May 9, 2018

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Wednesday May 9, 2018 vol. CXLII no. 59

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

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

U . A F FA I R S

U . A F FA I R S

U. workers’ rights to be CPUC discusses discussed at town hall divestment process

By Linh Nguyen

By Linh Nguyen

Staff Writer

Staff Writer

After having private conversations with University employees and the labor union, Service Employees International Union Local 175 and Young Democratic Socialists organized a town hall for campus workers to share their concerns about low wages, temporary work status, and job uncertainty with the student body.

A Frist Campus Center employee Marie, affectionately nicknamed “Momma Marie” by students, made sure to put the town hall on her agenda.

“I’ve been working here since 1994,” said Marie. “I used to work at another job, but I had to cut it because my health is not too good.

For 20 years, I would work at a second job.”

See WORKERS page 2

COURTESY OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

The town hall will take place at Frist North Lawn.

During the final Council of the Princeton University Committee meeting of the academic year, representatives from the Resources Committee, the Committee on Naming, the Campus Iconography Committee, and the Graduate Student Government addressed University divestment from private prisons, initiatives to honor diverse individuals from the University’s history, and plans to improve graduate student life on campus.

The meeting took place in the Neuroscience Institute A32 lecture hall and began with roll call and an approval of the minutes from the March 26 meeting.

President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 deferred to Assistant Vice President for Human Resources Linda Nilsen the single question submitted in an opening question-and-answer session, which asked about socially re-

sponsible investment accounts for the University’s retirement program.

“We do have a socially responsible account available in our retirement and our savings plan,” Nilsen said. “It is offered by TIAA-CREF and it is called the CREF Social Choice Account.”

Resources Committee chair Blair Schoene then introduced the committee and its history.

“The Resources Committee was set up not long after the CPUC in 1970, with the basic charge of asking and deliberating on questions regarding the investment of the University’s endowment,” Schoene explained. “We are charged with determining whether and when to recommend that the Board of Trustees divest and dissociate from a particular company or set of companies.”

According to Schoene, the University wants “to maintain an apolitical position regarding its decision-making, especially See CPUC page 3

ACADEMICS

Potowski debunks myths about Spanish language in US

By Sarah Warman Hirschfield Associate News and Video Editor

Kim Potowski, professor of Hispanic linguistics in the Hispanic and Italian studies department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, inspired laughter in of a crowd of Spanish-language students and linguists as she captured their attention with her myth-busting talk on Spanish in the United States.

“We’re going to chismear,”

she began her lecture. “Let’s get some gossip going.”

In addition to her research on Spanish in the United States, Potowski studies heritage language development, language and identity, and dual immersion education. She also has written Spanish language textbooks.

Presenting five statements about Spanish in the United States, she asked the audience: “¿chisme o verdad?” True or false?

The statements were: the U.S. is the fifth largest Spanishspeaking nation in the world; “U.S. Spanish” is not recognized in the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española; some things that people say in U.S. Spanish are ungrammatical; “Spanglish” is a random mishmash of Spanish and English and is damaging to Spanish; and finally Spanish teachers should aim to eliminate Spanglish and have students pass for monolingual Spanish speakers.

“I hope to convince you that all five are chismes, false, and that they have important implications for working in classrooms with U.S.-raised Spanish speakers,” she said.

Beginning with the first myth, that the United States is the fifth largest Spanishspeaking nation in the world, she asked the audience to name countries with the largest Spanish-speaking population.

People yelled out Mexico, Colombia, Spain, and Argentina.

Potowski displayed a graph showing the highest rates.

The United States was number five on the list, with 34.8 million Spanish speakers. This number is wrong, Potowski said.

“This 34.8 million does not include 11 million undocumented Latin Americans residing in the U.S., nor does this include the 2.8 million non-Latinos, like me, who speak Spanish,” she said.

See POTOWSKI page 5

S T U D E N T A F FA I R S

Students gather at town hall to demand ‘banning the box’

By Isabel Ting Assistant News Editor

On Tuesday, student organizations hosted the “Ban the Box” town hall to encourage student discussion and awareness about the University’s inquiry into applicants’ conviction history in the undergraduate application process.

Academics Chair of Undergraduate Student Government Olivia Ott ’20 first gave a background presentation that explained the mission and rationale for the campaign. According to Ott, on both the Common Application and the Universal College Application, stu-

In Opinion

dents are asked to answer: “Have you ever been adjudicated guilty or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony?” If the student’s conviction has been “expunged, sealed, annulled, pardoned, destroyed, erased, impounded, or otherwise required by law or ordered by a court to be kept confidential,” the student does not have to answer “yes.”

According to Alice Mar-Abe ’18, one of the key organizers of the event, the “Ban the Box” movement began in 2014, and the proposal for the town hall meeting was presented to the Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid in February. Amanda Eisenhour ’21,

Editor-in-Chief Emerita Sarah Sakha reflects on her recent discussion with reporter Kate Fagan and guest contributor Jack Tait discusses possible changes to make the University meal plan better for firstgeneration, low-income students. PAGE 6

another key organizer of the event, explained that the goal of the town hall was to create an open forum where students could engage in discourse and show administration that they care about this issue.

Although the box exists for the University’s undergraduate application, the University’s graduate program and the transfer admission process for fall 2018 reentry do not have the box.

“The box is not a metric of criminality,” said Micah Herskind ’19, a member of Students for Prison Education and Reform. “It is a proxy for asking ‘Are you a person of color?

Are you poor?’”

Today on Campus 7:30 p.m.: The Princeton University Wind Ensemble will perform a selection of music.

Alexander Hall / Richardson Auditorium

rates for schools with and without the box, and about 97 percent of students who commit misconduct on campuses have no prior criminal record.

After the presentation, the approximately 100 students present were then asked to break into small groups to discuss what the University’s policy regarding conviction history should be on its undergraduate application. The floot was then opened to public comment.

One student added, that regarding public safety, in addition to the statistics that Ott presented, if the University cared about sexual assault on campus, the University would shut down the eating clubs.

Maya Silverberg ’21 said that the University’s rate of sexual misconduct in the most recent reporting period, 2014–2017, was overwhelmingly higher than that of the entire UC system, which has banned the box, in its most recent reporting period (2013–2016), which she said disproves the claim that the question about conviction history on the undergraduate application makes the campus safer.

Other students mentioned how receiving access to education is the biggest prevention for recidivism and how the box does not make the University more selective but more unfair. The box’s connection to the racist criminal justice system was also referenced multiple times.

“Racism is very self-evident in [the U.S.] criminal justice system,” Leopoldo Solis ’21 said in the public comment section. “[There is a] See BOX page 4

WEATHER

ISABEL TING :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Students at the “Ban the Box” event discussed the issue of asking for U. applicant conviction history.

For instance, Eisenhour said that her brother expunged his misdemeanor record by paying legal fees because of her “family’s privilege.”

His friends that were convicted of similar misdemeanors were unable to expunge their records due to their inability to pay the fees.

The precedent to remove the box has already been established in multiple institutions nationwide.

Ott said that over 50 schools have removed the question, including the University of California system, the State University of New York system, Louisiana public universities, and Maryland public universities.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Education called on universities to reconsider the box in 2016, and the American Association of Colleges and Universities called on its members to reconsider these questions in May, Ott said. No Ivy League universities have yet banned the box. New Jersey job applications have banned the box by law.

Ott pointed out that banning the box would be in line with a University statement on diversity and inclusion that states, “Only by including people with a broad range of experiences and perspectives are we able to realize our potential.”

Mar-Abe acknowledged that University’s administration is “concerned about perception,” issues that include parents’ potential worries about student safety. In regard to one of the more popular counterarguments — the threat that banning the box poses to public safety — Ott said that there is no statistically significant difference in crime

HIGH

76˚

LOW

49˚

Sunny. chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Wednesday May 9, 2018

Dining hall employee expresses belief that no change will occur WORKERS Continued from page 1

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

In an interview with The Daily Princetonian, Marie said she struggles to make payments with the money she makes each month.

Marie said she pays between 200 and 300 dollars for insurance every month.

“Plus, I have six kids who all went to college,” said Marie. “A big sum from my paycheck goes to pay student loans for my kids.”

Despite the difficulties of essentially living paycheck to paycheck, Marie said she is hopeful that the University will listen to the workers’ concerns. She said the University is like a second home for her.

“I’m not looking to go away because I’ve been here so long that I don’t need to go somewhere else,” Marie said. “I like what I’m doing, I like my job, and I like working with the kids. I have a big family, and when I see you guys, I feel like I’m with my family.”

But even though Marie feels at home on campus, she is also a member of the labor union.

According to an email from acting University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss, there are 619 benefits-eligible full- and part-time employees who are members of the SEIU bargaining unit, as of May 7.

The SEIU Local 175 is the largest labor organization on campus and is currently presided over by mail carrier and Journey Award for

Lifetime Service recipient Thomas Parker.

Parker said the labor union is meant to be “the voice for workers and to champion those very real considerations for the best conditions to work under.” “[The University] is not a bad employer to work for, per se,” Parker said. “It’s not an ‘us against them’ kind of thing, but rather a process of working together to keep up with the changes and understanding how those changes are relative to the concerns of the staff.”

YDS said in a statement that members are concerned about the proportion of campus workers who work with temporary status. YDS members said the University should hire these workers year-round because they “could be used for other ends, such as training employees or having them clean facilities.”

In response to the topic of temporary campus workers, Hotchkiss said that “numbers vary based on the University’s operational needs.”

As Reunions weekend — which an estimated 25,000 people attend annually — approaches, more and more temporary workers will be on campus. According to University Policy 2.1.1, temporary employees are workers who are “nonexempt in nature.” As a temporary worker “approaches five months of employment, HR will review the employee’s expected continuation of employment with the hiring manager to ensure proper classification.”

In other words, temporary employees are either hired permanently or are laid off at the five-month mark.

But even so, employment uncertainty is not just felt by temporary employees.

Academic year employees, who work at the University for ten months of the year, are still left without a salary for two months during the summer.

A dining hall card swiper, who wished to remain anonymous, explained the difficulties of being an AY employee, especially while having a second job in her hometown.

“For what I do, the pay is pretty good,” the card swiper said. “But during the summer, I have to find another job.”

Five of the seven employees interviewed by the The Daily Princetonian noted that they held second jobs at other locations.

“New Jersey is one of the highest cost living states in the country,” Parker said.

“We have employees that are living check to check.”

As part of the SEIU Local 175 contract with the University, wage ranges increased “by 1 percent in each of the first three years,” from 2014 to 2016. The labor union is currently in discussion with administration to renegotiate this contract starting this summer.

Hotchkiss declined to comment on the SEIU Local 175 Contract renegotiations.

“The increases that we are getting are not always equitable to the cost of living in

the state,” Parker explained.

Additionally, a Frist employee who requested anonymity claimed that evaluations for pay raises are not always fair.

“At the end of the year we have something called an evaluation,” said the Frist employee. “If they love you, you don’t have to work to get a good score. If they don’t, you get a zero.”

Another dining hall employee requesting anonymity explained that managers and administration are not always receptive to the workers’ concerns.

“Some [managers] are really pushy, like they want you to act up,” said the employee. “They need to have more respect for us.”

In response to the town hall, the employee expressed fear that “nothing will happen” and that workers’ conditions on campus would remain the same.

Many University employees declined to comment for this story, appearing uncomfortable speaking out.

One worker said that their managers warned them against speaking to reporters.

Facilities Operations acting supervisor and SEIU Local 175 Vice President Richard Wilder did not respond to request for comment.

In the midst of negotiations with administration, Parker offered his gratitude to YDS and other students for bringing attention to the issue of workers’ rights on campus.

“Whenever we have engagements and rallies that

T HE DA ILY

News. Opinions. Sports. Every day.

we’re invited to, we go,” Parker said. “We definitely appreciate the support that the students give to us, because it lends a voice to the employees.”

In the days leading up to the town hall, University students reported that they feel they don’t know enough about the details of workers’ activities on campus.

Justin Hinson ’21 expressed concern about the lack of discourse among the student body when it comes to the lives of University workers beyond what students immediately observe.

“While it’s great that a lot of students on campus take the time to interact with workers on a daily basis, there isn’t much attention paid to the conditions that workers face,” Hinson said. “We don’t know what their experiences working are like apart from the few times that we see them at dining halls and late meal.”

Braden Flax ’21, a YDS member who will be speaking at the town hall, conveyed his desire that students take the time to learn more about the employees who are integral parts of student life.

“I hope that this event will inspire future discussions about workers’ rights,” Flax said. “I also hope that students remember that this is only a momentary glimpse into what workers experience day-in and day-out.”

The town hall will take place on Wednesday, May 9, at 4 p.m. on the Frist North Lawn.

Wednesday May 9, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

Herskind: On topic of divestment, U. has not enumerated its values CPUC

Continued from page 1

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

when it comes to issues regarding the endowment.”

He cited the reason for this stance as the necessity for the campus’s role as “a place where there is an openness of ideas where all ideas can be discussed.”

Noting that the University has divested twice in the past, in response to South African apartheid and genocide in Darfur, Schoene presented the committee’s deliberations on divesting from private prisons.

In the aforementioned cases, the University divested from South African companies and Sudanese companies, but not in multinational corporations that may have had investments in those countries. Specifically, in 1969, the University divested from stock in any firm that did more than half its business in South Africa. In the 1980s, the University selectively divested from companies that operated in South Africa. Finally, in 2006, the University divested from select companies that operate in Sudan.

“In the last couple years, the main point of discussion in the Resources Committee has been that of divestment from the pri-

vate prison industry,” Schoene said. “This was a proposal brought forward by members of Students for Prison Education and Reform.”

Schoene also referred to Princeton Private Prison Divest, a group of undergraduates that has been working with the Resources Committee since May 2016.

The Resources Committee met with PPPD members throughout the following school year to discuss the initial proposal as well as a revised one.

Schoene said that at the end of the 2016–17 academic year, the committee decided that it was “not ready to move forward with the recommendation to the Board of Trustees for divestment,” but ensured that they would continue to discuss the issue into the current academic year.

“Our discussions over the last couple of years started with a comparison between private prisons and public prisons,” Schoene said. “What we discovered was that this comparison is very difficult.”

Schoene explained that there was a “lack of transparency, difficulty of obtaining data, questions of funding sources of various studies,” and other issues the Resources Committee and PPPD faced while the topic.

LINH NGUYEN :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

President Eisgruber opened the CPUC meeting.

According to Schoene, roughly half of the committee members were in favor of divestment, while the other half were against. As a result of the lack of consensus, the committee was unable to determine that there was campus consensus for divestment, one of the requirements to bring the proposal to the Board of Trustees.

“We hope that continued research on campus and debate about mass incarceration and the role that private prisons play in it should certainly continue,” Schoene said. “This was a huge educational experience for me and I thank [PPPD] for that.”

Schoene was followed by PPPD member Max Grear ’18, who discussed the divestment discussion process and recommendations for improving it in the future.

Grear is a former opinion columnist for The Daily Princetonian.

“After a lot of back and forth, we finally got the panel arranged for Feb. 2, which four committee members attended,” Grear said. “We didn’t have another meeting with the committee until March 10, [when] they told us that we didn’t have enough empirical evidence in our proposal.”

Grear expressed his frustration that it had taken four months since the revised proposal was presented in December for the committee to inform PPPD, setting back discussion another academic year.

He also criticized the committee for failing to inform PPPD that the University has not been invested in private prisons in the first place until a CPUC meeting in March of 2017.

Grear concluded with three proposals for future discussions involving the Resources Committee.

“The first proposal is that the Resources Committee should be required to meet with the divest campaign organizers for a bare minimum of twice a semester during the two academic years following the submission of the divestment proposal,” he said. “I understand that it takes a while to discuss these issues, but it’s more a question of what gets done during those two years.”

Grear’s second proposal was that “divestment campaigns should be notified about whether or not the University is invested in the companies specifically targeted within two academic semesters of the date that the divestment proposal is brought to the Resources Committee.”

The final proposal was that the committee keep the divestment campaign organizers updated with critiques about divestment proposals consistently throughout the process. In addition, Grear emphasized the importance of constant communication between the Resources Committee and organizers, noting that PPPD was not informed in detail about the committee’s deliberations until the most recent report, which came out shortly before the CPUC meeting.

Grear also pointed out that “the Resources Committee should ideally be representative of the campus community,” especially because mass incarceration and private prisons “disproportionately impact communities of color.”

“In the past two years, all of the non-student members of the committee were all white, so that was eight out of 11 committee members,” Grear said.

“Given the power dynamics that undeniably exist between faculty members and administration and students, it doesn’t seem fair to put the burden of representation of a large community on students in this way.”

Micah Herskind ’19 also approached the podium to make comments about the arguments for and against divestment and to put them into perspective in regard to the University’s history with racial issues.

“I’ll remind you that [the University] was relatively late to divestment from economies of apartheid South Africa, and as important as it was, we only just this year dealt with our legacy of slavery through the Princeton

Slavery Project,” Herskind said.

“If we continue to refuse to divest, I think that we’re putting ourselves on the same trajectory of benefiting from injustice and then simply apologizing for it years later as opposed to taking a stand for what we know is right, even while it’s politically risky.”

Herskind pointed out that one of the main arguments against divestment made by the Resources Committee was that private prisons are a “consequence rather than a cause of mass incarceration.” He rebutted by pointing out that divesting from companies during apartheid in South Africa was not because they were responsible for creating apartheid, but rather because the companies were “profiting off of an unjust system.”

In addition, Herskind cited the second reason that the committee presented against divestment as the fact that private prisons are “not worse than public prisons.”

“Saying that we’re okay with private prisons because they aren’t worse than public prisons is pretty similar to saying that we’re okay with somebody cutting off a finger because it’s not as bad as cutting off a hand,” Herskind said.

Herskind addressed one of the final arguments against divestment in the Resources Committee’s report: that the University core values being violated by private prisons are unclear.

“This is in part because the University hasn’t actually enumerated its values,” Herskind said. “This is just another way in which divestment campaigns really have it tough, because how can you show which policies are in contrast with the University values if there are no enumerated core University values?”

In response to the committee’s claim that there is a “lack of clear consensus” on campus in terms of private prison divestment, Herskind pointed out that “there is far more demonstrable campus consensus today about private prisons than there even was about apartheid.”

“Eighty-nine percent of undergraduates who voted in the undergraduate referendum supported divestment, as did 85 percent of grad students,” said Herskind. “Hundreds of faculty have signed on for divestment, as have alumni and community members.”

Herskind concluded by urging the campus community to consider the implications of private prisons.

“I hope that everyone in this room will urge the Board of Trustees to grapple with our institution’s entanglement in wholesale human caging and to extricate ourselves immediately,” Herskind said.

Subsequently, Committee on Naming chair Angela Creager presented the committee’s recent recommendations for names for the new public garden at Firestone Library and the easternmost East Pyne Hall arch.

After receiving 21 suggestions of names for the garden, 17 for the arch, and 14 additional suggestions, the committee compiled a list including over 100 additional names from suggestions made last year.

“These spaces are spaces that represent our connection the public,” Creager said. “We were very eager to think about names that relate to the history of not just the University, but also the town.”

The committee chose Betsey Stockton, a slave in the Maclean House during president Green’s administration, as the name for the new Firestone garden.

“Upon her freedom, [Stockton] became a missionary then served the Princeton community in a variety of ways,” Creager said. “She founded the Witherspoon Street Presbyterian Church and the first school for colored children in Princeton as well as an adult school.”

In addition, the committee decided upon James Collins “Jimmy” Johnson, a fugitive slave who worked at the University for over 60 years, as the name for the East Pyne arch.

Creager explained that after

being reported by a University student for being a fugitive slave, Johnson was arrested and put on trial.

“He was going to be returned to Maryland to his owner, but he avoided this fate because a woman named Theodosia Prevost paid about 500 dollars for his freedom,” Creager said.

Prevost was the great-granddaughter of president and slaveowner Witherspoon, whose statue is right next to the arch to be named after Johnson.

Following Creager, Campus Iconography Committee cochair Treby Williams and secretary Debby Foster presented new initiatives being pushed by the committee across campus, one being the commissioning of portraits for ten individuals who have contributed to the University’s history.

According to Foster, the Portraiture Nominations Committee evaluated individuals who, in the past 75 years, demonstrated “excellence and achievement in a particular field, excellence in the nation’s service and the service of humanity, or through a significant contribution to the culture of Princeton University.”

The committee also sought to bring about a “representation of diversity, broadly defined.”

The ten individuals chosen for the portraiture project were Bill Bradley ’65, Denny Chin ’75, Carl A. Fields, Elaine Fuchs GS ’77, Sir Arthur Lewis, Toni Morrison, Robert J. Rivers ’53, Ruth Simmons, Sonia Sotomayor ’76, and Alan Turing GS ’38.

The portraits of Morrison and Lewis had been commissioned last year.

In addition, the Public Spaces Working Group has been pushing forward projects in conjunction with other groups on campus to increase awareness of diversity through art. One of these exhibits is HYPHEN, which features photographs by University students and recent graduates and opened in Chancellor Green on Tuesday, May 8.

Williams discussed a new project implementing a virtual walking tour.

“We’re very excited to share that we will be launching a series of walking tours that we entitled ‘Making Visible What Has Been Invisible,’” Williams said.

“These tours are web-based and mobile friendly, so you can access them on your mobile device while you’re on campus or when you’re not on campus on your desktop.”

The final speaker was Graduate Student Government president Mai Nguyen, who addressed housing, family support, and sexual misconduct policy for the graduate student community.

In terms of housing, one of Nguyen’s main concerns was that future graduate students housed on the Lake Campus would be “isolated from resources that other students had.” Mai said she hoped to work with administration to ensure a constant flow of communication.

Nguyen also encouraged expansion of family support for graduate students.

“One thing we’d like to work on is eventually linking GCAP [Graduate Child Assistance Program] to cost of living increases,” Nguyen said. “As you might know, the original GCAP was introduced in 2007, and since then has not been increased even though the cost of childcare has increased enormously over the past ten years.”

Finally, Nguyen addressed her hopes for sexual misconduct policies to be better detailed and more greatly enforced in the future.

“In the past year, sexual misconduct in the relationships between graduate students and faculty members came up quite a bit on campus and in the wider university climate,” Nguyen said. “With the help of some graduate students here, we made some very specific sexual misconduct policy proposals to specifically address the relationship between graduate students and faculty members.”

The schedule for CPUC meetings during the 2018–19 academic year will be released in the fall.

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

Wednesday May 9, 2018

Mar-Abe: The levers of power of this institution are obscure BOX

Continued from page 1

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

problem thinking that you can put someone in jail and punish them even after they leave — that they will never be worthy.”

Miranda Bolef ’19, a SPEAR member, said that since the University has national prestige, its actions matter.

“We can choose to be a leader or an enabler of discrimination,” Bolef said.

Ott, Mar-Abe, and Eisenhour agreed that the town hall was a success, and all said they were sur-

prised with the student turnout.

The campaign, however, was not without obstacles.

“One of the biggest difficulties is knowing where to push and when [because] the levers of power of this institution are obscure,” Mar-Abe said.

Eisenhour added that encouraging students to come out was also challenging, since activism is not a large part of University culture.

“There is also no obvious path to change,” Mar-Abe said. “You don’t know where to start, and you don’t want to waste people’s energy.”

Mar-Abe said that she initially thought that the Board of Trust-

ees would be the “better way to go” to galvanize momentum for the movement, but the trustees later revealed to her that they do not have power in that regard.

Mar-Abe and Eisenhour agreed that the next step after the town hall depends on what CUAFA does.

Eisenhour added that she hopes to get a statement sponsored by the Undergraduate Student Government in support of the campaign, since the USG has thus far decided to remain neutral on the matter.

In addition, Ott said that the campaign hopes to continue to show administration that this is an important student issue. Eisenhour

hopes to see more events like this in the fall.

Mar-Abe also explained that she does not want this movement to be “a passing thing,” since every year, the University is comprised of a slightly different student body.

“I don’t think admissions should think about this as such a contentious issue,” Mar-Abe said. “I don’t think it’s controversial at all. All of us [students] think it is a pretty logical step.”

Eisenhour, Michaela Daniel ’21; Debora Darabi ’18, Mar-Abe and Anne McDonough ’18 from SPEAR; Tylor-Maria Johnson ’19 and William Pugh ’20 from the Black Stu-

dent Union; KiKi Gilbert ’21 from the Princeton Hidden Minority Council; Justin Wittekind ’21 from the American Whig-Cliosophic Society; and Kyle Berlin ’18 were the key organizers of the event.

Co-sponsors for the event included SPEAR, Muslim Advocates for Social Justice and Individual Dignity, USG, Princeton Latinos & Amigos, Whig-Clio, BSU, PHMC, Princeton Reentry and Employment Program, and Black Organization for Leadership Development.

The town hall was held on Tuesday, May 8, at 7 p.m. in the Whig Senate Chamber.

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday May 9, 2018

page 5

Potowski: Students should take pride in how they speak Spanish POTOWSKI Continued from page 1

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

Adding those numbers together, she calculated that there are actually 48.6 million Spanish speakers in the United States.

“Where does this put us?

Numero dos. The United States is the second largest population of Spanish speakers on the planet,” she said, adding, “probably the whole galaxy.”

Potowski pointed out that the U.S. Latino population is very diverse with dialectical variations.

“It’s also growing at a substantial rate,” Potowski said, displaying a map of the United States in which the Latino population saw higher growth rates along the East Coast than along the West. She attributed this to the meat processing industries and agricultural work in the east.

“One out of four kids is of Latino origin,” Potowski added, noting that the majority of Latinos are born in the United States.

She also drew attention to high dropout rates among Hispanic students.

“This is an abysmal state of affairs,” she said, noting that some scholars have rejected the term “dropout,” which connotes a voluntary action, in favor of “push out.”

Moving onto the second myth, Potowski said that in 2012, la Real Academia Española, the official royal institution responsible for overseeing the Spanish language, accepted the word “estadounidismo” to refer to Spanish words that are used differently in the United States For example, the word “parada,” which, to a non-U.S. Spanish speaker’s ear means “stop,” means “parade” in the United States.

Other examples include “departamento,” “aplicar,” and “elegible.”

“These are all estadounidismos,” Potowski said. “We have to get to used to the fact that in the U.S., tambien, we have dialect variation.”

She further noted that every Spanish-speaking country has its own academia, including the United States.

She reminded the audience that all languages and varieties of languages have the same intrinsic value.

“It’s society that says, this one’s better than that one. Certain varieties have more prestige than others. We see this with all languages,” she said.

Drawing an analogy with British English, which she said

some people perceive to have a higher status than English from the United States, Jamaica, or Ghana, Potowski considered the question of why some varieties of a language have higher status than others.

She proposed linking prestige to the number of speakers in a country or a country’s economic impact, only to reject those theories. For instance, she explained, U.S. Spanish as an example of a low-status variety in a rich, populated country.

A better explanation of varying prestige, Potowski proposed, is whether the language is spoken in its country or origin or in a country where it is spoken as a result of colonization.

“It’s based on race and ethnicity,” she said, asking the audience if it is valid to ask U.S. Spanish speakers to abandon their ways of speaking in order to be better understood elsewhere and at what point we can stop caring what other nations say about our Spanish in the United States.

“My response is, don’t worry,” she said. If you go to Spain, you will quickly pick up on the variety of Spanish spoken there.

“And how many U.S. Spanish speakers are going to be hanging out in Spain?” she added.

To bust the third myth, that U.S. Spanish is ungrammatical, Potowski contrasted three different definitions of grammar.

“Some people say U.S. Spanish is ungrammatical. What does that mean?” she asked.

Under one view, grammar is an internal, automatic system. Everyone who acquires a spoken or signed language naturally and subconsciously develops an internal grammar, or blueprint, of how their language works.

She uses Steven Pinker’s “taxicab maxim” to illustrate this idea.

“If you are driving a taxi, it is impossible to violate laws of physics,” she said. “If you are speaking a language in a way that you acquired naturally within a community of speakers, it is impossible to violate the laws of grammar.”

She explained that, under this definition of grammar, it would be inaccurate to say that a speaker of a certain language “does not have grammar.”

Under another view, grammar is explicit knowledge of terminology and rules. She noted that most native speakers do not have a good grasp of this explicit grammar.

The latter definition of grammar is prescriptivist, outlining what is preferred versus what

should be avoided.

“You can’t violate the laws of physics, but you can violate the laws of a particular region,” she said, using the example of a person driving on the right side of the road in England.

Extending the analogy, Potowski argued that teachers must decide what constitutes valid traffic violations as opposed to rules that are basically irrelevant, such as the proscription of splitting an infinitive in English.

Keeping in mind that U.S. Spanish speakers are not ungrammatical when they use their community’s grammatical system, she moved on to discuss the fourth myth, that Spanglish is a damaging, random mishmash of Spanish and English.

“We see by now that this is false because they are all rulegoverned and valid,” she said.

She went on to discuss four phenomena of Spanglish: code

switching (alternating between languages), borrowings (words imported from English and integrated into Spanish), extensions (using “aplicar” and “pretender” to mean “apply” and “pretend”), and calques (wordfor-word translation).

“I want my students in the U.S. to take pride in the way they speak Spanish,” she said.

“To study and teach the rulegoverned nature of U.S. Spanish is respectful.”

Potowski said that she does not like the word “Spanglish” because it suggests that this use of the language is not actually Spanish. She sees codeswitching as a marker of the speaker’s bilingual identity.

“Many youth decide to abandon Spanish altogether rather than suffer from criticism of it,” she said. “If you make fun of them, they might stop speaking it.”

But there isn’t anything wrong with speaking a lan-

Want to see YOUR photos published in a newspaper?

Join ‘Prince’ photo! join@dailyprincetonian.com

guage influence by English, according to Potowski.

U.S. Spanish speakers, who don’t learn in the classroom, use informal Spanish. In the classrooms, students learn formal Spanish.

“I want you to question the concept of ‘incorrect’ Spanish,” she said. “Instead, talk about formal versus informal.”

She suggested using examples from English. Most students know not to write “ain’t” or “cuz” in an essay because they learned a different type of English in school.

“As someone who has only been learning formal Spanish, it’s interesting to see that what I’ve been learning in class isn’t the only way to speak the language,” Morgan Smith ’21 said.

Sponsored by the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, the talk, “Spanish in the United States: Myths and Realities,” took place on May 8 at 4:30 p.m. in McCormick 101.

SARAH WARMAN HIRSCHFIELD :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Potowski discussed the social consequences of grammar,

Wednesday May 9, 2018

Opinion

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Sarah Sakha

Editor-In-Chief Emerita

I

t’s funny how life can come full circle sometimes.

The summer after my freshman year, in 2015, I’d just seen the New York Times piece “Suicide on Campus and the Pressure of Perfection” circulating on Facebook. And I’d just read about Madison Holleran, the UPenn track star with a f lawless social media presence who’d committed suicide, much to everyone’s dismay and disbelief, in Kate Fagan’s ESPN digital magazine piece, “Split Image.”

But five other Penn students had taken their lives that same year, none of whom had received the same attention, let alone media attention, that Madison had. I was struck by the fact that no one was talking about this, so I wrote about it, exploring the question of what makes one’s life – or rather, taking one’s own life – newsworthy.

Just one week ago, almost three years later, Fagan came to Princeton and brought me full circle. I was able to speak with her in a intimate roundtable discussion with several athletes.

Fagan, a female journalist, ref lected on pushing a university’s boundaries to seek out the answers and stories around mental health and a toxic culture that she wanted to share with a wider audience.

The experience was surreal. Her candor was refreshing, her passion contagious, her empathy welcome.

Fagan called herself a storyteller, instead of a journalist or reporter, because people listen to stories; that resonated with me because that was why I, too, had been drawn to journalism years ago. And she’s not wrong; people listened to Madi-

Full circle son’s story. But there are so many stories that have not been told; I pointed that out three years ago in my column, and again to her in person – stories and lives at UPenn, here on our own campus, especially those of athletes, persons of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, students struggling with mental health issues and unseen disabilities. I get it; it’s not an easy subject to broach.

And Princeton doesn’t want to talk about it, for fear of attaining a reputation such as that of UPenn, Cornell, or UChicago.

It’s uncomfortable. But it’s necessary. It is so important. Performing in — and watching — the Me Too Monologues, particularly for those watching whose pieces were selected to be performed, is painfully uncomfortable. But it’s initiatives like these that encourage these uneasy conversations. I’ve just been wondering for the past four years how we can encourage the administration to do the same.

I, and so many other students and alumni, have been fighting for institutional change for years, far before my freshman year.

We’ve seen some of it come to fruition, other aspects not so much – at least, not yet. We all know it takes time and patience for institutions to progress.

But as Fagan told us, change here has to come from a cultural level, not institutional. Institutional change will come only if we first realize work on changes interpersonally, in how we approach and treat each other.

Yes, we need more funding and resources. Yes, we need a way to interface with the Trustees, to establish a student liaison to keep them abreast of how students feel and what they need, to present an unequivocal need for

more support. But we need to reframe this narrative. I come to you as a jaded, but hopeful, senior, with one month before I graduate from Princeton. I ask you – no, I beg you – to consider how you can engender some of this change. One student really can make a difference in changing our campus culture; no one should have to suffer in silence.

Of course, I would be remiss in my discussion to not acknowledge the costs of social media, which lies at the crux of Fagan’s writing and at our notorious culture of “suffering in silence.” I raise this point not as a hypocritical, notorious user of social media, but as an honest one. As I contemplated posting a picture with her (with none other than the “wcw” hashtag), Fagan gave me pause. Doing so would be completely antithetical to her main takeaway, her asking of us to consider the costs we incur — and the people around us incur — in the ways we engage with social media. She encouraged a “reckoning” with ourselves about how Facebook, Finstagrams (and “Rinstagrams” — fake and real Instagrams, respectively) and Twitter can play with us on a subconscious level.

I had my own reckoning choosing a “PTL” photo of myself to post to Facebook; I was proud, and I wanted to share that pride with my friends, former teachers, and family, but then I thought about those friends who still had yet to turn in their theses. I thought back to all those status updates about where we’ll be next year and what we’ll be doing, the statuses about the fellowships we didn’t get, the salaries we could never even conceive of.

Yes, social media can be a tool for good; technology has engendered incredible positive social and political

vol. cxlii

change. I saw it first hand with protests in Iran back in 2009 (and again in 2018), and right here with photo campaigns around mental health in 2014 and 2016, and gun reform in 2018. Social media has enabled the remarkable flow and exchange of ideas, knowledge, and news, created a platform for sharing personal narratives, and engaged communities far and wide.

But it’s addictive, and as such, is toxic, and we all too often fail to critically consider the costs. A perfectly curated presence is highly coveted. Loved ones and classmates took Madison Holleran’s f lawless social media presence for granted, and I still hear comments like, “But she looked so happy!” or “He had everything,” when someone we knew — or at least, thought we knew — takes their own life.

As I leave this place, I come full circle. I’m back to Madison, Chester, Wonshik, Audrey. Now, I pass along the fight to decrease stigma and increasing support to current students, which is far from over. But I implore each and every one of you, to ask people how they’re doing (really doing), to actually listen to the answer, and to make time for those you love; I promise you, your work will get done. But it can wait. I implore you to recognize your individual responsibility to speak up if you notice something in a friend or classmate, to educate yourselves, to open up honest conversations, before you — or someone you love — gets hurt. I implore you to advocate for the changes we need institutionally, in your own life.

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 Kathleen Crown William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Lisa Belkin ‘82 Francesca Barber trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73

142ND MANAGING BOARD managing editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Claire Lee ’19 head news editor Claire Thornton ’19 associate news editors Allie Spensley ’20 Audrey Spensley ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 associate news and film editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 head opinion editor Emily Erdos ’19 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Jon Ort ’21 head sports editors David Xin ’19 Chris Murphy ’20

Sarah Sakha is editor-inchief emeritus of The Daily Princetonian from Scottsdale, Ariz. She can be reached at ssakha@princeton.edu.

associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Jack Graham ’20 head street editors Danielle Hoffman ’20 Lyric Perot ’20 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

D

ear Princeton University Administration, As students who live and work in Princeton, we wish to express our grave concern about the dangers posed by the construction of Compressor Station 206 and the entire Northeast Supply Enhancement Project. This natural gas compressor station and its related infrastructure poses a substantial risk to our own health and safety while providing virtually no benefit to New Jersey residents.

Williams Transco plans to build Station 206 within five miles from the University in Franklin Township, yet neither a complete environmental impact assessment nor a rigorous health impact assessment of air and water pollution from this compressor station has

Stop Station 206 been performed by federal or state regulators. The draft environmental impact statements released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are severely inadequate. They rely only on estimated average emissions figures and modeling provided by the company building the station, instead of accurate, independent measurements from comparable facilities. Additionally, the DEIS only considers the impact of emissions within a quarter mile of proposed facilities, despite multiple peer-reviewed studies that show emissions plumes impact a radius at least five miles from the source.

FERC tests the station’s compliance against outdated standards that do not require measurement of pollutants at their source or account for the air quality

impact on days of peak pollution. According to the estimates released by WilliamsTransco itself, Compressor Station 206 will emit significant quantities of PM2.5 and various carcinogens, including formaldehyde, benzene, and ammonia, which are widely understood to have adverse health effects on local residents. Despite these reports, FERC still neglected to independently study the health impacts of this project, choosing to allow this project to continue through the approval process without a full understanding of its consequences for the health and safety of our community.

The misrepresentation of the impact of this project on our air and water quality is troubling, but the risks do not end there. Williams Transco has a history of

dodging regulations regarding emissions and safety procedures which has led to multiple fatal accidents in their facilities. Furthermore, the location of this plant is poorly planned: located near a quarry that frequently uses explosives and in a densely wooded area, the risk for a damaging forest fire is very high, and the surrounding townships do not have the resources to contain its spread. This project represents a clear threat to our public safety.

We urge the University to publicly release a statement in opposition to this project and call for an accurate health and environmental impact statement using upto-date research and taking into account all affected areas. The University should utilize its political leverage to protect the health and

associate chief copy editors Marina Latif ’19 Arthur Mateos ’19 head design editor Rachel Brill ’19 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19 head photo editor Risa Gelles-Watnick ’21

NIGHT STAFF chief assistant copy editor Lydia Choi ’21 copy Jade Olurin ’21 Paige Allen ’21 Armani Aguiar ’21

safety of its students, employees, and wider community.

For a full list of all 236 signatories, see the story online at dailyprincetonian. com.

Like sports? Write for the sports section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

Wednesday May 9, 2018

Opinion

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

How Princeton’s meal plan could change to help FLI students Jack Tait

Guest Contributor

P

rinceton likes to pat itself on the back when it comes to the treatment of firstgeneration, low income students on campus. Just this academic year, the University has been featured in multiple Washington Post articles and a recent segment of CBS’s “60 Minutes” in praise of the work that is being done to improve FLI students’ Princeton experiences. Despite the positive publicity, the recently proposed and now largely discarded changes to the University dining plan were just the latest evidence of the University failing to understand the outsized impact of proposed changes on the FLI community.

The proposed meal plan change would have forced independent students and co-op members to enroll in a meal plan costing $2,500.

Even without getting into the rationale behind forcing a meal plan on students who have actively chosen to avoid one, the mandatory meal plan would have represented a sizable financial burden for those students forced to purchase the new plan. The only part of the proposed changes that I would welcome would be dining points that could be used at more places than just Frist Gallery, such as Café Vivian, Witherspoon Café, the C-Store, and Studio ’34, so that students can have more choices as to where they eat outside the dining hall.

Thanks in large part to the prohibitively high cost of joining an eating club and the socioeconomically elitist way in which the clubs function, a disproportionately high number of independents and co-op members are low income, meaning that this manda-

tory extra cost would have fallen on the shoulders of those least able to pay. One of the main motivators for people joining co-ops or being independent is due to the massive savings that can be made compared to joining an eating club, and this obligatory meal plan would have taken away much of that benefit.

Having seen the needs of FLI students overlooked with this proposal, the administration of Undergraduate Student Government President Rachel Yee and the University promised to focus on low income students’ needs when it comes to designing a modified meal plan. With that promise in mind, I have outlined five changes that could be made to the University’s meal plans to make them more equitable for FLI students and maybe encourage more FLI students to purchase a meal plan.

Firstly, the cost of the block meal plans compared to the unlimited plan currently does not accurately ref lect the difference in the number of swipes. The difference in price between the Unlimited Plan and the Block 235 plan is $270. While the Block 235 plan gives students approximately 15 swipes per week, it is not unreasonable for a student on the Unlimited Plan to use upwards of 25 swipes per week: 3 meals a day plus one or two late meal swipes on weekdays and 2 swipes on the weekend. A $270 difference for what could be a 150 swipe difference — 10 extra swipes per week for 15 total weeks of the semester plus reading period and finals — is outrageous. Given that dropping down to a smaller block plan is a common step to saving money, increasing the difference in the price between the Unlimited Plan and block plans would ensure that students had an

easier way to save money during the semester. The Unlimited Plan being better value for money makes sense from the University’s standpoint as a way of encouraging students to purchase the more expensive plan, but it does not take into account the need for some low income students to save money by lowering their plan and feel less anxious about finances while at Princeton.

Second, the fall break, Intercession, and spring break meal plan costs for those not on the Unlimited Plan should be factored in the price difference between plans or, ideally, taken away altogether for students whose meal plan gets covered by financial aid. The spring break meal plan this year cost $190 for 17 swipes, or $11.18 per meal. The effect is to create further disincentives to save money by switching to a lower plan, since over two-thirds of the savings accrued by dropping from Unlimited to 235 is taken away if you stay on campus over break.

Since many FLI students, especially those who live far from campus, are the most likely to stay on campus over break due to the cost of traveling home or spending a week on vacation with friends, the extremely high cost of the meal plan over break is once again most felt by low income students.

At the very least, the cost of the break plans should be factored into the price difference between the unlimited and block plans, but a better solution that would have much clearer benefit to FLI students would be to subsidize the cost of break plans for students for whom financial aid covers the dining plan cost.

The third change is an increase in the late lunch and dinner allowances. Many of the staples of Late Meal,

senior blues pulkit singh ’20

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

such as chicken tenders and fries, cost more than the allowance for each swipe.

Whilst the extra money that gets charged to the student account may not seem too significant, over the course of a semester the charges can add up and create a hefty bill that many low income students do not have the means to pay. USG recently claimed not wanting anyone to be “excluded from the culture around Late Meal” as a reason for mandating that first years be on the unlimited plan, and thus it is imperative that the features of this culture are equally accessible to all.

The penultimate alteration is ensuring that at least one dining hall is open during “Dead Week” between the end of finals and the start of Reunions. While this week is a time for many students to go home or take part in the Beach Week tradition, FLI students are far less likely to be able to afford to take a round trip home or pay for a vacation to the beach. Not only are FLI students the least likely to be able to go home or take part in Beach Week, they are also more likely to need to stay for Reunions because of the wages that can be earned by working that weekend. Thus, the impact of not having a dining hall available is disproportionately felt by FLI students. Not having one dining option open creates a choice between the lesser of two evils for FLI students: spend hundreds of dollars on a vacation or trip home, or spend money for food to survive while on campus for the week.

Finally, a surprisingly high number of students have to stay on campus over winter break, for a variety of reasons, from not being able to afford a trip home to not having a

“good” home environment to which to return. With the majority of these students being FLI students, a winter break stipend for students would massively help bridge the cost of either returning home or eating during break. The University already gives international students a $500 winter break allowance to either help cover the cost of f lying home or to help with costs for students staying on campus. An extension of this program would be extremely helpful for FLI students and could be given to all students receiving above a certain amount of financial aid. While there are difficulties in delineating who needs the allowance, the University awards students receiving substantial financial aid a move-in allowance at the start of their first year, and the same measure could be used for a winter break allowance.

These changes, while clearly ambitious, are well within the capabilities of Princeton. Both the administration and USG have repeatedly spoke of their dedication to improving the experiences of FLI students, and the new dining plan creates a prime opportunity for the University to make good on this promise. Every single day at Princeton, FLI students fight a constant battle against the financial and social restraints that are placed on them. Although not a complete solution by any means, these changes to the dining plan would create a much more accessible dining experience and alleviate some of the financial worries that FLI students face.

Jack Tait is a sophomore politics concentrator from Fakenham, Norfolk, United Kingdom. He can be reached at jtait@princeton.edu

Sports

Wednesday May 9, 2018

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S TRACK AND FIELD

Men’s track team dominates Ivy League Heps to win ninth triple crown

By Chris Murphy

Head Sports Editor

For the ninth time in school history, the Princeton Tigers have clinched the men’s track triple crown.

The Tigers dominated the Ivy League Heptagonal Championships this weekend at Franklin Field in Philadelphia.

Heading into the second day of competition, they trailed by seven points; within the first three events of the day, they had taken the lead and would end up with a commanding first place finish to clinch their fourth triple crown in the last eight seasons.

“This was a very hard fought and tough team win for us,“ noted head coach Frank Samara following the win.

In appropriate fashion, the seniors stole the show at their final Ivy League Championships. Two seniors for the Tigers took home the Most Outstanding Awards for Track and Field: senior Mitchel Charles took home the Field Award, while teammate Josh Ingalls took home the Track Award.

Charles saved his best throws for last in both the shootout and discus events to earn wins for Princeton in both events. In the shotput,

he scored a 16.7 (50-0.25) and in the discus, he threw a season best 52.07 (173-9).

On the other side, Ingalls ran a 1:52.30 as the anchor for the 4x800 relay to propel them into second place. But the highlight of the day was a run that will go down in the record books. Ingalls took home first place in the 800 with a time of 1:47.76, a personal record and the second fastest time in Ivy Heps history. For the Award Selection Committee, Ingalls was an easy choice for the Award.

Elsewhere, the seniors of the Tigers made important contributions that together amounted to a commanding lead. Starting with the track events, senior Josh Freeman ran a personal best 47.36 in the 400 to earn six points for the Tigers with a third place finish. Then, he boosted the Tigers from fourth to second in the 4x400 with a great comefrom-behind run as the anchor. Senior William Paulson took first with a time of 3:47.75 in the 1500 while Senior Zachary Albright ran a 3:51.53; their points in the event helped Princeton swipe the lead from Penn as the Tigers tallied 18 points in the event to take a 65–56 lead. In the jumping

events, senior Lane Russell won the triple jump for the Tigers in his final Ivy Heps appearance.

Samara commended his seniors following the meet. “All of Princeton should be very proud of them,“ he said.

The Tigers finished strong in the meet, scoring in 14 of the last 15 events to win. The Heps victory helps continue a strong season for Princeton

track, and a strong few years as a program. The track team has continued to be one of the premier Ivy League teams as their fourth triple crown in less than a decade shows. Even more impressive in this case, however, was the resilience the team showed in making the comeback. Making up a seven point deficit is one thing; to do it as efficiently and rapidly as the Tigers did

is something few teams could say they accomplished.

With just a few meets left in the season, all eyes now turn to focus on NCAA East Regionals. The Tigers have two meets left to get runners to qualify, including a home meet where they host the IC4A Championships at Weaver Stadium. That meet will also be the final time the seniors will compete on their home track.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Princeton overcame a seven-point deficit to come back and claim the tournament title, winning six events on day 2.

WOMEN’S TENNIS

Tennis preps for showdown with Illinois

By Chris Murphy

Head Sports Editor

With the NCAA women’s tennis bracket released, the Tigers (19–3 overall, 7–0 Ivy) are set to take on No. 19 seed Illinois (21–5) in the first round of the NCAA Tournament in Lubbock, Texas.

With the Tigers currently ranked No. 47 in the ITA and No. 24 in the USTA, they will be heading into a match as an underdog for the first time since March, when they took on then-ITA No. 46 William and Mary (17–9). The Tigers lost that match, and hope to reverse their fortunes against Illinois.

It will be the third meeting between Princeton and Illinois, with the other two occurring in the last decade. In the first meeting, the Tigers won a 4–3 match in Puerto Rico, and in 2012, the Tigers were defeated 4–0 in Alabama. Evaluating common opponents also yields an even matchup; the Tigers and Illini have matched up against six common opponents and have won against all those matchups.

Princeton, now attending its fourth NCAA tournament in the last five seasons and its eighth overall, will be counting on senior Katrine Steffensen and freshman Stephanie Schrage to lead the team to a tournament run. The two players have been instrumental in the Tigers’ success so far; both were named into the All-Ivy League team this season. Steffensen will be returning to the NCAA tournament for the third time and will look to find success in what may be her final match.

Princeton is coming off one of its best seasons ever. With 19 wins thus far, the team can tie a program record for most wins in a single season with the 2010

team if they get a victory this Friday and win the next match on Saturday. The Tigers also went undefeated in the Ivy League for the third time; the first under the current regime of players. Finally, the Tigers’ three losses this season the teams’ lowest since 2000, when they had two losses. Even

Tweet of the Day “Princeton will play Syracuse in the @NCAALAX first round game No. 4 seed Boston College on Friday” Princeton women’s lacrosse (@princetonwlax)

if the Tigers add a fourth loss, it will still be the lowest since the mark set 18 years ago.

The match will feature coaches of the year going at each other; Illinois coach Evan Clark won the Big Ten Coach of the Year Award after turning a team that missed the NCAA Tournament with a

14–13 record into one that went 9–3 in the Big Ten, made it to the Big Ten Tournament semifinals, and earned an at large bid into the NCAA Tournament. On the other side, Tiger head coach Laura Granville won her third Ivy League Coach of the Year Award in the past four seasons for Princ-

eton’s performance this season.

The stage is set for what should be an exciting battle between two teams looking to make noise in the NCAA Tournament. Fans can follow along with live stats on the NCAA website. The match will start at 11 a.m. eastern time on Friday.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The women’s tennis team will look for its 20th and 21st wins of the season in the NCAA tournament, a mark that would tie the program record for most wins in a season.

Stat of the Day

9th Triple Crown

The men’s track and field team claim their ninth Triple Crown and fourth in eight years with their first place finish in the 2018 Ivy Heptagonal Championship.

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