The Harvard Crimson - Volume CXLV, No. 108

The Harvard Crimson The University Daily, Est. 1873 | Volume CXLV No. 108 | Cambridge, Massachusetts | Tuesday, october 23, 2018

editorial PAGE 8

arts PAGE 3

sports PAGE 4

Why Harvard must learn from a researcher’s apparent malpractice.

The first solo artist gallery moves into Harvard Square.

Harvard soccer welcomes back a former player as an assistant coach.

Admissions Trial Enters Its Second Week

Dean Invites Student Input Dean of Undergrad Education Amanda J. Claybaugh emailed students Monday asking for feedback.

By Jamie d. halper Crimson Staff Writer

William F. Lee ’72, the lead trial lawyer on the admissions lawsuit, exits the courthouse Friday afternoon. Amy y. li—Crimson photographer

Khurana Says It’s Okay Students Skew Rich By aidan f. ryan Crimson Staff Writer

Harvard’s student body skews wealthy — and Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana indicated in court testimony this week that he’s okay with that.

Khurana stepped to the wit-

ness stand around 3 p.m. Monday in the high-stakes and high-profile Harvard admissions trial that could decide the fate of affirmative action in the United States. Adam K. Mortara — the head lawyer for Students for Fair Admissions, the anti-affirmative action group suing the University over its admissions process — rose to face the dean.

Mortara asked whether Khurana is aware that the portion of United States households that draw an annual income of over $150,000 hovers

See testimony Page 7

See trial Page 9

Harvard, SFFA Clash Over RaceNeutral Admissions Alternatives

By Delano r. franklin and samuel w. zwickel Crimson Staff Writers

Despite appearances, Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions — the anti-affirmative action group suing the University over its admissions policies — don’t disagree on everything. ­

Both think college campuses across the United States should be racially and socioeconomically diverse. They just differ on how to get there.

Harvard long ago chose a race-conscious admissions model in which College reviewers give a “tip” — or preference — to un-

derrepresented minorities. SFFA alleges this system leads the school to discriminate against qualified Asian-American applicants in favor of less deserving individuals from other racial backgrounds.

(Harvard has repeatedly denied all charges of discrimination.)

HAA Taps ’19 Class Officers

By Juliet e. isselbacher and amy y. li Contributing Writers

The Harvard Alumni Associaton annouced the nineteen seniors tasked with leading the Class of 2019 as officers and house representatives in an email to the senior class Friday afternoon.

According to their website, the class committee will work over the coming year to foster “communication, participation, volunteerism, and philanthropy” among their peers as the class prepares to join the wider alumni community.

The group was interviewed and ultimately selected by the First and Second Class Marshals, Catherine L. Zhang ’19 and Anant T. Pai ’19, and the six program marshals and six gift marshals. Zhang, Pai, and the twelve marshals were elected last month by the senior class.

“These individuals have demonstrated commitment to the Harvard community, represent the varied interests and experiences of our class, and above all, are excited to give back to our community for years to come,” Pai and Zhang wrote in an emailed statement. “We believe that those selected for positions will contribute substantially by creating inclusive, accessible programming, building community for the class of 2019, and leading within-house events and fundraising efforts.”

Representatives said they were excited to bring the senior class together for their last year at the College.

“There are very few times physically where the class of 2019 comes together, one being...convocation, one of them

See committee Page 7 Inside this issue

Harvard Today 2

Quincy House Representative for the 2019 Class Committee Rachel M. Chiu ’19 poses for a photo Monday. amy y. li—Crimson photographer

Currier House Representative for the 2019 Class Committee Anne M. Raheem ’19 poses for a photo Monday. amy y. li—Crimson photographer

In the wake of the College’s first listening session about the fate of shopping week, Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda J. Claybaugh emailed College students Monday to address concerns about student involvement in her office’s decisions more broadly.

“While listening to students discuss their experiences of shopping period, we also heard some students say that they felt excluded from decisions being made about undergraduate education more generally,” Claybaugh wrote.

“Going forward, I’m committed to communicating with you often and more directly— and I invite you to share your thoughts about how we might work together to ensure that your education is the very best it can be.”

The listening sessions, meant to collect student feedback on the possibility of eliminating shopping week — a Harvard scheduling quirk where undergraduates are allowed to try out numerous classes each semester before finalizing their schedules — started last week following student outcry agains the potential change.

The Undergraduate Council originally planned to host a town hall about shopping week, but Claybaugh announced last week that the Office of Undergraduate Education would instead host three administrator-led events for students to share their thoughts.

Members of a recently formed committee tasked with considering alternatives to Shopping Week are slated to attend each session Prior to the listening sessions, the Undergraduate Council held a student organizing meeting to strategize ways to reach administrators with their concerns.

Not everyone, however, is so committed to maintaining the tradition — many faculty and graduate student teaching fellows have raised concerns

See input Page 7

Ban Ki-Moon Speaks on Korean Security at IOP

By Jenna x. bao and connor j. wagaman contributing Writers

Ban Ki Moon, the eighth Secretary General of the United Nations, discusses negotiating peace in the Korean peninsula at the IOP Monday night.. william wu—Crimson photographer

News 7

Editorial 8

Sports 10

Today’s Forecast

rainy High: 54 Low: 41

Former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former top U.S. diplomat Susan A. Thornton discussed America’s role in the political future of the Korean peninsula before a packed audience at an Institute of Politics event Monday.

The event — entitled “Negotiating for Peace and Security on the Korean Peninsula” — was moderated by Harvard Kennedy School Professor R. Nicholas Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO. Over the course of the 75-minute talk, Ban and Thornton converged on two cohesive themes: the importance of denuclearizing North Korea and the responsibility of the United States as a global leader.

Ban, who was previously a

career South Korean diplomat, remarked on the significance of American efforts to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula — and the need to make the most of such an opportunity.

“It is very important that the U.S. takes a strong, principled position in dealing with one of the most serious global issues which we have not been able to handle and resolve,” Ban said. “I do hope the second summit [between the U.S. and North Korea], whenever it takes place, will draw out a concrete result based on a timeline [and] a way forward that is very clear.”

Ban also emphasized the need to collaborate with other global players in response to North Korea’s nuclear activities.

“There should be a closer, tighter coordination with allies,

See iop Page 7

Visit thecrimson.com.

Follow @TheCrimson on Twitter.

post-modern

THE HARVARD CRIMSON |OCTOBER 23, 2018

PAGE 2

HARVARD TODAY

For Lunch Butter Chicken Pork Sausage Sub with Onions and Peppers Lemon Basil MultiGrain Pasta

For Dinner Mesquite Rotisserie Chicken Tonkatsu(Deep-Fried Pork Cutlet) Savory-Baked Tofu

TODAY’S EVENTS

IN THE REAL WORLD

Gallery Talk Harvard Art Museums, 12:30 p.m.

Jon Tester Is a Big Guy in Big Sky Country. He Hopes That’s Enough.

Lynette Roth and Anne Schaffer are leading this Gallery Talk on Werner Heldt’s “Still Life at the Window.”

Tickets will be available at the Art Museums admissions desk and the talk will begin in the courtyard.

The Montana senatorial race has heated up, and the incumbent Democratic senator’s lead is slipping coming up to the election. Montana Harvard students, (all 5 of you) it’s your turn to vote.

Poetry and Coloring Cambridge Public Libarary, 6:30 p.m.

MireliBooks will be combining their coloring pages with Alan Feldman’s poetry reading at the Cambridge Public Library to promote mindfulness and provoke discussion. The event is free, but as space is limited, be sure to register online beforehand.

Lecture Sanders, 4:00 p.m.

Come and watch the first of many lectures on cinema sponsored by the Mahindra Humanities Center in Sanders at 4 p.m. Monday’s lecture concerns Documentary Film and is being given by Frederick Wiseman.

Is Boston still in the mix for Amazon’s HQ2? It’s unclear

Poet Solmaz Sharif (right) engages in discussion with Radcliffe Institute Fellow Evie Shockley.

MIA B. FROTHINGHAM—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

DAILY BRIEFING Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana stepped to the witness stand around 3 p.m. Monday in the high-stakes and high-profile Harvard admissions trial that could decide the fate of affirmative action in the United States. Students for Fair Admissions lawyer Adam K. Mortara questioned Khurana about Harvard’s socioeconomic diversity, race-neutral alternatives to admissions, and the dean’s own scholarship. Also at the trial Monday, SFFA’s expert witness Richard D. Kahlenberg testified for the first time.

Amazon has been searching for a second headquarters, and whatever city it ends up in will end up with a huge economical boost. Boston may still be in the running, but let’s be real-- it only matters if it improves your chances of getting a job after graduation.

Hurricane Willa, now a Category 4 storm, threatens Mexico’s Pacific coast Hurricane Willa, a category 5 hurricane, will hit Mexico in the next few days, causing potentially catastrophic damage. The damage will most likely exceed the damage done by Hurricane Michael in Florida, with thousands of lives at risk.

AROUND THE IVIES YALE Yale School of Medicine Professor Michael Simons — who was held responsible for sexually harassing a junior colleague in 2013 — filed a lawsuit against Yale last month after the School of Medicine stripped him of the Waldemar von Zedtwitz endowed chair, the Yale Daily News reported Monday. The complaint alleges that the University breached their contract by caving to the demands of activists who Simons wrote were “galvanized by an intolerance to perceived sexual misconduct, known colloquially by the symbol ‘#MeToo.’”

COLUMBIA Columbia University President Lee Bollinger told the Columbia Spectator he’s “more concerned” than he has ever been about affirmative action as a lawsuit against Harvard alleging it discriminates against Asian-American applicants heads into its second week of trial, the paper reported Monday.

Bollinger, who was a defendant in a landmark affirmative action case in 2003 when he was president of the University of Michigan, is a known advocate for race-conscious admissions in higher education. “Realistically, we need to be thinking very hard both about how to defend [affirmative action] and be prepared for the worst,” he said.

CORNELL A student-led mental health task force at Cornell completed a list of recommendations for the University and planned to introduce them to administrators Monday, the Cornell Daily Sun reported Sunday. Some recommendations include hiring counselors, training resident advisors, and changing policies for taking a leave of absence. “We want to work with the administration in a way that not only allows us to reflect on what we’re doing wrong or what they’re doing wrong, but also what they’re doing right,” a student on the committee said.

THE UNIVERSITY DAILY, EST. 1873

The Harvard Crimson Derek G. Xiao President Hannah Natanson Managing Editor Nathan Y. Lee Business Manager

Associate Managing Editors Mia C. Karr ’19 Claire E. Parker ’19 Associate Business Managers Dahlia S. Huh ’19 Max W. Sosland ’19 Digital Strategists Jamie D. Halper ’20 Caroline S. Engelmayer ’20 Editorial Chairs Cristian D. Pleters ’19 Emmanuel R. R. D’Agostino ’19

STAFF FOR THIS ISSUE Arts Chairs Mila Gauvini II ’19 Grace Z. Li ’19

Design Chairs Morgan J. Spaulding ’19 Simon S. Sun ’19

FM Chairs Marella A. Gayla ’19 Leah S. Yared ’19

Multimedia Chairs Amy Y. Li ’20 Ellis J. Yeo ’20

Blog Chairs Lydia L. Cawley ’20 Stuti Telidevara ’20

Technology Chairs Nenya A. Edjah ’20 Theodore T. Liu ’20

Sports Chairs Cade S. Palmer ’20 Jack R. Stockless ’19

Copyright 2018, The Harvard Crimson (USPS 236-560). No articles, editorials, cartoons or any part thereof appearing in The Crimson may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the President. The Associated Press holds the right to reprint any materials published in The Crimson. The Crimson is a non-profit, independent corporation, founded in 1873 and incorporated in 1967. Second-class postage paid in Boston, Massachusetts. Published Monday through Friday except holidays and during vacations, three times weekly during reading and exam periods by The Harvard Crimson Inc., 14 Plympton St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138 Weather icons made by Freepik, Yannick, Situ Herrera, OCHA, SimpleIcon, Catalin Fertu from flaticon.com is licensed by CC BY 3.0.

Night Editor Brian P. Yu ’19

Design Editors Katie E. Wang ’20

Assistant Night Editors Jamie D. Halper ’20 Cecilia R. D’Arms ’21

Photo Editors Caleb D. Schwartz ’20

Story Editors Joshua J. Florence ‘19 Phelan Yu ’19 Hannah Natanson ’19 Claire E. Parker ’19 Mia C. Karr ‘19

Editorial Editor Jenna M. Wong ’20 Sports Editor Spencer R. Morris ’20

CORRECTIONS The Harvard Crimson is committed to accuracy in its reporting. Factual errors are corrected promptly on this page. Readers with information about errors are asked to e-mail the managing editor at managingeditor@thecrimson.com.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 23, 2018 | PAGE 3

ARTS

.

Gallery moves into Harvard Square

the week in arts

23 24 25 26 27

ISABEL C. RUEHL CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The first solo artist gallery of Harvard Square has arrived. On Sept. 18, Cambridge painter Susan Miller-Havens opened her collection to the public, titling the event “Now You See It Now You Don’t” as tribute to the ever-changing landscape of the Square and the power of art.

Located at 9 JFK Street, between The Curious George Store and Urban Outfitters, this space has historically housed pop-up shops and short-lived shoe stores, like Mudo and Karhu. But now, the one-room gallery displays upwards of 30 Miller-Havens’ paintings, spanning her career from early surrealist abstracts to her more recent works, which are intimate portraits of two or three people.

Painting prices range from around $1,000 to $11,000.

The day before the public opening, the gallery held an invite-only opening for around 70 guests. During this opening, Miller-Havens told her audience that this show is not a retrospective but rather a salon, with no series.

Alexandra Eliopoulos, a student at the School of Education with a background in gallery work, helped organize the event. Since Miller-Havens has a large body of work, her team, Eliopoulos included, decided to create a studio-style gallery in contrast to traditional galleries in which everything is eye-level and uniform. Here, paintings are not arranged in lines on the wall but rather in clusters.

Blended temporalities and styles render the space more “approachable,” Eliopoulos said.

Approachability is important to Miller-Havens’ style.

According to her website, Miller is “known as an artist who invites the viewer into the painting through unexpected use of color, absence of background, and inventive cropping of the images.”

On canvas, she also fuses her two careers: one medical, one artistic. For years, Miller-Havens worked as a reconstructive surgical nurse at Massachusetts General Hospi-

tal. While working at the clinic, she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Studio Art. “From a very early age I found my reaction to the world around me divided between a fascination with the inner workings of the mind and the aesthetic beauty of nature,” she wrote in her artist’s statement, which she distributed on handouts at the gallery.

In attendance was former Cambridge mayor Alice Wolf, a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School, who selected Miller-Havens to paint her mayoral portrait. Since Wolf was the second female mayor of Cambridge, as well as an activist, she said she was looking for a portraitist who could convey shots in action.

“I saw that she painted baseball players, and I said, ‘That’s my girl!’” Wolf said. “I thought she would be able to portray activism. And she did.

Wolf’s mayoral portrait still hangs in the Cambridge City Council Chamber — which thrills.her husband, Robert Wolf, considering all the portraits surrounding his wife’s are traditional male sitters. By contrast, her portrait depicts her speaking and gesturing with her hands. He said it captures her well.

Shari Tishman, a lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Senior Research Associate at Harvard Project Zero, met Miller-Havens through the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Arts in Education Program. Tishman admires Miller-Havens’ ability to attend to detail, as well as her dynamic style.

“There is a sense of movement captured, but not arrested,” Tishman said.

For now at least, the Miller-Havens Gallery invites viewers to stop by and browse. With a four-month residency for Miller-Havens, although a first for Cambridge, the gallery will not be here for forever.

28 29

TUESDAY PRINCE OF DARKNESS John Carpenter’s bizarre and frightening vision of a world threatened by the rebirth of Satan features Victor Wong as a quantum physicist called in to investigate a mysterious cylinder discovered in the basement of a Los Angeles church.

Brattle Theatre. 7:15 p.m. $9.50.

Wednesday THE CITY TALKS: MONUMENTS Join Boston-area thinkers, institutions, entrepreneurs, activists, city officials, and artists at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston for a discussion inspired by themes found in the current exhibition “Collecting Stories: Native American Art.” Museum of Fine Arts, Edward H. Linde Gallery (Gallery 168). 7 p.m. Free.

Thursday

CRYSTAL M. FLEMING WITH ROBIN DIANGELO Harvard Book Store welcomes acclaimed writer Crystal M. Fleming for a discussion of her new book, “How to Be Less Stupid About Race: On Racism, White Supremacy, and the Racial Divide.” She will be joined in conversation by bestselling author Robin Diangelo, author of “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.”

Brattle Theater. 7:30 p.m. $20.

Friday

DAN LYONS PRESENTS LAB RATS Harvard Book Store welcomes writer and public speaker Dan Lyons for a discussion of his latest book, How Silicon Valley Made Work Miserable for the Rest of Us. With Lab Rats, Lyons makes a passionate plea for business leaders to understand this dangerous transformation and offers a way out.

Loeb Drama Center. 7:30 p.m. $10 or $5 with Harvard ID

Saturday

SONGS IN THE FOG Join the Arnold Arboretum as it comes to the close of the Emerald Necklace Conservancy’s Fog x FLO installation by artist Fujiko Nakaya.

Returning from her successful opening performance at the Arboretum, lyric soprano Shinja Choi will sing a selection of songs for the Arboretum’s Fog x Hill.

The Memorial Church Sanctuary. 7:30 p.m. Free.

Sunday

U.S. PREMIERE AND DISCUSSION WITH DIRECTOR AND CAST: “HOLY LANDS” BY AMANDA STHERS The Department of Comparative Literature invites you to the U.S. premiere of the movie “Holy Lands,” which tells the story of Harry, a lapsed Jew and former cardiologist (James Caan), who suddenly decides to spend his retirement as a pig farmer in Nazareth, Israel. The screening will be followed by a discussion with director Amanda Sthers and several cast members.

Sanders Theater. 7:30 p.m. $62, $50, $38, $26.

MOnday

SCHLESINGER LIBRARY 75TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION: A PERFORMANCE AND DISCUSSION Join Schlesinger Library in the celebration of its 75th anniversary. The event will include a performance of the musical “The Suffragists,” created by singer-songwriter Shaina Taub, and a multidisciplinary panel discussion.

Knafel Center. 7 p.m. Free.

23 October 2018 | Vol CXLv, ISSUE xVII Arts Chairs Mila Gauvin II `19 Grace Z. Li `19

Editor Associates Kaylee S. Kiam ’20 Caroline A. Tsai ’20 Aline G. Damas ’20

Noah F. Houghton ’20 Edward M. Litwin ’19 Petra Laura Oreskovic ’20 Ethan B. Reichsman ’19 Yael M. Saiger ’19 Caroline E. Tew ’20 Jonathan P. Trang ’19 Lucy Wang ’20

Executive Designer Hanna Kim `21

Design Associates Mireya C. Arango ‘20 Julia Reed-Betts ‘19 Alysssa D. Truong ‘21

Executive Photographer Kathryn S. Kuhar `20

ARTS

The Harvard Crimson | October 23, 2018 | page 4

THEATER

A Classical Saturday:

Mozart and Ravel in Back Bay Declan J. Knieriem CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Courtesy of Boston Chamber Music Society

As the Saturday morning sun streamed through the stained glass windows of the historic Arlington Street Church, the four members of the Boston Chamber Music Society presented a beautiful rendition of “Piano Quartet in G minor” by W. A. Mozart and “Piano Trio in A minor” by Maurice Ravel. Violist Marcus Thompson, cellist Clancy Newman, violinist Ayano Ninomiya ’01, and pianist Max Levinson ’93 shined in a masterful display of contrast: Ravel’s trio, heavily influenced

by Basque folk music, served as a counterpoint to Mozart’s refined Classical style.

The program began with the dark and trembling chords of “Piano Quartet in G minor,” a piece arranged for violin, viola, cello, and accompanied by a piano. The quartet exhibited a lovely range of color with the dark and heavy material in the first movement, the peaceful and tranquil passages in the second, and the joyous and playful themes of the third. The quartet played with skill and precision, undaunted by the speed and complexity required by such a work.

Throughout the concert, the piano formed the central focus of the music. The Mozart piece was characterized by the running sixteenth note motifs that carried across all three movements: “Allegro,” “Andante,” and the “Rondo” finale. Levinson showed remarkable dexterity in a particularly challenging Mozart composition. The performance of the “Quartet in G minor”

was a charming yet ultimately somber demonstration of musicianship that examined the breadth and depth of emotion in Mozart’s work.

The arrangement of musicians shifted here to a piano trio, creating an even more intimate feel for an absolutely beautiful rendition of Ravel. The first movement, “Modéré,” flowed like a dream. There was an occasional moment of tension that rose and fell, but always returned back to its blissful theme. The second movement, “Pantoum,” was a lively and almost chaotic scherzo. Flowing legato passages were contrasted with frantic sections rife with pizzicato from the strings and tense chords from the piano.

The third movement, “Passacaille,” brought a moment of unexpected relief with a somber theme that was passed from instrument to instrument. This section was simply constructed, yet deeply emotional.

Each performer placed their own passionate interpretation on the theme, which has strong Basque folk roots. The simplicity of the music and the tenderness with which the material was treated by the trio made it the finest part of the performance.

The final movement was particularly challenging, but the performers skillfully brought Ravel’s gift of orchestration to life. The concert came to a rousing conclusion with the final triumphant chords of the “Final: Animé” movement.

The concert at its heart was a performance of contrasts. As the pieces were written close to 150 years apart, the composers belonged to very different musical eras. The Mozart quartet, with its boisterous and memorable themes, grabbed the attention of the audience and didn’t let go. The Ravel, meanwhile, was a more introspective piece that emphasized its musical textures.

The contrast existed not only within each individual piece, but also across the entire performance.

In both works, the respective movements contrasted with each other, conveying everything from terror to bliss to freedom.

However, the greater juxtaposition is Mozart against Ravel. Mozart’s staunchly classical style is tight and controlled, which made for an organized yet demanding and precise interpretation. Ravel, on the other hand, is more unpredictable, and the performers used every opportunity to showcase their individualized interpretations. The styles were separate and distinctive, yet equally impressive.

The emphasis on the differences, rather than the similarities, made for a refreshing program. However, in both the Mozart and Ravel pieces, the audience enjoyed a deft conversation amongst the strings voices and piano, elevating the works of musical masters to magnificence with a beautiful execution.

FILM

HOW A FEMINIST FOCUS MADE HOCUS POCUS THE LEGEND IT IS TODAY Hunter T. Baldwin CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Twenty-five years ago, “Hocus Pocus” first appeared in theaters and immediately put wa spell on audiences and critics alike… Except it didn’t. When the film was first released, it was largely considered a failure. Opening at number four in the box office, and dropping out of the top 10 within just two weeks, audiences clearly weren’t itching to see it. Critics called the movie “dreadful,” “depressing as hell,” and “about as much fun as celebrating Mardi Gras under the influence of candy corn.”

Today, “Hocus Pocus” is considered to be one of the greatest Halloween films of all time. It consistently brings in more than $1 million in DVD revenue every October. This year, an average of 8.2 million viewers have tuned in to each showing on Freeform’s Halloween marathon. Assuming we haven’t all fallen victim to a curse that forces us to enjoy a legitimately terrible movie, something about our perceptions has changed. But what?

“Hocus Pocus” opens in 17th century Salem, with the execution of three malicious witches known as the Sanderson sisters. Just before their deaths, Winifred (Bette Midler), the oldest of the three, promises that “On All Hallow’s Eve, when the moon is round, a virgin will summon us from under the ground.” The virgin in question is Max (Omri Katz), a 20th century kid who has just moved to Salem from California. With the help of his sister, his crush, a zombie, and a talking cat, Max manages to stay one step ahead of the terrible trio and ultimately (25-year-old spoiler alert) destroys the witches, saving the day.

Part of what makes “Hocus Pocus” so popular today is its ability to seamlessly blend darkness and hilarity. Not many movies can begin with a hanging and still manage to fit in jokes about calling breasts “yabos.” Ironically, this was originally a subject for criticism, as critics deemed the film “too dark for children,” but “too silly for adults.” Now, however, as the line between intended audiences blurs, “Hocus Pocus” has become a movie that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike. The witches, in particular, provide a distinctly dark sense of humor and innuendo that is entertaining enough for a child, but even more so for adults.

Despite their status as the antagonists, the three witches are undeniably the stars of the show. Though Winifred is certainly the scene stealer, Sarah (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Mary (Kathy Najimy) each get their own moments in the spotlight as the flirt and the

suck up respectively. The trio features prominently on all advertisements for the film, take up at least half of the runtime, and even get to perform the breakout song “I Put a Spell on You” that has been inextricably associated with the film ever since. As a result, your opinion on the witches could make or break your opinion on the movie as a whole.

Perhaps this explains the difference in reception of the film from 1993 to today. After all, our perceptions of witches have completely changed from the early ’90s. “The Witches,” a film which came out just three years before “Hocus Pocus,” portrays the titular characters as unambiguously crazy, ugly, and evil. These witch characters are a force to be reckoned with, not a source of entertainment, reflecting the general consensus on witches at the time — from the Salem witch trials to “Maleficent,” witches have consistently been seen as villains. To those in the early ‘90s, there was probably nothing scarier than a woman with power.

By the late ’90s, however, a new generation of witches had appeared. These witches were charming, beautiful, and most importantly, morally good. Sabrina the teenage witch, Willow from “Buffy,” and the Halliwell sisters from “Charmed” all showed that a woman with power is not something to be feared, but something to be admired. It is under this new feminist lens that “Hocus Pocus” thrives. After all, the Sanderson sisters represent the compromise between these two views. Yes, they are evil, but they are also hilarious and relatable. They are meant to be feared, but they also aren’t old hags with warts and crooked noses (Sarah Jessica Parker’s character in particular represents an extreme divergence from the typical witch’s appearance). In this way, “Hocus Pocus” can be seen as a turning point in popular media depictions of witches.

Whether or not the film had anything to do with the shift in witch representation, the film certainly benefited from this new attitude. Today, “Hocus Pocus” is a Halloween staple. The town of Salem regularly puts on “Hocus Pocus” themed tours, Disney has added attractions based on the movie to its theme parks, and there have even been talks of a potential sequel or TV remake. As this year marks the 25th anniversary of the cult classic, Freeform recently aired a “Hocus Pocus 25th Anniversary Halloween Bash,” which reunited members of the original cast. Clearly, these celebrations of the film could not have happened in 1993. For better or for worse, “Hocus Pocus” is now a definitive part of the

ARTS

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 23, 2018 | PAGE 5

BOOKS

‘Killing Commendatore’: Artistically Masterful But Long-Winded MINJUE WU CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Wild in metatextuality, Haruki Murakami’s “Killing Commendatore” — like its Carraway-esque protagonist painter — deftly combines numerous nested narratives into a singular pendulum. But its ambitious swing is stopped slightly short by the slow burn of absurdist elements and our painter’s ultimately static character development.

Murakami’s latest work, which was published in Feb. 24, 2017 in Japan and recently released in the U.S., presents a fascinating premise of a mystical journey of self discovery in the mountains outside Odawara, but gradually loses track of its course until near the end of its 680-page trek.

One of the immediate charms of the novel is its blunt candor, as the opening pages reveal our unnamed 36-yearold portrait painter’s destination from the get-go. Upon his wife’s abrupt demand for a divorce, the protagonist embarks on a rambling road trip through Japan in search of lost identities and unpinnable artistic ideas. As soon as he settles in the home of famed Japanese artist Tomohiko Amada, darkly intriguing elements peek through from the spirit world and hook painter and audience alike. A mysterious bell rings from a sealed cave in the woods, a faceless man comes with an impossible painting request, and the discovery of a never-unearthed painting — Amada’s “Killing Commendatore” — guarded by a great horned owl in the attic threatens to make the “boundary of existence and nonexistence convalesce.”

The subplot involving Menshiki’s futile pursuit of a desirable woman and his precious 13-year-old daughter Mariye also provides a nice nod to Murakami’s tribute to “The Great Gatsby,” though subtle differences in the resolution in their relationships — or lack thereof — distinguishes it from a repeat of Daisy’s love story.

Murakami’s narrator is enraptured with routines of American jazz music, absurdism, and a Don Giovanniinspired central artifact that deftly speaks to the author’s

dedication to cross-cultural translations. In the pursuit of artwork which itself manifests a transnational nature, Murakami succeeds in masterfully fusing Western and traditional narratives. However, as Murakami slowly but surely drips references of ghosts of Nazi assassins from the 1930s or warnings against dark “double metaphors,” the centripetal force that held our narrator’s journey together slowly deteriorates as its periphery spins out of control.

The average novel might resolve these elements in staggered linear plotlines, but Murakami’s approach is more akin to an experimental abstract painting of unfinished splatters. The novel’s conclusion leaves questions dangling: What are the spirits? Why the incorporation of explicit sexual scenes that propagate little character development? What separates the real world from the nonexistent? Murakami, like his protagonist, feeds us colors of timid beginnings only to halt, realign perspectives, and continue midway on a different trajectory. Although it is startlingly honest, the universal process of memory and reimagination, the constant readjustment and short-stopped pitches become confusing and ultimately disorienting.

Perhaps the least satisfactory facet of the novel is the lack of change seen in the protagonist at the end of his odyssey.

For all his acknowledgement of the strange experiences on that Odawara mountaintop house, the painter’s supposedly newfound “capacity to believe...in all honesty that something will appear to guide [him] through the darkest and narrowest tunnel, or across the most desolate plain” isn’t a revelation as much as a romanticized recap of his alarmingly nonchalant acceptance of everything that comes his way. This absurdist perspective may have fit with the postwar trauma depicted in “Norwegian Wood” or the “The Windup Bird Chronicle,” but within the context of the leisurely stroll of “Killing Commendatore,” it begs a larger suspension not only of belief but also of faith that any conclusion will be reached at all. Murakami’s novel gambles on the power of art as an organic process, one that requires random discovery, unpredictability, and self regeneration. To enjoy “Killing Commendatore” is to surrender oneself to the flux of a wind in Odawara,

COURTESY OF ALFRED A. KNOPF

and while the scenery is beautiful, one must reconcile the precarious danger of getting lost in the bramble of words and reaching an altogether not too timely destination back to square one.

MUSIC

35 YEARS LATER, ‘SHE’S SO UNUSUAL’ STILL EXUDES YOUTHFULNESS AND VIBRANCY IAN CHAN CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Something has always drawn me to “She’s So Unusual” — ever since I heard the thrums of the first measures of “Girls Just Want To Have Fun” when I was but five years old, I was hooked. Perhaps it was Cyndi Lauper’s remarkable, impressively versatile voice.

Or maybe it was the rousing, yet comforting techno-rhythm of the instrumentals. In any case, the album still embodies the same dazzling, eccentric freshness as it did 35 years ago, when it was first released.

Indeed, “She’s So Unusual” was certainly an unexpected album on all fronts: Though critically successful, her last recording — the band Blue Angel’s self-titled album — was not quite so commercially, to the point where Lauper had to file for bankruptcy. As such, the album represents a reemergence, on Lauper’s part, into the forefront of the music sphere. And what a way she did so: “She’s So Unusual,” Lauper’s debut solo album, became a worldwide hit, hitting fourth place on Billboard 200 and staying on the list for 77 weeks. It received nominations for Album of the Year and Record of the Year at the 1985 Grammys, while its artist won the New Artist of the Year award. From this album came the momentum that propelled Lauper to success, particularly in her second album, “True Colors.” It presented her as an artist that was capable of accomplishing nearly anything.

This emerging prowess strongly manifests itself in “She’s So Unusual,” where Lauper confidently and suavely throws herself into so many genres and styles. While “Time After Time” is mellow and reflective, with its comforting synthesizer chords layered over an unassuming guitar and a smooth pop rhythm, “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” imparts a funky, happy, disco-like mood, bursting with youth, carried forward by incredibly catchy keyboard riffs and synthesizer improvisations. As “All Through The Night” coasts by with meandering arpeggiations, “She Bop” commands undiverted attention through its ever-changing instrumentation but relentless, intense sensuality. Weaving through soft rock, synthpop, soul and punk, Lauper creates a mosaic for herself in “She’s So Unusual” that fully embodies the end of the new wave in the early 1980s.

And yet, while doing so, Lauper manages to craft an image for herself — one that is distinctively hers. This is championed foremost by her unique, sharp, beautiful vocals: Their versatility,

flexibility and dexterity create a surprisingly, yet convincingly, powerful through-line through “She’s So Unusual.” The same full-bodied, unabashed vocal inflection — slightly nasal, slightly rugged — that Lauper uses to showcase the fun of unbounded freedom in “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” mellows into an authentic passion for another in “All Through the Night,” while morphing into a hardened yet emotional reflection on reality in “Money Changes Everything.” Perhaps this notion manifests most strongly in “When You Were Mine.” Originally performed by Prince, Cyndi Lauper transforms the song into one that is truly her own. Not only does she fill the orchestration with the synthesizers that characterize much of the album, but she also captures the essence of her original voice by layering multiple vocal tracks in different octaves. Furthermore, she takes her sharp, powerful, high-pitched “pop” vocalization from “She Bop” here, where it becomes a natural release of despair and despondency.

Beyond purely musical aspects, however, “She’s So Unusual” contains its fair share of important emotional and political commentary. Between the lines of the romantic ballads and the edgy, slightly-rebellious songs that Lauper performs lie important social messages that we, as listeners, can still learn from today. “Money Changes Everything” serves as a lamentation toward the sidelining of love in favor of material purpose or gain. Meanwhile, underneath the guise of a dance-song, “She Bop” discusses female masturbation and the social taboo therein, reflecting that Lauper was entirely unafraid to sing about controversial matters, even in her first album. “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” reflects a desire for women to have the same social experiences as men. In fact, Lauper rewrote the lyrics for her song, having deemed the original ones misogynistic, and has since been referred to as a motivator for young women and an “anthem of female solidarity.”

“She’s So Unusual” represents a budding artist’s desire to create music in diverse genres, embody a cultural-musical trend, find her independent, self-assured voice, and discuss the issues important to her — and she accomplished so in an intense but artful, bombastic yet intentional way. Indeed, it was through “She’s So Unusual” that Cyndi Lauper found her eccentric, yet totally convincing, place in the world of music — which she still holds, given the popularity and relevance of her music today. This blend of masterful vocal sonority and unabashedly open commentary underneath continually catchy grooves never grows old, bringing listeners in — time after time.

ARTS

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 23, 2018 | PAGE 6

TV

Charmed is Cheesy yet Progressive Fun HUNTER T. BALDWIN CONTRIBUTING WRITER Witchcraft. Feminism. ’90s nostalgia. The beloved supernatural drama “Charmed” was practically begging for a 2018 reboot. While its return to the small screen was somewhat inevitable, the decision to shift focus to a new, more diverse (and more political) family was not. Unsurprisingly, this move prompted major backlash — by racists, misogynists, and fans of the original alike — before the show even began. Amid this atmosphere of anger and confusion, the Oct. 4 premiere gives hope to those willing to give the show a try. The “Charmed” reboot is certainly a cheesy mess, but enjoyable nonetheless.

Like the original, “Charmed” tells the story of three sisters united in protecting the world. But unlike the original, these sisters are not together from the start. In fact, it is not until the death of the trio’s mother that the middle and youngest sisters even know the eldest sibling exists. This discovery comes from the delightfully British Harry (Rupert Evans), a so-called “Whitelighter” who promises to guide the sisters on their newly inherited quest to defend the Earth from a series of demonic evils. Arguably, the more exciting inheritance for the sisters is their newfound witchly powers: Macy (Madeleine Mantock) is granted telekinesis, Mel (Melonie Diaz) can freeze time, and Maggie (Sarah Jeffrey) is bestowed with the morally-conflicting ability to read minds. In ad-

dition to dealing with hellhounds and warlocks, the sisters must endure everyday human drama, like emotional breakups or trying to rush a sorority.

The pilot does little to assuage some fans’ fears of the show getting too political, however.

Within the first five minutes, viewers learn that Mel, the middle daughter, is in a relationship with another woman. Though not political in and of itself, this commitment to representation does demonstrate that the reboot is willing to diverge from the original in the name of progress.

Perhaps more notably, the premiere episode focuses just as much on sexual harassment as it does on witchcraft. In what is certainly too topical to be a coincidence, the old white man who gets to keep his position despite such allegations turns out to be a literal demon. The showrunners take it one step further by having Harry read a prophecy that explains what brought about the return of evil: “When the weakest of men reaches ill-gotten glory… suffice to say, it’s your current president.”

Any show can shoehorn in relevant political jokes, but few can do it seamlessly. Based on its premiere, “Charmed” unfortunately appears to fall into the former category. Many of the jokes and political references do feel awkward and artificial, but this doesn’t spell (no pun intended) certain doom for the show. If “Charmed” comes to embrace its campiness, it could certainly be a less misogynistic, but equally cheesy, alternative to other CW shows like “Supernatural.” There are hints that the show will embrace the intersection of cheesiness and politics throughout the pilot — a particularly memorable moment involves Maggie shouting “When it comes to consent, you can change your mind at any time!” to a demon/her boyfriend who is trying to absorb her soul (surprisingly not a huge spoiler). It’s scenes like this — which effectively combine the political, comical, and supernatural aspects of the show — that suggest it may one day reach the level of its predecessor.

In fact, there are some ways in which the reboot excels over the original. The decision to depict an all-Latina family not only is a win for representation, but it also calls back to the prominent depictions of witches in Latinx history and culture, particularly through the concept of the bruja.

Another promising change is the eldest sister’s profession as a scientist. At multiple points in the pilot, Macy uses her scientific knowledge to solve supernatural problems. If this blend of science and magic continues, it could lead to some interesting and completely unique plot points. Despite all of these differences, there have been, and there are sure to be more, callbacks to the original that keep the nostalgia rolling.

“Charmed” is undeniably corny, but that can work to its advantage. Fans of the original who complain that the reboot has become too ridiculous and political seem to forget just how blatant the politics in its predecessor could be (a particular episode involving Alyssa Milano’s character appearing naked on horseback in order to support her sister’s public breastfeeding comes to mind). If given the chance, the “Charmed” reboot can show its true colors and reach greatness in its own right, all the while being woke as hell.

COURTESY OF THE CW

COLUMN

ALYSSA D. TRUONG/ CRIMSON DESIGNER

Oversimplified Bigotry in “Kinky Boots” The Might of Musicals JESSICA N. MORANDI CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The Tony-winning musical “Kinky Boots,” currently running on Broadway, has received both critical and popular acclaim as a progressive show, featuring a gender-nonconforming character and promoting acceptance of gender-nonconforming characters. However, the musical only engages with bigotry on a superficial level and fails to address the main character’s ingrained prejudices in a meaningful way.

The story centers around a cisgender man, Charlie Price, who forms a business partnership with Lola the drag queen in a last-ditch attempt to save his family’s shoe factory.

Together, Charlie and Lola manufacture a line of boots which combines the flashy designs typically marketed to cisgender women with heels strong enough to support the build of transgender women.

For most of the show, Charlie comes across as ignorant but not ill-intentioned. He clearly does not understand cross-dressing, referring to drag queens as “trans-vet-erans” immediately after having learned the connotational difference between “transvestite” and “drag queen.” Yet overall, he is civil and generally polite to Lola. He uses female pronouns without comment and is willingly vulnerable with her about his past, showing a level of trust and respect that indicates an acceptance of Lola as a person.

Until, that is, Charlie is behind schedule.

During the factory’s push to finish their new line of boots in time for a fashion show in Milan, a stressed-out Charlie radically switches tactics, electing to have cisgender women model the shoes instead of drag queens to avoid “embarrassing the name of Price & Son by parading a planeload of misfits.” He tells an outraged Lola, “Once the industry sees your work, you’ll be able to stop all this and have a normal life.” The derogatory qualifier of “normal” reveals that Charlie believes cross-dressing is anything but. When Lola calls him a fool, Charlie shoots back, “I’d wager if we stood side by side and asked passersby which one of us is fooling himself, most of the votes would swing your way.” He continues: “You’re a joke. You think you’re being all mystical and deep representin’ the best of both sexes, but I’m here to tell you all you are is daft. You say you want to be treated like a man; then start acting like one.” And then, the final nail in the coffin: “I’m sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.” Wounded and furious, Lola leaves the factory, soon followed by the rest of the workers.

Charlie’s arrogant, offensive, and close-minded outburst does not undermine the integrity of the musical — far from it, in fact. On the contrary, this scene startlingly establishes that Charlie’s awkwardness around Lola throughout the show was not simply a result of unfamiliarity, as it had previously seemed, but rather a sign of deeply rooted biases.

For the purposes of the musical, this in and of itself is not a problem. The fact that Charlie is portrayed so positively before his prejudices are exposed may even make the message more powerful. This seemingly jarring change forces viewers to realize that an outwardly likable character can be just as bigoted as an abrasive and openly hostile one. As a candid exploration of prejudices and of how a character genuinely overcomes them, the musical could have engaged with audience members of all viewpoints rather than merely those who already share the writers’ opinions. Especially with the potentially schmaltzy message of acceptance at the core of “Kinky Boots,” this approach could have been very effective for reaching viewers less familiar with or supportive of different gender identities, without conveying malice or condescension.

Unfortunately, the musical takes a different route. Seemingly unbothered by Charlie’s disparagement of Lola, his employees do not request an apology before they forgive him, even tearing up their paychecks to fund the company’s final effort. And worse still, Lola returns to save the business just a few scenes later. For Lola, an apology via voicemail seems to be enough to redeem Charlie’s cutting insults.

In glossing over Charlie’s prejudices regarding gender norms — which, even if they have not changed in his weeks of working with Lola, could not have fundamentally changed in the days between his attack and their reconciliation — “Kinky Boots” contradicts the very message of acceptance that it claims to promote. The musical’s oversimplified resolution suggests that having prejudices is not intrinsically bad, so long as they remain internalized. The token progressiveness of “Kinky Boots” masks the show’s blind eye to the subtler, far more prevalent form of bigotry displayed by the main character, a bigotry which, if unconscious and internalized, is very real.

The intent of the creative team of “Kinky Boots” — to represent a community rarely given a respectful spotlight in theater — is admirable, and I am sure that they meant no harm by the musical’s ending. However, when addressing such complex subject matters, they and future writers must carefully consider every implication of the plot. Especially in a professedly progressive story such as “Kinky Boots,” it is vital to resist hasty, predictable happy endings that, though emotionally satisfying on the surface, downplay the real difficulties of the themes involved.

Contributing writer Jessica N. Morandi’s column, “The Might of Musicals,” explores the societal implications of musical theatre, with a focus on Broadway and off-Broadway shows.

PAGE 7

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 23, 2018

COMMITTEE FROM PAGE 1

IOP FROM PAGE 1

Class Committee Chosen Ban Ki-moon Speaks at IOP being graduation,” Dunster House representative Victor C. Agbafe ’19 said. “That person you met during Visitas, or during opening days...you can reconnect with them and form a bond that can last forever.”

Agbafe said he looked forward to organizing a senior brunch in Annenberg, during which — in a sort of symbolic symmetry — students will sit with their freshman year entryway.

“I think the last time we were ever together as a class was freshman year in Annenberg,” Anne M. Raheem ’19, current co-chair of Currier House Committee and former Currier House UC Representative, said.

“As we’ve gone through these four years and are now at the end, we’re able to create a space and opportunities for our class to...reconnect with peers we haven’t seen in a while.”

In her role as secretary, Morgan N. V. Buchanan ’19 will be responsible for communicating classwide programming to fellow seniors through newsletters and social media.

It kind of reminds me of high school because you get so excited to be a high school se-

nior,” she said. “Being on class committee is an opportunity to make sure that we can kind of recapitulate that experience.”

The house representatives, meanwhile, are responsible for organizing events to enhance

I really wanted to find a good way to contribute back to this community for my last year.

Rachel M. Chiu 2019 Class Committee Representative from Quincy House

the house experience during senior year, as well as leading Senior Gift efforts within their house.

Agbafe emphasized that students can donate time, rather than money, by participating in fundraising projects like car washes and call-a-thons if financial resources are a barrier.

The representatives, many of whom are involved in their house committees, said they

were also thankful for the opportunity to give back to their houses.

“Quincy House means a lot to me,” Quincy House representative Rachel M. Chiu ’19 said.

“It’s definitely what makes Harvard feel like a home to me. I really wanted to find a good way to contribute back to this community for my last year.”

Chiu said she was excited for her new appointment and for the committee’s work ahead.

“I think the group this year is a good mix of people that I know really well and really adore and people that I haven’t met yet,” she said.

“I think it’s going to be a really great opportunity for us to come together as a class committee and try to make the senior year for the class of 2019 as special as possible.”

Agbafe said the committee’s work is also important to the future of the Class of 2019 beyond graduation.

“If you’re traveling to [San Francisco] one day, and you decide you want to crash on [a fellow alum’s] couch instead of a hotel,” he said.

“I think that gives meaning to people’s lives.”

including South Korea [and] Japan. How to manage U.S.-China relationships will be crucially important, not just for U.S. trade and policies, but in resolving global issues, particularly North Korean denuclearization,” Ban said. “If North Korea sees any gaps, they will certainly try to divide the two sides and other partners.”

Thornton, a former assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, highlighted the necessity of prioritizing North Korean denuclearization in negotiations over human rights and cybersecurity concerns.

Thornton said she believes the U.S. must first achieve a breakthrough on denuclearization before agreement on other issues becomes possible.

“I think we have to convince the North Koreans that if they

deliver complete and full dismantlement and denuclearization, that we will indeed deliver on a different kind of relationship with North Korea,” Thornton said.

Despite the U.S.’ willingness to approach North Korea from multiple fronts, both speakers agreed that some strategies remained off the table.

“We never did consider sending Dennis Rodman in,” Thornton said, eliciting chuckles from the audience.

The speakers also remarked on other facets of the Trump administration’s foreign affairs policy.

Ban, in particular, chided the White House for withdrawing from the U.S.’ international commitments, including the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and UN agencies.

“This has given, practically speaking, [the] wrong message,” Ban said.

Thornton agreed that the U.S. has an obligation to act as a global leader.

“We have a comparative advantage in global leadership,” Thornton said.

“If the current administration is leaving the field to other players, we will end up much worse off for it in the future.”

Some students in attendance connected topics discussed in the forum to issues in their own lives.

“Being Korean, I should know about Korean issues. All my family is back home,” Sandra Moon ’22 said. “It’s not just about college and studying, but beyond graduation, all of these current events are very important.”

Be a Crimson Cartoonist!

TESTIMONY FROM PAGE 1

Khurana Testifies at Trial around 5 percent (though CNN reported in 2016 that roughly 11 percent of American citizens rank in that economic category). He then asked whether Khurana is aware that individuals in that income bracket make up roughly 30 percent of Harvard’s student body.

Though there is no definitive data on the matter, The Crimson’s 2018 freshman survey revealed that 54.6 percent of respondents indicated their families make more than $125,000 per year. Seventeen percent of respondents reported an annual income of over $500,000.

(Sixty-five percent of the Class of 2022 took the survey and The Crimson did not adjust the data for response bias.)

“Don’t you actually think that Harvard’s class should have a socioeconomic makeup that looks a lot more like America, provided the students were academically qualified to be at Harvard?” Mortara asked Khurana. “Your personal opinion, sir?”

“I don’t,” Khurana replied.

“What is special about wealthy people that Harvard needs to have them overrepresented by a factor of six on its campus?” Mortara asked later.

In response, Khurana said Mortara was missing the point.

“We’re not trying to mirror the socioeconomic or in-

come distribution of the United States,” Khurana said. “What we’re trying to do is identify talent and make it possible for them to come to a place like Harvard.”

In total, Khurana spoke for roughly an hour on the sixth day of the admissions trial, which is slated to last for at least three weeks. The dean will return to the witness stand Tuesday morning.

At stake is whether or not Harvard discriminates against Asian-American applicants, as SFFA alleged when it filed suit against the University in 2014.

Khurana is the highest-ranking administrator to testify in the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse to date, though former University President Drew G. Faust is scheduled to appear in court some time in the next week or so.

Khurana arrived at the courthouse sporting a blue blazer, a purple-checkered shirt, and a purple tie. In their first chance at the dean, SFFA lawyers did not spend much time on any one line of questioning, instead drifting from one subject to another.

Portions of the questioning were more substantive than others. In addition to quizzing Khurana about Harvard’s socioeconomic diversity, Mortara asked him about race-neu-

tral alternatives to the College’s race-conscious admissions process. And he pressed the dean on whether Khurana believes the school’s admissions policies disadvantage Asian-American students.

Khurana repeatedly insisted he does not.

“I don’t believe that Harvard College’s admissions process disadvantages Asians,” Khurana said.

The dean seemed slightly tense Monday, often pausing several seconds before responding to Mortara’s inquiries and giving one-word answers.

But there were light-hearted moments, too — such as when Mortara quizzed the dean on the acknowledgements listed in his Ph.D. “thesis.”

“I hope I partially dedicated it to my wife,” Khurana said, spurring laughter in the courtroom.

And sometimes, the SFFA lawyer took things back to basics.

“You’re the dean of Harvard College, correct?” Mortara asked. The dean answered in the affirmative.

“You understand this case is about Harvard admissions, right?”

Khurana again answered in the affirmative. aidan.ryan@thecrimson.com.

Transformative coverage.

The Crimson thecrimson.com

The Crimson

INPUT FROM PAGE 1

Claybaugh Invites Feedback about how shopping week causes uncertainty in scheduling and course planning.

After Thursday’s event in Quincy House, where Claybaugh said students raised concerns about their involve-

ment in decisions coming down from her office, she wrote in her email that she has asked Professor Bernhard Nickel, the chair of the faculty committee, to update students on what it learns in the sessions.

“In the meantime, my office will find additional ways to solicit your thoughts, and we will continue to update you about the process,” Claybaugh wrote. jamie.halper@thecrimson.com.

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | OCTOBER 23, 2018

PAGE 8

EDITORIAL THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

COLUMN

The Benefits of Accountability

Mass and Maneuver

Why Harvard must learn from a researcher’s apparent malpractice

I

n this post-truth era, it is heartening that the work published by a scientist at Harvard who did not exhibit “Veritas” is being corrected.

Last week, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital requested retractions for 31 papers written

by Piero Anversa, a former faculty member whose research mainly concerned cardiac stem cells. The retractions were issued after years of investigations and lawsuits involving Anversa’s work.

Especially in the sciences, truth and rigorous standards for conducting research are vital to the advancement of society. Thus, within the scientific community, researchers need to hold each other accountable and be critical of each other.

As the joint statement from Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital says, “The scientific community is interdependent and reliant on the rigor and good faith of researchers as we work collaboratively to advance knowledge and transform human health.”

The controversy surrounding Anversa also underscores the importance of replication — which is not flashy, but is nevertheless crucial.

By encouraging other scientists to recreate experiments published in papers to see if they get the same results, scientists can support the idea that published research is no fluke. Replicating other work may be less glamorous than

pursuing original research, but it serves an equally important role within the scientific process.

Hand in hand with replication comes accountability. Scientists must be critical of others’ work and flag malpractice — and own up to having committed it.

Only then can the resources and energy of the scientific community be best put toward productive endeavors instead of correcting past errors.

This is best accomplished when research is open-access and data is shared across disciplines as well as universities.

In the sciences, truth and rigorous standards for conducting research are vital to the advancement of society.

Furthermore, only does rigorous distribution lead to more accountable science: It leads to more scientific advancement by fostering collaboration.

Nevertheless, the problems that these measures aim to fix (namely research malpractice and fraud) are not just problems at Harvard — they are also tied to hospitals and labs in the scientific community at large.

The Anversa incident comes in the wake of a large controversy involving Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Cen-

ter, in which a top cancer doctor resigned for not properly divulging his ties to private health care companies.

But at Harvard specifically, issues of academic integrity arise at all levels, and the University should lead academia in addressing them.

To that end, while we commend Harvard for taking action against Anversa, we wish there were an avenue by which the University could hold Anversa to account more directly, since he is no longer a faculty member here. However, this is not to say that Harvard cannot learn from the incident — the University should take it to heart and, due to its gravity, use it to formally reexamine its own procedures with respect to flagging malpractice.

While it is infuriating and tragic that a substantial part of one researcher’s academic career appears to consist of malpractice, the benefits of greater accountability could serve as a silver lining to make research more honest and efficient across the University.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Grace M. Chao THE UNDERGROUND

“W

e will make Jesus Christ truly present today on the back of this Ford F-150.” Thus spoke a camouflage-clad Catholic priest in combat boots and priestly vestments during a field Mass offered during cadet summer training at Fort Knox, Ky. Indeed, the altar for the Mass was the flatbed of a muddy Ford F-150, and the congregation a collection of hungry, tired, and filthy cadets toting M-4 carbine rifles and MREs. Mass was a welcome break from the stresses of simulated combat mass and maneuver exercises, and a spiritual necessity to get through the next weeks of training. Among those hungry, tired, and filthy cadets was one prodigal Protestant who had finally started to make her way home to the Roman Catholic Church.

I once wrote that I believed the pursuit of Christian orthodoxy did not necessitate my conversion to Catholicism. Privately, I objected to Catholic teachings on the Virgin Mary and apostolic succession, teachings I believed were not founded in Scripture. I preferred the energy and feeling of contemporary Protestant worship; I bought the age-old Protestant argument that the Catholic Church represented an unnecessary and counterproductive middleman between believers and God. I no longer believe any of the above to be true.

In my objections, I was guilty of a grave intellectual crime. I made straw-man arguments based on what I thought Catholicism taught without even reading what the Church actually taught. Thank goodness for my ever-so-patient Catholic roommates and friends, who put up with torrents of my uninformed rants and questions.

I can’t identify a single catalyst that prompted such a reversal. My conversion has been a long time coming. Christians do not serve a God of coincidence, and it isn’t a coincidence that I’ve lived here with an amazing group of Catholics (and a

I can’t identify a single catalyst that prompted such a reversal.

My conversion has been a long time coming.

MARIA H. PARK—CRIMSON ILLUSTRATOR

OP-ED

A Constant Reminder

By KATHRYN E. KEARNEY

N

early two years ago, Donald Trump was — to my utter disbelief — elected president. My boyfriend at the time and I cried in bed in Dunster House as we watched Florida go red. It was a horrific, earth-shattering, almost supernatural moment. We were blindsided. We were blind.

Stories like this one, from once-hopeful, college-aged liberals, read much the same. Echo chambers that shielded us from the truth, a realization that there are some out there who don’t think like “Us,” disappointment in particular demographics for not showing up or showing up in the wrong ways, and a burning desire for change. This is especially true of Harvard, where my peers, professors, and the surrounding academic community overwhelmingly espoused at least a certain degree of social progressivism.

It hit me, a woman of color, like it hit so many others in different ways. America is not, and never was, for us. “Then maybe you should leave,” some said. What if there was some truth to the racist rhetoric we heard during the campaign?

On Inauguration Day, I was submitting the final letters of recommendation for one of Harvard’s postgraduate scholarships, the Gardner Traveling Fellowship. If awarded the accompanying grant, I would be moving to New Zealand shortly after graduation to study dance. Before the election, it had been one of several postgraduate options I had considered. After it, I only applied to opportunities on the condition that they were internationally based. In March 2017, I was offered the fellowship and eagerly began preparing for a summer departure.

I can and can’t explain what was so alluring about leaving the country. For obvious reasons, traveling abroad is thrilling and fulfilling. The excitement of going somewhere geographically and culturally foreign to your daily sensibilities never loses its luster. I wanted to be as far away from where I was, and New Zealand was as distant as I could fathom.

I couldn’t escape the feeling that I was

leaving from the U.S. more than going to New Zealand. The sitting president and the political crises he caused, in addition to my battles with mental health, contributed to a decision to get out and start over.

Auckland, where I would settle for a majority of my fellowship year, was everything I could’ve hoped for but little like I had imagined. Most notably, I’m enamored by its remarkable natural beauty.

The city is enveloped by pristine beaches and peppered with sprawling patches of protected land. The birds sing different melodies here and the water glistens ceaselessly. The people are exceedingly friendly, curious, and approachable.

They are so willing to connect with me, assist me, and befriend me. Granted, the big “-isms” still exist here. There is a current of rampant xenophobia in response to the influx of Asian migrants, and the discourse on Māori joblessness closely resembles the enduring anti-Black attitudes for which the U.S. is infamous.

But comparatively, for whatever reason, I have felt there is more hope for social progress in Auckland than back home.

With a renewed sense of hope, I found I had improving mental health. After a year, I decided to apply for a work visa to stay in Auckland indefinitely. Immigration, however, had other plans.

Last week, it all came to a head. For one, Immigration New Zealand rejected my initial application, forcing me to acknowledge that I may be asked to leave the country. What was supposed to be the destination of a gap year had become home. Aside from missing my family terribly, nothing about America called to me. After all, I had intentionally run away from a toxic political climate that had daily left me hopeless and hurt. Being able to virtually shut out the daily barrage of so-called fake news was intoxicating. Seeing Trump’s snarling face made me ill, and I had medicated my ailments with the move. To be reminded that the president and many of his supporters fundamentally disregard or even deny my humanity was deeply traumatic, and so I treated myself by leaving. But even a world away, I was unable to avoid

news of the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. They became a bleak reminder of where I may be headed. Abruptly and acutely, my mental health plummeted, the illness returned.

Watching footage of Kavanaugh whine, sputter, and evade questions personally and deeply offended me in a way that was almost irrationally visceral.

Much like the Trump effect, seeing, reading about, and discussing Kavanaugh had such tangibly negative effects on me.

Their faces and names alone evoked such disgust. It occurred to me — I know these men. The clips, articles, and soundbites relating to Kavanaugh that I incidentally consumed made me feel as if I were being confronted by my own attacker, reading of his hearing, and watching others defend him. Like Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, I did not report my assault. While feeling the same pangs of shame and hurt that I did after it happened, I figured that perhaps that’s the fate of all survivors — to be painfully reminded of your own assault whenever someone else’s is called into question, examined, and ultimately doubted and denied. Grappling with the fallout of an attack was hard enough to survive the first time, let alone with each and every accusation that goes in and out of media rotation.

I found out that Kavanaugh was confirmed four and a half years after attempting to take my own life after my assault and being admitted to University Health Services. Dozens of sexual assault allegations against prominent figures, the #MeToo movement, marches on Washington, and still, Kavanaugh was confirmed. I can only imagine what victims in the U.S. who will live with and under that reality daily must feel. A president who publicly mocks a victim of sexual assault for telling her story is now finally matched with a Supreme Court justice who enacted that very violence upon her. It will serve as a constant reminder of how our nation regards victims. They told me to leave, and even after doing so, I feel the shame from 9,000 miles away.

—Kathryn E. Kearney ’17 is a recipient of the Gardner Traveling Fellowship.

wonderful Protestant!).

It isn’t a coincidence a kind and generous cadet — himself a convert — at Fort Knox (of all places), prayed the Rosary and read the Catholic liturgy with me, even when we were deep in the woods ambushing and attacking “insurgents” with blank bullets.

The more I learned about the Catholic faith from people I respected and admired and the more I learned about the sacraments and teachings of the Church, the more I realized the extent of my ignorance. A powerful yearning to be spiritually home, a desire to be in communion with a universal Church I could call home, wherever I was in the world, slowly emerged.

I could fill months of columns with those learning experiences, and how my objections and hesitations fell flat on their faces in the light of the love of Catholics around me who took the time to teach and reason with me. I had to be less stubborn, less argumentative, and more open-minded and docile to the idea that somebody was telling me a truth that could save my soul.

I feel like I am becoming Christian all over again and my heart overflows with joy. Part of becoming a Christian is reckoning with a monumental choice. Is Jesus Lord? If we profess Jesus as Lord and savior, our lives are never the same.

Similarly, I had to reckon with Jesus and the Catholic Church that claims Him as founder. After all I had learned, I realized that if the Catholic faith was false, then all of Christianity was also false and I ought to turn entirely away.

But if Catholicism was true, my life would never be the same. If it was true that I could know and love Jesus Christ as fully as possible on this earth in the Catholic sacraments, if it was true that I could be in communion with Him and his Church in an incredible and incomprehensibly real way, then I could no longer remain a Protestant.

On the night before Easter, I’ll be formally received into the Church after several months of preparation and instruction. I’ll be honest: I’m still a bit nervous. Practical matters will construct a real divide between me and my Protestant family and closest Protestant friends.

Even though our shared bonds and love are genuine and deep-seated, and we profess shared truths and principles, living out those first truths can differ in very consequential ways. For instance, we won’t all share the same rite of communion, the source and summit of Christian life.

That won’t be easy.

If I learned anything from a sweltering summer at Fort Knox, it is that faith can thrive and sustain through challenge and adversity, and even in doubt. I wonder, though, if perseverance in difficulties has its limits.

I can’t overlook how I am joining a Catholic Church rocked by scandals and horrors of sexual abuse covered up by its clergy. How could I possibly want to join the Church at such a time? That’s a question for another column. But it remains the case that this prodigal Protestant can’t wait to finally come home to Rome.

—Grace M. Chao ’20 is an Economics concentrator in Mather House. Her column appears on alternate Tuesdays.

Page 9

THE HARVARD CRIMSON | october 23, 2018

admissions From Page 1

SFFA, Harvard Spar Over Class, Race in Admissions SFFA argues the College should instead pursue a race-neutral alternative known as “classbased affirmative action.” Under this system, admissions officers would use income levels — not race — to decide which students to tip.

Richard D. Kahlenberg ’85, an education researcher and fellow at the Century Foundation, took the witness stand Monday morning in the Harvard admissions trial to make the case for income-based candidate evaluation. Kahlenberg, whom SFFA previously paid to analyze College admissions data, spoke for roughly two hours in the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse on the sixth day of the trial.

Kahlenberg argued socioeconomic affirmative action by itself will forge racial and economic diversity on campuses including Harvard’s. He noted other institutions of higher education use this model.

“There’s essentially a menu of different options that a number of universities have employed,” Kahlenberg said. “Socioeconomic preferences is one, to start with, that a number of universities have used.”

Harvard administrators and lawyers have repeatedly rejected this idea, asserting only race-conscious admissions policies will produce the diverse student body essential to achieving the school’s educational mission.

Still, the University at least twice explored switching to a race-neutral admissions model.

In 2014 and mid-2017, Harvard formed two separate committees to consider the possibility.

The first “reached no conclu­

sions,” per a court filing. The second recommended the College stick to its current admissions system.

In a landmark ruling in 2003, the Supreme Court told American colleges and universities they should give “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives” to race-based affirmative action.

The two committees’ work, Harvard argues, meets that Court-mandated requirement.

To no one’s surprise, SFFA disagrees.

In coming weeks, Judge Allison D. Burroughs will have to decide whose version of events is most accurate. As she deliberates, she’ll review hours of witness testimony as well as hundreds of pages of previously confidential Harvard documents that bubbled up during the course of the suit.

Administrator after administrator confidently stepped to the stand over the past week to defend the College’s race-conscious admissions process. But evidence presented in court sheds light on previously private moments in Harvard history when top officials seemed a little less sure — and revives a long-running debate over whether race or income should reign supreme in the admissions process.

A TALE OF TWO COMMITTEES It started with a website.

In April 2014 — several months before SFFA filed suit against Harvard — SFFA Edward Blum began hunting for Harvard rejects who believed they failed to earn acceptance

to the College due to their race.

To facilitate that search, he launched the website harvardnotfair.com.

The site set off alarm bells in Cambridge.

The day after the website’s debut, Harvard General Counsel Robert W. Iuliano ’83 arranged a meeting with Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67, Director of Admissions Marlyn E. McGrath ’70, and Harvard employee Elizabeth B. Yong regarding “the possibility of a lawsuit against Harvard,” according to documents released as part of the trial.

After a series of internal discussions, Harvard administrators formed a nearly 30-member committee and tasked it with examining the feasibility of race-neutral alternatives to race-based affirmative action.

The so-called “Ryan Committee,” chaired by former Dean of the Graduate School of Education James E. Ryan, met “approximately” three times in 2014, according to June filing from SFFA lawyers.

The committee boasted nearly 30 members hailing from across the University’s schools.

Among them were Iuliano, former Dean of Freshmen Thomas A. Dingman ’67, former head of the Office of Institutional Research Erin Driver-Linn, Economics Professor Raj Chetty ’00, and Head Men’s Basketball Coach Tommy Amaker.

Details about the committee and its work are few and far in between. Harvard has repeatedly cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to release more information about the group, according to an SFFA filing.

What is known is that the committee concluded its work in December 2014. The group ultimately “produced no written work product and reached no conclusions as to whether Harvard could achieve the educational benefits of diversity without using racial classifications in admissions,” according to court documents.

Roughly three years later in July 2017 — for unknown reasons — Harvard officials formed a second committee and gave it the same mission as the first.

Former Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith chaired the new committee, referred to as the “Smith Committee” in court filings.

That committee was much smaller. Its membership clocked in at three: Fitzsimmons, Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana, and Smith.

The group met seven times between August 2017 and April 2018, according to court filings.

Lawyers for Harvard attended each meeting.

Ultimately, the Smith Committee stuck to the status quo.

The group concluded that “at present, no workable race-neutral alternatives could promote Harvard’s diversity-related educational objectives as well as Harvard’s current whole-person race-conscious admissions program while also maintaining the standards of excellence that Harvard seeks in its student body,” according to court documents.

BATTLE OF THE EXPERTS Monday saw a war of statistics months in the making.

Kahlenberg relied on a com-

plex model of Harvard’s admissions process to argue switching to a race-neutral, income-based admissions system would increase diversity on Harvard’s campus. The University has long endeavored to prove the opposite.

Well before heading to court this week, Kahlenberg collaborated with Duke Professor of Economics Peter S. Arcidiacono, another expert witness in SFFA’s employ, to build a model of the Harvard admissions process based on six years of internal data associated with more than 150,000 applications.

The model allowed Kahlenberg and Arcidiacono to assign different weights to various factors Harvard uses to evaluate applicants — factors such as race, legacy status, and socioeconomic background — and then guess at the makeup of the resulting College class.

To test a race-neutral admissions system, Arcidiacono began by “turning off” the racial preference. He then boosted the “tip” given to low-income students.

Kahlenberg presented four variations of this admissions scenario Monday. All predicted an increased percentage of Asian-American admits. Three of the four scenarios led to increased Hispanic enrollment and decreased white enrollment.

Every single one of the simulations predicted a decreased percentage of African-American admits.

Kahlenberg’s simluations also generated a shift in socioeconomic makeup. In every scenario, the number of students

admissions officers categorize as economically “disadvantaged” increased nearly threefold.

When pressed by Harvard’s lead trial lawyer, William F. Lee ’72, Kahlenberg said he “can’t think of an example” of a single situation in which a race-neutral admissions process would not lead to sufficient racial diversity on campus.

But Harvard has its own experts.

Relying on analysis from Unversity of California Economics Professor David E. Card, the University has argued that ending race-conscious admissions would severely drive down minority enrollment.

Card, who was paid by Harvard for his work, projected that a race-blind admissions process would reduce the number of College students who identify as African-American, Hispanic, or “Other” by roughly 50 percent.

Besides, University lawyers argue, Harvard is already pursuing race-neutral programs that help achieve a diverse student body. Attorneys pointed to the school’s generous financial aid program, its wide-ranging recruitment efforts, and its special consideration of students from “disadvantaged” backgrounds, among other things.

“Harvard’s efforts to promote diversity go far beyond its consideration of race in the admissions process,” lawyers wrote in a June court filing.

Kahlenberg is one of two expert witnesses SFFA’s lawyers are set to examine in the lawdelano.franklin@thecrimson.com. samuel.zwickel@thecrimson.com.

The latest on music, film, theater, and culture.

That’s artsy.

SPORTS

MEN’S SOCCER

ABOUT THE TEAM

2018-19 Overall Record 3-10 ______________________________________

Shot Percentage .124 ______________________________________

UPCOMING GAMES ______________________________________

Conference Record 1-3 ______________________________________

Shots Per Game 6.8 ______________________________________

Games 13 ______________________________________

Assists ______________________________________8

Men’s Soccer vs. Northeastern Tue. Oct. 23, 4:00pm at Northeastern

Goals

11 ______________________________________

Corner Kicks 43 ______________________________________

Goals Per Game 0.85 ______________________________________

Yellow Cards 18 ______________________________________

Men’s Soccer vs. Dartmouth Sat. Oct. 27, 4:00pm at Dartmouth

FOOTBALL

Harvard Defense Not Enough to Stave Off Princeton

By CADE PALMER CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

A s boats rowed down the nearby Charles River during the annual Head of the Charles Regatta, so, too, did the hopes of an Ivy League championship float away for the Harvard football team on Saturday.

With the Crimson challenging one of the two undefeated division teams, No. 18/23 Princeton, Harvard’s defense nearly carried it through in the 29-21 loss. Taking place at Harvard Stadium, the 111th rendition of this rivalry served as the first game in Harvard’s upcoming all-Ivy slate for the remainder of the season. ­

DEFENSE ALMOST WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS In its five matchups prior to Harvard, Princeton averaged 52 points on offense. Saturday, the team put up just 29.

In its five matchups prior to Harvard, Princeton never won by fewer than 35 points. Saturday, the team won by eight.

In its five matchups prior to Harvard, Princeton’s lowest halftime score was 28. On Saturday, the team finished the first half with 10.

In every conceivable metric, Princeton’s offense was shuttered in the midday tilt.

The powerhouse offense that had yet to score fewer than 45 points — despite losing starting quarterback John Lovett to injury against Brown — never led Harvard by more than two possessions.

“We haven’t played in the fourth quarter and that was the next obstacle and a barrier we had to come through on,” Princeton coach Bob Surace said. “Credit Harvard. They played their tails off. It was a great game, it’s typical college football game with two really good teams going back and forth and we were very fortunate to come up with a few

more plays.”

Even then, Harvard’s defense put up a goose egg in the opening 15 minutes of the half, a streak which likewise saw no Harvard tallies.

Lovett saw his worst performance of the season calling plays from behind the center. The quarterback tallied a season-low passing percentage (48.4), amount of touchdown throws (one), and sum of rushing yards (45). He tied for a season-low in rushing touchdowns (one), too.

In the defensive effort for Harvard, sophomore linebacker Jordan Hill tallied a season-best 11 tackles. Senior defensive tackle Stone Hart punched his way through the line for 2.5 tackles for loss.

“I don’t know how many tackles [Hill] had but it seemed like he was at least in double digits,” Surace said. “Hill was all over the field and he is so athletic for a big guy it made it really hard.”

THIRD TIME’S A CHARM Harvard entered the match with the best third-down defense in the Ivy League and the ninth best in the nation. Princeton arrived at Harvard Stadium ranked first in the conference and third in the nation in third-down offense.

It was clear that Princeton’s effectiveness on third-down would foretell the squad’s match-long success. Princeton’s .553 conversion percentage tumbled in the 60 minutes against Harvard.

“We talked about situational football during the week, that third downs and redzone were going to play huge factors in this game,” Surace said.

“They make you earn everything. They have a terrific pass rush, they’re athletic.”

The visiting squad converted five attempts on 18 tries, good for a .278 conversion rate.

“Coach [Scott] Larkee came

DEFENSE STILL NOT ENOUGH The Crimson’s defense limited a potent Princeton attack on Saturday, holding the Tigers to just 29 points compared to their prior season average of 52. The wind likely played a factor in stunting the passing game of both teams. TIMOTHY R. O’MEARA—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

up with a great plan and he really simplified [theirs], that made it easy for Stone [Hart] and I to make plays,” said senior defensive tackle Richie Ryan. “Stone was playing lights out. I’m really proud of the defensive line, linebackers, everyone.”

The third-down defense did not carry over into the fourth.

The visitors converted a perfect three-for-three on fourth downs to continue a two-game streak of perfection on make-

or-break tries.

BLOWN AWAY With winds as high as 17 miles per hour on Saturday, the weather added another dimension of trickiness to converting through the air.

In fact, Surace attributed his sub-standard play to the wind — in addition to the defensive line.

“It was a tough day windwise as well,” Surace said. “I

think both quarterbacks struggled a little bit with accuracy and not only accuracy but I think both D-lines got pressure. I think it was a tough day to be out there because you didn’t have a lot of time, and when you were throwing it until the very end there was a really stiff wind.”

Harvard senior quarterback Tom Stewart completed 19 of 35 attempts. The effort was good enough for two touch-

downs and 223 yards through the air.

Harvard coach Tim Murphy didn’t think the wind played as much of a role as Surace did.

“We’re used to the wind, it’s kind of a constant,” Murphy said. “The 15-mile an hour thing, swirling wind in Harvard Stadium, that’s all we know this time of year so I don’t think it was that big of a factor.” cade.palmer@thecrimson.com

SOCCER

Crimson Welcomes Back Mike Fucito ’08 as Assistant

WELCOME BACK, COACH The Harvard men’s soccer program welcomes back former standout Mike Fucito ‘08, who joins the coaching staff as an assistant. Throughout the season, Fucito, who scored 32 goals during his collegiate career, has brought his offensive expertice to the Crimson’s front lines. JUSTIN CHIANG—CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

By SHUVOM N. SADHUKA CONTRIBUTING WRITER

For years, the men’s soccer team would walk back to the locker room to see the jersey of one of its legends, Mike Fucito ’08, hanging up on the wall.

Fucito played for the Crimson for all four years, racking up the Ivy League Rookie of the Year award, three All-Ivy first teams, and scoring 32 goals. Today, he is back at Harvard as the squad’s new Assistant Coach.

A native of Westford, Mas­

sachusetts, Fucito grew up a hockey player, wrestler, and soccer forward before making his way to Cambridge. His time with the Crimson was marked with great success on the field, enough to be drafted by Seattle Sounders FC in the 2nd round (46th pick overall) of the 2009 MLS SuperDraft.

After three years with the Sounders, Fucito made stops with the Montreal Impact, Portland Timbers, and San Jose Earthquakes, totaling 53 games over his career before taking up

a Harvard coaching position — first with the men’s golf team.

“I sort of needed a break from soccer, and golf has always been one of my passions,” Fucito said. “Golf also opened my mind up to coaching as a career.”

Even as a golfer, Fucito has had an impressive career, being named to the Golf Digest Magazine’s Top 100 Professional Athlete Golfers in December of 2015.

But eventually, Fucito felt an urge to return to soccer, tran-

sitioning from the links to the pitch. “[The men’s soccer team is] a great group of guys,” Fucito reflected. “[Soccer] is all I’ve done, all I’ve known for my whole life, so coming back and coaching is a pretty natural fit.”

Fucito’s stellar playing career and coaching background helped him transition to the soccer team this past June through being able to see the game from both the players’ and coaches’ perspectives.

“Immediately, he got a lot of

respect from the players,” said captain and midfielder Sam Brown. “People pay attention more to him, more than guys and coaches who maybe haven’t gone to the professional level.”

For now, Fucito is working with the team’s forwards, which means his primary focus is on honing the Crimson’s offense. But in many ways, Fucito still feels like a player leading his team rather than a coach.“I still see myself as a player,” Fucito said. “You look at the game with a different lens [as a

coach], obviously. It’s definitely different. When you’re playing, you have direct control over what happens in the game. As a player, you’re always thinking, ‘What can I do on the field to help my team win?’ but as a coach you’re sort of looking at how all the pieces fit together.”

Fucito’s experience at all levels of soccer helps him bring new perspectives to his coaching, being able to compare sideby-side the differences in play between college and professional soccer.

“In college I was always the fastest player,” Fucito said. “I was still pretty fast in the MLS, but the whole game just moves faster. Everyone is fit, everyone is skilled, so it becomes much more of a question of how you’re reading the game and how you are executing tactics. The season is more tiring, with more games than college, and things like the three [substitution] rule, and so you also have to take care of your body more.”

Coach Fucito’s relative youth and recent exposure to the game also help him in sharpening his players’ skills.

“He’ll sometimes just jump into drills and play with us,” Brown said. “It honestly feels like he’s one of us.”

As the Crimson looks to finish its season on a positive note, Fucito’s competitiveness in practice and in games distinguishes him from previous coaches and promises to give his group a boost down the stretch. “[Fucito] is super different from any coaches that I’ve had.

Probably the intensity and competitiveness that he brings is something that I’ve not worked with before,” Brown concluded.