone who submits something like that is to feel like they’re just talking to no one and that their problems are being ignored. So I have been pretty liberal with what I’ve been posting. I feel like there’s some kind of responsibility on my part, and on the part of everyone in the page, to — I don’t know — try to help these people. But on the other hand, I feel like when you crowdsource advice, it’s maybe not the best way to get help. So that is a problem that I do see emerging.

DP: Do you think that the current community or environment that’s being fostered on the page is achieving the goals of the page?

TG: I’m actually not quite sure. This is definitely much different than what I was imagining when I started the page. I want to just be the person that posts the submissions and not really try to influence

the environment of the page too much. But there is part of me that isn’t really a fan of some of the stuff going onto the page. On some issues, there almost seems to be a kind of echo chamber where popular ideas will get so many positive reactions and up votes, but unpopular ones might be immediately shut down. As an admin, I feel like I don’t have much control over that.

DP: What is something you, as an admin, would like to change about the current environment on the page?

TG: I feel like there’s been a pattern of, maybe, people who haven’t experienced a serious problem like depression or an eating disorder trying to give advice on that topic which, I feel like — I mean, it’s not malicious or anything — is just something that the page would be better off without.

Also, it is very hard for me to moderate political arguments.

So that’s been hard, because people have complained about feeling censored or feeling like they aren’t able to say what

they want to.

DP: It seems like the activity on the page has really increased since the start of winter break.

How many confessions would you say that you receive per day?

TG: It probably averages to be around 70 right now. It’s really funny because before the break, the average was closer to 10.

DP: Why do you think the activity on the page has increased so much since the start of break?

TG: There do seem to be a lot of posts about family problems, so maybe that’s something that people are thinking about when they’re home.

I was really surprised. I actually remember before the break started, I thought the page would probably die because I assumed people think about Princeton less when they’re off campus.

I think there was also one day where a lot more confession-type posts were submitted, as opposed to just compliments, and I think I also

changed the name of the group from Tiger Admirers to Tiger Confessions during the break, and I think that has definitely caused a spike in the number of posts.

DP: Do you moderate the submissions at all?

TG: I do. There are a few things I filter out. Some posts, I don’t think they’re very relevant to the page. I don’t post them because they’re extremely vague or not really contributing anything, in my opinion. There are also a lot that I feel would make people uncomfortable. Like, there have been a few that say something like, “Oh, I hope this person and their significant other break up because I really like one of the people in that relationship.” I don’t post things like that. There have also just been ones that are clearly troll posts or trying to start a discussion that won’t be productive, so I haven’t been posting those, too. But I would say that I post the majority of things that are submitted.

DP: Do you monitor com-

ments on posts at all?

TG: There have been two specific instances where I’ve stepped in and deleted comments, and those were all prompted by someone messaging me and explaining why they thought the comment was problematic. And in both of those cases, after I deleted the comment, the original commenter also messaged me and was like, “Why did you delete my comment? This isn’t fair.”

So that’s just been something that’s hard to balance, kind of satisfying both parties. But I think, as an admin, I definitely want to emphasize respect and a place where people feel comfortable saying what they think.The main thing is balancing that with making sure that we aren’t harming others.

DP: Have you ever posted your own confession on the page?

TG: I have. I’ll leave it to readers to try to find which ones were me. I always feel so sneaky when I do something like that.

Like sports? Write for the sports section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

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.

Opinion

Monday January 7, 2019

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Google’s AI in Princeton endangers academic freedom Jon Ort

Associate Editor

T

his month, Google and the University will open their joint artificial intelligence (AI) lab at 1 Palmer Square, mere steps from Nassau Hall. Everyone who stands to benefit from the project — Princeton professors, Google officials, even New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy — has lauded the decision. By entangling scholarship with Google’s sponsorship, however, the University has failed to protect its professors from plausible ethical dilemmas.

Professor Jennifer Rexford, Chair of the Computer Science Department, argued that the lab complements the “three pillars of excellence” that characterize the University’s computer science curriculum: computing theory, innovative collaboration, and “leadership, through our Center for Information Technology Policy, in the broader societal implications of computing such as bias and ethics in AI, privacy and security.” In effect, the University has deferred all moral questions, Rexford’s “third pillar,” to its Center for Information Tech-

nology Policy (CITP).

Yet, the CITP is not immune to conflicts of interest. In 2010, Google hired Deven Desai, then a Visiting Fellow at the Center, to identify researchers who could defend the company’s policies. Desai paid each of Google’s academic partners tens — sometimes hundreds — of thousands of dollars. In return, the researchers shared drafts of their work with Google employees, many of whom offered suggestions.

Although Google did not restrict the scholars, much of their research supported the company’s controversial practices. In one case, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) debated whether to charge Google with antitrust violations, the law firm representing the company sent the commissioners several of Desai’s proGoogle papers. The FTC subsequently ruled in Google’s favor.

Google’s largesse is a doubleedged sword. On one hand, the company fosters legitimate and cutting edge collaboration with universities. On the other, when its dubious conduct comes into question, Google utilizes academia for its own purposes.

Through its philanthropic presence, the company gains access to a vast network of legal and scientific scholars.

Even academics as distinguished as Rexford and Edward

Felten, Director of the CITP, have received research funding from Google. Felten’s incisive research and antitrust investigations as the FTC’s inaugural Chief Technologist have earned him a reputation for fairness.

Nonetheless, the University should disclose Felten’s previous work with Google, given that he will be responsible for answering the questions of bias, ethics, privacy, and security that Google’s University lab will inevitably raise.

Rexford described the lab as “an exciting opportunity to work with a leading company while also maintaining the strong academic independence and freedom that is essential to Princeton.” Unless Nassau Hall releases the terms of its contract with Google, however, it is impossible to know whether the proper precautions are in place. For example, the University reports that professors Elad Hazan and Yoram Singer, the lab’s principal researchers, “will split their time working for Google and Princeton.” How can the University expect professors to study AI as a pursuit of truth if their work profits Google shareholders?

To compound the problem, artificial intelligence, a field of both great promise and moral hazard, raises unprecedented ethical questions. University professors, many of whom pur-

sue beneficial applications of AI, are at the forefront of this intellectual phenomenon. As the faculty grapples with such profound quandaries, the University has doubled down on its naïve trust in Google, which reaps astronomical profits from unbridled AI. Google’s AI lab falls within the University’s larger ambition to champion New Jersey’s “innovation ecosystem.” According to a press release, last year was “a pivotal point,” as the University “established significant new collaborations with pioneering members of industry,” including Google and Celgene, the pharmaceutical company formerly headed by U. Trustee Bob Hugin ’76.

Both Governor Phil Murphy and President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 have waxed poetic about the initiative, which aspires to turn New Jersey, the “Silicon Valley before there was a Silicon Valley,” into a technological hub. Yet, powerful though the incentives of profit, prestige, and politics may be, the University should know better than to take corporate beneficence for granted.

Jon Ort is an Associate Opinion Editor of the Daily Princetonian. This piece represents the views of the Associate Opinion Editor only. He can be reached at jaort@princeton.edu.

Exercise: A boost to the system Makailyn Jones

Contributing Columnist

A

s the semester wound down (or, more fittingly, wound up) to a close, I could not help but feel tight-limbed, frustrated, and constantly in need of a nap. That third coffee hadn’t done anything but add a tremor to my fingers, the work hadn’t gotten any easier, I’d taken my third nap that day with no extra bursts of energy — and, gosh, that paper wasn’t going to write itself. My body was quite literally shutting down; I couldn’t keep my eyes open. What should I have done?

I opened my closet, dug all the way in the back for my only set of workout clothes, and dragged my behind to Dillon Gymnasium.

This may sound counterintuitive, seeing as I was already tired — how could I handle a workout?

Believe me, it worked.

A quick run on the treadmill or

some aerobics on the mat will get your blood pumping and those creative juices flowing. Exercise is like a jump-start for your brain, and it doesn’t hurt your body either.

According to Heidi Godman, executive editor at the Harvard Health Letter, regular aerobic exercise improves memory and the ability to focus on the task at hand, thanks to those helpful endorphins. Speaking from personal experience, that’s true.

A steady workout routine keeps me awake and active throughout the day — I need fewer and fewer naps. Then, when it’s finally time to crash, I can count on a good night’s rest to carry me through the next day.

So why is it that I can take a workout study break and still function enough to hammer out an essay? Well, exercise does a lot for our brains. And at Princeton, we need our brains, don’t we?

I know we’re all busy and it can

seem like there’s never any time to take care of ourselves. A quick workout, however, can come at anytime and study time does not have to be sacrificed. I’ve seen a girl studiously marking up a text on the StairMaster — it’s possible.

Following in her footsteps, you should make time for the important things: the body and the mind. At the end of the day, I know I’d rather be healthy and active, able to bounce back from any setback, than stressed and lethargic, obsessing over a 10-point Blackboard post. This mindset is hard to maintain, even for me, but we must constantly re-evaluate ourselves, ensuring that we always put our best selves forward.

As for the issue of keeping up with the routine, bring some friends! I will be the first to admit that working out rapidly becomes boring: It’s repetitive, hard, and a bit smelly. Having a group of people to toil with you turns a

washington road Jonathan Zhi ’21

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

boring task to a lively and even fun one. Blast some tunes, add a little competition, and before you know it, working out is like a game.

Now, we don’t all live near Dillon Gym, and it’s a bit too cold to go on runs — unless you’re Superman or that guy that runs through campus in shorts — so take a stretch break. Sitting in the same position with your eyes glued to countless words that haven’t made sense by the fourth time you’ve read them can tighten up your eyes and your muscles.

Spread out, stretch for a bit, and restart your mind.

Remember, taking care of yourself is important, and if that essay just isn’t coming out right, take a break and reset. Your body and mind deserve it, not to mention your essay.

Makailyn Jones is a first-year from Sharon, Mass. She can be reached at makailyn@princeton.edu.

vol. cxlii

editor-in-chief

Marcia Brown ’19 business manager

Ryan Gizzie ’19

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Marcia Brown ’19 Ryan Gizzie ’19

142ND MANAGING BOARD managing editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Sam Parsons ’19 head news editor Claire Thornton ’19 associate news editors Allie Spensley ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news and film editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 head opinion editor Emily Erdos ’19 associate opinion editors Jon Ort ’21 Cy Watsky ’21 head sports editors David Xin ’19 Chris Murphy ’20 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Jack Graham ’20 associate street editors Danielle Hoffman ’20 Lyric Perot ’20 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20 chief copy editors Marina Latif ’19 Arthur Mateos ’19 Catherine Benedict ’20 head design editor Rachel Brill ’19 associate design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19 head photo editor Risa Gelles-Watnick ’21

NIGHT STAFF copy Helena Tenev ’19 Jade Olurin ’21 design Irina Liu ’21

Opinion

Monday January 7, 2019

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

The moral hypocrisy of a punitive Honor Code Sam Aftel

Columnist

“

I would dissuade people from attending Princeton just because of the Honor Code.”

My friend’s words, articulated in a recent conversation, shows students’ passionate, absolute opposition to the University’s current academic-integrity standards. My friend’s sentiment also illustrates how the negative impacts of the Honor Code are so substantial and invasive that they’re sufficient grounds for not attending the University.

That is, needless to say, regrettable.

Yet surprisingly, as we have passed the one-year anniversary of our generally unsuccessful attempt to reform the Honor Code for in-class exams, there’s actually some good news on this front.

At a Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) meeting in December, Dean of the College Jill Dolan

announced, according to The Daily Princetonian, “that the Academic Integrity Reconciliation Committee is looking into an expanded array of possible penalties for infractions [for at once in-class and outof-class assignments]. Both a one-semester suspension and the possibility of a ‘reprimand’ are under consideration.”

This is surely a step in the right direction, and I applaud the University for finally taking Honor Code reform seriously.

As I, and many others, have argued in the past, the penalties for violating the Honor Code are, as they stand now, abominably un-nuanced and excessively punitive: with a few exceptions, the standard penalty for first-time Honor Code infractions continues to be a one-year suspension, and the standard penalty for a second infraction is expulsion.

These punishments have had long-term, soul-deadening, dream-crushing impacts on Princetonians, especially for low-income students, students of color, and international students.

Accordingly, perhaps the most tragic impact of the Hon-

or Code is the paranoia and debilitating stress it all too often inflicts upon students at the University.

While the University has begun to genuinely address the epidemic of mental illness at Princeton, it has failed to acknowledge how retaining the current disciplinary framework of the Honor Code profoundly undercuts wellintentioned efforts to promote emotional well-being; fear of violating the Honor Code substantially increases students’ psychological torment.

Instead of recognizing original scholarship as a wholly positive, prideful aspect of the University experience, many of us are too busy panicking that every time we submit a test or a paper or a COS project or a problem set, our statuses at the University and future livelihoods are on the line.

And let us not forget that suspending a student for a firsttime offense and expelling a student for a second violation are completely arbitrary penalties — astoundingly sanctioned without taking into consideration intentionality and severity — that should have been reexamined a long time

ago. In fact, there’s a rational argument that students should not be suspended for a year or expelled for cheating no matter the nature of the academic-integrity violation – that, in other words, these penalties are simply too punitive and trade away reason, proportionality, and mercy for excessive deterrence and retributive reprimand.

Of course, the proposed reforms would, in theory, lessen some of the Honor Code’s more punitive elements. However, the overarching injustice of the Honor Code will remain unless the administration agrees to a substantially less punishmentcentric framework for revising it.

Many will counter, understandably, that if you generally degrade the punitive severity of the Honor Code, more students will be motivated to cheat.

But if the principal reason for the Honor Code is deterrence, you have to take “Honor” out of it. It’s cynical to think that University students only adhere to the Honor Code because they fear severe punishment, rather than because they take genuine pride in original scholarship.

In fact, while this may be im-

Rejection: The hardest part of winter Rachel Kennedy Columnist

T

he winter is the most dangerous time of the year — not just for chapped lips, bitter finger tips, and icy ground, but for a University student’s pride. Whether it’s applying to internships and spring classes or approaching someone on the Street to initiate cuffing season, rejection looms in the air. Hearing “the applicant pool was more competitive than ever” and “it’s not you, it’s me” hit similar soft spots.

But these moments call for necessary self-reflection. Just like many sophomores last month, I received a disappointing yet thoughtful note saying I had not been accepted into

in one of the University’s most illustrious courses — JRN 240/ CWR 240: Creative Non-Fiction with John McPhee.

I have read the email eight times over in the two days following. I dragged my feet in disappointment and basked in self-pity. The University has many experts, but fewer expert teachers. I planned my spring around the course (which, in retrospect, was my mistake).

For the first time, while browsing this course, hard work didn’t feel intimidating, but exciting.

Five minutes after I learned I wouldn’t be in the course, I glanced over at a friend’s computer in lecture. Her course planner still had JRN 240 on it.

My heart dropped. I squeezed a “congratulations” out around the lump in my throat. She beamed a gracious and excited smile back as she said thank you.

Between my walks to classes and re-reading (and re-reread-

ing) the rejection email, my friend’s smile flashed in my head. Initially, I was jealous I could not feel that sense of relief and accomplishment.

Yet, the more I reimagined her beaming face, the less sad I became.

The chance to take his class is no longer mine, as it is open to sophomore students only.

Instead, it belongs to 16 impressive students that I could choose to see in one of two ways — as competitors that beat me out and prove my inadequacy.

Or, I could choose to see them as fellow classmates that shot their shot and made it work. We all deserve to be on both sides of rejection at one point. Getting rejected can sometimes be the best way of learning to take advantage of opportunities when they do present themselves.

On the hierarchy of terrible rejections, not getting into a course is on the lowest rung. I can still stay engaged by asking that friend to share the reading

list and enact the one piece of advice applying to this course granted — the best way to learn to write is to do it. But no, you can’t travel to Greece with an International Internship Program if you weren’t accepted.

You can’t put down Goldman Sachs on your resume if you didn’t get the internship you prepared hours for. And no, you really can’t third wheel your crush’s dates if they never texted you back.

My strategy of taking a day to eat Skittles and to listen to The National may not work for you.

Maybe that’s self-indulgent, but I would rather fully bask in present emotions than rush them away and allow them to circle my subconscious for a weeks or months after the fact.

Everyone copes with rejection in their own ways. But the only situation that forces you to develop these coping skills is getting rejected. A big factor of not being able to cope well with rejection is not experiencing it

practical, one could logically argue that there should be no punitive framework attached to the Honor Code, since a code of honor definitionally entrusts students to hold themselves morally accountable for their actions.

Arbitrarily enforcing the Honor Code through an inquisitional process undermines the ostensible faith the Code instills in students to act with uncompromising academic integrity, even when students aren’t under surveillance. It’s equivalent to identifying as a believer in God with the stipulation that you retain the ongoing ability to evaluate the non-faith-based, purely scientific evidence for and against God’s existence; in reality, your faith conveniently and selfservingly straddles superficial trust in religion and atheistic cynicism.

While students should be conscious of abiding by academic-integrity standards, avoiding a vicious punishment shouldn’t be the central motivation for doing so.

Samuel Aftel is a junior from East Northport, N.Y. He can be reached at saftel@princeton.edu.

a lot. It stings because it is supposed to, but it is not supposed to deflate us permanently.

A few weeks have gone by, and while I wish JRN 240 was still on my TigerHub queue, other exciting courses take its place. Sometimes being forced to start over opens up new opportunities and outlooks.

Understanding rejection as a part of the course rather than a roadblock is a helpful mindset to keep at the University. There are so many people who seem to get it all, and it’s easy to internalize that or take it all too personally. Expecting yourself to always get what you want is not “visualizing success.” It is delusional. Ambition does not need to become entitlement. The fact that wanting and aspiring isn’t always enough scares me, but I am trying to find motivation in that reality, too.

Rachel Kennedy is a sophomore from Dedham, Mass. She can be reached at rk19@princeton.edu.

A call to expand sexual assault programming Morgan Lucey

Contributing Columnist

I

t took me far too long, but I recently acknowledged an experience of sexual assault while at the University. It was a textbook incident: the type that almost every University student hears about in campus-wide trainings or orientation programming. It was “typical” in that way, but I have come to learn that coping with a sexual assault is not nearly as simple as some programming makes it out to be. What they don’t tell you in the trainings is that the processing that has to occur in order to truly heal goes far beyond the moment at which the assault is reported, if it is reported at all.

I am calling for an expanded education for students surrounding sexual assault: it needs to go beyond the issues of avoiding, preventing, or reporting assault, into the processes, both emotional and logistical, that occur after an

assault occurs. I’m not sure if it was denial or an initial lack of awareness of what had occurred. But there came a point where it was impossible to ignore. From then on, processing the assault was far harder than I could have ever imagined.

In theory, I knew how to handle the incident. I knew exactly where the Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources, and Education (SHARE) office was, I knew exactly what time I would be able to meet with a counselor, and I knew exactly who I could or could not talk about it to given the mandatory reporting laws on campus. However, I did not know just how hard it would be cope with an assault — the anxiety, the fear, the obliteration of a capability to trust future partners. This makes me wonder not only how many people on campus are struggling with similar experiences, but, more importantly, are they struggling like I did? Lacking in the language to articulate their trauma? Needing help beyond counseling?

Don’t get me wrong, the current programming is incredibly important and necessary. But per-

haps if that programming discussed the process of coping with an assault, alongside instruction on bystander intervention and what constitutes consent, one would be able to find this articulation and feel as if their post-incident emotions — however complicated and confusing they might be — are legitimate.

Many sexual assaults go unreported for a wide variety of reasons. I am incredibly grateful for SHARE and the counseling they have provided, but I am also grateful that I took the initiative to seek counseling out and felt comfortable doing so — a first step that took me many months.

Some other reasons for not reporting include shame about what occurred, a lack of desire to be seen as a “victim,” confusion about the incident occurring during a romantic relationship, and even putting blame on one’s self for something entirely out of their control.

For those who choose not to report or seek counseling, coping with the experience can prove impossible without the tools to let go of these emotions. It is up to authoritative com-

munities, such as Princeton’s administration, to provide education on how to process a sexual assault beyond reporting. For example, things currently not taught in the campus-wide programming: how to process the anxiety that comes with seeing the perpetrator on campus regularly or discussing the assault with a future romantic partner if one feels the need to do so.

There also needs to be expanded education on how to help a friend sexually assaulted. I have leaned on my friends just as much as I have leaned on professional counseling, and I imagine that doing so has taken an emotional toll on them, too. Perhaps SHARE training and pre-first-year programming could include better insight on how to help a friend processing a sexual assault would lessen this toll and lessen the shame and stigmatization that comes with being a “victim” as well.

A lot has changed in the past year and a half; most of these changes have been exciting and necessary, active choices about my future beyond the University. But I have also had to reconcile my perception

of sexuality and intimacy with my perception of trauma, a change that has proven just as permanent.

I initially wanted to submit this column anonymously, for those exact three aforementioned emotions — shame about what happened, feeling stigmatized, and continuing to blame myself.

However, a recent column in The Daily Princetonian stated, “The writer is one who refuses to be silenced.”

By not putting my name on this piece of writing, I was succumbing to those emotions, despite having worked for months to leave them behind. I was allowing myself to be silenced, as I had been for more than a year following the assault. I hope that if the discourses surrounding sexual assault are expanded to include processing those incredibly difficult emotions, others will not be silenced in the same way. I may not have spoken up for a year, but I am using my voice now to help empower other victims in the future.

Morgan Lucey is a senior neuroscience major from Scottsdale, Ariz. She can be reached at mslucey@princeton.edu.

Monday January 7, 2019

Sports

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S BASKETBALL

Men’s basketball ekes by Penn in OT thriller

By Jack Graham

Associate Sports Editor

In the final stretch of its Ivy League opener at home against Penn (10–5 overall, 0–1 Ivy), Princeton men’s basketball (8–5, 1–0) couldn’t seem to get out of its own way. First, the Tigers stalled offensively and blew a 59–51 lead in the game’s final minutes as Penn forced overtime. In the overtime period, Princeton missed the front end of a one-and-one twice, allowing Penn to grab a crucial rebound off its own missed free throw and throw the ball out of bounds on an inbounds play.

Somehow, Princeton came out with the win anyway. The team offset its miscues with a solid defensive effort, particularly in overtime, and earned a 68–65 overtime victory to kick off conference play.

When asked after the game what allowed Princeton to triumph despite the sloppiness, senior guard Myles Stephens had a simple answer — “Grit,” he said. “We lost four overtime games last year, and we said ‘we’re not doing that again.’”

Penn began the game hot on the offensive end and leaped out to a 19–10 lead early in the first half. After that, Princeton became stingier on defense, eventually taking a 33–32 lead into the locker room for halftime.

In the second half, Penn struggled with its shooting,

and Princeton slowly built up an eight-point lead with five minutes remaining.

To their credit, the Quakers were far from finished.

They began to stifle Princeton offensively, and scored a series of quick baskets, which culminated with a corner three from Devon Goodman, giving Penn a 62–61 lead. Sophomore forward Sebastian Much drew a foul on the next possession and made one of his free throws to tie the game.

Then, Goodman dribbled the ball off his foot, firstyear guard Jaelin Llewellyn missed a would-be gamewinning midrange jumper for Princeton, and the game went to overtime.

In overtime, neither team took control. For all of Princeton’s mistakes, Penn may have been even sloppier in the five-minute period.

The Quakers didn’t make a single field goal and shot 3–8 from the free-throw line in overtime. Eventually, Princeton scored a critical f loater from senior guard Devin Cannady and a pair of free throws from Much to give itself a three-point lead. Penn missed a desperate heave as time expired, and the Tigers snuck away with the win.

What made the win even more remarkable was the fact that Cannady, Princeton’s leading scorer, had an unusually poor shooting night. Cannady was 0–6 from three, even missing a few open ones, and missed

both of his free throws. Picking up the slack were junior center Richmond Aririguzoh, who had 20 points and defended bruising Penn forward AJ Brodeur well, and Stephens, who pulled down 16 rebounds in addition to scoring 11 points.

Princeton received valuable contributions from its younger players, who had to quickly adjust to an increasingly intense and physical environment. Much and fellow sophomore forward Jerome Desrosiers scored nine and ten points, respective-

ly, and though Llewellyn struggled shooting the ball, he contributed five key points in the second half.

Stephens said of his underclassmen teammates, “They’re like seniors now.”

He continued, “It’s always great when you have young guys you can trust to make big plays.”

Those for whom 45 minutes of Princeton-Penn basketball still wasn’t enough are in luck. The two teams will play again, this time at the Palestra, next Saturday in a strange scheduling

twist that has both Princeton-Penn games being played before Penn students even return to campus from winter break.

The Ivy League schedule is long and demanding, particularly with the quality of competition this year, but the win against a Penn team that’s considered one of the league’s best represents a step in the right direction for Princeton.

“We’re trying to go 7–0 on this court,” said Stephens.

“We’re 1–0 so far.”

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Myles Stephens provided much needed grit (and 16 rebounds) in an overtime win over Penn.

Recapping the best individual and team performances over winter break RECAP

By Chris Murphy Head Sports Editor

While most Princeton students headed home for the holidays and took some much-needed time away from campus, Tiger teams remained in action throughout the break. Here is a recap of some of the notable game results and individual standout performances.

Game Results December 29 - Men’s Basketball wins @ No. 17 Arizona State 67–66: The biggest non-conference win for Tigers by far, men’s basketball defeated the 17th ranked Sun Devils 67–66 in the desert. A few weeks after Penn upset a ranked Villanova team in the Palestra, the Tigers became the second Ivy League team to shock the basketball world, notching their first win over an AP Top 20 school since their iconic NCAA Tournament victory over UCLA in 1996. Junior Richmond Aririguzoh etched his name into men’s basketball history when he put the Tigers up for good, sinking two free throws to put the Tigers up one with 24.8 seconds to go. The defense then withstood three shots from the Sun Devils in their final possession to come away with a statement victory. Led by Cannady’s 21 points, the Ti-

gers led by as much as 10 in the second half before Arizona State went on a 12–2 run to make the game close heading into the final minutes. Princeton held the Sun Devils to just 13 percent shooting from beyond the arc, a big reason why the Tigers were able to come away with the victory.

The win marked the second of a current three game win streak and improved the Ivy League’s image as a powerful mid major conference. For whichever team makes the NCAA Tournament, they are going to be a real threat to upset a high seed in the first round.

December 15 - Men’s Hockey ties No. 9 Penn State @ Wells Fargo Center 4–4: After starting the season red hot, the men’s hockey team cooled off during the month of December. However, they earned an impressive draw with one of the nation’s best teams in front of a raucous Philadelphia crowd in the Wells Fargo Center, home of the NHL’s Philadelphia Flyers; Princeton rallied from an early 3–1 deficit against the ninth ranked Nittany Lions to earn a draw after a scoreless overtime. Senior All-Americans Ryan Kuffner and Max Veronneau each earned four points in the game, tying their career highs. Both also continued

Tweet of the Day “JADWIN was JUMPINNN!!! Big time win to open up conference play for our guys #GDNGB” Devin Cannady (@devin_cannady3), Men’s Basketball

to move up on Princeton’s alltime points list; Veronneau is now 6th all-time with 126 career points, right behind fifth place Kuffner who has 129. Kuffner scored the game tying goal with just a few minutes remaining off of a Veronneau shot that the Penn State goalie could not corral, capping a two goal third period that gave the Tigers a chance to win the game in overtime. Since the 4–4 draw, Princeton has gone 2–2 in the standings, winning two in a row against Maine before dropping two straight ECAC games to Cornell and Colgate.

January 5 - Women’s basketball loses vs. Penn 66–60: In their first Ivy League game, women’s basketball fell to Penn in Jadwin Gym 66–60. Facing arguably their toughest competition for the 2019 Ivy League title, the Tigers could only watch as Penn sunk clutch free throws late in the game to put it out of reach. Junior Bella Alarie tallied 21 points and 17 rebounds, putting the early season injury struggles well into the rear-view mirror. Gabrielle Rush closed the gap to one with 24 seconds to go after drilling a three, but could not force Penn into a turnover and saw their hopes for a comeback go up in smoke after five consecutive made

free throws for the Quakers.

The loss evens the Tigers overall record at 8–8 and puts them in an early 0–1 conference record; the race for the Ivy League title will take a long break for Princeton as they will not play again until Feb. 1.

Notable Individual Standouts Davin Cannady, senior, men’s basketball: When you lead your team in scoring, and your team stuns a nationally ranked school, you are bound to get some attention. That’s exactly what happened to Cannady after his 21-point performance against the Sun Devils. Cannady took home some serious hardware for the week, earning Ivy League Player of the Week Honors and the Lou Henson National Player of the Week Award, given to the best player from a mid-major school.

Aside from his individual accolades, Cannady etched his and his teammates’ names into the record books, as the Tigers beat a ranked team for the first time since 2012.

Bella Alarie, junior, women’s basketball: Over winter break, Alarie moved further up the Princeton and Ivy League record books; her impressive performances over St. Francis-Brooklyn and Hartford earned her a third straight Ivy League Player of

the Week Award. She now has 12 in her two plus year career as a Tiger, good enough for third in conference history and second in Princeton history only to Niveen Rasheed ’13. Even more impressive is that Alarie is doing all of this despite starting the season off the court rehabbing an arm injury. Since her return to the court, Alarie is averaging just under 20 points and 10 rebounds per game. If she keeps those numbers up, the Tigers will be able to put their slow start behind them quickly.

Sarah Fillier, first-year, women’s hockey: First-year Sarah Fillier has impressed Tiger fans throughout the season, and her month of December impressed the rest of the conference as well. Fillier was named the ECAC rookie of the month for December after leading all ECAC players in points and goals for the month. During that span, she not only led all ECAC players, but was first in the nation among rookies as well.

She currently sits at 4th in the nation with 21 points and second in the nation with 1.17 assists per game. Fillier and the rest of her impressive rookie class are a huge reason why women’s hockey has impressed so far, and why they are still undefeated in ECAC play.

Stat of the Day

Follow us

18 games

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

Wrestling ended an 18-game losing streak against Rider with a 23-21 win on Thursday