The Daily Princetonian: November 13, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Wednesday November 13, 2019 vol. CXLIII no. 103

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

Spiritual adviser to Obama speaks on white nationalism

By Elizabeth Shwe contributor

Reverend Jim Wallis, spiritual adviser to former president Barack Obama, was a guest preacher at the Princeton University Chapel on Sunday, Nov. 10.

Wallis was invited by the Coalition for Peace Action, a grassroots citizens organization based in the town of Princeton, to preach for its 40th Anniversary Multifaith Service and Conference. Wallis also spoke at the conference later in the afternoon at Nassau Presbyterian Church.

Wallis is the founder of Sojourners, which he describes as “a movement, here and around the world, trying to put faith into action for social justice” since 1971. Sojourners originated from a group of students from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who began discussing their relationship between their faith and political issues around the Vietnam War. Wallis known for being politically vocal, particularly against President Trump. He believes that the current administration is anti-immigrant, anti-truth, and white nationalist, and that those qualities are deal-breakers for any person who claims to be a follower of Jesus.

See OBAMA page 4

U . A F FA I R S

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Supreme Court hears oral argument on DACA, including complaint from U.

By Benjamin Ball head news editor

On Tuesday, Nov. 12, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the oral arguments pertaining to suits on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), including a complaint compiled by the partnership between the University, Microsoft President and University trustee Brad Smith ’81, and María Perales Sánchez ’18.

The November 2017 complaint, which was one of the first challenges to the government’s decision to end DACA, alleged that the program’s termination violated both the United States Constitution and federal law. In the two years that followed several district courts and courts of appeal have ruled that the government’s decision to rescind

DACA was unlawful.

The oral arguments focused on two considerations: whether or not the rescission of the DACA policy is immune from judicial review, and whether the rescission of the DACA policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Solicitor General of the United States Noel J. Francisco argued on behalf of the petitioners, saying that the decision cannot be subject to judicial review and does not violate the APA because it was “eminently reasonable.”

Francisco consistently described DACA as a “stopgap measure” that “could be rescinded at any time” and one that former President Barack Obama never meant to last indefinitely in the first place.

Former United States SoliciSee DACA page 2

University holds second annual Kognito Day about mental health on campus

By Haleigh Gundy staff writer

On Sunday, Nov. 10, the University held the second annual mandatory Kognito Day to educate first-year students on how to address and discuss the mental health concerns of their peers through zee group discussions and completion of an online simulation.

As reported in The Daily Princetonian last November, Kognito is a 35-minute online course intended to educate college students about signs of mental distress in their peers and teach intervention skills.

Through both education and simulation, Kognito allows

students to read about mental health concerns and practice interventions to connect students in distress with proper resources.

Mellisa Thompson, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students, said that the high level of engagement with Kognito last year led to a continuation of the program.

“Last year we had over a thousand students — which was amazing — across campus take the Kognito online simulation,” she noted. “Out of all that success, this year, we’re doing it again.”

Thompson added that, though Kognito Day is a part of

ZACHARY SHEVIN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

NYU, TCNJ, and PACE Adjunct Professor Jeremy Levine in the Whig Hall Senate Chamber.

Q&A with adjunct professor Jeremy Levine on impeachment and Mueller ’66 assistant news editor

Jeremy Levine is an adjunct instructor at New York University (NYU), The College of New Jersey (TCNJ), and Pace University. At NYU, Levine teaches a class titled “From Russia with Love? The Mueller Investigation and the Transformation of American Politics.” Invited to campus by the American Whig-Cliosophic Society, Levine gave

In Opinion

a lecture entitled “Contextualizing the Hearings,” where he discussed Robert Mueller ’66’s independent investigation into President Donald Trump and the impeachment process more generally. Following the event on Nov. 5, The Daily Princetonian had the opportunity to sit down with Levine to discuss all things impeachment.

The Daily Princetonian: Just to start, could you give readers some background

Columnist Sebastian Quiroz opens a discussion on the most effective use of Princeton’s endowment fund, and senior columnist Hunter Campbell argues that the University should expand the number of seminar courses.

PAGE 7

Chris Eisgruber ‘83, Maria De La Cruz Perales Sanchez ‘18, Brad Smith ‘81.

ON CAMPUS

ON CAMPUS

By Zachary Shevin

BENJAMIN BALL / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

into who you are and how you came to teach a class on Robert Mueller’s report?

Jeremy Levine: I started, I became an adjunct professor … it’ll be three years ago in January. I teach a variety of different classes: political science, economics, sociology, business — you name it, I’ve taught it. From there, I’ve always been politically active, I’ve always been very interested. I was a registered Republican when I turned 18.

the First Year Residential Experience program, the training is available to all University students.

“We just want to get it out there to as many people as possible … that’s our hope: that we’ll not only reach our numbers last year, but surpass [them],” Thompson said.

Furthermore, Thompson highlighted her belief in the importance of the zee group conversation after completion of the simulation.

“That discussion afterwards is really beneficial for the group,” she added. “I think it’s an opportunity for folks to ask questions if they don’t

know about resources or how to seek out help ... Being able to talk about [mental health] from a Princeton lens is really important.”

First-year student Alkin Kaz indicated that he found Kognito “useful in introducing the topic of being here when your friends need you … [and] how to manage the situation [of having a friend in distress].”

Kaz continued that he believed the program was “pretty relevant to the situation a Princeton student might face, with [the University’s] academic rigor and heavy workload.” He added that he finds

No more.

And I was very early on when [Trump] was running for President, especially when it came to Russia and foreign policy. I’m like, something’s off. Something’s not right. Something’s off. This isn’t like McCarthy or Eisenh o we r- G ol d w at e r-Re aga n Republicans. This isn’t even like George Bush and Dick Cheney, like there’s something fundamentally different. And I understand political parties change. You can go from, like, the Southern Dixiecrats of George Wallace and Strom Thurmond to Barack Obama. The Republican Party 100 years ago under Teddy Roosevelt was considered progressive. I get things change, and I get people change parties over time. The Roosevelts were different parties, Winston Churchill changed a time or two, so I get that. But the reasons I’m seeing are not good, and there was nothing to me that, like, wasn’t corrupt and wasn’t off, so that’s where I tried to sound the alarm, like, “There’s something not right.”

I was offered a job to work for the campaign at Trump Tower in the summer of 2016, on [sic] Manafort right before he resigned. I said no, because I’m not — even from, like, aside from the racism, sexism, anti-immigrant, all the other stuff that I don’t want to get associated with — one of the other reasons I said was, “There’s something not right with your foreign policy.” So that’s kind of how

I fell into it. Then, this year was the year I finally, ever since I was following, I put it together as a lecture. And even I didn’t realize, and I’ve been following it, how much there actually is — how much corruption there really is. It blows my mind, so I understand why people are overwhelmed and have questions because I didn’t [get] it: “What do you mean you don’t get it?” But then I understood, as I put it together, why people are confused.

DP: Okay, so then, I guess, in terms of that confusion, what common misconceptions about both the report itself and the impeachment discussion exist?

JL: The idea that he investigated conspiracy and not collusion. Collusion is not a crime. It is in antitrust with companies. Other than that, individual acts like obstruction of justice, witness tampering, money laundering, that could be types of collusion, but those are the crimes. Nobody’s going to get indicted for collusion, so when they say no collusion or collusion is not a crime.

Yeah, okay, technically, there was no collusion because that’s not a legal term in this case, and collusion isn’t a crime, but X, Y, and Z sure as hell counts as types of collusion, and whether or not there was a grand conspiracy behind those acts [was] what Mueller was investigating.

That’s one really big misconception people miss, but

Today on Campus 12:00 p.m.: Faculty Commons Bible Study. All faculty, staff and postdocs are welcome.

Frist Campus Center / Class of 1952 Room

See KOGNITO page 5

See NYU page 3

WEATHER

ON CAMPUS

HIGH

36˚

LOW

20˚

Sunny chance of rain:

0 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday November 13, 2019

Eisgruber: A permanent solution for Dreamers is a humanitarian necessity DACA

Continued from page 1

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

You could be this guy.

Write for the ‘Prince.’

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

tor General Theodore B. Olson represented the private respondents, one of which was the University. He argued that the decision to rescind DACA came under the court’s “strong presumption of reviewability.”

Olson was Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, and is also a founding member of the Federalist Society, members of which helped create the short list of Supreme Court nominees for President Donald J. Trump.

Olson emphasized the number of people who would be affected by the rescission of DACA. “The government’s termination of DACA triggered abrupt, tangible, adverse consequences and substantial disruptions in the lives of 700,000 individuals, their families, employers, communities, and Armed Forces,” Olson said.

A number of the justices also expressed the importance of considering the number of people affected by the decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor ’76 said, about the administration’s decision, “this is about our choice to destroy lives,” while Justice Stephen Breyer took a minute to list all the different briefs presented before the court.

“I counted briefs in this Court, as I’m sure you have, which state different kinds of reliance interests,” Breyer said. “There are 66 healthcare organizations. There are three labor unions. There are 210 educational associations.

There are six military organizations. There are three home builders, five states plus those involved, 108, I think, municipalities and cities, 129 religious organizations, and 145 businesses.”

Justices Samuel Alito ’72 and Neil Gorsuch repeatedly questioned Olson on the topic of reviewability. Gorsuch repeatedly asked Olson what the “limiting principle” was that made the case different from

(if(equal? web love) (join the ‘Prince’ now) (join anyway)) Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

the case of “Heckler v. Cheney,” in which the Supreme Court ruled that particular agency refusals were not subject to judicial review unless a statute stated otherwise.

When Olson quoted a line from the “Cheney” decision that an “action itself provides a focus for judicial review because it imposes the coercive power of the government with respect to individual liberty and property,” Gorsuch responded, “Doesn’t every prosecutorial decision affect individual liberty or property?”

Olson quickly stated that every “prosecutorial” decision does, but DACA is different as “an announcement of policy.”

When Justice John Roberts asked what was to stop a presidential administration from ceasing to enforce immigration completely, Francisco argued that that particular situation would fall under the exception in “Cheney” for “a complete abdication of authority.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Olson if he agreed that the executive has the authority to rescind DACA, to which he said yes, but contended that former Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen’s explanation for their decision was entirely insufficient.

“Camp versus Pitts specifically says, when an explanation for an agency decision is given, however curt, they must stand or fall on that explanation,” Olson said.

A sizable portion of the oral argument was spent on whether or not the Trump administration’s allegation that the initial implementation of DACA was “illegal” was at all valid. Francisco repeatedly argued that whether or not DACA was illegal was of no real consequence because the administration had “several separate and independently verified reasons.”

California Solicitor General Michael J. Mongan, who represented the state respondents, argued that the Trump administration’s allegation of illegality was of consequence because it was, as Kavanaugh put it, “intertwined” with the administration’s other “policy” reasons for rescinding.

“I think it’s important to look to the penultimate paragraph in that memorandum, where [former Secretary Nielsen] conducts her collective weighing and she considers those policy rationales along with the legal rationales and say that, together, they outweigh the purported costs of terminating DACA,” Mongan said.

On the topic of the “intertwined” nature of illegality and other reasons Neilsen gave, Justice Elena Kagan ’81 said “we really don’t know how she would have conducted that balance, how she would have weighed those two [reasons], if the legal had been taken away from it.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

appeared to share Kagan’s concern, saying “we don’t know how she would respond if there were a clear recognition that there was nothing illegal about DACA.” “If we take that out, then the independent ground that you’re asserting, then she would be saying we stand up and say this is the policy of our administration,” Ginsburg continued. “[She would be saying,] ‘We don’t like DACA and we’re taking responsibility for that,’ instead of trying to put the blame on the law.”

University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, Brad Smith ’81, and Sanchez were all in attendance for the argument.

“I feel optimistic about our prospects in this case,” Eisgruber said. “I believe we have a very sound legal argument that is founded on the fundamental principle that when the government makes decisions that have implications for the rights of many people, it has a responsibility to state its reasons forthrightly and honestly, so it can be held accountable for what it does.”

President Donald J. Trump tweeted earlier Tuesday morning about the DACA cases.

“Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals,” Trump wrote in a tweet.

“President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!”

The CATO Institute noted that arrest rates for DACA recipients were below that of other U.S. residents, and Vox reported that committing “a felony or significant misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors of any kind” can lead to DACA disqualification. In Obama’s 2011 Rose Garden Speech, given the same day the DACA policy was announced, he did not say he lacked the right to act.

Eisgruber affirmed the importance of DACA individuals to the University community.

“DACA’s important to Princeton because the people who DACA benefits are important to Princeton,” Eisgruber said.

“They make us a better place.

They make other students better. They add to the experience in the classroom and they exemplify the values for which we stand.”

Eisgruber and Smith also reaffirmed their stance for DACA and those who benefit from DACA the day before in an oped for TIME. “Microsoft and Princeton came together to support DACA because it is a wise and humane policy,” they wrote.

“Leaders across higher education and business want a permanent solution for Dreamers because it is both an economic imperative and a humanitarian necessity.”

Oop s, sorly, Dos theeS butherr u?

Join the ‘Prince’ copy department.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Wednesday November 13, 2019

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

Legal misconceptions of collusion shape public perceptions of Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation NYU

Continued from page 1

............. it works … again with the investigation. Mueller had to stay silent, given how many people are involved, and you don’t want to tip anybody off, but when you stay silent, you lose control [of] the narrative, and for a long time, Trump had control of the narrative with that. And I would also say when it comes to whether or not a sitting president can be indicted, the answer is we don’t know. That stems from what I talked about with Watergate, and how that was meant to keep Spiro Agnew out of the presidency. Should Nixon resign, which he ended up having to do, it was not meant to be the be-all endall discussion on it. It’s never been legally tested. It’s never been tried in the courts.

There’s nothing that says that that guideline or that memo is constitutional one way or another. So that’s another big misconception, this idea that Trump can’t be indicted. We don’t know that. We have no idea.

DP: Mueller is one Princeton alum. Another Princeton alum, Marie Yovano-

vitch [’80], her testimony was released [recently]. I was wondering, did you read that transcript? Or just generally, what do you think of her role in the impeachment?

JL: Well, she’s a victim. She got pushed out by Giuliani, his Ukrainian mob connections, to push a secret agenda that’s not in U.S. interests …

You’re going to withhold aid until they give you dirt on a political opponent, not somebody, it’s not like the DOJ was investigating someone and they wanted intelligence on that person. It wasn’t like you were going after a terrorist in exchange for the aid. You were going after a political opponent, who may not even be the candidate, given his latest stumbles, and the primary as well. Especially given how much money Trump’s kids have made off Trump’s presidency, there’s a lot of hypocrisy here. So she was a victim.

She got pushed out because no honorable civil servant is going to tow that line. And when she said, “Well, I had to tweet or show my support for Trump to keep my job.” This is not what it’s about. This is not a mafia operation, which is what Russia essentially is and how Trump treats the Of-

fice of the Presidency, like everyone’s supposed to be loyal to him and serve him. And if you don’t, you’re fired. That’s not how this works.

He views it like everybody in Washington are his employees. No, you’re all employees of the American people, and he doesn’t either seem to get it or doesn’t want to get it. But she was a victim, and she got pushed out because she’s not going to tow that corrupt Giuliani line. And it’s unfortunate; she was a good ambassador. It’s unfortunate what happened there.

DP: And I guess, from sort of a media perspective, what is the general news media doing right and what are they doing wrong in regards to their coverage of both the Mueller report and hearings, as well as just impeachment generally?

JL: I’m a big advocate of the Free Press, and I don’t agree whatsoever with Trump’s fake news narrative and all that other stuff. But the way that they’ve covered this investigation, the media? Almost sinful. It’s, I would say, sinful … how poorly of a job they have done. If someone says something that’s not true, you don’t need to run with

it as a headline for Twitter clicks, okay? You don’t need to give Kellyanne Conway time to say, you know, “Collusion, delusion,” with her signs. Your job is to just find out the facts. Stops reporting what someone says, or, “So and so said this.” Well so what? It’s not true. Or stop giving people time, “Mueller said no obstruction no collusion.” No, he didn’t say that.

And yet the media runs with it all. “Oh [Attorney General William] Barr said there’s no this, or there’s no obstruction.” Okay, that’s not what it said. You should be encouraging people to read the Mueller report, or at least use the control-F function to type in keywords if you don’t want to read hundreds of pages of legal jargon, which I know many people don’t don’t have time to do. But it’s been more about getting the next headline.

Or even the reporters who were like, “Oh, when’s Mueller going to end?” They did that ever since he started, like, “I have the inside scoop. He’s almost done.” It’s not about when he’s done. It didn’t matter how long it took. We could argue maybe he ended it too soon, but reporters are too

busy trying to get the scoop of when he’s finished, are trying to get the attention headline, which Trump is great at.

If nothing else, he’s great at getting headlines, then actually covering what’s happening. And one of the reasons why people are confused is the poor coverage being done.

And that’s outside of Fox News, which has been awful with this, probably the worst of all.

DP: Do you expect [Trump] to be first, impeached, and second, removed?

JL: I expect him to be impeached. I don’t know what’s going to happen after. It only takes 17 Republican senators to join the Democrats in the impeachment. So if they find him guilty, he’s already out.

Maybe he’ll resign first and cut a deal if he gets a whiff that there’s 17 senators about to jump ship … He will be impeached. I don’t know what’s going to come next, because I don’t see McConnell finding a guilty verdict with twothirds of the Senate.

But I also don’t think he’s going to be on the ballot, so that can get very messy…

Don’t whine.

Opine.

Write for ‘Prince’ Opinion.

48 University Place Email join@dailyprincetonian.com T HE DA ILY

Revealing the truth, one news story at a time. join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 4

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday November 13, 2019

Wallis: White nationalism is antichrist

COURTESY OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

Jim Wallis, spiritual advisor to Former President Obama.

OBAMA

Continued from page 1

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

“White nationalism isn’t just racist. It’s antichrist,” Wallis said. “To demean women, harass with assault — it’s not just sexist, it’s antichrist. Racism is antichrist. He [Trump] is the best marketer for the worst in America.”

“Trump is striking fear in the people, which leads to hate, which leads to violence. Fear.

Hate. Violence. That’s the direction he’s taking us,” Wallis added.

Wallis does not think that Trump’s policies agree with the teachings of Jesus.

“Jesus says you welcome the stranger, meaning the immigrant. Well, how are we welcoming the stranger? Building a wall? Really? That doesn’t work,” Wallis said.

Wallis also fears that America is in a deeply spiritual and moral crisis and worries about the faith of younger generations.

“We are being led in an American brand of fascism … and most white Christians are still supporting that, so if that doesn’t change, the churches will lose a whole

generation of young people because why would they want to support that?” Wallis said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian. “If a white Christian supports that, it shows that they’re much more white than Christian.”

Growing up in Detroit, Mich., Wallis questioned the racial segregation he observed in his church and community as a teenager. He worked alongside poor black men his age and realized that “we had been born in the same city of Detroit but raised in different countries.”

He frequented black churches in his city and then became an activist in college.

Wallis is also a New York Times bestselling author and is currently on a book tour for his 12th book, “Christ in Crisis,” which focuses on the eight questions Jesus asked and what it means for the “political crisis” he believes the United States is in today. Questions include “what is truth?” and “who is my neighbor?” He believes that it has been successful in starting important conversations about what to do during this very politically and religiously polarized time period.

Want to see YOUR photos published in a newspaper?

Join ‘Prince’ photo! join@dailyprincetonian.com

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday November 13, 2019

page 5

Kognito aims to combat depression and anxiety on campus KOGNITO Continued from page 1

discussion of mental health on campus to be lacking.

“People seem not to discuss the problems, the internal struggles they are working through … I definitely think it would be better if [students] discussed it more,” he said.

Nonetheless, Kaz expressed that he feels comfortable with starting a dialogue surrounding mental health resources at the University.

“I would feel pretty comfortable in advising my fellow peers, if they have problems, to go [to Counseling and Psychological Services],” he explained.

In further discussion of the particular features of Kognito’s training, administrators and students raised mental health concerns that may not have been directly addressed by the program.

Speaking to Kognito’s emphasis on depression and anxiety, Thompson noted, “I think … [Kognito] starts the conversation. There may be signs like anxiety and depression that may be indicative of some other concern that students are grappling with, and so it’s all

about starting that conversation.”

Ellen Whiteside ’22, who completed the Kognito training last year, indicated her belief that the skills taught by the program may not be applicable in all mental health situations.

“There are mental illnesses that cause a lot of shame and there are those that don’t, and there’s a spectrum between those two, but I think you have to approach those situations with a type of nuance that maybe the facilities here aren’t equipped with, not that they aren’t trying,” she said.

Ameena Faruki ’22 offered a similar critique, stating, “I remember not liking the Kognito program because I feel like it offered blanket advice.”

Faruki went on to suggest that a better approach might be building a close relationship with one’s peers, wherein discussions of mental health can occur.

“It’s necessary to talk about these issues, but … I think that rather than focus[ing] on what kinds of words you use … what works a lot better is establishing trust,” Faruki said. “A lot of the time, people struggling with these things are very well

`

News.

Opinions.

Sports.

Every day.

join@dailyprincetonian.com

COURTESY OF KOGNITO

The Kognito program allows students to learn through simulations.

aware … and it’s very condescending, in a way, to give this advice.”

Kaz additionally expressed cynicism regarding the University’s use of the program.

“When you load students with a lot of work … and also provide mental health services, there is a seeming contradiction,” Kaz said. “On the one

hand, you are messing with student health with an excessive workload, and on the other hand, you are trying to fix this issue.”

Thompson noted her belief that “it’s important that we take a step back and think of how to adequately support our friends.”

She emphasized the impor-

tance of considering other possible actions that could be undertaken.

“This is not a checkbox for us, this is about how we start this conversation, and then take feedback and continue creating opportunities for discussion and engagement,” Thompson said.

Wednesday November 13, 2019

Opinion

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

On Princeton’s endowment Sebastian Quiroz

Contributing Columnist

I recently came across a column written by Professor Victor Fleischer from the University of San Diego arguing that universities ought to be required to spend at least eight percent of their endowments each year. Fleischer believes that such a step would result in universities spending more on financial aid and academic programs and less on fund managers. These goals, in his view, are desirable.

I want to question these goals. Certainly, universities ought to spend money on improving both financial assistance and academic programs and projects. Moreover, given the statistics Fleischer cites, it seems reasonable to claim that universities should probably be spending less money on fund managers.

To take an example from Fleischer’s column, Yale University spent about $480 million on private equity fund managers and only $170 million on “tuition assistance, fellowships, and prizes.” He claims that there’s a similar discrepancy here at Princeton.

That being said, it’s not clear that these are the only reasonable endeavors on which we might expect the University to spend part of its $26.1 billion endowment. To start, greater mental health resources would certainly benefit all students.

Even those who do not make

use of these resources would indirectly benefit from a culture that values mental health and puts up the money needed to fund it.

Part of the money could be used to satisfy the perennial calls for modernizing many of the dorms, including adding air conditioning in the older buildings.

These are some common sense uses of the money — perhaps even more commonsensical than $5,000 chairs.

But I want to suggest that the money might be better used in some more radical programs, though given the size of our endowment, this need not be an either-or situation.

One such program is reparations. The case for reparations is a difficult one for many, with objections often grounded in the claim, “I have done nothing wrong.” Essentially, for many, it is different than if I stole a bike because you can quite obviously hold me as an individual responsible for the theft, but it is not clear to those who oppose reparations that one can be held responsible for crimes committed by one’s ancestors.

But it seems significantly less controversial to say that Princeton University owes reparations — the University’s vaunted status derives from its association with slavery.

Consequently, there’s a fairly strong case for the institution that exists now to pay some form of reparations. Certainly, these might not be exclusively

financial, but it should at least disgorge the benefits it has accrued through the institutions of American slavery.

Another possibility relates to the earlier goals stated above, namely, the spending on financial assistance. I want to suggest that it would be feasible for Princeton to simply eliminate its tuition. It’s not clear to me why, given how much Princeton makes on its endowment per year (about $200 million in the past year, for instance) and how much it has to fall back on, the University should not simply stop charging for its education.

On par, this might mean that Princeton spends less on its students, perhaps widening the gap that I discussed above.

But this should not worry us for two reasons. First, Princeton would also be earning less from its students, which we could say is equivalent to it spending more on its students, all things considered.

Second, that gap should only be concerning because it represents the objectionable attitude elite universities take towards their students. If it widens because it is making life easier for its students, it’s hard to object to the gap. Perhaps we would object to a university spending nearly half a billion dollars a year on private equity fund managers, but the objection there isn’t to the gap — it’s to the high levels of spending independent to the gap.

Another objection one

might raise to the proposal echoes presidential candidate and Mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg’s objection to free college across the board. Mayor Pete argues that it would be unfair to low-income students, particularly because he believes that highincome students would be the primary beneficiaries of such a scheme. If he’s right, that concern should apply even more at a place like Princeton than at most public universities, where tuition is significantly higher.

But it’s not clear to me that he is right. Certainly, wealthier students and their families would be paying significantly less than they currently do.

But it’s not clear to me that we value a system of free education, because it appropriately takes into consideration an individual’s ability to pay for it.

Rather, we believe that an education is of fundamental value to a society and things of such value should not depend on an ability to pay. It is a similar reason for valuing universal healthcare or universal primary and secondary education.

They are public goods, goods that should not depend on your ability to pay for them or not.

Moreover, the value of equality in tuition might also have instrumental value. In eliminating tuition at Princeton, it seems reasonable to expect that we could get more applicants from many more diverse backgrounds. This much was

argued when Harvard considered this proposal a few years back. Similarly, it seems reasonable to expect more lowincome students to apply for admission. The psychological barrier imposed by a sticker price of close to $70,000 would be removed, possibly encouraging many people who would otherwise be put off by that price to apply.

These are simply suggestions for what we could do at Princeton to make better use of our endowment. I am not convinced that we can take first principles and simply derive perfectly valid conclusions from them about matters like these. Part of deciding what exactly we think ought to be done with our endowment is a conversation amongst all of the members of the University’s community.

This column, while providing arguments I think are largely correct, is not meant as the final word in this discussion. In fact, it is what seems to me to only be the first word.

Above all, I think it’s time for us to have an earnest discussion about our endowment. I hope to have provided a decent starting point for this discussion.

Sebastian Quiroz is a senior from Deltona, FL. He can be reached at squiroz@princeton. edu.

Write for ‘Prince’ Opinion.

News - Sports - Street - Opinion - Business - Copy - Design Web - Blogs - Multimedia - Photo

Opinion

Wednesday November 13, 2019

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Increase the availability of seminars` Hunter Campbell

Senior Columnist

As the University begins to increase its undergraduate student population in the upcoming years, it will naturally have to hire more faculty if it wishes to keep the same student-tofaculty ratio. When hiring new professors, the University should acknowledge the clear benefits that seminar-style courses have over lecture-based ones, and accordingly, hire more professors than would be needed to merely maintain the student-to-faculty ratio.

The introduction of more faculty will mean an increase in courses, and this marks a perfect moment to offer more seminars. To be clear, the University should not simply get rid of its lecture courses, as

they are a necessary component of college education, since some classes have such high demand that they could never exist in a seminar format. For lecture courses that only have 20 to 30 students, however, it would be better to turn the class into a seminar, possibly with multiple sections, as opposed to the traditional format of two lectures and one precept a week.

In terms of class time per week, a lecture and seminar course essentially take up the same amount of time. However, having the entire week’s material at one time accomplishes several goals. First, it is efficient because it prevents students and professors from having to repeatedly travel to and from the course throughout the week, instead allowing all the class time to occur at once. By combining lectures and precepts into a single time block, it ensures that a professor can take time from one area

and move it to another depending on that week’s material.

For example, if a particular week needs more class discussion and less lecturing within the seminar, then the professor could easily accomplish this.

Finally, this course structure would increase attendance due to the class discussion aspect of the grading; students rarely miss seminars where their absence is evident. Lecture courses which take attendance face challenges like friends signing in for one another, or students just not signing up for the class as a way to avoid the requirement to attend all classes.

If the number of seminars is to be increased, this must be accompanied by an improvement in the student-to-faculty ratio. Were a higher percentage of courses to become seminars, and were the student-to-faculty ratio to remain constant, then a situation may arise where lecture courses inevitably become larger. We do not need

more lectures the size of those for massive introductory-level courses.

While this would take University resources, if an institution of higher learning should be willing to spend money on one thing, it should be on hiring the people that allow for instruction to occur in the first place. There would be other tangential benefits to a better student-to-faculty ratio, such as the fact that ensuring junior paper and thesis advisors would not have to advise as many students in a given year, allowing for more attention per student.

Were more classes to use a seminar format, there is the natural question of what role graduate students should play in such a system. The University has already expressed its disinterest in expanding the size of the graduate student body, citing its desire to maintain a small size with no intent on adding any profes-

sional schools. Therefore, were the University to increase its number of lecture courses after adding more undergraduates, there may not be enough graduate students to sufficiently fill all the precepting roles. Changing the seminarto-lecture ratio would protect against a deficit of preceptors, and an increase in the number of professors would also help in this regard.

As the University continues its expansion, it should evaluate what classroom dynamics are most prudential in bolstering the knowledge students receive from their courses, and consider what benefits a higher number of seminars would offer to the intellectual life on campus.

Hunter Campbell is a senior politics major from Sunderland, Vt. He can be reached at hunterc@ princeton.edu.

(if(equal? web love) (join the ‘Prince’ now) (join anyway))

Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Have opinions?

Join the opinion section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

Sports

Wednesday November 13, 2019

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

Women’s basketball drubs George Washington, 75-50

By Isaac Goldston Contributor

This Sunday in Washington, D.C., Princeton women’s basketball (2–0 overall, 0–0 Ivy) decisively defeated George Washington University (1–1) 75–50. This win made it two victories in two games played for new head coach Carla Berube.

The game’s competitive start gave little indication of what would eventually be a straightforward, dominating win for the Tigers. GW raced out to a 10-point lead with 2:35 left in the quarter. However, a fast-paced series — a jumper by senior forward Bella Alarie, combined with a pair of three-pointers by sophomore guard Grace Stone and a layup by junior guard Carlie Littlefield — thrust Princeton back into the game. As the first quarter drew to a close, Princeton found itself behind

by just one point, despite only shooting 29 percent from the field.

As the second quarter went on, the Tigers began to find their rhythm, with a pair of layups by Alarie drawing them level just 1:15 into the second period. A three-pointer by sophomore guard Neenah Young closed out the second quarter, leaving the Tigers up three going into halftime.

As in last week’s game against Rider, Princeton took control of the game with a dominant third quarter. The second half opened with eight unanswered points for the Tigers, courtesy of another layup by Alarie, a steal and finish by Littlefield, and a pair of free throws plus a layup from senior forward Taylor Baur.

Princeton did not look back, outscoring GW 24–9 in the quarter, and headed into the fourth quarter with a healthy 17-point lead. Princeton’s

strong third-quarter offensive production was augmented

by a stifling defensive performance which lead to GW

JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Carlie Littlefield, the Ivy League Player of the Week.

shooting a mere 20 percent from the field.

The lead proved ultimately insurmountable as the Colonials could not bring themselves within 16 points of Princeton in what was a comfortable fourth quarter for the Tigers.

This game was particularly notable as, with 10 steals, Littlefield tied the program record in the category previously set by Claire Tomasiewicz ’79 in 1976. As a result of her strong performance against Rider, and her exceptional double-double performance this Sunday (22 points and eight rebounds to go with her 10 steals), Littlefield was named the Ivy League Player of the Week for the third time in her Princeton career.

After this Sunday’s victory, the Tigers go on to take on Seton Hall (3–0) at the Prudential Center this Friday.

On Tap with Natalie Grossi WOMEN’S SOCCER

By Chris Murphy

Head Sports Editor

Senior goalie Natalie Grossi of women’s soccer broke the Ivy League record — men’s and women’s — for all-time shutouts earlier this year during Princeton’s 1–0 win over Dartmouth.

The game put her career total clean sheets at 30, breaking the previous record of 29 held by Dartmouth’s Kristin Luckenbill. Grossi extended her total to 31 after the team’s final game this season against Penn.

Do you feel like you share the record with the defenders?

Yeah, absolutely. It’s kind of a weird record because I don’t see it as my own — in my four years playing here it’s been the defenders and the team’s relentlessness in defending that’s made my job easy enough to get it. I was confident in my defenders that we could get five shutouts this year so it was going to happen, but that was never the goal.

Did you ever expect to break a

record like this?

No, it’s not anything you ever think about. I was fortunate enough to play as a freshman so I got the opportunity to play in so many games, giving me the ability to achieve this. It wasn’t until I started getting close to 30 shutouts that people starting talking about it and it began to seem like a possibility. My experience as a four-year starting goalie is kind of unique. I was lucky enough that my coaches gave me the opportunity to play so much. When I came in my freshman year there were five other goalies and it was very competitive. I was just able to get the chance to play.

Coach [Sean] Driscoll didn’t recruit me — Kelly Boudreau, who left, is the one who did — so he didn’t see me play that much at the beginning. Sean has been super supportive and doesn’t just play someone because of their age. If you’re good enough you’ll get an opportunity to play.

What are your strengths as a

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Natalie Grossi ‘20 now holds the record for most career shutouts across men’s and women’s soccer in the Ivy League.

Tweet of the Day “Congratulations Mitchell (Cooper ‘22) on being picked NWPC Offensive Player of the Week!”

Princeton Water Polo (@ Pwaterpolo)

goalie?

Communicating with the backline and just reading the play. Half of my job is talking to the defenders in front of me to make sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing and are ready for any situation. I’m there just in case. My communication has gotten better over time — it’s something you have to learn while you’re there with experiences and being put in situations. I don’t want to toot my own horn, but shot-stopping is something I’m pretty good at. If anyone is shooting from a distance I’m pretty confident in my abilities to save it.

I’m really confident in the younger goalies and their abilities to keep the backline solid and take on the role as starting goalie after I’m gone.

Is this a big deal for you?

It is, but it’s definitely a bigger deal for the program, and of course my parents. They’re super proud of it and are telling anyone who will listen.

But it’s not just my thing — my defenders make it easy and it’s more of a team record than anything. Any time anyone congratulates me I feel very awkward because I don’t know what to say. But honestly, I’m just really thankful and grateful to my team and defenders.

Senior goalie Natalie Grossi of women’s soccer broke the Ivy League record — men’s and women’s — for all-time shutouts earlier this year during Princeton’s 1–0 win over Dartmouth. The game put her career total clean sheets at 30, breaking the previous record of 29 held by Dartmouth’s Kristin Luckenbill. Grossi extended her total to 31 after the team’s final game this season against Penn.

Do you feel like you share the record with the defenders?

Yeah, absolutely. It’s kind of a weird record because I don’t see it as my own — in my four years playing here it’s been the defenders and the team’s relentlessness in defending that’s made my job easy enough to get it. I was confident in my defenders that we could get five shutouts this year so it was going to happen, but that was never the goal.

Did you ever expect to break a record like this?

COURTESY OF BEVERLY SCHAEFER / GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Grossi runs with the ball.

No, it’s not anything you ever think about. I was fortunate enough to play as a freshman so I got the opportunity to play in so many games, giving me the ability to achieve this. It wasn’t until I started getting close to 30 shutouts that people starting talking about it and it began to seem like a possibility. My experience as a four-year starting goalie is kind of unique. I was lucky enough that my coaches gave me the opportunity to play so much. When I came in my freshman year there were five other goalies and it was very competitive. I was just able to get the chance to play.

Coach [Sean] Driscoll didn’t recruit me — Kelly Boudreau, who left, is the one who did — so he didn’t see me play that much at the beginning. Sean has been super supportive and doesn’t just play someone because of their age. If you’re good enough you’ll get an opportunity to play.

What are your strengths as a goalie?

Communicating with the backline and just reading the play. Half of my job is talking to the defenders in front

of me to make sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing and are ready for any situation. I’m there just in case. My communication has gotten better over time — it’s something you have to learn while you’re there with experiences and being put in situations. I don’t want to toot my own horn, but shot-stopping is something I’m pretty good at. If anyone is shooting from a distance I’m pretty confident in my abilities to save it.

I’m really confident in the younger goalies and their abilities to keep the backline solid and take on the role as starting goalie after I’m gone.

Is this a big deal for you?

It is, but it’s definitely a bigger deal for the program, and of course my parents. They’re super proud of it and are telling anyone who will listen.

But it’s not just my thing — my defenders make it easy and it’s more of a team record than anything. Any time anyone congratulates me I feel very awkward because I don’t know what to say. But honestly, I’m just really thankful and grateful to my team and defenders.

Stat of the Day

Follow us

3

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

3 members of Princeton field hockey earned AllIvy recognition.