The Harvard Crimson - Volume CXLV, No. 62

The University Daily, Est. 1873 | Volume CXLV, No. 62 | Cambridge, Massachusetts | monday, april 23, 2018

The Harvard Crimson Academia should strive to engage with the world’s problems.

EVIA champion men’s volleyball clinches first-ever NCAA Tournament berth. sports PAGE 10

editoral PAGE 8

With Vote to Unionize, Grad Students Make History NLRB Count Shows About 55 Percent of Voters Approved Union

Division

Age

91.1% Arts and Humanities

11.5%

Social Sciences

In a historic move, Harvard teaching and research assistants have voted to form a union.

The results of a unionization election held April 18 and 19 showed 1,931 ballots cast in favor and 1,523 against, per ballot tallying conducted at the National Labor Relations Board regional office Friday. Roughly 56 percent of ballots counted Friday fell in favor of unionization.

Barring challenges to the result, this vote means roughly 5,000 eligible students can now begin to collectively bargain with the University as members of Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers. The installation of a student union is unprecedented in Harvard history—and the result reverses the outcome of the University’s previous Nov. 2016 unionization election, which showed more votes against unionization than in favor.

The Crimson previously collected and analyzed exit polling data suggesting that a small majority—50.6

See union Page 3

66.4% 66.6%

50.8%

GSAS

33.4%

71.8%

9.0%

38.5%

73.3% No

91.0%

26.3%

See BARGAINing Page 3

See poll Page 3

88.7%

11.3%

80.7%

19.3%

elena M. ramos—Crimson Designer

Univ. Declines to Say If It Will Bargain With New Union Crimson Staff Writers

A Harvard representative repeatedly declined to answer a question asking whether the University will begin to collectively bargain with student employees following a vote by eligi-

ble teaching and research assistants to unionize last week.

Asked that question twice over the weekend following the vote, University spokesperson Anna G. Cowenhoven twice declined to comment.

Over the course of a two-day election held April 18 and 19, eligible graduate and undergraduate teaching

Data Analysis By brian p. yU and phelan yu

and research assistants voted to approve Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Automobile Workers’ proposal to collectively bargain on their behalf with the University.

The final vote count showed 1,931 ballots cast in favor of unionization

School of Public Health

*not adjusted for response bias

By shera s. avi-yonah and molly m. mccafferty

By shera s. avi-yonah and molly c. mccafferty

Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences students were much more likely to vote to unionize in Harvard’s election last week than were Sciences and Engineering and Applied Sciences students, according to exit polling data collected by The Crimson.

Harvard held its second-ever unionization election over the course of two days on April 18 and 19. The final results tipped in favor of unionization, with 1,931 ballots cast for the union and 1,523 against.

This outcome means over 5,000 eligible graduate and undergraduate students can now begin to collectively bargain with the University as members of Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers.

The Crimson conducted an exit poll throughout the day on both election days, stationing reporters outside voting sites for 78 percent of all hours the sites remained open.

Of the 3,454 students who cast a

Graduate School of Design

40+

61.5%

10.9% Medical School

34-39 Yes

11.5%

Kennedy School 89.1%

SEAS

88.5%

Humanities, Social Sciences Students Key to Union Victory Crimson Staff Writers

17.4%

29-33 28.2%

33.6%

Law School 82.6%

Sciences

51.5%

College

23-28 49.2%

Crimson Staff Writers

48.5%

52.5%

18-22 88.5%

By shera s. avi-yonah, caroline s. engelmayer, and molly m. mccafferty

47.5%

8.9%

School

COMPLETE COVERAGE OF THE UNIONIZATION VOTE

Town Hall Attendees Call For Change

Experts: Vote Is Step Forward for Student Labor Movement

After Friday Victory, Union Organizers Excited, Relieved

By shera s. avi-yonah and molly c. mccafferty

By shera s. avi-yonah and molly c. mccafferty

By jonah s. berger

Crimson Staff Writers

Crimson Staff Writers

Crimson Staff Writer

Harvard research and teaching assistants’ vote to unionize last week was unique in its scale and drew on a decades-long push to form graduate student unions, according to several labor experts and union organizers.

The election—Harvard’s second vote on the issue—took place April 18 and 19. Over the course of two days, more than 3,500 eligible students cast ballots to decide whether they should unionize as members of Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Automobile Workers. The final tally, determined by National Labor Relations Board officials on April 20, showed 1,931 ballots in favor and 1,523 against.

At 3:35 p.m. on April 20, at least two dozen union organizers, three union lawyers, and five Harvard officials stood gripping notebooks and staring at a short, grey-haired man in a rumpled suit.

The man—National Labor Relations Board official Eugene M. Switzer—looked up from thousands of bottle-green ballots stacked on the table in front of him, paused for a half-beat, and announced Harvard’s teaching and research assistants had voted to unionize.

The room ruptured into tears and shouting.

Switzer’s announcement marked

See comparison Page 3

Students file into Queen’s Head Pub to cast their ballots during Harvard’s second unionization election. hannah natanson—managing editor

See reactions Page 3

Over 50 students, alumni, and local activists discussed possible administrative reforms at a Saturday town hall in the wake of the arrest of a black undergraduate that has sparked allegations of police brutality and drawn national headlines.

Some at the event sharply criticized Harvard for what they called a lack of institutional support.

The event was organized by multiple student groups including the Undergraduate Council and Black Students Organizing for Change, a coalition formed in response to the arrest.

The town hall came hours after more than 200 students and Harvard affiliates encircled University Hall in ­

See town hallPage 4

Protesters Urge Reform Following April 13 Arrest By delano r. franklin and Lucy Wang Crimson Staff Writers

More than 200 Harvard students and affiliates, many with red duct tape over their mouths, handed out flyers and encircled University Hall in protest Saturday to demand reforms to University processes they say led to the forcible arrest of a black College student April 13.

The event was planned by Black Students Organizing for Change, a group formed by College students in the wake of the physical confrontation between a black student and the Cambridge Police Department last week. In a recent open letter addressed to the “Harvard Community,” the group wrote its mission is “to hold Harvard University accountable for the safety of community members, particularly Black and Brown students.”

In the days following the arrest, Inside this issue

Harvard Today 2

hundreds of Harvard students gathered across campus to discuss the incident, reflect, and plan a response.

The new black student organization—and Saturday’s protest—constitute first steps of that response. The protesters, including both undergraduate and graduate students, gathered at the Phillips Brooks House to distribute flyers, duct tape, and signs just before noon Saturday. At noon, pairs of the students—most of whom were dressed in black—stationed themselves throughout Harvard Yard, holding signs reading “I Don’t Feel Safe” and “Will Harvard Call the Police on Me Too?” The protest coincided with Visitas, the College’s weekend of programming for admitted students, which began Saturday morning.

Many of the onlookers were prospective students and their parents.

News 3

See Protest Page 4

Editorial 8

The Saturday protest was planned by Black Students Organizing for Change, a group formed by College students in the wake of the forcible arrest of a black Harvard undergraduate. delano r. franklin—Crimson staff writer

Sports 9

Today’s Forecast

sunny High: 60 Low: 40

Visit thecrimson.com.

Follow @TheCrimson on Twitter.

Multi Comper, ME

HARVARD TODAY

FOR Lunch

FOR DINNER

Sicilian Ham Bruschetta

Chicken Breast with Poblano Sauce

Coconut Curried Tempeh & Squash

monday | April 23, 2018

Macaroni and Cheese

Saigon Bamboon Beef Grilled Chickpea Cakes with Salsa Verde

around the ivies Smith to the Pitcher’s Mound Junior Sarah Smith prepares to pitch during the final innings of the Crimson’s game against Dartmouth Sunday afternoon. Harvard lost 3-1, ending a three-game series against Dartmouth.

Kathryn S. Kuhar —CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Columbia Faculty Sign Student Petition Demanding 24/7 Health Center Over 140 faculty and staff members signed a letter to support students’ demand for a health center available 24/7, the Columbia Spectator reported. The group, called 24/7 Columbia, announced the news on Friday afternoon as they entered the second day of a sit-in in Lerner Hall. Members demand “round-the-clock access to in-person health services that are independent from systems of policing.” Executive Vice President of Office of University Life Suzanne Goldberg wrote an email to the group on Friday acknowledging their protest and offering to talk to the group in person about this issue, according to the Spectator.

Former Dean of the College Mary Miller to Leave Yale Former Dean of Yale College Mary Miller announced Thursday her retirement from Yale, set on January 1, 2019, the Yale Daily News reported. Miller will leave her current post as senior director of the Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage at West Campus to serve as the director of the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles, where she will be the first female director.

Miller was also the first female dean of Yale College, and has held posts as the head of Saybrook College, chair of the History of Art Department in her tenure at Yale.

New Undergraduate Student Government Officers Elected at Princeton

Events:

of the Witch: How the Occult Saved Rock and Roll, who will discuss the relationship between theater, ritual, and popular music. The talk will be at the Center for the Study of World Religions.

Dionysus Stardust Let us discern this enigmatic event title for you: The HDS Theosophical Society will host Peter Bebergal (Harvard Div. ‘96), author of Season

The Movement for Black Lives: Justice for Michael Brown Lezley McSpadden (the mother of Michael Brown), Jason Pollock (Documentary Filmmaker, “Stranger

HAPPY monday!

Where was the last flower you saw?

Fruit”), Benjamin Crump and Jasmine Rand (attorneys for families of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Stephon Clark) will join Khalil Muhammad and Ashley Spillane in the JFK Jr. Forum for “The Movement for Black Lives: Justice for Michael Brown 4 Years Later.”

Princeton’s Undergraduate Student Government announced newly elected U-councilors and officers last Friday, according to the Daily Princetonian. The student body also voted to approve the fifth Honor Code referendum, “which allows Honor Committee members to evaluate leadership and potentially petition to replace the clerk or chair.” The referendum passed overwhelmingly, gaining 84.15 percent of the total referendum votes.

Ben Rhee Crimson Staff Writer

in the real world Waffle House Shooting Suspect at Large, May Be Armed A gunman killed four people early Sunday at a Waffle House near Nashville. Police warn that he is now on the run and is probably armed. The suspect, 29-year-old Travis Reinking, is currently on the “Top 10 Most Wanted” list of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

Sustainability in Science Center Plaza Various environmentally focused organizations set up tables in Science Center Plaza Friday afternoon to promote sustainability. kathryn s. kuhar—CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Iran’s Foreign Minister Refuses Nuclear Deal Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stated that if the United States scuttles the landmark 2015 nuclear agreement, Iran will consider a range of consequential actions, including resuming its nuclear program. Zarif is accusing the U.S. of not complying with all the terms of the nuclear agreement, but said that Iran will not race towards creating a nuclear bomb.

Supreme Court Weighs Travel Ban Case The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will center around the issue of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry. On Wednesday, the justices will consider President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban that bars most nationals from a small group of mostly Muslim nations. Past travel bans have been struck down or revised.

WAIting at the dot

The Harvard Crimson

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Staff for This Issue

The University Daily, Est. 1873

“Harvard listens to money.”

Derek G. Xiao, President Hannah Natanson, Managing Editor Nathan Y. Lee, Business Manager

—Hilda M. Jordan ’19, member of Black Students Organizing for Change

Night Editors Kenton K. Shimozaki ‘19 Phelan Yu ’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.

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.

Kenton K. Shimozaki ’19 Alison W. Steinbach ’19 Sarah Wu ‘19 Phelan Yu ‘19

Assistant Night Editors Caroline S. Engelmayer Design Editor ’20 Elena Ramos ‘20 Lucy Wang ‘20 Editorial Editor Jenna M. Wong ’20 Story Editors Joshua J. Florence ’19 Photo Editors Mia C. Karr ‘19 Casey M. Allen ‘20 Hannah Natanson ’19 Claire E. Parker ‘19

Sports Editor Cade S. Palmer ’20

The Harvard Crimson | April 23, 2018 | page 3

Grad Students Will Unionize union From Page 1 percent—of eligible students who cast ballots voted in favor of unionization.

With the April vote, Harvard joins a small handful of private universities nationwide who have seen a union form without voluntarily granting that union recognition.

The vote count Friday began 9:41 a.m. in the Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. Federal Building in downtown Boston, the site of NLRB offices. Shortly after NLRB officials announced the final tally, the room broke into loud cheers.

The 2018 election, held throughout the day April 18 and 19 at three different polling sites across campus, marked the second time Harvard’s student research and teaching assistants have voted on whether to collectively bargain with the University as members of HGSU-UAW. The University previously held an election in Nov. 2016. The results of that election saw a final tally of 1,526

Winning our union today means we can finally start to make improvements in our working conditions.

Niharika N. Singh Graduate Student and HGSUUAW Student Organizer votes cast against against unionization and 1,396 cast in favor.

But lawyers for HGSU-UAW challenged that outcome, sparking more than a year of legal battles between Harvard and the would-be union. The NLRB ultimately mandated in Jan. 2018 that the University must hold a second election.

Approximately 5,050 students were eligible to vote in the 2018 election.

Students cast 3,454 valid votes in total over the course of April 18 and 19.

The result generated three void bal-

lots, or votes the NLRB decided to invalidate. Students cast 146 ballots “under challenge.” A ballot comes under challenge when NLRB officials are unable to immediately determine the eligibility of the voter who cast that ballot. The NLRB did not need to resolve the eligibility of these voters’ ballots because the union’s margin of victory—408 votes—was larger than the number of challenged ballots. This meant the challenged ballots could not have affected the outcome of the election.

HGSU-UAW members wrote in a press release Friday that the victory “caps a multi-year effort.” The press release notes that, with the conclusion of the Harvard vote, more than 15,000 academic workers have chosen UAW representation across the past four years. The release states that roughly 75,000 academic workers are now represented by UAW nationwide.

Several Harvard graduate students said in the press release they are thrilled by the outcome of the election.

The result also generated a wave of celebratory posts on social media.

“We have been organizing for a long time,” Public Policy Ph.D. student Niharika N. Singh said in the press release. “Winning our union today means we can finally start to make improvements in our working conditions.”

Abraham J. Waldman, another Harvard graduate student, said in the release he and other union advocates feel “energized” by their victory Friday.

“This has been an incredibly long haul,” Waldman said. “As hard as we worked to win, we know that this is just the beginning.”

“We are confident that our union will be good for us and good for the University and we expect Harvard... to negotiate in good faith,” he added.

University spokesperson Anna G. Cowenhoven sent an emailed statement Friday reiterating the results of the final election and stating the University appreciates students’ “engagement.”

“Harvard appreciates student engagement on this important issue,” the statement reads. “Regardless of the outcome, this election underscores the importance of the University’s commitment to continuing to improve the experience of our students.”

“We want every student to thrive here and to benefit from Harvard’s extraordinary academic opportunities,”

the statement continues.

Lawyers from Morgan Brown and Joy, the firm that represented Harvard in debating the results of the 2016 election, declined to comment Friday.

Representatives for the NLRB Office of Congressional and Public Affairs also declined to comment.

The 2018 challenge ballots initially comprised two groups: the first consisted of approximately 190 “Green Dot” ballots, cast by voters who did not vote at their assigned polling place.

The NLRB assigned every eligible vot-

Like The Crimson on Facebook.

This has been an incredibly long haul.

Abraham J. Waldman Graduate Student er to one of three on-campus voting stations—one in Cambridge, one in Longwood, and one in Allston—prior to the start of the election.

The remaining 144 ballots initially identified as being under challenge— called “not on list” or NOL ballots— were cast by students whose names were absent from University-generated voter lists. Union and University representatives on site in NLRB offices agreed to set aside the NOL ballots unless the margin between “yes” and “no” votes was smaller than 146.

Challenge ballots formed a significant point of contention in Harvard’s 2016 election; University officials and union advocates sparred at length over the eligibility of some voters who cast their ballots under challenge.

In that election, around 1,000 ballots initially came under challenge, above the margin of votes that could have affected the results.

Staff writer Shera S. Avi-Yonah can be reached at shera.avi-yonah@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter at @saviyonah.

Staff writer Caroline S. Engelmayer can be reached at caroline.engelmayer@thecrimson. com. Follow her on Twitter @cengelmayer13.

Facebook.com/TheHarvardCrimson

Don’t stop there.

Facebook.com/CrimsonFlyby

Staff writer Molly C. McCafferty can be reached at molly.mccafferty@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter at @mollmccaff.

Experts Say Declining To Bargain A Possible Option for Univ.

Bargaining From Page 1 and 1,523 against.

Analysts including former NLRB chairman William B. Gould IV and Temple University labor professor N. Brishen Rogers said several paths remain open to Harvard as it considers how best to respond to the newly-established union.

Under NLRB procedures, both Harvard and the union have seven days to raise objections to the election with the agency’s regional office.

Following Harvard’s first unionization election, held in Nov. 2016, both HGSU-UAW and the University filed separate objections to the vote. In their briefs, the union’s attorneys argued the University-generated eligible voter list

was inadequate and incomplete, calling on the NLRB to overturn the Nov. 2016 election. University representatives also brought their own objections, contending NLRB officials had improperly invalidated a ballot that had writing on it. Following over a year of legal back-and-forth that saw two separate appeals and three NLRB decisions, the labor agency ruled to overturn the 2016 vote, mandating a second election.

If the University chooses to challenge the results of the 2018 election, the school could allege inappropriate conduct during the vote—or it could challenge the legitimacy of graduate unionization more broadly, Could said.

The precedent governing graduate students’ ability to unionize, which the

Union Win Draws On History, Labor Precedent Comparison From Page 1 Temple University labor law professor N. Brishen Rogers said the size of Harvard’s student bargaining unit—which will include graduate and undergraduate teaching and research assistants— eclipses other successful organizing efforts at private universities.

“I believe it’s the first time we have seen a victory of this size at a major private sector university within recent memory,” Rogers said.

Both Rogers and former NLRB Chairman William B. Gould IV said that several legal and historical precedents spanning the course of decades made the election result last week possible. In 2016, an NLRB ruling on graduate student unionization at Columbia University overturned a previous 2004 Brown University precedent in which the board ruled student assistants could not unionize. Gould, however, pointed further back, tracing a line to the 1966 NLRB case regarding union election at the company Excelsior Underwear. That case generated a namesake rule stipulating an employer must generate and provide both the NLRB and the proposed union with a list of contact information for voters eligible to participate in a union election prior to the vote.

The Excelsior precedent later proved central to the NLRB’s decision to rule that Harvard must hold a second unionization election, Gould said.

Harvard held its first vote on the

unionization issue in Nov. 2016; the final results of that election revealed more votes cast against unionization than in favor. But attorneys for HGSU-UAW objected to the result, contending University-generated voter lists were incomplete and that the 2016 vote should be overturned. Both the regional and federal National Labor Relations Board eventually determined Harvard’s lists did not meet agency standards and demanded a second vote. Rogers said the course of events at Harvard is indicative of a larger movement taking place in the education sector. He pointed to adjunct professor unionization movements at other universities and to recent public school teacher strikes in Oklahoma and West Virginia.

“Education is such an important part of the economy right now, and so many workers are in education, but many workers in education are not being treated very fairly, and that is actually harming educational processes,” Rogers said. “That’s one of the reasons why workers have been unionizing in the education sector.” Rogers said he thinks HGSU-UAW’s success is also a “victory” for the broader graduate student unionization movement.

“Graduate students have been organizing in greater numbers in recent years, and the Trump administration has really changed a lot of people’s views around the political economy in this country and around questions like unionization,” Rogers said.

NLRB has affirmed and overturned before, was most recently affirmed in 2016 when the agency permitted a unionization election at Columbia University to proceed.

Labor experts and observers widely believe the board, which is currently majority Republican, will overturn the Columbia precedent if it gets the chance to hear a case on the matter. Any objection—regardless of its scope—that reaches the national board, according to Gould, could ultimately result in a board decision that reconsiders the validity of graduate student unions. “[The University] could take that route, or, without taking objections, they could simply refuse to bargain on the theory that Columbia University is not good law,” Gould said. “If they don’t want to

bargain, I would think they’d be in the driver’s seat given the composition of the Board.”

Because the legal language governing employers’ duty to bargain is “not especially onerous,” Rogers said, the most likely path forward—should Harvard want to avoid negotiations— would comprise refusing to bargain with HGSU-UAW. “It’s very common that, when a union first organizes, they have a great deal of difficulty getting to a first contract,” Rogers said. “They do it as a way of challenging the election results.”

Graduate students at Columbia University voted a week ago to authorize a strike following the administration’s refusal to bargain with the campus union, Graduate Workers of

Columbia-United Automobile Workers. Columbia graduate students have separately filed an unfair labor practices claim with the NLRB. This method forms the most common path of recourse for unions seeking to protect their bargaining positions, Gould said.

Gould added Harvard could also agree to recognize the union and participate in negotiations. Union organizers have previously said they consider the University’s assent to holding an election as equivalent to a commitment to bargain.

“Harvard has agreed to bargain.

They have said they will not challenge our eligibility as student workers,” union organizer Abraham J. Waldman said in an interview after the NLRB vote count.

Like The Crimson on Facebook (again).

Facebook.com/TheHarvardCrimson

Don’t stop there.

Give it another like.

Page 4 | April 23, 2018 | The Harvard Crimson

Some Call for Change After Black Student’s Arrest town hall From Page 1 protest to demand changes to University processes that organizers say led to the student’s arrest. The day after that protest, the Council voted to formally endorse a set of demands BSOC sent to administrators.

“Harvard tells us that we will be protected and that they will keep us safe,” Hilda M. Jordan ’19, a BSOC leader, said at the town hall. “But Harvard didn’t keep one of our students safe that night,” In an emailed statement, University spokesperson Melodie L. Jackson reiterated much of a letter President Drew G. Faust sent to Harvard affiliates last week. In that letter, Faust called the arrest “disturbing.”

“As President Faust wrote in her message to the entire Harvard community earlier this week, we are committed to determining what Harvard, as an institution, can learn from the incident so that we can move forward together as a community ‘where people from all backgrounds and life experiences can come together confident in their ability to do their best work in a safe, supportive, and constructive environment,’” Jackson wrote, quoting Faust’s letter.

Three Cambridge Police Department officers arrested the undergraduate April 13 at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Waterhouse St. after receiving several calls about the student, who was naked and had thrown his clothes at a bystander.

In the ensuing altercation, officers tackled and then arrested the student— who was likely under the influence of narcotics—for charges including assault, indecent exposure, and resisting arrest. To date, an arraignment date has not been set.

A CPD police report released after the incident states the student clenched his fists and began making

aggressive moves toward the officers, prompting them to tackle him. But eyewitnesses of the incident—including members of the Harvard Black Law Students Association—have stat that CPD’s version of events is “incorrect,” stating that the officers tackled the undergraduate “without provocation.”

A video of the incident later published by the New York Times shows the student standing still, surrounded by the officers, while the officers talk to him for at least a few seconds. The student turns around and takes two steps towards one officer before taking a step back and raising his arms to chest-level. Another officer then tackles the student from behind. BLSA has called the incident an instance of police brutality.

Many attendees of the town hall said they felt the incident relates to broader questions of racial injustice pervasive throughout the country. Injil Muhammad ’21, vice president of the Black Men’s Forum, said the incident should serve as a stark reminder that, even at an elite institution like Harvard, black students must contend with bias and differential treatment.

“There’s this narrative that there’s a certain point which you can reach as an individual where your race, your class, those things become less relevant, as you progress up the social ladder,” Muhammad said. “And I just think it’s... just a reminder that there are certain things that just kind of transcend all of these institutions, all of these accolades that you can get, and that is being black.”

Multiple attendees also called for the formation of University response teams in order to deescalate potentially dangerous situations without involving the police.

Simileoluwa E. Falako ’20, president of the Black Students Association, said these response teams must be nonviolent and independent of the police.

“These response teams need to be

demilitarized,” she said. “The fact that we have police responding to medical incidents, or the fact that if you call anything for anyone, the police are coming.”

“For black and brown students, that’s very traumatizing, with what’s been going on in this country,” she added. “If I walk down the street and see a police officer, I get scared.”

Attendees of the town hall also criticized what they called an inadequate and slow response from administrators in the wake of the arrest.

“How many letters have you seen from Drew Faust on this?” Jordan asked.

“One, it took four days,” responded Falako.

Jackson disputed these accusations, writing that administrators have been consistently engaging with students since the incident.

“In addition to President Faust’s university-wide message, numerous administrators have been meeting with students in multiple settings all week, including John S. Wilson (senior adviser and strategist to the president), who is representing the president’s office, College administrators (Dean [Rakesh] Khurana, Dean [Katherine] O’Dair, and Dean [Roland] Davis, among others), and HUPD and HUHS representatives,” Jackson wrote. “To suggest administrators have been silent on this issue and not engaged in serious conversation about this is patently false.”

Attendees also criticized the way Harvard University Health Services handled the incident—HUHS called Harvard University Police Department Friday night after being contacted about the student. Some said HUHS’s response is indicative of larger problems with the institution.

In a statement last week, HUHS Spokesperson Michael Perry wrote HUHS acted “per standard protocol”

that night.

Multiple attendees said they believed the University should purchase its own ambulance, which some attendees said they think could have helped prevent last week’s arrest.

“When I found out that Harvard didn’t have an ambulance, it shocked me,” Jordan said. “MIT, which is down the street, Syracuse University has one, the local community college in my town has one.”

Perry wrote in an emailed statement that representatives of Crimson Emergency Medical Services, a student-led EMT group, have asked Cambridge officials about the possible purchase of an ambulance, but have so far been turned down.

“HUHS and leaders from Crimson EMS have held several conversations with the City of Cambridge to review the feasibility and required approvals necessary to operate an ambulance service,” Perry wrote. “Presently, Cambridge officials have determined that Pro Ambulance, our local ambulance service, is the most appropriate service readily available to the Harvard community.”

Attendees also criticized what they called a scarcity of mental health counselors on campus. At a press conference last Monday, CPD Police Commissioner Branville G. Bard Jr. said the arrested student was at the time undergoing an evaluation at a hospital for issues including mental health concerns. That evaluation, Bard said, is “one of the reasons” the student had yet to be arraigned.

“It’s not proportionate to the community that is here,” Jordan said. “To have 40 folks to deal with the tens of thousands of people here is actually ridiculous.”

Perry wrote in the email that Counseling and Mental Health Services is in the process of adopting a new “model” in order to decrease wait times. He

clarified that CAMHS currently employs only 35 “staff.”

“This semester, CAMHS piloted a new model of care designed to provide therapy appointments in a timelier manner and reduce wait times on the day of service,” Perry wrote.

Jordan said she had attempted to make a counseling appointment earlier this year to help relieve the stress accompanied with taking the LSAT. “I wanted to see someone just before I took the exam, just to talk, to calm my nerves,” she recounted. “The first one they could give me was the Tuesday after the exam.”

Other attendees urged administrators to keep their focus on the arrested student, who remained in police custody as of Friday. Kacey E. Gill ’20, vice president of the Association of Black Harvard Women, said students must put “pressure” on the administration to “fight” for the undergraduate.

“There’s a lot of things that are still to be determined, as far as his life, and his life at Harvard goes,” Gill said.

“And just making sure that the administration is not losing sight of that and is not forgetting that they have a student that they have to fight for.”

Chimaoge C. Ibe ’20 said he was skeptical that administrators would listen to BSOC’s demands, which include the expedited hiring of black and brown counselors at CAMHS and the acquisition of a University-owned ambulance.

“I think we need to find a better way force their hand,” Ibe said.

Jordan agreed, calling Harvard a “business” and arguing that the University would heed students’ demands if it felt financial pressure for not doing so. Jordan specifically called on parents and alumni to “start calling” and leveraging donations to effect change.

“Harvard listens to money,” she said.

Black Students Organizing for Change Forms, Demonstrates protest From Page 1 The protesters passed out flyers instructing admitted students and parents who have safety concerns to call their admissions officer, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William R. Fitzsimmons ’67, or Director of Admissions Marilyn E. McGrath.

After 40 minutes—the amount of time protesters said matches the number of minutes it took Harvard University Police Department officers to arrive on scene after eyewitnesses called for help April 13—the demonstrators

We are asking you to make your students feel safe.

Hilda M. Jordan ‘19 Protest Organizer

stood side-by-side to completely surround University Hall. The students then observed a two-minute period of silence, corresponding to the amount of time they say it took HUPD to respond after the Cambridge Police Department contacted them following the arrest.

At the close of the two minutes, protest organizer Hilda M. Jordan ’19 tearfully initiated a chant of “Treat me,

don’t beat me.”

Jordan’s chant referred to the blows a CPD officer dealt the student during the arrest Friday. Three CPD officers and one Transit Police Department officer responded to calls about a naked man standing on Massachusetts Ave. around 9:09 p.m. April 13, the night of the College’s annual spring concert. In the altercation that followed, officers tackled the student to the ground before arresting the student—who was likely under the influence of narcotics—for charges including indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, assault, and resisting arrest.

A later CPD police report states the student clenched his fists and began making aggressive moves toward the officers, prompting them to tackle the undergraduate. But eyewitnesses of the incident—including members of the Harvard Black Law Students Association—have stated that CPD’s version of events is incorrect and that the officers acted “without provocation.”

A video of the incident later published by the New York Times shows the student standing still, surrounded by four officers, while the officers talk to him for several seconds. The student turns around and takes two steps towards one officer before taking a step back and raising his arms to chest-level. Another officer then tackles the student from behind.

While the student remained on the ground, at least one CPD officer punched the undergraduate in the stomach five times in an attempt to un-

pin the student’s arms and handcuff him, according to the CPD police report.

Harvard Law professors Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. and Dehlia Umunna, who lead the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute, are now legally representing the student.

Details about how the incident unfolded emerged in the days following the arrest—including the fact that student witnesses first contacted Harvard University Health Services, who contacted HUPD. HUPD then transferred HUHS to CPD. HUPD representative Steven G. Catalano said the student who was arrested at the intersection of Massachusetts Ave. and Waterhouse St., feet from Harvard Law School’s campus, was not standing on campus turf and was therefore outside HUPD’s jurisdiction. Spokespeople from both HUPD and HUHS have said the organizations followed proper protocol before and during the arrest.

BLSA has called the incident an instance of police brutality, and Cambridge Mayor Marc C. McGovern and University President Drew G. Faust later called the incident “disturbing.”

In their open letter, BSOC members criticize the University’s actions on the evening of April 13 and the protocols that guided them to contact CPD. The flyers protesters distributed Saturday listed a number of demands the group outlined in the open letter.

These demands call on the University to provide financial and academic support for the arrested student

Harvard, from the Law School to Longwood.

The Crimson thecrimson.com

and to publish a report on the events leading up to the student’s arrest. The group is also calling on the University to designate all drug and alcohol-related calls to HUHS as medical emergencies, to acquire a University-owned ambulance, and to expedite “hiring of Black and Brown counselors at Harvard Counseling and Mental Health Services.”

The group asks the University to agree via written statement by May 1 to implement these measures.

In an emailed statement Saturday, Harvard spokesperson Melodie L. Jackson referred to a message University president Drew G. Faust emailed to Harvard affiliates earlier this week.

“We will continue to build on the important discussions that have already taken place across the University since last week’s incident, including conversations involving students, faculty, leadership of the University, College, graduate schools, the HUPD and HUHS,” Jackson wrote.

Protesters reiterated demands listed in their open letter during the day Saturday.

“Harvard, we are calling you to develop a medical emergency response team that is responsive to students’ needs,” Jordan said to protesters and onlookers in the Yard. “We are asking you to get an ambulance. We are asking you to make your students feel safe, because black lives matter at Harvard, too.”

The students then began to chant together, “Black lives matter.”

“Harvard, your students are asking you to respond. We’re asking you to acknowledge our pain, our concerns, the fact that we do not feel safe here or anywhere,” Jordan said. “Harvard, what are you going to do?”

During the demonstration, Harvard Law student Akua F. Abu ’14 said in an interview she thinks it is important to showcase the mistakes and shortcomings of Harvard for prospective students.

“The students who are coming to Harvard should really understand that Harvard can be a great and supportive place, but Harvard has made mistakes and Harvard needs to do better,” Abu said.

In an interview, Jordan said she and BSOC members deliberately planned the protest to coincide with Visitas.

“We want them to know that their medical response team is a police unit that has limited jurisdiction that doesn’t extend to the sidewalk,” Jordan said. “If it affects a student’s choice to come here, then it’s something they should know.”

Admitted students who walked by the demonstration said they were “shocked” to learn about last Friday’s events.

“I’m pretty sad it happened at such a renowned institution like this, especially with this political climate surrounding Black Lives Matter and stuff,” prospective member of the Class of 2022 Toluwalope Moses said.

“You would think that wouldn’t happen here.”

The Harvard Crimson | April 23, 2018 | page 5

Harvard Undergrads Sit In To Support Gun Control By simone c. chu and Delano r. franklin Crimson Staff Writers

Roughly 100 College affiliates, visiting high schoolers, and Cambridge residents sat on the steps of Widener Library for three hours Friday as part of a nationwide demonstration against gun violence.

The demonstration, which took place on the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting, featured speeches from undergraduates, community activists—including Didi Delgado, the head of Black Lives Matter Cambridge—and faculty members.

The event began with a 96-second silence meant to represent the 96 gun-related deaths that occur in the United States each day on average.

Dean of Freshmen Thomas A. Dingman ’67 spoke at the event, advocating for gun control legislation. He suggested a series of proposals, including banning semi-automatic firearms, mandating stronger restrictions on firearms purchases and acquisitions, and holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for gun deaths.

“These steps may seem extreme, but the times call for action—real action,” Dingman said. “Our young people, who witnessed Parkland recently, know this fact.”

The event comes two months after a school shooting in Parkland, Fla. that killed 17 and sparked a nationwide movement for gun control. A number of campus organizations—including the Phillips Brooks House Association, the Harvard College Black Students Association, Harvard College Fuerza Latina, and Southerners Organizing ­

Urgent Transformation Through Harvard College—co-sponsored the event.

Te S. Palandjian ’21 and Leonardo A. Garcia ’21 coordinated the event.

“I think the stark lack of numbers also brought attention to steps we need to be taking towards building more of a groundwork for real activism on campus,” Palandjian said.

The organizers said they wanted to continue their push for gun reform.

“There will be more opportunities to push forward. We will be using this energy to be making more impact,” Garcia said. “This goes beyond the sitin.”

Palandjian said she and Garcia wanted to “set a standard of intersectionality” with the speakers they invited.

“I think this goes beyond gun reform into a protest of a different type,” Palandjian said. “I would urge people who are organizing all sorts of social reform to really press getting the right types of voices, and giving people who don’t always have a platform more of a platform.”

Cecilia Nuñez ’20 also highlighted the connections between gun control advocacy and other contemporary social movements.

“We need to have public support for things like Black Lives Matter in the same way we have public support for March for Our Lives,” Nuñez said.

Some students said they appreciated the diverse opinions speakers gave Friday.

“I think it was important to hear other people’s perspectives and understand the frustration and anger that comes from the brown and black communities,” said Anna L. Duffy ’21, who

Students gathered on Widener steps Friday morning as part of a national day of school walkouts to mark the 19th anniversary of the Columbine shooting. Kathryn s. kuhar—Crimson photographer

participated in the sit-in. “Their voices have not been heard in the past, and they’ve been battling with violence for decades—it wasn’t just Columbine or

school shootings for them.”

Last month, more than 100 Harvard students participated in Boston’s “March for Our Lives” protest. Sever-

al high school students from Parkland, Fla., who have led the recent anti-gun violence movement, also visited Harvard’s Institute of Politics in March.

Student Org Urges Prison Reform

By Ruth A. hailu and olivia c. scott Crimson Staff Writers

The Harvard Organization for Prison Education and Reform held a 24-hour demonstration last week to protest solitary confinement in correctional facilities.

During each hour of the “7x9” protest, a volunteer sat inside a 7-foot by 9-foot box made of tape, providing a visual representation of the small area allotted to prisoners placed in solitary confinement. The vigil took place in four separate locations on Harvard’s campus and began at 4 p.m.

“Someone’s sitting in the box, and they’re not using their phones, they’re not talking to anyone, and that’s representative of how someone who has been put in solitary confinement would have—the conditions that they would face,” said Beatrice H. Farb ’21, a member of HOPE. HOPE, a group under the Phillips Brooks House Association, runs a tutoring program for currently incarcerated youth, men, and women. HOPE volunteers also advocate for prison reform. In addition to the student sitting in the box, another volunteer stood nearby throughout the demonstration in order to educate passersby about solitary confinement and to ask bystanders to sign a petition urging the creation of a prison education program taught

by Harvard faculty. The proposed de­

Julia E. London ‘21 sits in a 7x9 ft box marked by blue tape on the floor to denote the size of a solitary confinement cell. jacqueline s. chea—Crimson photographer

gree-granting program would educate incarcerated individuals alongside Harvard College students.

The group previously co-sponsored a letter at a three-day event in March demanding that the University create this program for incarcerated people and lower barriers to admission for prospective Harvard students with criminal records. Leah S. Yared ’19, educational co-director of HOPE, said the organization is drafting a letter that it plans on presenting to University President-elect Lawrence S. Bacow, who will take office on July 1.

Learning alongside each other is something that would have really profound education impacts.

Sonya Karabel ‘18 Member of HOPE

“We had a letter that was written that will eventually be presented to President Bacow actually, so we were having people sign onto that,” said

Yared, who chairs The Crimson’s magazine. “It’s just trying to get people to feel empowered to take action on this subject.”

Sonya A. L. Karabel ’18, another member of HOPE, also spoke about the impact she thinks a prison education program would have on incarcerated individuals and Harvard students alike.

“I think that learning alongside each other is something that would have really profound educational impacts for everyone involved, and be really transformative, and also build positive social networks that I think people on both sides often don’t have the chance to create,” Karabel said.

HOPE also asked students to consider supporting the Massachusetts “Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Bill,” which includes some components addressing the criteria for solitary confinement. Yared said the group also hosted an event at the College’s annual admit weekend, known as Visitas. She said HOPE held a screening of “The Prison in Twelve Landscapes,” a documentary centered on the prison industrial complex. She said the group is interested in all issues related to criminal justice reform.

“It’s not always solitary-focused.

It’s really anything that has to do with criminal justice reform,” Yared said.

“The next semester will be setting up— and calling on the university to create—a prison education program.”

Admitted Students Get a Taste of Undergraduate Life at Visitas By delano r. franklin By samuel w. zwickel Crimson Staff Writer

­ porting red Harvard lanyards around S their necks, nearly 1,400 prospective members of the College’s Class of 2022 explored campus during the 2018 iteration of Visitas, attending seminars and getting to know potential future classmates.

Student organizations and the admissions office held a wide variety of events across campus as part of the weekend-long program hosted annually by the College to welcome admitted students to the school. Many admitted students stayed with current College students, allowing them a glimpse into sense of residential and social life at Harvard.

Admitted student Cathy K. Sun, who said she has committed to matriculating in the fall, said she appreciated going to student organizations’ events and experiencing campus culture at Visitas. “I think it’s been fantastic. I went to the [Institute of Politics] event and I went to the Harvard College Democrats and Republicans debate,” Sun said. “I think so far it definitely has appeared to me that Harvard is very much a cohesive community.”

The weekend’s festivities kicked off with a Saturday afternoon welcome address given by administrators. Prospective members of the Class of 2022 and their parents packed Sanders Theatre to capacity.

Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons ’67 welcomed visitors to the event and began his portion of the program by praising the quality of this year’s admitted students, whom he

said the admissions office knows have been “admitted everywhere.”

“Because we’ve read your applications so thoroughly, we know how good you are,” Fitzsimmons said. “You’re on the victory tour.”

Fitzsimmons then introduced outgoing University President Drew G. Faust, lauding milestones she achieved during her tenure and declaring she made the campus “a much, much better place” than it was 11 years ago.

“We’ve never had a better President—we never will have a better President at Harvard than Drew Faust,” Fitzsimmons said.

Faust then welcomed the students by asking the room to give a round of applause for the 66-member admissions committee that voted to admit them. “Let’s start out with a round of applause for those really smart people,” Faust said.

Faust highlighted the growth of the arts, the expansion of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and new opportunities for public service at Harvard. She also emphasized the importance of a campus environment where exploring opportunities forms “the heart of your experience.”

“If you come to Harvard, I hope you will come here ready to use it, ready to explore the feast of opportunities before you, and ready to make it your own,” Faust said.

Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana followed Faust’s speech in a “surprise” appearance, reciting the mission of the College before extolling the virtues of “the transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education.”

Prospective students met with representatives from several hundred

on-campus organizations at an extracurricular fair held at the Student Organization Center at Hilles Sunday afternoon. Many of the groups played music and handed out merchandise as admits wandered the stuffy, cacophonous hallways of the building.

At another point during the weekend, four professors discussed “big ideas” relating to their research in 10-minute presentations as part of a program titled “Visitas Thinks Big.” Approximately 850 students attended the Sanders Theatre event.

Director of Admissions Marlyn E. McGrath Lewis ’70 called the event a “performance,” introducing each professor as a “performer” offering insight into the interests driving faculty research on a day-to-day basis.

Jack M. Goodwin, an admitted student, said he particularly enjoyed the presentation given by computer science professor David J. Malan ’99.

Malan’s portion of the program included a demonstration of how algorithms can simplify otherwise laborious problem-solving tasks. One activity involved an audience self-count, which yielded a sum of 613 rather than 850—a result Malan added might be the consequence of a “bug.”

“I was very much sold on the CS50,” Goodwin said.

Max C. Serrano-Wu, another prospective student, said he appreciated the interactive nature of Malan’s talk and “the way he presented by including everyone.”

Though students said they enjoyed the scheduled Visitas events, several said they were surprised and concerned about recent campus unrest in the wake of the April 13 arrest of a black

The Harvard University Band welcomes students entering the Students Activities Fair at the SOCH Sunday afternoon. Kathryn s. kuhar—Crimson photographer

College student, which some have called an incident of police brutality.

Prospective students who entered Harvard Yard around noon Saturday encountered a demonstration of more than 200 Harvard students and affiliates, many with red duct tape over their mouths and signs in their hands.

The protesters were demonstrating

against University policies they say led to the Cambridge Police Department’s forcible arrest of the student.

A total of 1,962 out of 42,749 student applicants were admitted to the Class of 2022—making for a record-low admissions rate of 4.59 percent. Admitted students have until May 1 to respond to their offers of admission.

Page 6 | April 23, 2018 | The Harvard Crimson

Allston is far away.

That’s why we live tweet games.

The Crimson @THCSports

Grad Students Excited for Union reactions From Page 1 the end of Harvard’s second unionization election, held April 18 and 19 at polling sites in Cambridge, Allston, and Longwood. Over 3,500 eligible graduate and undergraduate research and teaching assistants cast ballots across the two days; ultimately, union advocates prevailed by a margin of 408 votes.

The installation of a student union at Harvard is unprecedented in University history.

National Labor Relations Board officials launched the marathon vote-counting session that decided the election at 9:40 a.m. Friday in the auditorium of the Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. Federal Building. Those present paced the room—a grey-walled, windowless semicircle lit by linear fluorescent bulbs—for hours, occasionally stopping to huddle in small circles or peer over the shoulders of NLRB staffers tallying ballots. Union organizers nervously munched glazed donuts for much of the morning.

Both union and University affiliates left nothing up to chance. Multiple individuals on both sides scored careful running tallies of each green ballot NLRB staffers unsealed in lined notebooks.

NLRB officials spent the first three hours of the day figuring out how to deal with ballots cast by voters whose eligibility had come into question.

But staffers resolved these dilemmas by 12:38 p.m., at which point many stepped out for a lunch break. Some sampled the offerings of a cafeteria located one floor above the auditorium— including dining on “imitation crab.”

Just before 2 p.m., the count began in earnest. NLRB staffers grouped the “Yes” and “No” votes into packs of 50 ballots each.

Representatives from Harvard and the union at this point began swarming the officials, peering at stacks of ballots, shushing reporters in the room, and breaking off in groups to speculate about the likely result.

Around 3 p.m., Switzer—who also presided over Harvard’s previous 2016 unionization election, which saw the opposite result—moved all ballots to the center of three faux-wood tables.

After six false starts, he announced a final tally of 1,931 ballots cast in favor of unionization and 1,523 against.

Just before 4 p.m., Switzer asked representatives from Harvard and the union to sign a document officially certifying the result.

In the aftermath Friday, union organizer Justin Bloesch said support-

ers feel “super pumped and really excited.”

“We’ve put in a lot of work, and I think through our organizing, we’ve seen how students want a say, a say in their workplace and a say in collective bargaining,” Bloesch said.

The campaign to form a graduate student union at Harvard stretches back to 2013—for many organizers, spanning their entire tenure at the University.

Organizer Marena Lin said she thinks the result will improve quality of life for graduate and undergraduate students in Cambridge.

“No student should ever feel alone now in what they’re facing at the University, and that’s a really big deal,” she said.

Several union organizers declined to comment Friday on their plans to celebrate the victory.

But one reveler let slip that union advocates spent Friday night at a familiar locale: Cambridge Queen’s Head Pub, one of the main polling sites during the election.

Not all students shared in the revelry.

Noah Bloch, a graduate student who opposed Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Worker’s effort to unionize, wrote in an email he finds the result “hard to accept.”

“This election should have been about coming together as a university and deciding whether unionization would help us achieve the change we want at Harvard,” Bloch wrote. “Instead, the union ran its campaign in a way that has fractured students into winners and losers.”

Mark R. Lipstein, an opponent of unionization, said he feels “resigned” to the reality of the union. He said he thinks students who opposed unionization “lacked the resources” available to HGSU-UAW. “At this point it was just a death by a thousand cuts because they could keep running elections, they had so many resources, they were buying advertisements,” Lipstein said.

“The resources they had in comparison to people who were against it, who had pretty much just a Facebook group and posters that got torn down anyway, led to a recognition that this was going to happen someday,” he added.

Going forward, union organizers hope to bring “No” voters into the fold through a shared desire to make the University “better to do teaching and better to do work,” HGSU-UAW organizer Abraham J. Waldman said Friday.

“It’s their union; it’s our union too,”

organizer Gabriel L. Schwartz said.

“They may have disagreed with us about the best way to make the University better, but now we have this vehicle, and we’re excited for them to participate just as much as we are.”

In the days following the election, union organizers at other universities praised the outcome of the vote. Steven Manicastri, a union organizer at the University of Connecticut, wrote in an emailed statement that organizers at Graduate Employees of UConn-United Automobile Workers “welcome HGSU’s teaching and research assistants to the UAW family.”

“We congratulate them on their amazing campaign, and on their perseverance. We stand with them in solidarity on improving the working conditions of student workers across the country, and wish them a speedy timeline to a fair contract,” he wrote.

Columbia union organizer Olga Brudastova wrote in an email she thinks the vote strengthens graduate students’ ability to fight for bargaining power nationwide.

Columbia graduate students will likely begin striking on April 24 in response to the Columbia administration’s refusal to bargain with its newly authorized union.

“Neither elite administrator campaigns against unionization... nor the Trump labor board can stop the growing momentum among RAs and TAs for the right to bargain, stronger recourse on sexual harassment, dependent benefits, and other improvements that will make our universities more just and inclusive,” she wrote.

Three lawyers from Morgan, Brown, and Joy—a law firm retained by the University—who were present at the count declined to comment on the result.

University attorney Elizabeth Seaman also declined to comment.

Seaman declined a slightly different request Friday, seconds after Switzer declared the final tally.

A union organizer approached Seaman right after the announcement with one dollar and 44 cents in hand; a reference to the 1.44 percent base rate for UAW dues.

It is unclear what Seaman said, but the organizer retained the $1.44 when he walked away.

Staff writer Shera S. Avi-Yonah can be reached at shera.avi-yonah@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter at @saviyonah.

Staff writer Molly C. McCafferty can be reached at molly.mccafferty@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter at @mollmccaff.

Humanities And Social Sciences Students Supportive of Union poll From Page 1 ballot in the unionization election, The Crimson collected exit surveys from 1,295 voters—representing more than a third of the voting population.

The 23-question surveys asked students how they voted, various demographic questions, and their views on various campus issues. The surveys were later processed electronically with open-source software.

Exit poll data showed that Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences students overwhelmingly voted in favor of unionization. Of survey respondents, 91.1 percent of Arts and Humanities students and 88.5 percent of Social Sciences students voted prounion, respectively.

By comparison—of survey respondents—49.2 percent of Sciences students and 28.2 percent of SEAS students voted in favor of unionization.

The Crimson did not adjust these results for response bias (see our methodology below).

Broadly, exit polling data also suggested students in their mid to late thirties were most likely to vote in favor of unionization, while students in their late teens and early twenties were least likely to vote in favor of unionization.

A significant majority of respondents between the ages of 32 and 39— 89.1 percent—voted to unionize. Slightly less than half, or 47.5 percent, of respondents between the ages of 18 and

22 voted in favor of unionization.

Respondents between the ages or 23 and 28 and between the ages of 29 and 33 voted pro-union at 66.6 percent and 82.6 percent, respectively. Of respondents over 40, 73.7 percent voted to unionize.

Respondents from the Kennedy School and the Graduate School of Education favored unionization by the greatest percentage—with 91 and 90.4 percent yes votes, respectively—while respondents from the the Medical School were the least likely to vote yes, at 38.5 percent.

In addition to the Kennedy School and Ed School, four other schools saw a majority of affiliated respondents vote in support of unionization.

School of Public Health respondents voted yes at a rate of 88.7 percent, Law School respondents at a rate of 88.5 percent, Graduate School of Design respondents at 80.7 percent, and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences respondents at 66.4 percent.

By contrast, a majority of respondents from the College and from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences—which includes the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences—voted against unionization.

Of respondents falling into these categories, less than half—or 48.5 percent—voted to unionize.

The number of survey respondents affiliated with the Dental School, the Business School, the Divinity School, and the Extension School was too

small to generate reliable data on the students’ voting patterns.

Women were slightly more likely to favor unionization than men, according to the exit polling data.

Of survey respondents who identified as female, 73.9 percent voted in favor of unionization, compared to 64.8 percent of respondents who identified as men.

Exit polling data also suggests new voters were more likely to support unionization than those who voted in Harvard’s first unionization election, held Nov. 2016.

Of respondents who reported voting in the last election, 64.9 percent said they voted pro-union this time, compared to 76.2 percent of those who reported they had not voted in the last election.

The final results of the 2016 election saw more votes against unionization than in favor. But lawyers for HGSU-UAW later challenged that outcome, leading to more than a year of legal battles between Harvard and pro-union advocates. The National Labor Relations Board ultimately sided with the union, mandating in Jan. 2018 that the University must hold a second election.

Of respondents who reported voting in the last election, 11.7 percent reported changing their vote between the 2018 election and the 2016 iteration. Of those who reported changing their mind, 78.8 percent indicated they voted in favor of unionization this

time.

These shifts in support for unionization likely influenced the final tally—at least in part.

After the last ballot was tallied Friday, the 1,523 ballots recorded as cast against unionization remained roughly constant compared to the 1,526 “No” votes students cast in the Nov. 2016 election.

By contrast, the number of ballots cast in favor of unionization increased by roughly 500: rising from 1,396 votes in the Nov. 2016 election to 1,931 votes in April 2018.

METHODOLOGY

The data presented in this story is entirely sourced from the exit poll of eligible voters The Crimson conducted during the two days of the April 2018 unionization election.

Crimson analysis of the raw exit poll data indicated voters in favor of unionization were more likely to fill out the survey than were voters who voted against unionization. Specifically, The Crimson calculated an oversampling factor of 1.32 for respondents who reported voting “yes.” The Crimson’s survey specifically asked students whether they voted in the Nov. 2016 election and, if so, whether they had changed their mind on unionization since the first vote.

Using the responses to these questions, The Crimson calculated the 32 percent oversampling by taking the percentage of respondents who re-

Like The Crimson on Facebook.

ported they voted yes in both the April 2018 and Nov. 2016 elections (out of all respondents who voted in the Nov. 2016 election and indicated they did not change their minds in the interim), then dividing it by the actual percentage of voters who voted in favor of unionization in Nov. 2016. The Crimson utilized this response bias factor, in addition to a geographic correction that reweighted the data by polling site, to infer that approximately 50.6 percent of eligible voters who cast ballots April 18 and 19 voted in favor of unionization.

The official vote count Friday revealed that roughly 56 percent of those who cast ballots voted in favor in unionization, leading to an overall oversampling factor of 1.23.

Unless otherwise indicated, the data reported in this story is the raw data from the survey and has not been corrected for this apparent response bias.

Crimson editors Brian P. Yu and Phelan Yu conducted data analysis for this story.

Questions regarding the survey or methodology can be directed to brian.yu@thecrimson.com and phelan.yu@thecrimson.com.

Staff writer Shera S. Avi-Yonah can be reached at shera.avi-yonah@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter at @saviyonah.

Staff writer Molly C. McCafferty can be reached at molly.mccafferty@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter at @mollmccaff

The Harvard Crimson | april 16, 2018 | page 7

Allston is far away.

Let us bring the action to you.

Never miss a play.

The Crimson @THCSports

EDITORIAL

The Harvard Crimson | April 23, 2018 | page 8

The Crimson Editorial board

March for Our Lives is Great, But Not Enough

Against Stifling Professional Service

I

t is taken for granted at Harvard that, despite being employed at an educational institution, professors are not always committed to spending significant time educating and advising undergraduates. As a result, we support the sentiment behind the University’s efforts to try and emphasize undergraduate education and student-teacher relationships. However, we cannot endorse the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new policy limiting the amount of time professors may dedicate to public service work outside the University.

The policy, which was recently approved by Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith, limits professors’ public service work to 20 percent of their “total professional effort.” Professors who exceed this limit must take a maximum of two years leave. In addition, the policy prevents professors from engaging in service that might shift their “primary professional loyalty” away from the University.

In large part, a Harvard education is as powerful as it is because professors provide knowledge that exceeds what can be learned in a textbook or online.

Professors at the University teach not only from pedagogy, but also from experience and time spent in the field. Just as creative writing students relish the opportunity to study under published authors and business students look up to professors who practice entrepreneur-

ship in real life, students of the social sciences and other related fields stand to gain the most from professors who apply their research in the real world of public service.

Furthermore, professors come to Harvard not merely to research and teach but to contribute to the world beyond Cambridge. By limiting the amount of time professors are allowed to allot to public service, Harvard limits the amount to which research can be extended to promote real societal change.

Consider the case of Professor of History and African and African American Studies Caroline M. Elkins. While a professor at Harvard, she not only performed groundbreaking research on the atrocities committed by the British against the Mau Mau people of Kenya, but then went on to contribute as an expert witness in a lawsuit filed against the British government on behalf of elderly Kenyans. In part because she was able to secure tenure at Harvard, she was able to not only research the plight of the Mau Mau but also contribute to the proceeding that would help ensure justice for them so many years later.

Elkins is not alone. History Professor Nancy F. Cott’s instrumental role in the legal proceedings that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 is a another case of critical public service work that might have been impeded by the new policy.

It does not help that the terms of the

policy seem somewhat arbitrary. Utilizing 20 percent of one’s “total professional effort” as a standard by which to judge a faculty member seems unhelpful. While we understand that the policy is meant to leave room for the consideration of different circumstances and contingencies that might affect individual cases, we believe that the 20 percent threshold renders the policy vague.

Thus, while the policy should not exist, a more individualized threshold would be a better method by which to assess whether a faculty member’s “primary professional loyalty” is to Harvard.

While we, of course, want professors to remain involved in the Harvard community, we also recognize that the best professors—both as educators and as public intellectuals—are those who think actively about how their research can be used to make the world a better place.

Harvard should stand behind these professors taking pride in the experiential wisdom they bring to our campus and the commitment to service they carry beyond it.

By Jessenia N. Class

A

ings of liberal guilt, anger, and disbelief regarding 2016 election results. These feelings are reflected through language choices, including terms such as “psychological warfare,” hack[ing] Facebook, and “cyberwarfare for elections.” But analogous to 2016 election results, the outcome was unfavorable but fairly obtained. Cambridge Analytica worked, as any other firm could have worked, within the bounds of Facebook itself. Facebook’s impartiality, a fine virtue for a business intent on information distribution and network formation, was its crime.

Perhaps the outrage, the insistence on a regulation breach, is a form of liberal self-absolution. By claiming the battleground was rigged, we allow ourselves to place blame for political outcomes externally. But the Cambridge Analytica model targeted already vulnerable people.

Regardless of political tactic, we liberals must contend with the ways in which our political interaction with broader society alienated the electorate sourcing Cambridge Analytica’s model’s success, causing some to vote even against their own rational interests. The existence of conservative technological tactics does not disqualify the root cause of political transformation. The questions we should contend with from this case are less partisan. What price do consumers pay for free association? What is the process of creating ethics around technology? In what ways do we use tools, and in what ways do tools use us? These concerns address the nature of consent, public use, and information in a rapidly changing world, which affects all involved, not just those who are politically unhappy.

bout two months ago, my father drove my mother to the gun range. She’s a security guard for an elementary school in our town, and after the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman High School in Parkland, Fla., the hallways had become tense. A coffee-stained rumor from the teacher’s lounge has it that the district’s Board of Education might mandate security start carrying weapons.

She decided that, to be as prepared and knowledgeable of this potential work requirement as possible, she should learn to handle a gun. My mother, affectionately called “Miss Maria” by doting fifth graders who give her hand-written cards and friendship bracelets, thought she needed to learn what the recoil of a Colt 1911 felt like to keep her students safe.

This should never have happened.

Last month, cities erupted in protests. March for Our Lives, pioneered by Parkland survivors and today’s youth, took the country by the throat. To make sure that tragedies like Columbine, like Newtown, like Parkland, and like dozens of others don’t happen again, protesters called for public officials to heed their voices and their stories to pass stricter gun-control laws. Already we’ve seen that these protests have had tangible effects in government: Florida Governor Rick Scott signed off on multiple different gun laws such as raising the minimum age of purchase to 21, increasing purchasing restrictions, funding mental health services and police officers for schools, and allowing school staff such as librarians, counselors, and coaches to carry weapons. Save the last point, these are steps in the right direction to putting an end to these tragic schools shootings.

Yet, perhaps these preventative measures and these protests aren’t big enough. Or maybe—more aptly—they’re too big.

Don’t get me wrong; large scale change is not only great, but necessary. To enact lasting institutional change, we must start at the national level and alter the foundation on which states and public To enact lasting schools operate to have a widespread institutional change, and standardized effect. However, waitwe must start at the ing for this legal pronational level and cess to run its course alter the foundation on through the federal takes time. which states and public system While change pitter-patters and trickschools operate to its way down to have a widespread and les local governance, schools are left to standardized effect. their own devices to determine what approaches are best to protect their students, and students are left to determine how best to capture national movements in their own hallways. When this happens, treatment of the gun violence problem in schools can become inconsistent and leave room for mistakes to be made.

For instance, one school district decided that equipping classrooms with buckets of rocks to fend off possible school shooters was the best move. To many more, treating the problem of gun violence translates to hiring more security and thrusting upon them the sudden responsibility of handling firearms without the proper hundreds of hours of training that even the military requires of its soldiers, nonetheless mundane civilians taking care of kids (like my mothWithout smaller er). community changes Students trying to first, ensuring student galvanize action in local commusafety becomes much their nities participated in the National School more difficult.

Walkout Day; many, including those in my hometown, also took their concerns to local town halls to affect change. Even at Harvard, students take it into their own hands to implement local change. They organize Institute of Politics events to discuss gun control, protest on the streets, and demand that Harvard make its stance on these protests clear for future students and increase its gun violence research. Though these are all admirable actions, it is not enough for students to address the issue sporadically and on their own accord; it places an unreasonably high burden on the shoulders of young people to do everything themselves. There needs to be more guidance and participation in local governance to enact and make change tangible in everyday life.

If communities took initiative to implement effective preventative measures on a local level, this would have a higher chance of affecting real change for school and college students.

This would allow for efforts to be initiated and standardized more swiftly than if they were left purely to the national level. It could also incentivize more dialogue and conversation that could even help communities to find alternatives to giving their staff guns (because although Trump thinks security guards don’t love their students if they don’t carry guns, having a firearm actually increases the risk for violence). This is especially important in school districts like mine where most students come from minority backgrounds: On average, Hispanic or Latinx students are twice, and black students three times as likely to experience gun violence at school.

Security guards like my mother and students like those in my hometown, though, are not unique; all over the country, there are regular people willing to go into immediate and immense lengths to enact visible change in their communities.

We need to harness the emotion and the fervor fanning these protests, these movements, and these larger legislative changes to ensure that they are being adequately and appropriately implemented on the local level so that tragedies like Parkland never happen again. Without smaller community changes first, ensuring student safety becomes much more difficult.

Christina M. Qiu ‘19 lives in Mather House. Her column appears on alternate Mondays.

Jessenia N. Class ’20, a Crimson Associate Editorial Editor, is a Cognitive Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psychology concentrator in Quincy House.

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.

SKY RUSSELL—Crimson ILLUSTRATOR

When Technology Becomes an Institution Christina M. QIU new romantix

T

echnology never had a bad rap.

Technology was Marx’s revolutionary weapon of choice, Keynes’s liberation from labor, and Solow’s panacea to national growth. As a Generation Z-er, I understood technology as dogma—to be against technology was to be against the world as we left it, knew it, and foresaw it. Technology equated itself to innovation, which in a simple narrative arc implied progress.

Progress meant longer lives, more access to information, and greater freedoms of association. We watched documentaries on the Human Genome Project while scoffing at apocalyptic representations of its Gattaca-style implications; we embraced big data as new armor to confront the black box of our world. We fake-read Terms of Agreements, privacy settings, delineations of risk, because progress also meant rapidity. Social media sites flew in and out of style. Phones became large, then small, then large again. Scientists even claimed that technology reshaped our brains, which reshaped technology in a continuous feedback loop. As students, we bought into this vision of technological fortitude excessively—counselors, parents, and peers told us to major in technology-related fields precisely because we had no clue where technology would be by the time we graduated.

The previous statements seem outdated, and indeed, 2018 is a decidedly morally ambiguous year for technology. I would posit that before Cambridge Analytica’s perpetual newsfeed coverage, before Mark Zuckerberg stated that Facebook committed a “major breach of trust,” and before Steven K. Bannon attempted to make Crocs cool (metaphorically), the setting for such fear was placed prettily. Years ago, Ellen Pao destroyed the perception of Silicon Valley as an innocuous tech geek haven in her widely publicized workplace sexual harassment case. Last year, credit reporting firm Equifax reported a data leak involving sensitive financial information of 145.5 million Americans; two weeks ago, Saks and Lord & Taylor was hacked, leaking card information of customers.

Here, magnitude is the distinguishing factor. 8.2 million people watched the

first season of Netflix series “Stranger Things” about a chemistry lab that kidnapped, trafficked, and abused children with psychokinetic powers; “Black Mirror,” an Emmy-winning show examining the unintentional consequences of new technology such as rating systems and streaming sites, premiered its fourth season during Christmas break. In January, the possibility of a cryptocurrency boom placed the potential for a decentralized and unregulated monetary system, and thus a destabilized social response, on the table. Though many did not discuss cryptocurrency in everyday conversation outside of its get-rich-quick potential, advocates gushed on about the circulation’s existence outside of legislation.

Cryptocurrency’s philosophical appeal was anti-establishment. But perhaps the unapologetic rush of businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs to become the new establishment created its lukewarm ideological perception. In these examples, technology asserts itself as the connecting factor between private objectives and public outcomes, establishment problems and anti-establishment solutions, deregulated presents and new regime futures. By playing multiple foundational institutions against each other—most notably, business and government—technology is regarded as an institution itself, capable without intention of obstructing human life as it should have ideally proceeded.

Any conversation involving an institutional thematic—such as government, business, or religion—can be expected to include high doses of skepticism in a post-Obama and post-recession political setting. The conversation on technology is no exception. The rise of Jordan B. Peterson as a Canadian right figure on the basis of ideologically underwhelming principles like “Be precise in your speech” may be symptomatic of a public yearning for life-sized doctrines to abide by. A technological equivalent would be an individual call to retreat from social media platforms and to enforce personal privacy settings. We hope that such common-sense retorts will shape a functional response to fear—but we also know this response is too defeatist and too regressive for a world that develops regardless of our comfort. Technology is a tool, not a doctrine. Thus the conversation should surround the tool’s use, not how we respond to its shadow.

The outrage against Cambridge Analytica—insistence on manipulation, lack of privacy, and disregard of consent—is catalyzed and reinforced by residual feel-

The Harvard Crimson President Derek G. Xiao ’19 Managing Editor Hannah Natanson ’19 Business Manager Nathan Y. Lee ’19

The University Daily, Est. 1873 Associate Managing Editors Mia C. Karr ’19 Claire E. Parker ’19

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

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

Associate Business Managers Dahlia S. Huh ’19 Max W. Sosland ’19

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

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

Editorial Chairs Emmanuel R. R. D’Agostino ’19 Cristian D. Pleters ’19

Digital Strategists Caroline S. Engelmayer ’20 Jamie D. Halper ’20 Dianne Lee ’20

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

Arts Chairs Mila Gauvini II ’19 Grace Z. Li ’19

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

Sports

The Harvard Crimson | April 23, 2018 | page 9

Harvard Conquers Dartmouth Twice on Senior Day Softball

By Jack stockless Crimson Staff Writer

With Dartmouth visiting town for the final regular season home series at Soldiers Field, Harvard softball celebrated Senior Day after the conclusion of play on Saturday. The festive atmosphere and a solid contingent of Crimson fans must have worked wonders, as Harvard took the first two games of the series, including an 11th-inning walkoff victory in the first.

“We knew this was going to be a really big weekend for us and that Dartmouth was a strong team in the Ivy League,” said junior third baseman Erin Lockhart. “Taking the series was huge for us and it motivates us for what we have left in our season.”

DARTMOUTH 3, HARVARD 1 The Big Green (16-16, 10-5 Ivy) salvaged one win in the final game of the weekend, scoring three times in the top of the first and holding off the Crimson (20-13, 13-5) the rest of the way.

Harvard was never able to overcome Dartmouth’s big first-inning push. After conceding a leadoff walk to second baseman Micah Schroder, Crimson pitcher Olivia Giaquinto got the next two batters on a fly out to right and a called strike three. Giaquinto walked another Big Green batter before right fielder McKenna Gray stepped to the plate. The righty deposited a three-run homer over the fence in left field.

In one swing, Dartmouth scored more runs than it had in the previous 15 innings combined.

The Big Green’s senior-freshman pitching duo of Breanna Ethridge and Heather Turner combined to limit Harvard to just three hits and did not issue any free passes. Ethridge punched out four Crimson in the first three innings, and Turner followed with four shutout frames to earn her seventh win of 2018.

Harvard scored its lone run in the bottom of the fourth. Co-captain Maddy Kaplan led off with a double into right field, and after she advanced to third on a wild pitch, Lockhart matched her feat and laced an RBI double to right.

HARVARD 4, DARTMOUTH 1 Unlike in the highly contentious game one, the Crimson cruised to a 4-1 victory in game two on Saturday. Backed by timely hitting up and down the lineup and dominant pitching, Harvard clinched the series victory just before its Senior Day celebration.

over the hill Junior pitcher Sarah Smith was dominant over the weekend against the Big Green, tossing eight shutout innings as pitcher. kathryn s. kuhar—Crimson photographer

“I think we had a sense of confidence late in [game one] in that we knew we would get the job done,” Lockhart said.

“When we did get the win, we wanted to use that as fuel to keep going and win the second game of the day.”

After going 3-for-6 in the opener, junior shortstop Rhianna Rich kicked off this contest by ripping a double into left field. She came around to score the first run of the afternoon on a pair of groundouts.

Neither team would score again until the fifth, when the Crimson tacked on two more runs courtesy of some small ball.

Coach Jenny Allard threw a righthander at Dartmouth, which had just seen 11 innings of southpaw pitching from junior Katie Duncan. Junior Sarah Smith followed up Duncan’s stellar performance in game one with five shutout innings to start the back end

of the doubleheader. Smith struck out five and allowed just two hits and two walks.

The teams traded runs in the sixth.

In the top of the inning, Big Green third baseman Morgan Martinelli hammered a solo homer to left field. Harvard countered in the bottom half of the frame by plating a run on a bases-loaded walk drawn by freshman center fielder Alyssa Saldana.

Despite throwing until her arm nearly fell off in game one, Duncan was good for two innings of relief in this contest. The junior spelled sophomore Alissa Hiener and recorded the final six outs, nabbing a one-hopper hit by Tiffany Dyson and throwing on to first to end the ballgame.

HARVARD 6, DARTMOUTH 5 Eleven innings. Forty-seven batters faced. One huge extra-innings win.

Duncan was a machine in the series opener. The junior battled through some early struggles and rattled off five consecutive scoreless innings to close out the game. Four of these frames were in extra innings, and in those innings she allowed just two baserunners.

“Any time I might have felt tired, I was inspired by my teammates’ hard work each and every inning in order to make incredible defensive plays or adjustments within their at bats,” Duncan said.

With a 5-5 stalemate lasting into the bottom of the 11th, junior second baseman Meagan Lantz got things started by reaching base on an error by Dartmouth shortstop Calista Almer. Lantz promptly stole second—her 13th stolen base of the season—and ended up at third after another error, this time by catcher Schae Nelson. The Crim-

son took advantage of these two fielding miscues, as Rich knocked an infield single to shortstop and Lantz raced home with the winning run.

“It took a lot of fortitude and confidence for us to play 11 innings against Dartmouth and ultimately walk away with a team win,” Duncan said.

Duncan struck out seven batters in a start for the second time this season, also matching her career high. Including her relief appearance in the second game, Duncan lowered her ERA to 2.53, recording her 13th win and third save of the season in the process.

In the bottom of the first, Lockhart started the scoring for Harvard by launching a home run to right-center. The junior leads the team with five round-trippers.

Staff writer Jack Stockless can be reached at jack.stockless@thecrimson.com.

Harvard Competes in Medley of Races, Wins Haines Cup

Waterboys The crew teams continue to rack up cup wins and top finishes during the season. Ellis j. yeo—Crimson photographer Crew

By Leon k. yang Crimson Staff Writer

“One if by land, and two if by sea”—so goes the legend of Paul Revere’s strategy to warn revolutionary soldiers of the British Army’s approach. Unlike these soldiers, however, Navy failed to accurately predict the attack of Harvard men’s lightweight crew.

Recently reaching the top echelon of the rankings, the No. 1 ranked squad did what it has continued to do the whole season, edging out the Midshipmen by a second on a beautiful day on the Severn River this weekend in Annapolis, Maryland.

The Crimson entered Saturday vying for the Haines cup against No. 7 Navy and No. 6 Delaware and continued their impressive stretch of cup wins and unbeaten start to the season.

The first varsity boat, stroked by junior David Wexner and steered by junior coxswain Jack Stone, countered a late Midshipmen sprint in the last couple hundred of meters to win in 6:04.1 to Navy’s close 6:05.3. For Stone, the race was certainly not an easy one to capture.

“Navy is always a really tough team and especially on their own course,” Stone said. “They have this incredible that they always do in the last 600

meters when you reach their seawall, which is a wall that marks 600 meters to go. So we were leading them from the first stroke and they were tough racers the entire time and has a great sprint, but we just edged them out. It was a great race.”

The competitive day of racing continued with tight races throughout. In a true race of margins, Harvard’s fifth varsity boat barely finished ahead of the Midshipmen by half a second. This win proved to be the difference in the overall points trophy, which the Crimson won three races to two.

“Last year, we didn’t win the points trophy at Navy,” Stone said. “The first two boats and the bottom three boats lost, and you need to win three out of the five boats to win this trophy, so since Navy is especially a tough team in the lower boats, it was awesome to see the fifth boat win and bring home the trophy, so we got both trophies this weekend.”

Back home on the Charles River, in beautiful weather that could only instill misconceptions of Cambridge meteorology to pre-frosh at Visitas, the No. 6 Radcliffe women’s sparred against No. 7 MIT and No. 2 Boston University.

Although besting the Engineers in all four races, the Black and White fell to the Terriers. Boston University collected the Beanpot while Harvard settled with the Muri Cup. In the first varsity eight, the Terriers finished in 7:12.3, eight seconds in front of the Crimson boat, steered by junior coxswain McKenzie Parks and stroked by senior Alanah Anderson, and 14 seconds ahead of the Engineers. Boston University rowed six seconds faster than the rest of the field in all four races.

On the Housatonic River in Connecticut, the No. 16 Radcliffe heavyweight women’s team battled its Ancient Eight rival in No. 5 Yale along with Northeastern. The Bulldogs comfortably won all five races on the day and in doing so emerged with the Case Cup. The Black and White did not leave empty-handed however; by taking four of five races from the Huskies, Harvard took the Rowlands trophy.

The two varsity eight races were closely contested between the Black and White and Northeastern. In the

first varsity race, Radcliffe’s boat, steered by senior coxswain Kaitlyn Felsheim and stroked by sophomore Grace Eysenbach, brushed past the Huskies in 6:10.1 by only a margin of 1.3 seconds. The second varsity race told a similar story, with the Black and White finishing less than a second in front of its Northeastern opponent in 6:21.8.

Joining its lightweight counterparts in Maryland, the No. 6 Harvard men’s heavyweight crew battled No. 15 Penn and No. 16 Navy, winning both the Adams Cup and Clothier trophy.

“The latter of the two is a points trophy,” said senior captain Conor Harrity, who sat in the third seat of the first varsity eight. “So it’s our 1V, 2V, 3V, 4V, 5V all contribute to that cup, so in that aspect, it’s a pretty important race, so we really built up during the week focusing on the execution of our race, and we went out there on Saturday and across the board, I think we had some great finishes.”

Harvard dominated the first varsity eight, in 5:59.7, almost seven seconds ahead of Penn and 10 seconds ahead of Navy. Steered by senior coxswain Cole Durbin and stroked by junior Arthur Doyle, the Crimson came strong out of the start and never let up.

“We have been building over the last couple of weeks on setting different rhythms out of the blocks and really attacking and being as aggressive as possible throughout the entire piece, and I think early on, our stern pair did a great job of setting a fantastic rhythm and we were pretty aggressive,” Harrity said. “We were able to extend our lead pretty early on and we just built through the entire piece on that really solid rhythm.”

Harrity takes the wins this weekend in stride and hopes to continue developing faster boats come significant races later in the season.

“Just looking to build speed, continue to progress week to week as we head into Eastern Sprints in a couple of weeks, the IRA which is about five weeks after that, and then finally we have Harvard-Yale,” Harrity said.

“We’re looking to improve each week and build our speed come the championship season.”

Staff writer Leon K. Yang can be reached at leon.yang@thecrimson.com.

Sports

The Harvard Crimson | April 23, 2018 | page 10

Harvard Wins Program’s First EIVA Championship men’s volleyball

By Cade Palmer Crimson Staff Writer

Founded in 1981, the Harvard men’s volleyball team has played the sport for 37 years. Prior to 2012, the team had never been recognized on a national poll. In that year, the group lost in the semi-final round of the EIVA tournament. On Saturday, the 2018 Crimson men’s volleyball team won that tournament and advanced to the inaugural round of the NCAA Tournament with only five other teams.

In a 3-1 decision over Princeton (12-16, 7-7 EIVA) at George Mason’s Recreation Athletic Complex, Harvard (13-13, 10-4) clinched its first ever EIVA Championship title and punched its subsequent first ever ticket to the NCAA Tournament. In the 37 years prior, the closest the team had ever gotten was an EIVA finals appearance once before.

“It’s an honor and a privilege to be part of this team that gets to make history and travel to the NCAA tournament,” sophomore Jack Connolly said.

“Our team really came together this year after a tough stretch earlier in the season and we’re really proud of what we have accomplished thus far.”

On the heels of the victory, the Crimson flies out to Los Angeles, Calif., to take on the host team, UCLA (24-7, 9-3 Mountain Pacific), in the inaugural round of the NCAA tournament. Harvard has played the Bruins once before in 2017, and was beaten soundly 3-0.

The NCAA appearance comes after the Crimson’s second trip to Fairfax, Va., in less than a week. Taking on George Mason in a double header the week prior, Harvard’s EIVA semi-final and championship bouts took place in a gym that was, by now, familiar territory.

For this second victory, finishing strong was the ultimate factor for the team. In the second set of the match, with one win already under its belt, the Crimson took the slight advantage when it achieved a four-point run, pushing the early score to 5-2.

The Tigers called a timeout and got things back on track. Harvard pushed the game to a two point margin at 9-11 but never again did the either team go ahead by more than one point until the score hit 24-24.

At the marker, with two consecutive kills by the Crimson, one from senior Brad Gretsch and the ensuing one by sophomore Erik Johnsson, the team took the second set. The pair of outside hitters both led the team in kills, with 16 apiece. The mark represented

third time shine The Harvard men’s volleyball program has lined up opposite of Princeton three times this season and won every time. Timothy r. o’meara—Crimson photographer

a new high for Johnsson. Senior Marko Kostich and sophomore Matthew Ctvrtlik tabbed eight and six kills, respectively.

In a similarly paced fourth stanza, Harvard found a similarly productive last few points. Aside from a threepoint the Crimson run in the middle of the set, the play was relatively even throughout. At 18-18, Princeton pushed ahead. Down 22-20, three points stood between Harvard and its NCAA debut.

The team converted. Kostich downed a kill and was followed in suit by Johnsson. An attack error by the Tiger’s Parker Dixon sealed the deal for the Crimson, 25-23.

Across all four sets, junior Trevor Dow had a career night. Leading the team in blocks with four, the junior was incredibly accurate on the offensive portion of the game. Slamming a career-high 12 kills coupled with zero errors, Dow led the team with a .800 hitting percentage. Johnsson was the next closest clocking a .560 hitting percentage.

The third set represented the highest win margin throughout the four segments of the match, with Princeton carrying the win at 25-17. Harvard won the first set with a score of 25-20.

“This group of players is full of true competitors that love the sport of volleyball and give it their all no matter what,” co-captain Jack Heavey said.

“We’ve also built on the success of past years, so this is not only a victory for this group of guys but HMV alumni as well.”

At libero, sophomore Chase Howard led the team in digs with 11, while Kostich and Gretsch registered eight and nine, respectively.

When the dust settled, and the Crimson lifted the trophy, Gertsch’s 30 kills and .378 attack percentage across the two games earned him the tournament’s Most Outstanding Player award. Alongside the senior was classmates, co-captain Riley Moore and Kostich.

That the Tigers and Harvard would even play each other for a chance at the

nation’s top collegiate volleyball tournament was a rare occasion. Princeton entered the tournament with a number four seed and seven conference losses. It faced a George Mason team with one conference loss to match. The Tigers dethroned the top ranked team in four sets.

“Princeton’s a great team this year,” Connolly said. “To be able to sweep the season series 3-0 says a lot about how we all battled every day in practice since Jan 3.”

For the Crimson, getting to the championship match was no cakewalk either. The team had to best a Penn State program it had beaten twice in 37 years, and it did. The win set the stage for an Ivy versus Ivy championship bout, the first of its kind in the EIVA. The last time a team from the Ancient Eight broke through the national tournament was in 1988 when Princeton achieved the feat. The team didn’t win the match. Yale did the same in the 1975 and also failed to pick up a win.

“It’s really special for the entire

team,” Heavey said. “We’ve been on the cusp before, but it felt really good to close this one out and continue our season.”

Harvard’s first round opponent, the Bruins, have had a far different historic experience. Undoubtedly the most prolific team in men’s collegiate volleyball, the team has the most national championships of any team. With 19, the first dating back to 1970, the next closest school is Pepperdine, with five. The entire rest of the nation combined only can boast 27 titles. The state of California has also been historically more successful than the rest of the nation, claiming 36 of the 46 total.

“UCLA is an extremely talented team and we’re going to be playing on their home turf,” Heavey said. “Coming in as the underdogs, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so we’re going to play fast, loose, and simply have fun and live in the moment.”

Staff writer Cade Palmer can be reached at cade.palmer@thecrimson.com.

Time Runs Out on Harvard Comeback Against Princeton

Cold Shoulder The Harvard men’s lacrosse team Saturday put up 57 shots against Princeton, but only 10 of them found their way to into the net. henry zhu—Crimson photographer men’s Lacrosse

By George hu Crimson Staff Writer

Trailing 10-5 heading into the fourth quarter on Saturday, the Harvard men’s lacrosse team knew that it would need a monumental effort in the final frame to rally past conference rival Princeton. But with a possible spot in the Ivy tournament on the line and the seniors playing in their final home games at Harvard Stadium, the Crimson certainly had no shortage of motivation. The only question was whether there was enough time.

Harvard began the fourth quarter seemingly determined to answer this question, ripping off four straight goals in just over two minutes of gameplay

to close within one point. Two penalties by the Tigers, including one by senior goalie Tyler Blaisdell, then gave the home side a 6-on-4 opportunity against Princeton’s backup netminder.

It looked as if, fifty minutes after first faceoff, the two sides would be back to square one.

Just as it did throughout the game, however, Princeton found a way to beat back the Crimson attack. Harvard saw four consecutive shots during the man-up opportunity either blocked or saved, and as soon as the Tigers regained possession, their leading goalscorer, Austin Sims, found the back of the net to end the run.

The Crimson could not muster up another rally, and the visitors tacked on a couple of insurance goals later in the quarter to take the drama out of the

last few minutes. With the 15-10 victory, Princeton (7-5, 2-3 Ivy) remains in contention for a spot in the conference tournament. Harvard (7-5, 2-3), despite the loss, still holds qualification hopes as well.

“It’s a disappointing result for us, for sure,” said Crimson senior goalie Robert Shaw. “But with one huge game left, we know we still have everything to play for and we’ll make sure we make the necessary adjustments this week to come out strong against Yale.”

If Harvard manages to overcome the Bulldogs, who are currently undefeated in conference play, it will also need a Princeton loss to Cornell to secure a spot in the tournament. Likewise, the Tigers need a loss by Brown in addition to winning their own matchup to qualify.

But before any of these scenarios were set in stone on Saturday, the two teams played through a highly entertaining affair in front of a crowd of nearly 2,000. Even though it did not see many lead changes, the contest featured several momentum swings courtesy of big runs by both competing teams.

After the Crimson jumped out to a 2-0 lead, Princeton put together a dominating 7-0 run spanning fifteen minutes to seize control of the game.

Five different Tigers players put their names on the scoresheet, with four assists coming from a sixth source, star sophomore Michael Sowers.

“We’ve shown the ability all season to shut teams down for extended periods,” Shaw said. “When we allow these big runs, it’s just a matter of losing fo-

cus, and it’s something we need to be much better about.”

Preventing runs is one challenge that Harvard had trouble with against Princeton, and not being able to stop Sowers was a big part of the issue. The attackman, who entered Saturday’s matchup leading the nation with 6.55 points per game, put together another strong performance with one goal and six assists. He constantly caused problems for the Crimson from the X, where he picked apart the defense with well-timed and well-placed passes.

“Sowers is a big talent, a really good distributor of the ball,” said Harvard coach Chris Wojcik ’96. “We knew that coming in and tried to disrupt his rhythm with slides and some tight defense, but credit to him and their entire offense for finding him in good spots where he could hurt us.”

Sowers’ pinpoint accuracy told the story of the game in a nutshell, as Harvard had more total chances but could not place the ball in the right spots to beat the Tigers’ Blaisdell. In fact, the Crimson had a season high 57 shots, including 30 on frame, but Blaisdell countered by matching his career high in saves with 20. His stellar play, combined with some poor shooting from the home side, doomed the Harvard offense to just 10 goals to show for its efforts.

Senior midfielders Carney Mahon and Joe Lang had 13 and 11 shots in the game, respectively, but combined for only six total points. Meanwhile, Princeton managed to limit Crimson star attackman Morgan Cheek to two goals and a single assist. Cheek remains three points shy of 200 and five assists shy of 100 for his career.

“Our shot selection needed to be much, much better,” Wojcik said. “Any time you’re getting over fifty shots but only ten goals, it can’t just be the opposing goalie. There’s a lot of things we need to fix on our side if we want a good shot next weekend.”

The game against conference rival Yale now looms even larger than it would in most years, as a loss against the Bulldogs would end Harvard’s 2018 season.

Staff writer George Hu can be reached at george.hu@thecrimson.com.