The Daily Princetonian: October 14, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday October 14, 2019 vol. CXLII no. 88

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

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

ON CAMPUS

ON CAMPUS

Organizing from the margins

Wax defends remarks on immigration, race

By Benjamin Ball Head News Editor

By Benjamin Ball Head News Editor

See MARGIN page 2

PHOTO CREDIT: JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Amy Wax

ON CAMPUS

U. endowment earns 6.2 percent return for 2019 fiscal year

By Benjamin Ball Head News Editor

The University announced Monday that its endowment earned 6.2 percent for the fiscal year ending in June. Now, the endowment is valued at $26.1 billion, up $200 million from last year. This year’s return is a drop from last year, when the University reported a 14.2 percent return.

According to the University announcement, the endowment’s annual return during the past decade is 11.6 percent, putting the University in the top percentile of 500 institutions

ranked by the Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service.

In the past, Andrew Golden, the President of The Princeton University Investment Co. (PRINCO), the University office that manages the endowment, has emphasized that the tenyear figure is the one that gives the better sense of the endowment’s performance over time. “… we remind ourselves … that a single year is so short that luck is almost always the single largest driver of relative results,” Golden wrote in the Report on Investments in the 2017-18 Report of the Treasurer. “We strive to keep all eyes on the long term.

A single year’s performance … does not give much information about past efforts or the likelihood of future success.”

Golden emphasized that focus again in a recent interview with the Daily Princetonian, describing the timeframe of the University’s endowment as effectively infinite. According to Golden, given that time frame, focusing on the longer term is a more viable strategy.

“The endowment’s mission is to spend as much as possible while preserving pursing power into perpetuity,” Golden said.

“The idea behind an endowment fund is that there should

staff writer

FitzRandolph Gate

Princeton municipality institutes Indigenous Peoples’ Day to replace Columbus Day On Sept. 9, the Princeton Town Council passed Resolution 19-278, declaring that the second Monday in October would be henceforth known as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in the Princeton municipality.

In an effort to “[reaffirm] the municipality’s commitment to promote the well-being and growth of indigenous commu-

In Opinion

See ENDOWMENT page 3

George and West GS ’80 discuss open-minded intellectual inquiry

By Ian Shen

Senior Writer

be intergenerational equity, that students and professors 100 years from now should get the same benefit as students and professors right now.”

“So if our mission is forever, it turns out forever is a long way off,” Golden said.

Harvard University announced its returns in late September, noting a 6.5 percent return for fiscal year 2019. That brought Harvard’s endowment to $40.9 billion. The Harvard Crimson noted that while the rate was also lower than for the last two years, it was the first time the endowment had ex-

ON CAMPUS

IN TOWN

By Hannah Wang

See WAX page 2

nities” and “encourage the development and dissemination of truthful representations and acknowledgements of wrongs,” the council resolved to support the institution of Indigenous Peoples’ Day in lieu of the federal holiday Columbus Day. “The issue was recommended to [the] council about a year ago by a group of citizens who came to the council meeting and spoke during the public comment period,” Princeton Mayor

Guest Contributors Grace Collins ‘21 and Chase Lovgren ‘21 discuss Professor Amy Wax’s latest visit, Guest contributor Normal Finkelstein GS ‘87 responds to recent coverage surrounding his appearance on a panel and Guest contributors members of AJP voice their views on the Finkelstein’s words on the panel. PAGE 4

Liz Lempert explained.

“We referred the idea to our Civil Rights Commission to do further research and come back to council with a proposal,” she said. “At the time, there was general consensus among Council that it was something we were interested in moving forward on.”

The resolution also acknowledges the land of the Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Tribal Nation on which the municipality was See COLUMBUS page 1

Two renowned Universityaffiliated academics from opposite ends of the political spectrum came together in a talk to agree on what they see as the fundamental role of academia — truth-seeking and open inquiry. McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Robert P. George and Class of 1943 University Professor of African American Studies, Emeritus Cornel West GS ’80 spoke at an event titled “The Spirit of Truth-Seeking” on Friday night.

The event took place during First-year Families Weekend and was sponsored by the James Madison Program as part of the University Humanities Council’s “Being Human” festival.

The talk took place in McCosh Hall 50 on Oct. 11, at 7 p.m.

University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 began the discussion with an introduction of the speakers and an opening statement in which he accentuated the value of truth-seeking at the University.

“Tonight’s discussion addresses a topic — truth-seeking — that resides at the heart of this university, and indeed, at the center of any research university worthy of the name,” said Eisgruber.

Today on Campus 6:00 p.m.: Princeton in Africa Information Session Louis A. Simpson International Building A71

Eisgruber quoted James Peebles GS ’62, the Albert Einstein Professor Emeritus of Science and a recent co-recipient of the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics.

“At his press conference on Tuesday, Professor Peebles said he hoped for many years that his theory was wrong,” stated Eisgruber. “He kept formulating alternative theories that might deepen our understanding of the cosmos by disproving the theory that eventually won him the Nobel Prize.”

“The spirit of truth-seeking is first a spirit of humility,” George emphasized at the beginning of the dialogue. “It’s a spirit that recognizes one’s own fallibility, that whatever one’s convictions, beliefs, or judgments, they are fallible.”

George affirmed some values that he believed to be essential for a research university.

“For universities to be true to their truth-seeking mission, it is critical that they understand and that they be strict in their adherence to academic integrity and academic freedom,” George asserted.

More important than the material benefits that a student can obtain with a degree from the University, according to George, is the “examined life” that can be offered to students.

See WEST page 3

WEATHER

From “Ban the Box” to Title IX Reform, to the protests at last week’s dedication of the Woodrow Wilson installation, the University has been no stranger to student activism in the past year.

On Saturday, at “Organizing from the Margins: Speaking Freely on Lived-Experiences, Protest, and Princeton,” student activists and University community members heard from activist leaders who, in the words of co-founder of the Newark Water Coalition Anthony Diaz, are “dealers in hope.”

At the event, the Whig-Cliosophic Society hosted Anthony Diaz, Lydia Thorton, an activist with the N.J. Campaign for Alternatives to Isolated Confinement; Alexis Miller, lead organizer of the Patterson, N.J., Black Lives Matter chapter and a law student at Rutgers University; and Antonne Henshaw, Vice President of Women Who Never Give Up, Inc., in the Whig Senate Chamber at 2 p.m. on Saturday. The talk was moderated by Writing Program professor Dannelle Gutarra Cordero.

Cordero asked the speakers what advice they would give to the student activists in the audience. Diaz emphasized that students needed “to have a team.”

“You cannot do this alone,” Diaz said. “You will burn out, and the world needs you.”

Diaz added that activists had to ask themselves “how far are you willing to go?,” and said,

At a talk Saturday in East Pyne, Amy Wax, a law professor who has garnered controversy over remarks she has delivered over the past two years, defended her advocacy for an immigration policy that would favor those from Western countries over non-Western ones.

Wax, the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, reiterated that she believes immigrants from European countries would “assimilate” better into the United States.

“Our country, because it was founded by people who are essentially Anglo-Protestant and therefore quintessentially Western … can more easily assimilate

people from … more similar cultures, and here I’m talking about Europe,” Wax said.

Throughout the talk, Wax consistently used “the West” interchangeably with “the first world,” and “the non-West” interchangeably with “the third world.”

“The main thrust of my remarks was that cultural compatibility should have a role, or we should talk about its role, in immigration selection,” Wax said.

Wax gave this defense at an event, hosted by the Whig-Cliosophic Society, entitled “Speak Freely: A Conversation,” in which she and Keith Whittington, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at the University, talked about free speech on college campuses and related topics.

The event took place in East Pyne

HIGH

72˚

LOW

42˚

Party cloudy chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Monday October 14, 2019

Wax, Whittington discuss free speech on college campuses WAX

Continued from page 1

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

010, in front of a little more than a dozen audience members.

For most of the talk, Wax defended a selection of her most controversial comments. Wax claimed that her “troubles began” when she co-wrote an op-ed, which she called “seemingly innocuous,” for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In the op-ed, Wax claimed that “all cultures are not equal” and that various social problems would be solved if “the academics, media, and Hollywood” would stop the “preening pretense of defending the downtrodden.”

In response, 33 of Wax’s colleagues signed an open letter condemning her assertions. Wax claimed on Saturday that the open letter had “no arguments or reasons,” and was a “pure denunciation.”

Wax also claimed that “some minority student activists at Penn law discovered” a 2017 podcast, which comprised a conversation about affirmative action between her and economist Glenn Loury, in which she stated, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely, in the top half.”

In response, Wax was removed from teaching required first-year curriculum courses, and Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger disavowed her comments, saying, “It is imperative for me as dean to state that these claims are false” and that

“Black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law.” Wax’s final defense was of her immigration policy proposal, which she made at the National Conservatism Conference earlier this year, in which she said that the United States is “better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.”

At the talk, Wax denied any allegations of racism, saying that criticisms of her comments “implied falsely that I was an advocate for racial discrimination.”

Vox had previously reported that Wax claimed her policy was not racist because “her problem with nonwhite immigrants is cultural rather than biological.”

Wax was asked directly whether she regretted her comments and why she invoked race when speaking on immigration. Wax responding by saying she did not want to shy away from policies that have “differential impacts by race.”

“Cultural compatibility has been eclipsed, it’s not really discussed. One of the reasons is it might have a racially disparate impact,” Wax said. “The result might be that we will admit more people from Europe and less from the third world.”

“It’s not clear my prediction would be correct,” Wax added.

Whittington spent much of his time speaking on the importance of both academic freedom and free speech on college campuses, which he listed the differences between, though he added that they were “linked.”

“The ideal of academic freedom ... was the goal of protecting the pursuit of academic inquiry and scholarly inquiry and teaching and research [for] faculty on college campuses,” Whittington said.

“Faculty need to be guided by their own professional understandings of what kinds of questions were important ones, how should they be pursued, what kinds of arguments and analysis and evidence were acceptable ones.”

Whittington said that academic freedom and free speech were important to protect faculty members of more “controversial” opinions.

In addition, Whittington posited that there were “intrinsic limits” to academic freedom. He used the specific example of a chemistry professor spending devoting lecture to politics, saying that unrestricted “freedom” would interfere with teaching and research.

“The notion of academic freedom is also constrained by the extent to which it adheres to a set of scholarly and disciplinary norms about how exactly that freedom is supposed to be exercised,” Whittington said.

Whittington also denied that there was any kind of free speech “crisis” on college campuses, saying, “There was never really a golden age” of free speech.

While Wax acknowledged she did not have the same background on the topic as Whittington, she did claim so-called “peer-peer intimidations” on college campuses were unprecedented.

Wax alleged that she had witnessed, on a number of occasions, female students refusing to date male students because of their conservative beliefs, calling the phenomenon “the new Lysistrata,” in reference to the Aristophanes play in which women refuse to have sex with men to convince them to end the Peloponnesian War. “There’s gonna be a lot of cat ladies in the future,” Wax said.

Concurrent to the event with Wax and Whittington, Whig-Clio also hosted a counter-event, “Organizing from the Margins: Speaking Freely on Lived-Experiences, Protest, and Princeton.”

When asked why the Wax and Whittington event was hosted in East Pyne, rather than Whig Hall, which houses the Society, WhigClio President Grace Collins ’21 clarified that Whig-Clio prioritizes its senate chamber for larger events, and far more students expressed interest in “Organizing from the Margins” than “Speak Freely,” so the former was held in the available Whig-Clio space.

“While only 6 people initially responded with interest to the free speech panel, 83 people responded to the anti-white supremacy panel on Whig-Clio’s Facebook page,” Collins wrote in an email to The Daily Princetonian. “For logistical reasons, at the recommendation of ODUS and for the ease of Public Safety, the ‘Speak Freely’ panel was then moved to another building.”

Collins added that the decision to move the Wax and Whittington event to East Pyne was ultimately

made by University Vice President Rochelle Calhoun.

In the days before her visit, Whig-Clio’s invitation to Wax drew student criticism, which culminated in the organizing of the counter-event.

A number of Public Safety officers were stationed outside the room during the talk, and WhigClio members checked IDs when audience members entered. Dean Jarrett Fisher, who was present as an “Open Expression Monitor,” deferred comment to University Spokesperson Ben Chang.

“Open Expression Monitors and Public Safety officers may attend various campus programs, meetings, and events where University policy on freedom of expression may be challenged,“ Chang wrote in an email to the ‘Prince.’ “Open Expression Monitors and Public Safety officers uphold the rights of participants to express themselves in non-disruptive ways, safeguard the essential functioning of University operations, and protect members’ rights to hear, see, and engage with a speaker or listen to a lecture.”

“The University – from the Office of Undergraduate Students to the Department of Public Safety – has a duty to the campus community and a commitment based on our institutional values to ensure that events held on campus – including those sponsored by student organizations - are able to proceed without disruption so that all participants can speak and be heard,“ Chang added.

ing people, and most talented people in my life,” Thorton said. “Now that I’ve been there and survived and come out, not just prison but solitary confinement, that means that I have to be part of the change. I can’t just sit back.”

Thorton cited her most recent success in advocacy as convincing Governor Phil Murphy to sign a bill limiting solitary confinement, which had been vetoed by former Governor Chris Christie three years prior. She said, however, that such a step was far from the “end of the journey.”

“When you talk about advocacy and activism, the journey starts when something like that bill gets signed, ’cause now we have to make sure it’s actually implemented,” Thorton said.

Thorton reflected on the disadvantages formerly incarcerated people face when reentering the job and housing markets, comparing their criminal records to the red “A” symbol, placed on adulteress, in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter.”

“What we do today is we wear what I call the Scarlet F [for felon], except it’s not visible until you write it on paper, until you’re required to answer questions about your background,” Thorton said.

Miller has organized a number of protests, which she described as “flooding the streets,” and said she works to fight not only “state-sanctioned violence,” but also “any issues that threaten the livelihood of black people, period,” which includes advocating for the enrollment of black law students.

“This is about holding our institutions accountable for the work they need to do,” Miller said.

Nathan Poland ’20 and copresident of SPEAR KiKi Gilbert ’21 helped to organize the event. Poland called the conversation “an empowering experience” and “the best way for me to express myself and to exercise my freedom of speech.”

Concurrently with the panel, Whig-Clio hosted University of Pennsylvania Robert Mundheim Professor of Law Amy Wax, who spoke at a separate event, entitled “Speak Freely: A Conversation.” Cordero mentioned the Wax event, to which “Organizing from the Margins” was organized directly in response, during her introduction, referring to Wax as “a proponent of scientific racism.”

“Amy Wax is speaking at Princeton, spreading hate towards people of color,” Cordero said. “Amy Wax proclaims the superiority of ‘white culture.’”

“This aims to be alternative safe space,” Cordero added.

“This hopes to be a reparative space.”

Cordero also critiqued the work of the other speaker at the “Speak Freely” event, Professor

Keith Whittington, saying that his book, chosen for the Class of 2022 pre-read and also titled “Speak Freely,” was “abominable and strategic” and that it “upholds hate speech on college campuses.”

Leopoldo Solis ’21, who attended the “Organizing from the Margins,” described the talk as “a very productive response to having a white supremacist coming to speak on campus.”

“Students who are willing to confront a lot of hateful rhetoric, which is disguised as being an issue of free speech, are here and really willing to speak out and come together,” Solis said.

Another audience member, co-president of SPEAR Amanda Eisenhour ’21, praised the event as a creative alternative to a regular protest, forming a “new space” and “repurposing University resources.”

Gilbert said the intention was to create an “alternate space” for those affected by white supremacy. She said it was a “shame” that the WhigClio trustees insisted on bringing Wax, whose prior visit had been canceled last spring.

Henshaw also responded to a question during the Q&A session about the event’s relationship to Wax coming to speak, saying, “I don’t even know who Amy Wax is — I don’t even know to be offended.”

“See how her venom doesn’t work?” Henshaw asked. “You have to be relevant … who are you?”

Thorton: far from the “end of the journey” MARGIN Continued from page 1

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

“this life has consequences.”

Miller and Thornton expressed similar sentiments to Diaz. Miller said, “coalition building is going to be your best friend,” while Thorton asked the audience to “imagine what we could do as a group.”

“You never know where your help is gonna come from,” Thorton said. “Support each other.”

Henshaw compared confronting systematic racism and the people who defend them to “snake handling.”

“I had to learn, at 18 years old, 5’4’’, 118 pounds, how to navigate the snake pit to get here,” Henshaw said.

Henshaw shared the story of his incarceration. He served 30 years for murder, seven of which he spent in solitary confinement. While incarcerated, Henshaw earned his law degree from Rutgers.

During the talk, he decried the structural racism and violence that he said underlies the American legal system, and emphasized the importance of fighting internal battles as well as external ones.

“Anybody that’s in New Jersey State is not supposed to make it out, you’re supposed to die,” Henshaw said. “You’re living in your coffin.”

Henshaw talked about returning to his hometown of Camden, N.J., and the importance of looking at the larger structures of racism rather than just individuals.

“Instead of indicting the people, I began to look at the structural violence of my city that made it possible for openair drug addicts, homelessness, hunger, [and] violence to exist in a public space,” Henshaw said. “As long as it was black and brown bodies, it was policed. Now that it’s black, brown, and white bodies, they look the other way.”

The guiding question for the talk, asked by Cordero, was, “How does your activism generate visibility, advocacy for those who are silenced and how does it challenge hegemonic institutional impression?”

Diaz described his work in fighting the lead crisis and emphasized that the goal of the organization was not to give “handouts.”

“What the Newark Water Coalition does is really try to empower people,” Diaz said.

“We need to work together and build power. We need to organize. We need to mobilize.”

According to Diaz, the coalition has met with the governor’s office, created fellowship opportunities, and protested at a number of public events.

Diaz emphasized advocacy as being “part of [the] community” and “helping others empower themselves.”

“It’s a process and sometimes it’s a painful process too, but I wouldn’t trade it for the world,” Diaz said.

Thorton introduced herself to the audience as a “previously incarcerated individual.”

“What it allowed me to do, having been incarcerated, is meet some of the most amaz-

Miller worked with the NAACP in high school, in what she called “good old fashioned community service,” but said she and others like her “felt like we needed to do something bigger.”

Princeton is the second town in N.J. to change the name of the holiday; Newark was the first COLUMBUS Continued from page 1

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

built, as well as the forced diaspora of other Native nations and indigenous peoples in the Americas at large. It “commends the Princeton Public Schools” for their ongoing efforts to incorporate the histories and cultures of indigenous peoples into their curricula in order to “revise distorted history of ‘Indians.’” “[Indigenous Peoples’ Day]

is part of a larger effort by the municipality and other groups in the community to more fully confront our history,” Lempert said. “We have a tendency to tell part of the story but not all of it, and when you do that, and you don’t have a full understanding of your past, it’s harder to build a truly inclusive community.”

Lempert added that Indigenous Peoples’ Day will still be a regular work day during which municipal offices will be open and operating, but the hope was

to inspire more “community engagement” around issues facing indigenous peoples.

“We often will partner with the [Princeton Public] Library for community conversations or book talks, and I can see arts organizations being involved, especially in future years, figuring out how they might want to be part of the community effort,” Lempert replied when asked about what this community engagement might look like.

“We have other nonprofits,

not in our town, who hold community conversations about race — there’s the YMCA, the YWCA, our public schools,” Lempert elaborated. “My hope would be that each of these different organizations would engage with these issues and challenge themselves to look at our history more fully in a way that makes sense for each of them.”

The history of Indigenous Peoples’ Day itself dates back to 1977, when it was proposed by a delegation of Native nations

at the International Conference on Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations in the Americas. Several states, such as Maine, Vermont, and New Mexico, as well as several cities, have since begun to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Princeton is the second city in New Jersey to officially recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day, after the mayor of Newark changed the name from Columbus Day in 2017.

Monday October 14, 2019

The Daily Princetonian

Every Ivy League university reported a smaller return than in 2018 ENDOWMENT Continued from page 1

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

ceeded $40 billion.

Brown University led the Ivy Leagues this year with a reported 12.4 percent return on its endowment. The University of Pennsylvania reported 6.5 percent return, Yale reported a 5.7 percent return, Dartmouth posted a 7.5 percent return, and Cornell University reported a 5.3 percent return.

Columbia University had the lowest return on its endowment among with Ivy League, reporting a 3.8 percent return. Every Ivy League school experienced a smaller return in 2019 than in 2018.

Golden said this correlation could well be due to larger mar-

ket factors, but that one cannot draw too much about each endowment’s investment strategy from one year’s return numbers.

“Because they all have this outside correlation, the market, they will also appear to have... some correlation with each other, but it doesn’t mean that they are fellow travelers,“ Golden said. “It doesn’t mean they’re approaching things the same way.”

The more than 4,000 funding sources of the endowment include permanently restricted net assets, temporarily restricted net assets, and unrestricted net assets, with many accounts dating as far back as the University’s founding. Most accounts are dedicated for financial aid purposes, and the Office of Communications noted that earlier this year the “trustees ap-

proved a 7.2 percent increase in undergraduate financial aid to $187.4 million in the University’s operating budget for the current year.”

The endowment also supports funding for over 200 endowed professor positions, masters and Ph.D. students, athletics, religious life, and faculty teaching and research.

Deputy University spokesperson Mike Hotchkiss emphasized the “key role of the endowment in the University and being able to provide the financial support we do to students.”

“It’s constantly used in the service of the University,“ Hotchkiss said.

PRINCO will certify the results during a meeting of its directors on Oct. 17, 2019.

page 3

PHOTO CREDIT: JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

West: “You are here to be thoroughly unsettled” WEST

Continued from page 1

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

PHOTO CREDT: ALLAN SHEN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Professor Emeritis Cornel West GS ’80 and Professor Robert P. George speak on truth seeking

“You have here the opportunity to consider the best that has been thought and said, to consider the best arguments on competing sides, and to go for the big questions,” George stated.

West highlighted that new students are becoming a part of the tradition of intellectual inquiry at the University.

“You are in for magnificent joy, not just pleasure,” West said to the first-year students. “But most importantly, you are here

to be thoroughly unsettled.”

Continuing, West discussed what the concept of “learning” entails, morally and spiritually.

“Deep education is about what [George] and I talk about ... students come in to learn how to die,” said West. “Students come in to learn how to die in order to learn how to live!”

Reaffirming George’s point on one’s fallibility, West proclaimed the importance of selfexamination.

“Nietzsche was right, it’s not just about having the courage of one’s conviction,” said West. “It’s the question of having the courage to attack one’s conviction.”

Takin’ care of BU$INE$$.

Join the ‘Prince’ business department.

48 University Place Email join@dailyprincetonian.com News - Sports - Street - Opinion - Business - Copy - Design - Web - Blogs - Multimedia - Photo

to

ln nt my

s

Opinion

Monday October 14, 2019

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

A response from Norman Finkelstein GS ’87 Norman Finkelstein GS ’87 Guest Contributor

The Daily Princetonian states that I delivered “antiSemitic remarks” at a panel on black and Palestinian solidarity. This is a most serious allegation. But is it true?

The article, which was subsequently “edited to better reflect the context and content of the panel as a whole,” was originally a sustained libel against me to the exclusion of the other panelists. In the revised version, the other panelists are quoted, but the libel remains intact. Were it written by the Israeli consulate, the article would have made perfect sense, but the ‘Prince’ is supposed to prioritize the interests of the Princeton community.

The ‘Prince’ interviewed Jewish students who allegedly were pained by my remarks, but it apparently couldn’t find a single audience member who appreciated them, even as my intervention evoked loud applause. I went out for dinner afterwards with many of the attendees, including several Jewish students.

The ‘Prince’ managed to track down all the principals for a comment (sponsors, select audience members), but didn’t manage to solicit a comment from the headlined subject of the article.

The ‘Prince’ reported that

Jewish students were scared for their safety, but missed the incongruity that, if they were so scared, why did these frightened persons come up afterwards to speak with me?

The ‘Prince’ noted that a dissenting Jewish student in the audience struggled to have his words heard, but it failed to mention that I was the one who firmly insisted dissenting voices from the audience be heard.

The oddest thing, however, is that the ‘Prince’ managed to report on every aspect of some Jewish students’ reaction to my talk, even on our private conversations afterwards, and to provide multiple hyperlinks to other alleged statements by me in the past, without once mentioning a single word about the subject of my lengthy talk: Gaza’s martyrdom.

In my remarks, I noted inter alia [among other things] that: over 70 percent of Gaza’s population consists of refugees, and half its population consists of children; Israel has imposed an illegal and inhuman medieval siege on Gaza since 2006 that has been uniformly condemned by humanitarian and human rights organizations as a flagrant violation of international law; Israel has punctuated its brutal siege by launching fully eight large-scale massacres since 2004, the last of which, Operation Protective Edge

(2014), left 550 Gazan children dead and 18,000 homes methodically destroyed while one Israeli child was killed and one Israeli home was destroyed. In addition, 97 percent of Gaza’s water is unfit for human consumption; humanitarian and human rights organizations have repeatedly sounded the alarm that Gaza is on the brink of being physically unlivable; leading Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling of the Hebrew University and a leading Israeli journalist covering Gaza, Amira Hass of Haaretz, have both described Gaza as a “concentration camp;” and Israeli snipers have been intentionally targeting with lethal weapons children, medics, journalists, and disabled persons nonviolently protesting the blockade of Gaza.

Alas, none of these exhaustively documented, shocking facts registered with the ‘Prince.’ Its sole concern was the alleged hurt feelings of an Israel soldier in the audience who announced that he was one of the guards along the perimeter fence of this concentration camp caging in one million children.

The ‘Prince’ deemed it an “anti-Semitic trope” to describe Israeli snipers as “drinking the blood of Gaza’s one million children.” Perhaps it would have preferred the description by the world’s leading authority on Gaza’s

economy, Sara Roy at Harvard University, who is also the daughter of survivors of Auschwitz: “Innocent human beings, most of them young, are slowly being poisoned by the water they drink.” Children being poisoned: that, too, is an “anti-Semitic trope.” It also happens to be true.

The ‘Prince’ quoted me as recalling by analogy abolitionist Frederick Douglass’s description of slave-catchers as “biped bloodhounds” and his public declaration that if a slave catcher sought to take the slave back, he “will be murdered in the street.” Both my parents were survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto, my father was a survivor of Auschwitz and the Auschwitz death march, and my mother was a survivor of Majdanek and two slave-labor camps. Every other member of my family on both sides was exterminated.

I will perhaps be forgiven for loathing concentration camp guards and murderers of innocents.

The ‘Prince’ accuses me of anti-Semitism. It would appear, however, that not only is the messenger being vilified for his discomfiting message, but the delivery of that message is being tagged as anti-Semitic so as to silence future messengers.

Members of AJP

This statement speaks only for the undersigned members of the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP), and not for AJP as an organization Last Thursday, we, as members of the Alliance of Jewish Progressives, contributed to AJP’s co-sponsorship of “Fighting for Justice from Gaza to Ferguson: Black and Palestinian Solidarity,” a panel centered on historical and present-day solidarity between the liberation movements of black Americans and Palestinian people. AJP was invited to co-sponsor this event by the Young Democratic Socialists (YDS) and the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP), and chose to co-sponsor the event as part of its commitment to coalition building and allyship on the left, on this campus and everywhere. For this reason, along with AJP’s dedication to advocating for the rights of marginalized people, AJP was honored and moved to be invited to co-sponsor the event.

The event, which featured three

panelists and a moderator, was premised on critically engaging with the meaning of solidarity and the power of comparison in discussions about resistance.

We, as members of a group that co-sponsored this event, stand by our belief that the mission of this panel and a continued conversation on its topic are incredibly important — particularly on Princeton’s largely white and politically apathetic campus, where activism is often stifled or denounced.

However, though the panel had the potential to be both informative and provocative, Norman Finkelstein’s presence onstage led it to be primarily the latter. Finkelstein chose to use this event as a platform for his own opinions on Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than focusing on the panel’s intended subject. His derailment of the conversation further marginalized the people and movements that the event’s co-sponsors intended to elevate. It is unacceptable that Finkelstein failed to provide space for discussion of black and Palestinian liberation movements and repeatedly

attempted to co-opt the conversation in service of his own agenda.

Furthermore, Finkelstein’s rhetoric was intentionally incendiary and aggressive even when speaking to respectful dissenters, including when he repurposed a Frederick Douglass phrase, originally used to describe fugitive-slave catchers, to liken members of the Israeli Defense Forces to “biped bloodhounds.” Finkelstein crossed the line when he claimed, as an extension of the metaphor, that the IDF is “drinking the blood of one million [Palestinian] children.” In doing so, Finkelstein invoked the well-known antiSemitic trope of blood libel, further derailing the conversation and reinforcing a heinous misrepresentation of Jewish ritual that was brought about by and has resulted in many centuries of persecution and suffering.

Conversations about Palestinian rights far too often become centered on unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism.

While this event was perverted

by Finkelstein’s genuinely antiSemitic and offensive remark,

editor-in-chief

Chris Murphy ’20 business manager

Taylor Jean-Jacques’20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Chris Murphy ’20 Taylor Jean-Jacques’20

A condemnation of Finkelstein’s conduct Guest Contributors

vol. cxliii

which we condemn without reservation, we are at the same time dismayed that his comments have made this necessary condemnation the focus of the event’s aftermath.

As articulated by Lawrence Hamm ’78 — one of the panelists, whose words were often drowned out by Finkelstein — “Criticism of Israel’s actions is not anti-Semitic.” But blood libel is, and we are profoundly disappointed that Finkelstein did not respect the importance of this discussion enough to avoid disparaging language and tangential controversy. We remain committed to engaging in complicated, difficult conversations about justice and injustice everywhere.

Signatories Zora Arum ’22 Chaya Holch ’22 Rafi Lehmann ’20 Eli Berman ’20 Jo de La Bruyère ’22 Noam Miller ’21 Micah Newberger ’22 Jake Waksbaum ’20 Jo de la Bruyère is a Features editor at the ‘Prince.’

143RD MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Aftel ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Jon Ort ’21 head news editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news editors Linh Nguyen ’21 Claire Silberman ’22 Katja Stroke-Adolphe ’20 head opinion editor Cy Watsky ’21 associate opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editors Samantha Shapiro ’21 Jo de la Bruyere ’22 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

NIGHT STAFF

Like sports? Write for the sports section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

copy Ellie Chang ’23 Andrew Tang ‘23 design Sophie Li ’23 Anika Maskara ’23

Opinion

Monday October 14, 2019

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Letter from Whig-Clio Student Leaders regarding the visit of Amy Wax Grace Collins ’21 Chase Lovgren ’21

Guest Contributors

The Daily Princetonian’s recent articles have called upon Whig-Clio’s student leaders to disinvite Amy Wax. We have tried, and been stopped, repeatedly. In 2018, Amy Wax was invited to campus by a former member of the Governing Council. Later, other officers rescinded Wax’s invitation, citing logistical concerns, reluctant to promote a racist at Whig-Clio (again). In response, Whig-Clio’s Trustee Board chastised those student leaders, claiming that disinvitation is never acceptable, under any circumstances.

They then pressured the Society’s next student leaders to re-extend an invitation to Wax. This summer, after more racist comments from Wax, we delivered the below letter to and spoke with our Trustee chair, urging him to allow us to disinvite her. Our request was denied.

The claim that student leaders “insist[ed] that Wax return” is patently false. Decisions regarding the re-invitation of Wax are and have always been out of our hands.

We condemn the idea that we owe professional courtesy to a white supremacist. However, given both the Trustees’ absolute control over Whig-Clio’s budget decisions and the ephemerality of student leadership relative to the Trustees’ long-lasting tenures, a disinvitation from us would be futile. We have instead focused our efforts as student leaders upon improving the discourse surrounding race on campus by co-sponsoring a panel discussion called “Organizing from the Margins.”

The event, planned by Princeton student activists Kiki Gilbert ’21, Nathan Poland ’20, Aisha Tahir ’21, and many others, featured Lydia Thornton, Antonne Henshaw, Anthony Diaz, and Alexis Miller, four activists who work for the advancement of marginalized communities in New Jersey. It was held in the Senate Chamber on Saturday at 2 p.m., concurrently with the event featuring Wax. Whig-Clio’s Governing Council has also taken action to ensure that this situation never arises again. Our new Speakers Protocol requires multiple Governing Council members to thoroughly vet all proposed speakers, and Whig-Clio’s new Suggestion Box system provides a way for members to submit speaker suggestions as well as event feedback, so that the Society invites only those speakers who contribute to productive discourse. Furthermore, we want to rearticulate our commitment to building meaningful community. This weekend’s “Organizing from the Margins” panel is just one example of our work towards that goal. As the leaders of Princeton’s political hub, we promise to continue to learn from past mistakes and to make Whig-Clio a space for discourse that is engaging and safe for all.

Yours, Grace Collins ’21, President, The American Whig-Cliosophic Society Chase Lovgren ’21, Vice President, The American Whig-Cliosophic Society This statement represents the private views of the above individuals and is not an official statement on behalf of the American Whig-Cliosophic Society.

The following letter was written to the Representative for the Board of Trustees of the WhigCliosophic Society by its president and vice president prior to Amy Wax’s October talk.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely in the top half.” — Professor Amy Wax, March 2018 “I don’t shrink from the word ‘superior’ ... Everyone wants to come to the countries ruled by white Europeans.” — Professor Amy Wax, August 2017 “All cultures are not equal ... the anti- ‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks… [is] incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require.” — Professor Amy Wax, August 2017 “Embracing cultural distance, cultural-distance nationalism, means, in effect, taking the position that country will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites.” — Professor Amy Wax, July 2019 Dear [Representative for the Board of Trustees], Last spring, when our predecessors cancelled an event with Penn Law professor Amy Wax the night before it was scheduled to occur, they did so with moral outrage at just a few of the sentiments expressed above. Afterwards, they were chastised for acting rashly and behaving unprofessionally, and they were forced to reinvite the professor to speak at an event which their successor student leaders would have to organize.

Perhaps the criticism about professionalism was qualified — it is indeed impolite to rescind an invitation just before an event. However, in light of recent racist remarks made by Professor Amy Wax, Whig-Clio can no longer afford for politeness and professionalism to be our highest concerns.

We are obligated to act in accordance with our values as a society that upholds the principle of racial equality. Professor Wax’s most recent comments, perhaps her most blatantly racist to date, prove that the inflammatory remarks whose discovery prompted the cancellation of her first event did not represent an insensitive mistake on her part. Instead they represent merely one installment in a series of behaviors that would reflect her hatred for people of color and their cultures. Her comments this week that America would be “better off” with “more whites and fewer non-whites” very clearly display the white supremacy that seeps through her personal philosophy and poisons her worldview with venomous bigotry. Now, we have a moral obligation as one of campus’ largest and most influential student groups to prevent the rise of such racism. Given that we are twoand-a-half months in advance and that Professor Wax made these telling comments just a few days ago, it is not too late to fulfill that obligation we have to the Princeton community. As the President and Vice President of The American Whig-Cliosophic Society, we ask urgently that you allow us to cancel Professor Wax’s October event as soon as possible.

It is important to cancel this event now because putting this kind of person on a platform would cause several harms. First, it would destroy Whig-Clio’s reputation.

It should come as no surprise to you that the vast majority of Princeton students are anti-racist and do not wish to align themselves with any organization that has anything to do with outspoken white supremacists. With one of Whig-Clio’s biggest goals this semester being to create unity and forge a membership body, ruining our reputation in the eyes of students by hosting a speaker whose very moral system clashes with the universal principle of racial equality would be disastrous for the organization. Second, Professor Wax’s presence on our campus has the potential to put the majority of Princeton students at risk. Fifty-five percent of our undergraduates are non-white. Since hosting Professor Wax in any capacity would show them that WhigClio legitimizes her ideas, this event would not only send the message that Whig-Clio stands against Princeton students of color, but it would also embolden hateful forces in our community that frequently manifest in abuse and violence (discussed in detail below). Third, the invitation of Professor Wax was a mistake in the first place, and it feels wrong that the students of this administration, who are firmly anti-racist, must now be the ones to cause these harms and bear the consequences that will come if we are to host this woman on our campus.

It is also important to cancel this event for a reason that is unexpected but important: protecting freedom of expression. Professor Wax’s event is actually supposed to be about “free speech,” a term which she often uses to delegitimize those who call out her racism and claim that conservative speech faces some form of censorship. As is obvious to anyone seeking to do anything less than disparage Whig-Clio, we take issue not with Professor Wax’s conservatism, but with her white supremacy. We ask, how can “free speech” ever exist in an environment where students of color feel unsafe or unrespected? How can speech be free if only white students — indeed, the minority at Princeton — may participate legitimately? If Professor Wax, who clearly believes that only students fitting a certain “culture” (again, a clear analog for race) are equal to herself and “superior” to others, is to lead a discussion or a questionand-answer session with students, how in the world is it possible to make that fair and open? It seems that Professor Wax’s vision of free speech asserts that one should be able to blow as many racist dogwhistles she wishes and face no consequences — or, even, that this makes her entitled to a platform, and that anyone who disagrees is attempting to censor conservatives. This is a highly distorted vision of “free speech” that seeks to protect bigots by bastardizing the name of “conservatism” to fit its ill purposes. This is not the free speech Whig-Clio should practice. Rather, we should seek to protect the marginalized and uphold the principles of equality and racial justice.

Those who would condemn Wax’s disinvitation as a violation of her freedom of speech often rely on arguments that characterize words and ideas as uniquely distinct from the actions they enable. This could be no further from the truth: Language like that used

by Professor Wax is dangerous and hateful exactly because it empowers white su-

premacists to take terroristic actions against marginalized groups. Just earlier this year in Christchurch, New Zealand, two mosques were attacked by a terrorist shooter who, in his manifesto, used the language of white nationalism and white supremacy — just as Professor Wax does in her comments on the “superior” nature of whites — to justify his actions. In February, a U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested after being suspected of plotting a mass killing of prominent U.S. politicians. In email drafts discovered on his computer, he too drew upon the language of white supremacy — “We need a white homeland as Europe seems lost.” This language also echoes Wax’s message of America being better off with more whites and fewer non-whites. It is crucial to recognize the role of our organization in inviting speakers who hold these ideas. Hosting Professor Wax sends a clear and direct message that such speech ought to be not only tolerated, but elevated on a platform to be heard and digested by both future leaders and, terrifyingly, those just waiting for fuel for the fires of racist hatred inside of them.

Even when racism does not lead to such extreme action, it still poses real harms to our campus community. Putting a person widely known for espousing white supremacist rhetoric onto our platform — even if we expressly disendorse her views — signifies to our non-American students and students of color that we do not respect them.

Even if we were to expressly disavow her views, which we have never done or had to do with speakers in the past, simply elevating a racist onto our platform and allowing her to send messages to the community with our backing would create an organizational environment (certainly at her event, specifically) where black and brown voices are viewed as innately inferior to white voices. This is morally reprehensible and violates the very purpose of The American Whig-Cliosophic Society: to create fair spaces for productive discussion and open debate, where all perspectives — political and cultural — are welcome. Professor Wax’s view that “all cultures are not equal” opposes the fundamental values of all types of human equality that stand behind this mission, and we cannot welcome her to this campus if we are to serve our purpose as Whig-Clio.

In any case, the free speech argument — namely, that withdrawing Professor Wax’s invitation due to the white supremacist ideology behind many of her comments and publications is a violation of her right to speak freely — is an incoherent one. There is no reason why Professor Wax is entitled to a platform at Princeton University, besides that someone invited her by accident. If we were to Google Professor Wax today, student leaders would not have invited her in the first place, because she makes racist comments. They would instead invite some other conservative American law professor and move about their days — but the principle behind not inviting her in the first place, that we want to avoid racism on our campus, is the same principle that we must uphold by withdrawing her initial invitation. If one of these actions is a free speech violation, the other must be as well. “Free speech” can nev-

er be a black-and-white issue for this reason, and “violations” of it are not so easily defined, because we have to ask ourselves questions about the purpose and effects of giving people a platform on our campus. Does the principle of “free speech” mean that any and all people are equally entitled to the Whig-Clio platform? Or do we have a moral obligation to the students of color on our campus to show them the same level of respect that we show to white voices, in order to fulfill the organization’s purpose of sparking productive and equitable debate? Additionally, since it would be ridiculous to ask us to ignore hateful and bigoted stances when choosing our speakers, we must recognize that the protection offered to students of color on campus far outweighs any potential “free speech” violation created by disinviting someone who has clearly shown that they are incapable of respecting the speech of individuals of color anyway. (When we say “speech,” what we really mean is expression — of views, of values, of self, and so on. Culture is one such expression.

Professor Wax’s recent comments indicate that she cannot respect free expression for anyone but well-off, white Americans. When Professor Wax talks about the “culture” of groups that just happen to be racial groups, she is hiding her racism behind a dogwhistle. Furthermore, given that culture is central to a person’s identity and belief system, and so a person cannot be separated from their culture, she disparages the speech and very existence of urban black Americans, Latinx immigrants, and even poor white Americans, preventing them from ever speaking “freely” before they even open their mouths). Because of these things, it is absolutely instrumental that we do not allow Professor Wax and her white supremacy to be elevated in our name.

South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” We agree with these words, and because of this, we cannot sit idly by and allow the decisions of others and the precedent of “politeness” to bring the evil force of white supremacy onto our campus in our name. The reputation of Whig-Clio, its student leaders, and its Trustees will be permanently soiled if we put this woman on a platform. As the President and Vice President of this organization, we want Whig-Clio to be an open space where all types of speech are respected and heard. Because we want to fulfill our organization’s purpose to the best of our ability, and because we recognize the societal reality that the voices of hateful white supremacists and the voices of people of color can never coexist, we strongly urge you to allow us to rescind our invitation to Professor Amy Wax and to cancel her event on Oct. 12 immediately.

Sincerely, Grace A. Collins President Chase M. Lovgren Vice President

Sports

Monday October 14, 2019

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S HOCKEY

Running game, defense carry Princeton football in win over Lafayette

By Ben Burns Contributor

In an old school style win, Princeton football (4–0, 1–0 Ivy) bested non- conference foe Lafayette (0–6) with a combination of suffocating defense and bruising running in a 28–3 win Friday night. The Tigers defense dominated all night, holding Lafayette quarterback Keegan Shoemaker to just 150 total yards and intercepting him twice.

On offense, the Princeton running backs accounted for all four touchdowns while repeatedly running the ball into the teeth of the Cougars’ defense. Junior running back Collin Eaddy rushed 17 times for 89 yards and three touchdowns to lead the way, senior running back Ryan Quigley tacked on 71 yards on 12 carries, and sophomore back Trey Gray added 32 yards and a touchdown.

The first quarter was a strange one for the Tigers. After junior defensive back Sultaan Shabazz picked off Shoemaker on Lafayette’s second drive, senior quarterback Kevin Davidson found sophomore tight end Carson Bobo for a 24-yard gain to the Cougars’ eight-yard line. After a defensive stand, Princeton’s field goal attempt clanked off the left upright, leaving the Tigers empty handed.

Princeton came up empty on the next drive too. After forcing a

punt, Princeton took over from its own 28. A few plays into the drive, Davidson found junior receiver Jacob Birmelin near the sideline, who eluded a few defenders and dove for the pylon, appearing to score. However, he had barely stepped out of bounds at the four, and Princeton was kept off the board as Lafayette stuffed the Tigers on four consecutive plays to force a turnover on downs.

Princeton would finally break through on its next drive. After forcing another punt, the Tigers conducted a six play, 45-yard drive capped off by a one-yard touchdown by Eaddy. That score would hold until 6:22 to go in the half, when Eaddy once again found the end zone, this time from five yards out. The drive was short thanks to a big fourth-and-one stop on Lafayette’s 29-yard line by the Tigers’ defense. Junior linebacker Jeremiah Tyler made a fantastic play, coming off the edge unblocked to stop Cougars’ running back Jaden Sutton for no gain to give the Tigers the ball deep in Lafayette territory.

“I thought the wide out was going to come down on me, so I kind of hesitated, but then it opened up so I took it,” Tyler said afterwards about the play.

The Cougars would tally a field goal, their only points of the game, on their final drive of the half to get on the board. At the

break, Princeton led 14–3.

The Tigers would start the second half off strong, grinding out a nine play, 63-yard drive that resulted in, for the third time, an Eaddy touchdown, this time fighting his way in from three yards out.

ing up extra yards against Lafayette. “For a guy who gets these eighty-yard touchdown runs, at his heart is this tough, grind-out, make three yards five runner. It’s so beautiful to see as he’s gotten stronger and become that type of

PHOTO CREDIT: JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Princeton celebrates after Collin Eaddy’s second touchdown of the night against Lafayette.

“He’s done that all year,“ head coach Bob Surace ‘90 said about Eaddy’s determination in pick-

Weekend Review

player.”

On the very next drive, the Tigers found paydirt again, although

this time it was sophomore running back Trey Gray weaving his was into the end zone. The drive included a fantastic catch by senior tight end Graham Adomitis, who snagged the ball about a centimeter from the turf and held on for the 12-yard completion and a first down. It was close enough that Lafayette challenged the play, but the call was upheld. Two plays later, Gray punched it into the end zone from four-yards out.

That would be the final score of the game, as the fourth quarter turned into a battle of the punters, resulting in Princeton improving to 4–0 on the season in convincing fashion.

The second half proved to be very similar to the first half: a dominant ground attack by the Tigers coupled with stout defense.

Only one second half drive by the Cougars would result in something other than a punt, and that was an interception by first-year defensive back Jayden Wickware with 58 seconds left in the game.

The Tigers’ ground game was effective all night, taking some weight off Davidson’s shoulders, who had been the driving force in Princeton’s offense prior to Friday.

Lafayette’s defense put up a fight, but grew tired from being on the field so frequently. If Princeton’s defense and running game can keep it up, future opponents will be in for a tough time as well.

Players of the Week

Men’s soccer @ Brown: T 1–1, 2 OT Senior forward/midfielder Danny Hampton saved the day with his 87th minute goal to tie Princeton men’s soccer’s (6–3–1, 0–1–1 Ivy) game against Brown. Brown defender Jackson Goebel put the Bears ahead in the 14th minute after converting a cross into the box. Princeton sophomore forward Truman Gelnovatch was handed a red card in the 54th minute and three minutes later, one of the team’s starters, sophomore defender Alex Charles, had to be taken out for an injury. Despite the setbacks, the Tigers outshot Brown 28–12 over the course of the two regular halves and two overtime periods. The team now has one loss and one tie in their first two Ivy League games of the season.

Women’s soccer @ Brown: L 1–0 Princeton women’s soccer (4–5–2, 1–2–0 Ivy) picked up its second loss in Ivy play this Saturday after Brown scored the game’s only goal in the 81st minute. Brown forward Ava Seelenfreund put a header into the back of the net off a cross from the left side, and that was enough to give Brown the win and keep the Bears unbeaten in the Ivy League.

Princeton struggled to generate opportunities on offense throughout the game, recording only one shot on goal and three total shots. The Tigers will play Lehigh at home on Tuesday, before resuming Ivy League play next Saturday against Columbia.

Field hockey vs. Columbia: W 8–1 No. 7 Princeton field hockey (8–4, 3–0 Ivy) extended its winning streak to five games this Saturday with a convincing 8–1 win over Columbia. Princeton started the scoring early, with sophomore back Claire Donovan opening the scoring 6:48 minutes into the game. Princeton ceded only one goal in the first half and went into the locker room for halftime with a comfortable 5–1 lead. The Tigers didn’t score in the third quarter, but they picked up three more goals in the fourth quarter. Donovan and first-year midfielder Sammy Popper led Princeton with two goals apiece, but six different Tigers scored in the game.

Women’s volleyball vs. Brown, Yale: W 3–1, W 3–0 After their first loss in the Ivy League Season against Cornell last week, the Women’s Volleyball team (8–6, 4–1 Ivy) were up to face Brown and Yale last Saturday and Sunday. The Tigers caught themselves in a narrow first set against the Brown bears, but managed to defeat them by four points. Set two allowed the Tigers to quickly break away and take the set by 10 points before they dropped the third set by seven to the Bears. This third set defeat didn’t stop the Tigers from coming back, securing the victory in four sets. The Yale matchup was the match that the Tigers had been waiting for all season. Yale was previously undefeated, but the Tigers gave them their first loss in a quick three sets. The Tigers kept the lead the entire first set, never letting the Yale Bulldogs secure an advantage. Set two had the Bulldogs trailing closely behind the Tigers until a Yale block set the score at 10-all. A quick Tiger kill gave Princeton back the lead, which they kept until their 11-point victory. The Tiger momentum didn’t stop in set three, where they ended the match with an eight point victory over the Bulldogs, sweeping away their undefeated hopes.

Men’s Water Polo vs Iona, Saint. Francis: W 10–6, W 13–5 No. 19 men’s water polo (10–9, 4–1 NWPC) faced two Northeast Water Polo Conference rivals this weekend. The Tigers extended their winning streak to four, with victories over Iona College and No. 16 Saint Francis. The squad traveled to New Rochelle, N.Y. for a Saturday matchup against the unranked, unremarkable Iona Gaels (2–11, 0–5).

The Gaels’ last matchup against a ranked competitor ended in a 9–19 drubbing by No. 12 Harvard; Princeton’s hardfought 10–6 win proved less inspiring. But facing Saint Francis in DeNunzio Pool on Sunday, the Tigers displayed some of the fire they’d been missing the day before. They racked up the game’s first four goals, jumped out to an early 6–2 lead and never looked back. Sophomore center Wyatt Benson led scoring with three goals; first-year goalie Antun Knez recorded a whopping 20 saves.

Terrace IM Soccer vs. WWS United: L 8–0 Despite maximum effort for the entire 40-minute game, Terrace F. Club was defeated 8–0 by WWS United during this Sunday’s intramural soccer game. New recruit Shira Moolten ’21 had a stellar performance on defense, saving the team multiple times from an even more humiliating defeat. Still, despite their negative record, the team is positive in general, according to Tom Salotti ’21. “We are out here each weekend to hangout and play a fun and relaxed game of soccer. Hopefully a dub next weekend will get us into the playoffs,” the captain said.

Collin Eaddy, football (2021): The junior running back rushed for 89 yards and three touchdowns in Princeton’s win over Lafayette.

Natasha Skov, women’s volleyball (2020): Skov led the way with 20 kills in Princeton’s four-set win over Brown on Saturday.

Tweet of the Day

Stat of the Day

Follow us

Princeton Football (@PrincetonFTBL) It’s that time again! Another victory count as the #Tigers win this one 28-3! #MakeHi2t0ry

65 meetings

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

Princeton FH (@ TigerFH), field hockey

Men’s golf’s Evan Quinn shot a sixunder-par 65 at the Georgetown Intercollegiate tournament