November 8, 2018

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Thursday November 8, 2018 vol. CXLII no. 97

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

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

ON CAMPUS

Obama adviser Jarrett recommends mandatory voting

By Yael Marans Contributor

PHOTO COURTESY OF ZEYTUN WEST

Jarrett spoke on her experiences in the Obama administration in Robertson Hall.

ON CAMPUS

Valerie Jarrett, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, advocated for mandatory voting in her talk on Wednesday, Nov. 7, at the University. Mandatory voting would help depolarize the current political climate, according to Jarrett.

Jarret explained that both parties are currently on the extremes, and the primaries push voters toward the extremes because “that’s where the money is.”

“If you had mandatory voting, you would force politicians to move toward the mean,” said Jarrett.

Regarding the extremism Jarrett sees in U.S. politics, she suggested Americans listen more to other people’s opinions. For instance, she cited the high school students who started the gun control demonstration March for Our Lives as role models for all Americans. During the political tours that some of

the students made around the country, they took the time to understand opposing views.

“A few of them actually went outside their rallies and talked to the people who were protesting [against them], and they were listening,” Jarrett said. “And that’s a practice I think we should all emulate.”

Jarrett also discussed some of the tactical errors of the Obama administration. According to Jarrett, Obama focused so heavily on reforms within the White House that he forgot to encourage civic engagement among his constituents. “[The White House] didn’t take the time to tell a story of how [civic engagement] would touch people’s lives,” Jarrett said. “Obama rarely left the White House those first few years: he just hunkered down. In that hunkering, we lost a bit of the momentum that had catapulted him into office.”

Jarrett also added that the See JARRETT page 2

ON CAMPUS

Psychologist Freyd speaks on Betrayal Trauma Theory, role of universities Contributor

In a lecture Wednesday discussing gender and sexual harassment, University of Oregon psychologist Jennifer J. Freyd noted that suppression or loss of memories from childhood is often a “survival skill” of abused dependents.

Freyd spoke to University students about her development of Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT) and her research concerning how institutions, specifically university campuses, can reduce the trauma level of sexual abuse victims.

Freyd said she was inspired to understand how and why some individuals remain unaware of or forget traumatic memories after finding many of the existing answers unsatisfactory. For example, she argued that the theory that humans forget

memories on account of extreme pain fails from an evolutionary standpoint, as retaining the memory could lead to a safer future.

According to Freyd, two concepts of human nature helped her to develop BTT. First, humans are “highly sensitive to betrayal, because we are social creatures, and betrayal is costly to us,” Freyd noted. Subsequently, abuse, a type of betrayal, is very impactful in any level of relationship and provokes either a confront or withdraw reaction, she explained.

Second, Freyd said that humans are “extremely dependent on one another” and babies are the most dependent humans. As a result, people and babies have evolved to become attached to each other.

In the case that the parent takes on the role of betrayer, “the two systems See FREYD page 3

ON CAMPUS

Frankenstein panel examines novel’s impact on literature, bioethics

By Oliver Effron Contributor

Few novels in history have permeated the collective consciousness like Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” said a panel of students and faculty on Thursday afternoon. This discussion, organized by the English department and Humanities Council, was the first in a series of lectures celebrating the bicentennial of the seminal novel’s publication.

The five-person panel examined the various ways in which “Frankenstein” has influenced literature, philosophy, and the pursuit of scientific knowledge. It was moderated

by English department chair Susan

In Opinion

Wolfson and featured bioethics professor Peter Singer, creative writing professor emerita Joyce Carol Oates, Gunnar Rice ’17, and Madelyn Broome ’19.

Rice, who was a student in the fall 2016 elective HUM 225: Frankenstein at 200, began by reading excerpts from his essay for the class. He spoke at length about how the novel incorporated both science and poetry, two fields that were in the midst of significant revolutions at the time of the novel’s writing.

Rice said that it was Shelley’s seamless incorporation of literary allusions and popular science that allowed it to blossom into a cultural See NOVEL page 3

Contributing columnist Ben Gelman argues that responding to injustice with civility is a luxury that not many can afford, and contributing columnist Emma Treadway argues why experiencing silence benefits us.

PAGE 4

PHOTO COURTESY OF DAVID KELLY CROW.

Felton, Professor of COS and Public Policy, spoke on security issues with electronic voting machines.

COS, WWS prof. Felten speaks on election security, intersection of tech and policy

By Julia Ilhardt Staff Writer

Edward Felten is the Robert E. Kahn Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs. He is the founding director of the University’s Center for Information Technology Policy.

In 2011–12, he served as chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission, and from May 2015 to January 2017, he served as Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer for the Obama administration. He currently serves part-time as a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

His current research involves cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. He is also looking at the intersection of artificial intelligence and automation with jobs.

On Wednesday, Nov. 7, Felten spoke with The Daily Princetonian about his career,

the security of electronic voting machines, and the intersection of technology and public policy.

The Daily Princetonian: Could you explain how you came to be Princeton’s Robert E. Kahn Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy and the significance of having a role focused on this intersection?

Dr. Edward Felten: I came to the University 25 years ago as a junior professor in computer science, and at that time, I just did core computer science research and teaching, and over time I got interested in public policy issues and how public policy touched computer science. About 15 years ago, I started working in a cross-disciplinary way across those areas. Since then, I’ve been trying to build up an effort here on campus and work with colleagues to recruit more people and get more activity going at the boundary between computer science and

Today on Campus

Noon: For World Usability Day Princeton will celebrate this year’s theme —“UX Design for Good or Evil”— with a lunch panel of recent alumni working in user experience.

Friend Center Convocation Room

policy. And so, 10 years ago, we set up the Center for Information Technology Policy as a vehicle for doing that.

DP: When you first came to the University, did you feel like there was a big gap in terms of intersecting these two areas?

EF: When I first came, I don’t think anyone was really doing things at this intersection, and I didn’t do anything at that intersection for about my first five to 10 years here. It was only later that I switched over and we’ve had more people switch to do this kind of work. We’ve also tried to build a community of people who do it.

DP: Can you explain what the CITP is and your motivation for setting it up?

EF: CITP is a joint venture between the engineering school and the Wilson School, and it’s designed to do teaching, research, and service that’s at the See FELTEN page 2

WEATHER

By Leslie Kim

HIGH

55˚

LOW

38˚

Sunny chance of rain:

0 percent

page 2

Valerie Jarrett: Local gov. taught me to listen JARRETT Continued from page 1

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

beauty of local government is the close engagement between officials and their communities. Jarrett’s experience working in Chicago’s government helped pave the way for her work on a federal level. “[Local government] taught me to listen,” Jarrett said.

While some students found Jarrett’s opinion on mandatory voting surprising, they acknowledged that she presented a compelling argument.

“One of her first things she said actually really surprised me, when she advocated for mandatory voting,” said Carson Maconga ’22, “but her

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday November 8, 2018

FELTEN

old electronic voting machines that leave a lot to be desired from the security standpoint.

DP: In your opinion, what’s the most significant challenge facing our world and society regarding computer security and privacy?

EF: From a security standpoint, the biggest challenge is the combination of our reliance — our very heavy reliance — on the computerization of almost everything, including all kinds of things that you don’t think of as being computers. A car, for example, is basically just a computer with an engine, a computer that has a motor and carries people around. A typical car has more software in it than your laptop does. There’s a lot of systems that we don’t think of as being computers that carry many of the same risks that computers do. And, yet, we fundamentally don’t know how to secure big, complicated systems. That combination leaves us very vulnerable to attacks or a malfunction, and that is sort of the core problem that underlies a lot of things.

DP: Going forward, how do you think the relationship between computer science and public policy will change? Do you think students who are interested in public policy will need a technical background?

EF: I think the relationship will get tighter, and you’re going to see computer science students more and more studying some aspects of policy and ethics and social science. And you’re going to see students in policy who want to be well-prepared, needing to understand some things about technology. They won’t necessarily need to have a deep technical background, although it wouldn’t hurt, but some core training in information technology and computer science will be a core skill for policy people going forward. Familiarity with technology as a user [and] some ability to think a little more deeply about how it works and about what is likely to be able to do and not do — that’s going to be core knowledge for policy professionals in the future.

explanation of it was really interesting.”

Other students just appreciated hearing about Jarrett’s experiences.

“It’s refreshing and reassuring to hear someone [share] their own experiences and perspectives on their trials and tribulations,” Leyla Arcasoy ’22 said.

Arcasoy chose to attend the lecture because she had read about Jarrett in the news and hoped to learn more about her and from her at the event.

“I had known a little bit about Ms. Jarrett and the role she had played in the White House, and I wanted to see what I could learn and take away from this kind of more intimate experience.”

The lecture was held in Robertson Hall at 4:30 p.m.

Felten: We fundamentally don’t know how to secure big, complicated systems Continued from page 1

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

boundary between computer science and public policy, or if you like, between information technology and all aspects of the public life. CITP does a bunch of things in that area: it sponsors research, organizes events — we have a weekly seminar series — and sponsor and co-sponsor a bunch of conferences. We had 10 conferences last academic year. We administer part of an undergraduate certificate program: the Policy and Technology certificate, Information Track.

We are setting up a certificate program for Ph.D. students. We run internship programs and all kinds of things in that area — basically anything we can do to get people on campus interested in technology and policy.

DP: What motivates you to want to be involved in government work?

EF: I’ve been advocating for a long time about the importance of having technical experts in the research of policymaking processes. Partly, people who are recruiting for these positions will call my bluff. They will say, “You say there needs to be technical experts there — how about you come?” And having preached that so much, it’s hard to say ‘no’ when someone issues that invitation to me. But [it’s] also partly because the work is really important, and it makes a real difference in both the work itself and also the opportunity to open the doors to get more technical folks involved. Nowadays, so many policy issues depend on technology issues and similar issues, so policy makers need to have the best advice — the best informed advice — about technical matters. In almost any policy area you go into, you’ll find that technology is changing that area in a big way, whether it’s in healthcare, transportation, education, economy, jobs, international relations, or national security. Whatever it is, technology is transforming that, so there’s a huge need for good advice in that area.

DP: I’ve been reading some

of your work on electronic voting systems. How did you get involved in these projects, and can you talk about the ongoing issues?

EF: A lot of the computer scientists got interested in security issues around electronic voting in around 2004 or so. This was after the 2000 presidential election … there were a lot of problems involving the punch card paper ballots, and so there was a rush to adopt electronic voting. But computer scientists were skeptical of that, including me. One of the problems was we computer scientists — independent computer scientists — had not been able to get our hands on a real electronic voting machines of the sort used in elections because the voting machine vendors were preventing it. When our group got the opportunity to get a real voting machine used then in Georgia and Maryland — and that is still used in Georgia — we jumped at it. We were lucky to get the opportunity to get our hands on real voting machines. We followed it up with a bunch of other machines … [For instance] there’s a [voting machine] in the lounge outside [my office] that a few students transformed into a Pac-Man machine. They turned it into a Pac-Man machine to show that these machines can do absolutely anything … If you can make them into Pac-Man machines, you can for sure make them into incorrect vote counting machines. That was a part of an effort to demonstrate to the public and to policy makers that the problems that computer scientists were suggesting existed really did exist. We did a bunch of studies here at the University about the security of electronic voting machines, and then we started to work to try to get the law changed — to get states and counties to switch to more secure systems. A lot of places in the United States have switched — there’s been a real improvement since 2006 when we started this. But, unfortunately, there are a few states that use insecure voting machines, and one of them is New Jersey. If you vote here, you vote on these big,

T HE DA ILY

Whatever your talent, the ‘Prince’ has a place for you.

join@dailyprincetonian.com

Thursday November 8, 2018

Broome: Frankenstein relates to scientific fear NOVEL

Continued from page 1

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

phenomenon, even immediately after its publication.

Not only does “Frankenstein” remain in the pantheon of great English novels, but so do some of its literary descendants. Reading from an essay she delivered in Rome, Oates argued that Shelley’s feminist undertones greatly influenced Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s classic short story, “The Yellow Wallpaper,” and that H.P. Lovecraft likely looked to the book’s depiction of scientific horror when writing his own short stories.

Shelley also avoided calling Victor Frankenstein’s creation “a monster,” as is now commonly done; rather, his “monstrous” side was the result of his upbringing, and not his nature.

“Some think the sin was creating the creature, but in fact, that’s not the case,” Oates said. “The real sin was repudiating him immediately.”

But “Frankenstein” still persists not only because of the quality of its writing but also, as Broome noted, because of the timelessness of its content.

“We’re all sitting here today because ‘Frankenstein’ relates to something specifically human, and that is scientific fear,” Broome said.

Like her former classmate Rice, Broome read excerpts from her essay, in which she compared the cautionary central message of Shelley’s novel to the ethical issues raised by the Manhattan Project and the Space Race.

In her view, the fictional Victor Frankenstein was a predecessor to

The Daily Princetonian

real scientists later, notably Robert Oppenheimer, the creator of the atomic bomb. Oppenheimer’s scientific pursuits, like those of Dr. Frankenstein, opened Pandora’s box and jeopardized humanity’s future.

Even today, according to panelist Singer, we can learn from “Frankenstein” and its titular character. During his portion of the talk, Singer spoke about the novel’s prescience to modern bioethical issues, notably genetic modification and artificial intelligence.

Singer referred to Dr. Frankenstein’s quest to create life as a “Darwinian error,” as he hoped to create an organism that had the potential to destroy him. Similarly, Dr. Frankenstein was almost convinced to create a mate for the creature, which would allow him to reproduce and, at worst, create a new dominant species.

His quest, according to Singer, is no different than our current aim to create an artificial “superintelligence,” which could potentially drive humanity to extinction.

Wolfson, however, disagreed. “[Dr. Frankenstein] has left his creature profoundly miserable in radical loneliness. All the creature is asking for is a companion. He is not asking for reproductive power,” he said.

Though the content in “Frankenstein” continues to raise thoughtful questions, Oates remarked that readers should not only be cognizant of the novel’s legacy, but that of its author as well.

“She was only 18 years old and it is astonishing how she created this novel as an amateur,” Oates said. “It’s genius.”

The panel was held at 4:30 p.m. in East Pyne 010 on Wednesday, Nov. 7.

Freyd: Survival advantage to ignoring betrayal FREYD

Continued from page 1

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

collide with each other,” Freyd said.

The core idea of BTT is that if a child acknowledges and displays awareness of abuse by their caregiver, they are risking further mistreatment and endangering the entire attachment relationship — and thus their well-being.

“When a betrayal happens in a dependent relationship, there is now a survival advantage to not seeing the betrayal,” explained Freyd.

Freyd described how she was able to apply the idea of BTT to institutions. She posited that since humans refer to institutions with the same attachment terms they use with other humans, they would also be vulnerable to betrayal from institutions in the same way they are with humans.

An “institutional betrayal” could be either an egregious violation of trust or “the failure to do what [institutions] can reasonably be expected to do.”

In her research on campus sexual assault, Freyd found that, of individuals who had experienced sexual assault, those who also experienced institutional betrayal from universi-

ties — such as denial, lack of action, or lack of punishment — showed signs of higher trauma. “Institutional betrayal exacerbates anxiety, dissociation, sexual problems, and sexual-abuse related symptoms,” Freyd said.

Regarding the impact of gender on traumatic experiences, Freyd found that women were more susceptible to high-level trauma from interpersonal violence. Men tended to be more vulnerable to low-level trauma from relatively distant sources, such as accidents or strangers. She noted that gender does not affect an individual’s response to the an incident, but that women are more likely to experience high-level trauma.

Freyd ended by sharing her reports on sexual harassment on campus and recommendations for institutions to increase the likelihood that victims report incidents to authorities. For example, she recommended rewarding and cherishing whistleblowers for raising awareness of institutional issues and educating leaders on sexual violence and the consequences of institutional betrayal.

The lecture took place in Aaron Burr Hall at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 7.

LESLIE KIM :: PRINCETONIAN CONTRIBUTOR

Freyd emphasized that humans are vulnerable to betrayal and that betrayal can come from institutions.

page 3

OLIVER EFFRON :: PRINCETONIAN CONTRIBUTOR

Faculty-student Frankenstein panel discusses novel’s legacy.

Thursday November 8, 2018

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

The luxury of civility Ben Gelman

Contributing Columnist

The 2018 midterms have become more than just standard elections. With incidents of politicians and other public figures being heckled out of public spaces and protesters entering the Capitol Building to oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, we seem to have also entered into a national referendum over what constitutes acceptable political discourse.

Republicans have framed the debate as one between order and chaos, as evidenced by the new GOP slogan “jobs not mobs.”

Democrats tend to be more sympathetic to aggressive forms of protest, with officials like Maxine Waters and Eric Holder making some controversial statements supporting certain “uncivil” forms of political opposition. While some might hesitate to transcend the ordinary forms of voicing discord, I would argue that this sentiment does not take into account our unusual contemporary political state, which may call for an unusual response.

I must admit, I was initially on the traditional side of this issue. While I may have serious disagreements with Republicans, our democracy relies on a certain standard of discourse. I believed that if we were to escalate our methods of disagreement beyond voting or picketing, we would threaten our ability to coexist with our political opponents.

As such, I felt motivated to preserve an U.S. system that emphasizes voting and calling of representatives over shouting and trespassing in order to get a political message across.

Upon further reflection, however, I began to change my mind, as it occurred to me that there are certain things about me and my background that might bias me in favor of the more orthodox ways of operating within the political sphere.

The fact that I grew up in an environment where I was always expected to attend college, that my high school had an almost 100 percent matriculation rate, and that I went on to become a student at Princeton shows that the way resources in this country are dispersed and the way certain populations’ interests are addressed have worked out pretty well for my purposes. I may have political differences with those in power, but the policies they enact have yet to threaten me or my future in any meaningful way.

Other University students may not appreciate this aspect of the debate.

When we condemn people for damaging property as a means of protesting police brutality and racial inequality or criticize others for being uncivil in their demand for LGBTQ+ rights, we don’t stop and consider that for many, these injustices can be far more immediate and consequential than they may seem from inside the orange bubble.

Of course, Princeton has plenty of problems in these areas and others: even in my short time on campus I have witnessed insensitive comments toward minority students, and I have

seen the drinking culture adversely affect female students. Despite this, I think it is still fair to say that we live in a disproportionately tolerant place whose attitudes are not representative of those of most of the country. As a result, we may be susceptible to not fully realizing the desperation with which those outside Princeton need the change that they are demanding.

The response to this argument is typically similar to my initial opinion: those who have criticisms of the government, no matter how serious their grievances, have to lodge their complaints through the normal channels — otherwise the entire system could break down and our democracy could turn into mob rule. However, this argument does not address what happens when the way the system is operated precludes the possibility of change in favor of disadvantaged groups.

A Supreme Court seat has been stolen from Merrick Garland, the president has openly endorsed foreign espionage and political violence, and state governments across the nation have enacted blatantly discriminatory voter ID laws that are aimed at disenfranchising people of color. Those who oppose these policies cannot just “engage with the system” to make change, because those in power are not acting in good faith or playing fair. Instead, they are doing everything possible to change the rules in order to preserve their power, by any means necessary.

We live in an exceptional time, one that necessitates exceptional means of dis-

vol. cxlii

senting. Of course, any action with the intention of physically harming someone is unacceptable, and voting is still the bedrock of political participation.

However, when an administration is openly hostile to ideas like religious freedom and freedom of the press, they move beyond simple policy disagreements that could otherwise have been resolved in the normal fashion of negotiation and compromise.

When national policy attempts to define transgender people out of existence, there is no time for anything but radical measures that may include refusing to abide by the pleasantries that are expected when we talk to our representatives or protest in the streets.

Since I have arrived here, people have relayed to me the stereotype of Princeton as a “country club campus” in which students are too focused on careers and grades to pay attention to relevant social issues. I would argue that the resources and connections that we acquire simply by being here give us a responsibility to utilize them in ways that level the playing field for those not as fortunate, which would include protests that may defy the normal expectations for how students like us are supposed to behave.

It is crucial to step outside our privileged point of view and understand that while the status quo might work for us, it is not so for many of our fellow citizens. Civility is a luxury many cannot afford.

Ben Gelman is a first-year from Houston, Texas. He can be reached at bgelman@ princeton.edu.

We undervalue the sound of silence Emma Treadway

Contributing Columnist

As Princeton students, we are surrounded by noise. Whether it be unintelligible drunken shouts outside your window late at night or the patter of your roommate typing away, our lives are rarely quiet. Campus is abuzz with the cacophony of life: it is nearly impossible to sit beyond the range of some conversation or cars or distant organ music. As social creatures, we feel awkward sitting with someone and not maintaining a conversation. Silence somehow implies a lack of appreciation for the company of others and is perceived as rude. We are forced into prolonging a never-ending chatter which, for some reason, is apparently preferable to no conversation at all.

This never-ending soundtrack does not just resound in my interactions with others but also in my time alone. Reflecting on my own daily routine, I have realized the sheer ubiquity of noise and sound in my life. As soon as I set out for class, my headphones are in, blasting my morning soundtrack.

Work is accompanied by music as well — seldom do I read a book or type an essay without Spotify set-

ting the mood.

And even when I am sitting in silence, it feels taboo to do so idly. In other words, even if I am silent, my mind refuses to mirror that state. I feel almost exposed if I am seen doing nothing, so I, just as my peers, whip out my phone or a book or some other activity to escape the awkwardness of idle silence.

Thus, refraining from conversation just pushes us towards a different activity, giving us the appearance of being “busy.”

Silence makes us twitch — why? Perhaps it’s because silence portrays us as unsociable or snobbish.

This is why we turn to our phones or other personal distractions: if we appear “busy,” we have a more acceptable reason not to engage in conversation, since pulling out a phone has become an implicit signal that we wish to be left alone. While using a device in the presence of another person may seem rude, it feels considerably less uncomfortable than sitting in silence.

Or perhaps silence is uneasy because the noise of our lives distracts us from contemplating our more deeply-rooted anxieties and fears. For example, the one time of day where I am truly alone with my thoughts is when I go to bed. And, as soon as my head hits the pillow, repressed emotion and genuine reflection begin to swirl in my head.

It’s as if, with my phone, friends, and music no longer a distraction, my mind can finally focus on subconscious and more raw thoughts. This is not a bad thing. Letting my mind wander and mull over various elements in my life helps me reconnect with myself and become more in tune with how I am feeling and how I see the future. Rather than keeping those anxieties pent up, contemplating them can provide release.

We shouldn’t shun silence as we do. According to writer Carolyn Gregoire in her article “Why Silence Is So Good for Your Brain,” loud or persistent noise “raise[s] stress levels by activating the brain’s amygdala and causing the release of the stress hormone cortisol.” In contrast, silence transforms our minds. Not only does it rejuvenate the brain itself, it relieves the stress and other tension accumulating in our lives. Blocking time — if even a few minutes — to exist in absolute silence, letting our minds wander or rest devoid of thought, is crucial to maintaining mental health. These few minutes, according to Gregoire, are more effective in lowering blood pressure than soothing music or other relaxing activities.

Conversely, there is a time and place for silence; we cannot always sit in silence and refuse conversation or human interaction.

In addition to silence, we also shirk from uncomfortable dialogues with new people, whether that be sitting in a lecture or riding on a bus. The quest for silence should be one of moderation, since isolation is not the goal. At times, uncomfortable conversation is important as well, and it sparks personal growth, according to Sujan Patel in his article “Why Feeling Uncomfortable is the Key to Success.” The safety we find in routine is detrimental to our progress. Therefore, it is crucial to put ourselves into new situations since the failure to do so actually “dull[s] our sensitivities.” Silence and the reflection it engenders, in combination with forcing ourselves to be outgoing, are the path to optimal personal growth.

Thus, in the tumult of Princeton, your study break should not always be spent chatting with friends or seeing that a cappella concert. Instead, it is more worthwhile to find a place, whether your room or a secluded spot on campus, to sit and do absolutely nothing. Encourage your friends as well, so that more people are inclined to break that taboo precluding us from embracing silence. It may just be key to thriving during your time at Princeton.

Emma Treadway is a firstyear from Amelia, Ohio. She can be reached at emmalt@ princeton.edu.

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 Kathleen Crown Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Lisa Belkin ‘82 Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Michael Grabell ’03 Kavita Saini ’09 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77

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 Isabel Segel ’22 Esther Levy ’22 Elizabeth Parker ’21 Ava Jiang ’21 Lydia You ’22 Emma Treadway ’22 design Irina Liu ’21

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 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.

Thursday November 8, 2018

Opinion { www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Midterm Elections tashi treadway ’19 ..................................................

Work for the most respected news source on campus.

join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 5

Sports

Thursday November 8, 2018

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S HOCKEY

Men’s ice hockey begins ECAC with defeat of Dartmouth, ties Harvard

By Samuel Lee Contributor

Princeton men’s hockey (1–1–1) began ECAC action this weekend with a win over Dartmouth on Friday and a draw with Harvard on Saturday. The Tigers, who are currently ranked 18th in the country, defeated Dartmouth 7–1 in Hanover, aided by a four-point performance from senior forward Alex Riche. Senior forward Ryan Kuffner and senior defender Joshua Teves also delivered impressive performances, each recording three points.

Teves, who currently has 70 career points, moved into second place on the all-time scoring list for Princeton defenders with his performance on Saturday. Only Cliff Abrecht sits above him, with 101 points scored from 1982 to 1986.

The offensive firepower continued into Saturday, as the Tigers tied Harvard 4–4.

Although they were not able to come away with the win, Saturday’s game did not come without highlights for the Tigers. Senior forward Max Véronneau, who finished the game with four points, struck first, taking advantage of a Harvard

giveaway in the offensive zone. Harvard responded with two goals in a span of three minutes, but Kuffner leveled the score before the end of the first period with a power-play goal.

Harvard’s Jack Drury scored in the eighth minute of the second period to regain the lead. Princeton followed with a shorthanded goal which was Véronneau’s third assist of the night.

After intercepting the puck along the boards, Véronneau skated deep into the offensive zone. Surrounded

by Harvard defenders, Véronneau centered the puck to junior defenseman Derek Topatigh, who found the net with a clinical finish.

The Tigers scored again two minutes later, as Kuffner scored his second powerplay goal of the game. Princeton was unable to hold the lead, however, as Harvard equalized at the start of the third period.

With his four-point performance, Véronneau matched his career high for points scored and pushed his career total to 114 points, the ninth most in Princeton history. Kuffner sits right behind him in the top ten, with 112 career points.

The Tigers are coming into this season with high expectations. They were picked to finish second in the ECAC in the preseason poll, and are coming off of a season in which they won the ECAC. Last year’s team finished second in the nation in scoring, averaging

3.64 goals per game, and the Tigers have two returning All-Americans in Véronneau and Kuffner. Last year, both forwards recorded over 50 points for the season, with Véronneau leading the nation in assists while Kuffner finished second in the nation in goals.

ECAC action will continue this weekend as the Tigers face Union University (6–2– 1) on Friday and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (3–4) on Saturday at Hobey Baker Rink. Union is currently ranked 12th in the nation and will enter the game on a two-game win streak.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

After Friday’s win against Dartmouth and Saturday’s tie against Harvard, men’s hockey takes on Union and Rensselaer to continue ECAC play.

MEN’S SOCCER

Men’s soccer defeats Penn 2–1 in OT, earns shot at Ivy League title, NCAA bid

By David Xin

Head Sports Editor

The men’s soccer team pulled out another clutch performance in a thrilling overtime win against Ivy League rival Penn. The Tigers now stand atop the league tables with a shot at the Ivy League title and the league’s automatic NCAA bid. In their

way is Columbia — the Lions are one point back in second place heading into the final conference match of the season, making for a heated title race.

The Tigers came in knowing a win against Penn would be crucial for their championship hopes. With the urgency of a league title on the line, the Princeton side showed its

usual poise, outshooting the Quakers 17–4 over the course of the match. The Orange and Black would open the scoring with a goal from senior forward Will Lentz late in the first half. However, a Penn equalizer would force overtime.

This set the stage for senior Jeremy Colvin to once again pull Princeton over the finish

line. Colvin would score his fifth game-winning goal of the season with a 98th minute golden goal. The senior forward has proven lethal in clutch situations this season, with all five of his goals coming in as game winners.

The win marks the third straight for Princeton. The Tigers have been undefeated in their last eight matches

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Senior Jeremy Colvin scored his fifth game-winning goal of the season in 2-1 overtime win over Penn on Senior Day at Sherrerd Field.

Tweet of the Day “After a big weekend Patrick Brucki checks in at 7th in all rankings! #GETin” Princeton Wrestling (@ tigerwrestling),

and have not lost a game since the Ivy League season began. In fact, Princeton has not dropped points in conference play since its first match against Dartmouth, which ended in an exciting 2–2 overtime tie.

The Tigers will be looking to carry their recent form to finish the season. Now, setting their sights on the Bulldogs, Princeton will close out the Ivy League season in New Haven. A win against Yale would give the Tigers the title, but a draw or a loss opens the door for Columbia to scoop the top spot from under them. Princeton will need to match Columbia’s result against Cornell to secure their position at the top of the table.

Yale currently sits at sixth in the Ivy League, with just one conference win. However, the Bulldogs could still be formidable opponents in front of a home crowd and with less pressure to produce a result. Princeton will undoubtedly be looking for the win, but the team will need to maintain its usual poise, especially in the dying moments of the match.

As Princeton soccer heads into its biggest game of the season, fans will not want to miss this matchup between the Tigers and the Bulldogs.

The game will take place Saturday, Nov. 10, at 4 p.m. The match will be available on ESPN+.

Stat of the Day

Follow us

12 goals

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

Senior Mimi Asom of women’s soccer has scored 12 goals this year to be named the Ivy League Offensive Player of the Year.