Vol. 105 Issue 67
@thepittnews
Pittnews.com
Monday, November 10, 2014
UNDER REVIEW
Inconsistencies cloud constitutional referenda
Barney’s Back
Heather Tennant | Staff Photographer
Elections Committee chair reinstated by
Abbey Reighard & Danielle Fox The Pitt News Staff The expectations are clear. The rules are not. During the public Student Government Board meeting on Nov. 4, the Board voted to place two referenda that would change the Student Government Constitution on Tuesday’s ballot. While the Board voted yes straight down the line, the events preceding, following and surrounding the vote are less finite, slipping through the hands of even President Mike Nites. According to the Student Government Constitution, there are two ways to initiate such changes. Section 10.01 of the Constitution reads: “Amendments and/or revisions to this Constitution may be initiated by either a petition signed by 5 percent of the student body or by a Constitutional Review Committee appointed by a simple majority of the total membership of the Board.” At first, in an interview on Nov. 6, Nites said the Board did neither. Nites confirmed that the Board did not circulate a petition for the referendum passed in October, which changed the Student Government Board’s term from a calendar year to an academic year. Nites also confirmed that the Board did not establish a Constitutional Review Com-
Judicial Committee Harrison Kaminsky, Cristina Holtzer & Danielle Fox The Pitt News Staff
mittee for the upcoming referenda, either. However, in an interview with The Pitt News on Nov. 9, Nites said “that might have been [his] mistake” on the lack of a Constitutional Review Committee for the upcoming referenda. Nites said on Nov. 9 the Board established a Constitutional Review Committee on Sept. 16 to discuss the referenda passed in October. Nites said this Constitutional Review Committee then also discussed these upcoming referenda. The members of the Constitutional Re-
view Committee were Nites, Board member Ben West, Board member Meghan Murphy, Allocations Committee member Nick Reslink and executive board director of Pitt Program Council Jon Lehan. Nites said this committee was smaller compared to the Constitutional Review Committee from the 2012-2013 Board and was not like these “formal, formal meetings,” because the proposed changes were “straightforward” without “much impend-
SGB
2
The Student Government Board Elections Committee Chair will reclaim her job, effective immediately, following the Judicial Committee’s ruling on her reinstatement. According to a release sent by Andrew Van Treeck, Judicial Committee vice chair, who heard the case Thursday night, the Committee deliberated and found that Elections Committee Chair Lauren Barney’s dismissal was “not justified according to codes which govern the actions of the University of Pittsburgh Student Government.” The Committee’s decision is final and not subject to appeal. Kevin Tracey, the former Elections Committee vice chair who replaced Barney during her dismissal, resigned following the ruling. He sent his resignation to the committee via email Saturday morning. Tracey said in an email that he re-
Barney
3
2 FROM PAGE 1
SGB
ing” on the results. “There isn’t much discussion because [the changes] are straightforward: Do you or do you not want to vote on this?” Nites said. Nites said there wasn’t “completely an outside, outside student, a random student who was sitting on the committee.” However, he added, “I think democracy on a whole was preserved because, ultimately, students get to vote on it.” Board member Graeme Meyer, who is running for President for next term, said on Nov. 8 that the Constitutional Review Committees are “vague” as described in the Constitution, which has resulted in Board members appointing themselves to the committees. “Essentially, the Board is a kind of Constitutional Review Committee because they kind of appoint themselves to it.” Meyer said. “In theory, we could just appoint ourselves and make all the changes in the world.” Meyer said the Board voted on a list of
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com names for the Constitutional Review Committee, but he did not remember all the names on the list. Nites said the process is “confusing,” “weird” and although the Constitution “may
Nites said the Constitution lists two ways the Board can make a constitutional change and added that there is a third option, listed in the Elections Code, which says “the Board can choose to put something on a ballot.”
Nov. 9
Sept. 16 Oct. 12
Constitution- Results are Nites says SGB Judicial Committee al Review in for first formed a ConstiChair Audrey Winn Committee is referenda tutional Review says she was unaware of formed Committee for up- Constitutional Review Committee coming referenda
Oct. 8
Nov. 6
Voting Nites says there was no starts for Constitutional Review first Committee for upcomreferenda ing referenda be amended in these two ways, it doesn’t mean they must be amended in these two ways.” Meaning, the Board doesn’t have to follow the rules established in the Constitution.
Nov. 11
SGB election day and vote on second referenda
The need for a Constitutional Review Committee, he said, depends on “the context” of the change the Board wants to make to the Constitution. Nites was referencing section 501.01,
which states: “A proposed public measure submitted by the Student Government Board to the Student Government Elections Committee for a direct popular vote by the non-[College of General Studies] Undergraduate Student Body. The referendum may be set separate from candidate elections.” In an interview with The Pitt News on Nov. 9, Nites said calling this a “third way is a little bit too strong. “I think it’s more fair to say that’s just another step that needs to be done,” Nites said. Nites said it was previously standard for the Board to interpret the Constitution this way to approve referenda. Hypothetically, Nites said, if a Board were to vote on adding referenda to the ballot without a constitutional review meeting, he doesn’t think there would be a formal judicial hearing. “I would ask the Judicial Committee to interpret the statement and say what it means,” Nites said. “So I wouldn’t say it’s outright illegal.”
SGB
4
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com FROM PAGE 1
BARNEY signed to “ensure another leadership transition would not affect the election in a negative way.” “I don’t believe [resuming my role as vice chair] would have substantial effect on the election. I just wanted to avoid any unnecessary tension or strain that might have persisted in this transition,” Tracey said. Barney appealed the Board’s decision to dismiss her in a public hearing on Thursday night in a conference room outside the SGB office. SGB President Mike Nites, who represented the Board at the hearing, cited concerns over misconduct throughout the course of Barney’s tenure as Elections Committee chairwoman as the primary reason for her dismissal. According to the release, Article VIII, Section 8.01 of the SGB Constitution states a committee chair can be dismissed if he or she: Are absent from four or more public meetings of the Board without excuse Fail to act in accordance with the responsibilities as outlined by the Constitution, the SGB Bylaws, and/or Code of Ethics Fail to perform the duties of their office as prescribed and determined by the Board. According to the release, neither side submitted evidence to show Barney was absent from three or more public meetings. The committee found Barney did not violate the SGB Code of Ethics and, therefore, is not eligible for dismissal on the grounds of ethical violations. The committee also found Barney met the requirements of the Constitution, SGB Bylaws and/or Code of Ethics, as well as duties determined by the Board. The committee found Barney not in violation of a series of other ethical, procedural and duty-based infractions as well. In the release, the committee addressed a portion of the Board’s written appeal regarding comments Barney made in a Pitt News article following her dismissal. The Board argued that Barney divulged information regarding the infraction hearing. The Board’s written appeal reads: “Although she was not elections chair when she disclosed that information, the Board believes that it is reasonable to expect that she would maintain information as confidential if she expected to return to her position
through the appeals process.” The Judicial Committee ruled that since Barney had already been dismissed from her position at the time of her statement to The Pitt News, she was not in violation of the Elections Code. Barney said upon finding out the decision made by the Judicial Committee to rule in her favor, she felt empowered and reassured as opposed to relieved. “I knew I did nothing wrong. Now that I have had due process, justice took its course,” Barney said. Barney said a positive did come out of the appeals process. “I think part of the issue was my lack of understanding of the SGB governing code,” Barney said. “Now, after extensive review [of the governing code] from the hearing, I am way more informed on it.” Nites accused Barney of looking to create unnecessary drama with an “exciting election” during the hearing, but Barney said the hearing only “impeded the process of a fair, honest and efficient election.” “I don’t think it created any drama. If you’re professional about this, it’s not like anyone’s out to get someone,” Barney said. Barney said putting politics aside, she wanted to make this a fair election for the candidates. Tracey does not think Barney’s reinstatement will have a major impact on the election. Nites said he would not question how the Judicial Committee interpreted the Elections Code, Governing Code or SGB Constitution, and he trusts the members’ judgment. “I’m a fan of following the procedures and rules,” Nites said. “I respect the appeal process. I believe that’s why it exists. The Judicial Committee exists to give due process to people.” While he said he wished the hearing hadn’t run so close to the closing time of the William Pitt Union, which forced the Judicial Committee to limit time during closing arguments, Nites said each side “got to state [its] side of the story adequately,” and the hearing was consistent throughout. Regarding Barney’s allegations that Nites did not meet with her consistently enough to discuss her progress or conduct, Nites said he would be happy to meet with her more formally during the next two months that they will work together on SGB. “If that’s how [Barney] wants to conduct that, then I am happy to do that for the two months we have left together,” Nites said.
3
4 FROM PAGE 2
SGB
Nites said he was OK with how the Board handled the referenda because “we did so much outreach, especially getting all the [Student Affairs Affiliated Groups] support, getting all the student leader support.” Murphy did not remember the specific dates when the Committee discussed the referenda. Murphy said Nites made the recommen-
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com dations for the Committee and said she was chosen because she was new, and it would give her more experience. “We did our job efficiently and appreciated the student input on the first one and are looking forward to hear what the student body has to say again on Tuesday,” Murphy said. Lehan said Nites appointed him to the Constitutional Review Committee because of his experience as the executive board director of Pitt Program Council and his knowledge of student affairs.
“I also offer a different perspective than someone who is more involved within SGB,” Lehan said. “I have never held any position in Student Government.” Although the referenda only required 5 percent of the student body to vote, according to Lehan, the referenda was sufficient enough to warrant a change. “Most students seemed to be pleased with both of these changes, which is why it was moved to approve these changes,” Lehan said. Nites said SGB’s Constitution prohibits
SGB from using student activity funds to promote referenda through flyers or advertisements. “That would be the Board using students’ money to inflict the decision of the student body,” Nites said. Nites said he was not sure if SGB posted on social media about the referenda in the spring. Nites also said the Board has not created a petition for the two upcoming referenda, which would change the Constitution, that the Board introduced at last week’s public meeting. He said the referenda themselves would help gauge whether or not students want the changes made. The changes would include the current Board establishing a student assembly and create the title of vice president of the Board, changing the pre-existing position of president pro-tempore. Nites said the title of vice president would automatically go to the Board candidate who receives the highest number of votes, which differs from the president pro-tempore, whom the Student Government Board president selects out of all the Board members. Nites said the Board did not send out a petition on the topic because the petitions are “more for if a student wants to come and propose a change.” Nites said he spoke about the assembly with all the Student Affairs Affiliated Groups and many other student groups’ presidents. He also said he spoke to between 100 and 200 people — a “random mix” of student and “random strangers” — in his classes and on elevators to see what they thought of the student assembly. Nites recalled two of the names of the 100 to 200 students he spoke with, including former Board member Brandon Benjamin, who resigned from the Board last March, about the student assembly. Brandon said he “wouldn’t necessarily pinpoint it to an elevator discussion,” but said he and Nites did discuss the student assembly. Brandon said Nites had a meeting with SAAG as well as other student organizations, such as Campus Women’s Organization and Rainbow Alliance, where Nites discussed the idea of a student assembly. Meyer confirmed the Board did not send a petition to students. Meyer said he and the
SGB
5
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com FROM PAGE 4
SGB
The Pitt News Crossword, 11/10/2014
rest of the Board decided based off “daily interactions” with the students, such as allocations requests and event planning, that the student body wanted a student assembly. “I guess you could say that we haven’t surveyed the student body,” Meyer said. “But we have in the sense that we’ve met with them constantly and have all agreed that this is a need.” According to Section 502.01 of the Elections Code “to be qualified, a referendum must be approved in accordance with all appropriate procedure as defined in the SGB Constitution and Bylaws.” Section 9.01 of the Student Government Constitution also reads: “All actions of the Student Government Board shall be governed by the following order or precedence: Student Government Board Constitution, Student Government Board Bylaws, Allocations Manual, Elections Code, Committee Bylaws and the most recently revised edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.” ACROSS 1 One may be under a jacket 5 Drift on the breeze 9 Military group 14 Basically 16 Storyteller of a sort 17 Where dogs chat? 18 Sobriety symbol 19 Hosp. test 20 Pilot’s stat. 21 Manifest 22 Harsh 24 Where donkeys make noise? 26 Fight a cold, say 28 Ages and ages 29 King of Naples in “The Tempest” 32 Fed. property overseer 33 Traveling, in a way 37 Where horses are treated for laryngitis? 40 Scrabble piece 41 Singer DiFranco 42 Alias 43 Small matter? 44 Freudian topic 45 Where lions practice intimidation? 49 Not upfront 53 Show 54 Historic opening? 56 Guernsey sound 57 Savage 58 Where birds sing? 61 Drivel 62 Most tacky 63 Pace product 64 Coltrane collaborator 65 Entreaty DOWN 1 Feelings 2 Make official
This means that the Student Government Constitution should take precedence over the rules written in the Elections Code. The Student Government Constitution also states in Section 10.02 that “The Elections Committee, with assistance from the Judicial Committee, shall supervise the execution of any referendum on proposed amendments and/or revisions of the Constitution.” Nites said he carbon copied Elections Committee Chair Lauren Barney — who the Board recently voted to remove on Oct. 29, but was reinstated after a judicial hearing — in his emails to members from Computing Service and Systems Development, who were in charge of putting the referenda passed in October on the ballot. Nites said no one from the Judicial Committee — which is “mainly responsible”
“In theory, we could just appoint ourselves and make all the changes in the world.” Graeme Meyer
11/21/14
By Mark Feldman
3 Suit material 4 “Shame on you!” 5 Excellently 6 Vet sch. course 7 TV monitor 8 Rectangular links area, usually 9 Minor roads 10 Lasso 11 Steam 12 Curling slider 13 Legendary guy traditionally wearing black boots 15 What mayo might be 21 Grand style 23 Gamut 24 Make dirty 25 Wine choice 27 Kind of map 29 Social worker? 30 Island garland 31 Cook’s supply 33 Pester 34 Norm: Abbr.
for advertising and informing the student body about referenda — was copied in the “two or three emails” to CSSD because there “weren’t any issues.” He said the Judicial Committee only intervenes with the elections and referenda if a Board member or a student brings an “issue” with a referendum to the Committee. “They were definitely kept in the loop,” Nites said. “I don’t think every single person needed to be cc’d on the email.” Nites said he approached Judicial Committee Chair Audrey Winn in her office and showed her the wording of the two referenda from his computer screen. “There isn’t much supervision that is needed,” Nites said. Winn said she doesn’t mean to “throw anyone under the bus,” but she “100 per-
Thursday’s Puzzle Solved
©2014 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
35 It might be electric 36 “__ you happy now?” 38 Any day now 39 Young raptors 43 Spring bloomer 45 Loads 46 Renée Fleming’s field 47 Spring time 48 Brings in
50 51 52 54 55 58 59 60
11/21/14
Drive forward Western omen “__ go!” Rounded tool part Smell Old films channel “The __ Sell Out”: 1967 rock album Nurse
5 cent” does not remember this happening. “If [Nites] says it was super, super informal, maybe I’m just forgetting about it, but I don’t remember that happening,” Winn said. Winn also said she was not aware of anything concerning a Constitutional Review Committee until The Pitt News brought it to her attention on Nov. 9. “I thought it was surprising because Judicial has always directed [Constitutional Review Committees],” Winn said. Winn referenced last year’s Committee, which she served on as the judicial vicechair, with approximately 11-12 representatives outside of SGB as well as the Election’s committee involved. Winn was at the meeting where the Board voted to put the referenda on the ballot, and she and the other Committee chairs were confused. However, she said she didn’t remember the requirement of a Constitutional Review Committee, as she said her mind was on judicial hearings. “I would have liked to be involved. I think its important that Judicial and Election help manage it because we are supposed to be their check,” Winn said.
6
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com
EDITORIAL
OPINIONS
Balancing the checks: SGB needs consistency With Student Government Board elections tomorrow night, the incumbents are set to leave behind a legacy mired with haste and confusion. Besides temporarily disposing of its Elections Committee chair two weeks before the election, a referendum passed on Oct. 12 which extended the incoming Board’s term on conditions that violate SGB’s Constitution. Like the Board’s meeting to discuss the dismissal of Lauren Barney because of alleged misconduct, the legwork for the invalid referendum occurred behind closed doors, devoid of proper procedures or substantial student input. But the abrupt decision to dismiss Barney, who was reinstated a week later, proved to be more detrimental to the elections process than Barney could have been.
COLUMN
Her sudden firing and replacement with Elections Committee Vice Chair Kevin Tracey — who resigned from his position on Friday, Nov. 7 — triggered more confusion among candidates. Moreover, testimonials from SGB candidates and witnesses during the hearing echoed a sentiment that Barney was dedicated and loyal to her job. This comes as another inefficiency in an election that didn’t start out smoothly, as the Board rushed a referendum that extended its next term by a semester. The referendum aligned SGB’s term with the academic year, rather than the calendar year, giving the incoming Board prolonged distribution of the $2.6 million annual Student Activities fund designed to help students’ ideas and initiatives flourish. But, much like the decision to dismiss
Barney, this referendum wasn’t executed properly. The Board passed the referendum without an adequate amount of checks on its power or an effective and informed student vote. SGB’s Constitution only requires 3 percent of the student body to vote on a referendum, and a simple majority of those who vote need to approve the measure for it to pass. After the student vote, SGB must obtain a two-thirds majority vote of approval from the Constitutional Review Committee. For the referendum to extend SGB term limits, the Board gave the student body three days to vote, and the Constitutional Review Committee that assessed the referendum consisted of five members — a low number compared to that of years past. Therefore, because of the obstruc-
tive dismissal of Barney and the rushed referendum process, it would not be fair to the students or to the next Board to extend the length of the next SGB term. The Board shouldn’t have thrust a term extension on members who may not have expected a lengthened term when they were considering running and without evaluating a more extensive list of options. Barney’s dismissal shows that the current Board is incapable of pursuing an action by the book as determined by the SGB Judicial Committee, so why would this referendum be any different? Perhaps, then, it would be best to wait to pass a referendum that approaches a term switch under a new, fresh-faced SGB that is excited to serve and utilizes time to effectively and efficiently pursue policy.
Talkin’ ‘bout my generation
Why Independents should be the millennials’ choice in 2016 Stephen Caruso Columnist It’s morning in America. Well, not really. But anything, and I mean anything, is better than the cold, dark night of the last two years. If anything has made me see the wisdom of Winston Churchill’s oft-repeated quote, “democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others,” it is the 113th Congress. The common gripe among pundits is that the last Congress has been the least productive in history. Per the Washington Post, that claim is demonstrated by this past Congress passing a historically low amount of total bills — about 250 laws in total, which is the lowest amount of legislation passed since 1973. Not that quantity is preferable to quality in bills,
but this Congress couldn’t even do the most simple of government tasks, like pass a budget. After last Tuesday’s elections, though, this mess is finally behind us — which is good, because coming of age during this time of fierce bipartisanship has caused much disillusion amongst millennials like me when it comes to our political system. But will a new, Republican Congress really be any different from the last one? The majority of Americans don’t think so. According to a Gallup poll released last week, 29 percent of Americans trust Republicans to control Congress, 27 percent trust Democrats and 40 percent feel there is no difference. It must be hard to differentiate between two sides that are both equally good at not doing anything other than bicker.
Thus, if the next two years turn into another session of partisan tit for tat, then you can expect to see more Independent candidates making noise. In 2012, we saw the second Independent senator, Angus King of Maine, elected. This year, Greg Orman, a former Republican congressman who ran as an Independent, almost defeated the Republican incumbent in Kansas to become the third Independent senator, while Larry Pressler of South Dakota, another former Republican congressman turned Independent, was in a tight three-way race for an open Senate spot — he came in third with a surprising 17 percent of the vote. The common thread between these three Independent candidates is their diverse positions: Socially liberal (prochoice, pro-marriage equality), environ-
mentally conscious (accepting of global warming) but fiscally responsible (balance the budget, slash spending where appropriate). That is, everything millennials find important. According to studies by Harstad Strategic Research and the Harvard Institute of Politics, millennials are widely in agreement on socially progressive policies. But, the economic issues become a lot trickier — some millennials favor more economic intervention by the government, while some want less. The new crop of Independents reflects this spread: While Orman has been against the Affordable Care Act and agrees with Paul Ryan on some issues, Pressler has come out in favor of higher taxes on the rich.
Caruso
7
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com
7
Letter to the Editor Dear Editor, While I appreciate the author of the “basics” article in trying to lessen the girlon-girl hate that frequently happens, I do not think the author is correct in her assessment of the problem. While I have never heard, or used, the term “basic” in reference to a woman who wears UGG boots, leggings and drinks Starbucks while sporting expensive accessories, FROM PAGE 6
CARUSO Thus, Independent candidates are more representative of millennials’ strong stances on social issues, and also of their diverse ideas on economic policy. This is important to note, because, as millennials reach voting age — and adulthood — at a higher rate, these opinions are going to matter more. Of course, both of the mainstream
I can understand why the term exists as one of derision. The author tries to make “basic” out as a way of women criticizing other women for their choice of wearing these things and partaking in expensive coffee, which misses the issue entirely. Namely, that these “basic” women aren’t making a choice – they’re following a trend because it’s exactly that: a trend. They don’t make the decision. They don’t say “this is who
I think I really, truly am.” They, rather, ignore the choice altogether and follow what is easiest. This is obviously a bit of a harsh view, but I think there are instances of it that warrant criticism, mainly when these women simply aren’t choosing anything. I am wholeheartedly for women banding together, but, at the same time, we need to recognize those that are working against feminism, whether
they realize it or not. That is not to say that these people should be ridiculed or hated but, rather, should be educated on the subject (though it’s hard to believe they aren’t aware of the issues already) and if they then actually make a choice for their lifestyle, do not criticize.
parties have noticed this, and both have certainly paid lip service to the youth vote, but nothing more — who can forget the Obama administration placing emojis in its report on millennials? As a generation that embraces change and new ideas, millennials should carry that mindset into politics. Unfortunately, new parties are hard to come by in a first-past-the-post democracy like the United States. Such an electoral system only rewards winning, and it is hard for small, new parties to take a
majority, or even a plurality, in any given district. Modern political parties need to disseminate ideas and raise money quickly. If the party can’t win within a couple years, it is probably doomed to extinction. However, this is the generation of Twitter and KickStarter. If any generation is diverse enough to support so many different viewpoints, but also connected enough to finance and communicate a campaign overnight, it’s millennials. Imagine putting all the time
and effort of Kony 2012 or that stupid potato salad thing into an actual political campaign. That would be a force to be reckoned with and one that would make establishment parties pay attention. Therefore, our generation should take a look around during these next two years. If the Republicans and Democrats play nice, maybe some of them are still worth a vote. If they don’t, it might be time to work our magic. Email Stephen at sjc79@pitt.edu.
Taryn Haas Senior Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences
8
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com
VOLLEYBALL
SPORTS
Panthers beat ranked Duke in weekend sweep
WRESTLING
Pitt beats Bucknell, improves winning streak to three Chris Puzia Sports Editor
Lindsey Zitzke and the Panthers beat No. 25 Duke over the weekend. Jeff Ahearn | Assistant Visual Editor
Caitlin Hinsey Staff Writer The Pitt volleyball team knew it needed to win on the road if the team wanted to improve its NCAA Tournament resumé. The Panthers (21-4, 9-3 ACC) defeated No. 25 Duke (18-6, 10-3 ACC) 3-2 Friday night and followed that win with a sweep of Wake Forest. Pitt defeated Duke in a back-and-forth match — 29-27, 21-25, 27-25, 11-25 and 1511 — before easily sweeping Wake Forest 25-15, 25-12, and 25-21. Jessica Wynn, the kill leader for the Panthers, was sidelined for both matches with a foot injury. In her absence, each member of the team stepped up this weekend. “We really banded together. It was a solid team effort. It wasn’t one person that was
completely putting the team on their back and doing everything,” senior opposite Kate Yeazel said. “We couldn’t have done it without everybody playing together like that.” Middle blocker Amanda Orchard said that “everyone stepped up” to give the Panthers two weekend wins. Duke Sophomore outside hitter Maria Genitsaridi tallied a career-high 21 kills and 14 digs to record her third double-double of the season in a thrilling upset win at Cameron Indoor Stadium. Yeazel and freshman Mariah Bell, making her first start for the Panthers, also reached double-digit kills, counting for 14 and 10, respectively. In the back row, libero Delaney Clesen continued her stellar season, recording a match-high 27 digs. Four of Duke’s play-
ers recorded double-digit kills with the Blue Devils’ top player, outside hitter Emily Sklar, tallying 21. “It was really cool to play in Cameron Indoors,” Yeazel said. “At the very end, the final point — there are videos of it everywhere — just to look at your teammates and the look of pure joy was one of the coolest experiences.” The Panthers jumped ahead in set one before the Blue Devils fought back to tie it up, including late in the set at 23-all. In set two, the Blue Devils raced out to a lead they only relinquished once. After trailing 15-14, Duke tied the set up before scoring 10 of the next 17 points. Late in set three, the Panthers had a 24-22 Read the rest online at Pittnews.com.
After a big win over a top-10 Edinboro team, some might have worried that the Pitt wrestling team would suffer a letdown loss against Bucknell. But Max Thomusseit, ranked No. 5 in the nation , and the rest of the No. 14 (3-0, 0-0 ACC) Panthers made sure that didn’t happen as they beat Bucknell 22-11 in their home opener on Saturday. Five Pitt wrestlers, including Thomusseit, remain undefeated in their matchups this season. The redshirt senior won the 184-pound bout over Tom Sleigh of Bucknell, 18-6. Although Bucknell shot out to an 8-6 lead in the match, Pitt won the next five bouts to make Pitt heavyweight John Rizzo’s loss in the final matchup irrelevant. The first match to begin the streak came in the 149-pound bout when No. 16 sophomore Mikey Racciato beat Victor Lopez of Bucknell 6-4. Pitt only dropped three bouts in the match, and two came to ranked Bucknell wrestlers — No. 20 Paul Petrov and No. 13 Joe Stolfi at the 125-pound and 285-pound bouts, respectively. Petrov’s victory over Pitt wrestler Dom Forys gave the freshman his first loss in his Pitt career, and Petrov won the bout 8-6. Pitt’s biggest individual loss came in the 141-pound bout, when Tyler Smith
Wrestling
9
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com FROM PAGE 8
WRESTLING of the Bison defeated Ben Ross by technical fall, 18-3. Because of the 15-point differential, Bucknell received five team points, instead of the usual three team points for a victory. Pitt’s tandem of consecutive individually ranked wrestlers in Thomusseit and No. 7 Nick Bonaccorsi has now won back-to-back victories in every match this season. The two late individual decisions pushed Pitt’s lead out of reach ahead of the heavyweight bout. Pitt also beat Bucknell last season 30-12. This season’s loss drops Bucknell to 0-1 on the season, as Pitt was its season-opening match. The Panthers won their first three matches last season before they lost to Penn State. Pitt hosts No. 1 Penn State this season on Friday, Nov. 21. First, the team hosts No. 15 Lehigh on Saturday at 7 p.m. Pitt beat Bucknell 22-1 to remain undefeated to start the season. Meghan Sunners | Staff Photographer
T P N S U D O K U
Today’s difficulty level: Very Hard Puzzles by Dailysudoku.com
9
10
November 10, 2014 | The Pitt News | www.pittnews.com
FROM PAGE 8
VOLLEYBALL lead, but Duke scored two straight points to force the set into extra points before outside hitter/opposite Casey Durham won it for Pitt. Down 2-1, the Blue Devils easily handled the Panthers in the fourth set. Duke went ahead 7-1, and continued to extend its lead into double digits. Pitt never could recover. Pitt held an early three-point lead in a
THE PITT NEWS
dramatic final set until Duke tied the set at 11. The Panthers ran off four straight to finish off its ranked opponent. Orchard called the win “one of the best moments of the season for me.” Wake Forest The Demon Deacons hoped that a Fridaynight win after seven straight losses would turn their season around, but the Panthers made sure that didn’t happen. Yeazel was the only Pitt player to record double-digit kills as the team recorded 43 kills. She finished with a match-high 14. Orchard hit .583 with
E S T A B L I S HE D 1 9 1 0
Natalie Daher Editor-in-Chief
Mahita Gajanan, Managing Editor
Cristina Holtzer, News Editor
Danielle Fox, Assistant News Editor Harrison Kaminsky, Assistant News Editor Matt Barnes, Assistant Opinions Editor Dan Sostek, Assistant Sports Editor Jeff Ahearn, Assistant Visual Editor Zheru Liu, Multimedia Editor Joelle Smith, Social Media Editor Becca Nagy, Assistant Copy Chief Emily Hower, Assistant Layout Editor
editor@pittnews.com news@pittnews.com
Nick Voutsinos, Opinions Editor letters@pittnews.com
Shawn Cooke, A&E Editor
aande@pittnews.com Chris Puzia, Sports Editor sports@pittnews.com
Theo Schwarz, Visual Editor photos@pittnews.com
Ellie Petrosky, Copy Chief tpncopydesk@gmail.com
Stephen Caruso, Layout Editor tpnlayout@gmail.com
manager@pittnews.com
Copy Staff
Sarah Choflet Anjuli Das Kinley Gillette Johanna Helba Emily Maccia Sam McGinley
Bridget Montgomery Sarah Mejia Shivani Pandit Michelle Reagle Michael Wilson Megan Zagorski
seven kills and zero errors. Wake Forest had no answer to Pitt in the first set. The Panthers scored 10 straight points to take a 16-4 lead before taking the set win. Set two started off close before the Demon Deacons faltered. Pitt had another run in this set with seven straight points that secured Pitt a 2-0 lead as the teams went into intermission. Frustrated, Wake Forest held the final set close with the Demon Deacons taking a lead midway through the set. The set remained close with the score reading a tie as late as 20-20, before the Panthers scored
Editorial Policies Single copies of The Pitt News are free and available at newsstands around campus. Additional copies can be purchased with permission of the editor in chief for $.50 each. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the students, faculty or University administration. Opinions expressed in columns,- car toons and letters are not necessarily those of The Pitt News. Any letter - in tended for publication must be addressed to the editor, be no more than 250 words and include the writer’s name, phone number and University affiliation, if any. Letters may be sent via e-mail to letters@pittnews.com. The Pitt News reserves the right to edit any and all letters. In the event of multiple replies to an issue, The Pitt News may print one letter that represents the majority of responses. Unsigned editorials are a majority opinion of the Editorial Board, listed to the left. The Pitt News is an independent, student-written and student-managed newspaper for the Oakland campus of the University of Pittsburgh. It is-pub lished Monday through Friday during the regular school year and Wednesdays during the summer. Complaints concerning coverage by The Pitt News, after first being brought to the editors, may be referred to the Community Relations -Com mittee, Pitt News Advisory Board, c/o student media adviser, 435 William Pitt Union, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15260. The editor in chief has the final authority on editorial matters and cannot be censored, according to state and federal law. The editor in chief is selected by the Pitt News Advisory Board, which includes University staff,- fac ulty and students, as well as journalism professionals. The business and edito rial offices of The Pitt News are located at 434 William Pitt Union, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15260.
five of the final six points to sweep the match. Pitt returns home for two matches this weekend, where it will take on the Miami Hurricanes Friday night at 7 p.m. and the Virginia Tech Hokies Sunday afternoon at 1 p.m. With two matches slated for this weekend, Yeazel said that this sweep will leave a lasting impact on the team. “Especially beating Duke, it puts us in a good position to not only make the tournament, but the motivation we need in playing a good team, like Miami, this weekend,” she said. advertising@pittnews.com
Kevin Vanover, Business Manager Advertising@pittnews.com
Kelsey McConville, Inside Sales Manager
David Barr, Sales Manager
advertising@pittnews.com
advertising@pittnews.com
Account Executives Maxwell Hine Jordan Bullock Robert Capone Rosalyn Nye Antonio Blundo Joe Leone Joe Kloecker Mackenzie Walsh Sean Leone Jordyn Aungst
Matt Reilly
Inside Sales Nicole Barrett Victoria Hetrick Julia McKay
Digital Manager Stephen Ellis
Marketing Manager Kristine Aprile
Senior Universal Account Executive
Marketing Assistant
Ad Designer Mark Janavel
Rachael Hoge