October 18, 2016

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Tuesday October 18, 2016 vol. cxl no. 89

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Schmidt ‘76, Kuczynski GS ‘61 to recieve awards on Alumni Day

By Jessica Li head news editor

Eric Schmidt ’76, the former CEO of Google Inc. and the current Executive Chairman of Alphabet Inc., will receive the Woodrow Wilson Award on Alumni Day. Pedro Pablo Kuczynski GS ’61, the President of Peru, will receive the James Madison Medal at Alumni Day on Feb. 25, the University announced in a press release on Monday.

According to the University, the Woodrow Wilson Award recognizes an undergraduate alumnus or alumna “whose career embodies the call to duty in Wilson’s speech, ‘Princeton in the Na-

tion’s Service,’” while the James Madison Medal recognizes a graduate alumnus or alumna “who has had a distinguished career, advanced the cause of graduate education or achieved an outstanding record of public service.”

Schmidt, who graduated with a degree in electrical engineering and had previously served as a University trustee, occupies a role at Alphabet that combines business, technology, and policy. Schmidt has spoken about his belief that selfdriving cars, a Google project he championed, are the wave of the future. He has also overseen projects reSee ALUMNI page 3

ACADEMICS

Graduate School to offer sixth-year fellowship

By Rose Gilbert conributor

The Graduate School announced a sixth-year funding program called the Dean’s Completion Fellowship on Oct. 13. The fund would cover tuition, fees, and a full stipend for forty graduate students pursuing degrees in the humanities and social sciences.

The program is intended to incentivize degree completion by allowing selected sixth-year students to focus more on their dissertation.

According to University Media Relations Specialist Min Pullan, the program was created after the University’s strategic planning process

increased funding pressures on Ph.D. students in all disciplines.

Pullan said that students would be chosen for the program by department faculty and the Graduate School and explained that the new initiative will use funds set aside for “strategic priorities” in the University’s framework plan.

Many graduate students expressed concerns about the small number of graduate students who would be selected for additional funding through the new program.

“Forty spots is really not crazy much, especially in economics. We have a trend that more and more people See FUNDING page 3

FALL ARRIVES ON CAMPUS

LILIAN CHEN :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Q&A

Q & A: UN Assistant SecretaryGeneral Izumi Nakamitsu

By Christopher Umanzor staff writer

Sharon Xiang contributor

On Friday, Oct. 14, United Nations Assistant SecretaryGeneral Izumi Nakamitsu sat down with the Daily Princetonian before delivering a talk. Nakamitsu, who also acts as Director of the Crisis Response Unit and serves on the United Nations Development Program, was invited by WhigClio to discuss her current role in the United Nations and her thoughts on current conf licts around the world.

The Daily Princetonian: Can you tell us about your current role at the United Nations?

Izumi Nakamitsu: So, I’m currently one of the Assistant Secretary Generals.

My portfolio is for Crisis Response in U.N. Development Program — it’s called UNDP. It so happen[s] that in conf lict and crisis, the landscape has changed, the nature of conf lict has changed.

The previous approach of when there is conf lict, you send humanitarian assistance and peacemakers and

LECTURE

Former Kenyan Chief Justice speaks on global judciaries, new constitution

By Sirad Hassan contributor

Willy Mutunga, Kenya’s former Chief Justice, discussed his time as Chief Justice and the role of global judiciaries on Oct. 17.

Seeing the passage of the new Kenyan constitution, Mutunga took the opportunity to “apply for the job because [he] realized there was a project of creating a new judiciary,” he said.

The Judicial Service Commission was, at the time, in search of a new Chief Justice and wanted to keep the vetting process as open as possible. Mutunga, the final candidate, was ap-

In Opinion

pointed to the court by the President of Kenya at the time, Mwai Kibaki.

Mutunga explained the basis for the Kenyan constitution, including the recent changes to the document. The changes developed a new Supreme Court in 2010, which replaced the Appeals Court as the nation’s highest court.

“The constitution gives the judiciary a totally different role than before,” Mutunga said in the lecture. “The bedrock of this judiciary is to instill in Kenyans that judges must be qualified, and not even think about receiving a bribe.”

Editor-in-Chief Do-Hyeong Myeong, Associate Opinion Editor Sarah Sakha, and a guest columnist responds to the recent Editorial on the Women*s center, and two columnists discuss the merits of graduate student unionization. PAGE 4

Following his description about the fidelity of the court, Mutunga continued to describe the actual development of the jurisprudence. The Kenyan constitution is viewed as the center of further development when it is partnered with correct practice.

“Dissenting opinions are actually something that we encourage because it is important in the development of jurisprudence to have different viewpoints,” Mutunga said. He brought up parallels to the U.S. Supreme Court, including how similar values extrapolated from Marbury v.

See LECTURE page 2

facilitators and negotiators.

Once there is agreement, we send peacekeeping forces to stabilize the situation and only after there is a degree of stability, development actors go. That kind of sequential approach used to be the one that we used, but that doesn’t work anymore and the reason is, as you know, [the] Syrian conf lict is now in the sixth year. Conf licts don’t end that easily anymore. So, UNDP realized that development organization also has to go in — even during a conf lict — and then contribute from development approaches so that we don’t have to wait years and years to start doing basic livelihood activities, [such as] developmental support.

So, my unit is responsible for responding to crisis using development approaches.

I think it was 1989, I started in UNHCR so I started in humanitarian organizations, but as you know, soon after I joined, there was the first Gulf War and then Kurdish refugee crisis and then followed by Yugoslavia crisis, the Bosnian war. So, I always looked at conf lict and crisis from different perspectives. I first entered the

U.N. into the humanitarian organization and looked at how to actually deal with the symptoms of conf lict and then I moved on to do other things. I was part of [former Secretary-General] Kofi Annan’s U.N. reform team in New York and then I met my now-husband and he was a Swedish diplomat. I took some time off and worked on democracy-building assistance. There is an international organization based in Stockholm so I did democracy support and then I went back to the United Nations.

I was part of a department for peacekeeping operations.

I was [first] a policy director and then I worked as a director for Asia and the Middle East, so I [ran] operations in Syria [and] Lebanon. There was also Afghanistan as well so that time I was linking out really peace and security role directly from peacekeeping operations. Of course, in between I was part of Yugoslavia operation, so I have mixture of headquarters and the field experiences. I was also part of a task force to deal with Great Lakes crisis in Africa and Rwandan refugee crisis back in the See Q&A page 2

News & Notes Harvard gets sued over admission practices Several University students who had previously applied to Harvard University received emails from Harvard Thursday afternoon informing them that their undergraduate application information to Harvard has been summoned by the court in a lawsuit concerning admission practices.

The current litigation that Harvard faces, Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, is under review in the first circuit court of the appeals. The plaintiffs will be provided the admissions files from Harvard University.

“The information that the court has ordered produced to date includes academic, extracurricular, demographic, and other information from your

Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: A panel of students leaders and Mayor of Princeton Liz Lempert will be featured as part of a Women’s Leadership and Self-Preservation Skills Workshop. Women*s Center Conference Room, Frist 243

application,” the email reads.

The email further explained that Harvard may need to supply information of all candidates who applied for firstyear undergraduate admission or transfer admission to between the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2015. However, Harvard will not release candidates’ social security numbers and all information released to Students for Fair Admissions is subjected to strict confidentiality rules.

Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, sent a letter to the University asking President Eisgruber ’83 to refrain from destroying student admission records in the spring of 2015.

Harvard will begin producing the required applicant information on October 28th, according to the email.

WEATHER

U N I V E R S I T Y A F FA I R S

HIGH

83˚

LOW

63˚

Sunny. chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Tuesday October 18, 2016

Nakamitsu: movements of refugees, migrants a priority for UN Q&A

Continued from page 1

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

’90s. I did all sorts of different things so I am now in development organization, looking at how [the] development community can also contribute to new terminology that we started to use is “sustaining peace,” so that’s a really quick summary of what I have been doing.

DP: What exactly is your role as Assistant SecretaryGeneral?

IN: ASG is just a ranking. There is SG, Deputy Secretary-General, and then Undersecretary General and underneath is me, ASG and below that is directors level.

Up to the directors level it’s a career appointment and, after ASG, it becomes a political appointment. So, each organization has the senior level USG or ASG ranking officials. Basically, what we do is to provide leadership in the respective areas. Yesterday, I was in the General Assembly hall and watched Mr. [Antonió] Guterres being appointed by the General Assembly. So, [the] U.N. is again entering a new phase, I think. I mean, I was joking with my colleagues and ambassadors, “For once, in a long time, the Security Council was able to make a good decision with an appointment.” As you know, it’s completely divided now, everything in the Security Council tends to get really stuck and they’re not able to agree on anything, Syria being the primary example of that. But on this appointment, they were able to make [a] good decision and they were able to make that decision very quickly. So I felt yesterday, sitting in the GA hall, the U.N. getting re-energized with the new leaders coming. So, a very, very happy moment.

DP: Why did you choose to go into the U.N.?

IN: Well, I guess a mixture of things. I always wanted to do something that will contribute to making the world a better place. My family has always been, for generations, always been in public service, but I wanted to do that public service not in Japan, but abroad. The U.N. is an interesting place. When I was studying at Georgetown, I had a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. — and she, of course, later became the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright — as one

of my professors. So looking at this huge bureaucracy, there are of course really frustrating aspects of it, but at the same time, the U.N. is a place where you can use your head but really driven by your heart. Strong motivation to help the most vulnerable and use your capacity and ability to do that is a really great thing.

DP: In addition to the Syrian crisis at the moment, could you describe any other pressing issues that the Crisis Response Unit or the UNDP is currently facing?

IN: A lot of things. One of the things that actually have made us much more engaged in the past two years or so is actually natural disasters.

There have been so many. My Crisis Response Unit does not just deal with Yemen and Syria, etc., but we also have to deal with the sudden onset of natural disasters. I guess partly because of climate change, this past year there’s a slew of onset disasters, El Niño-induced droughts and f loods, that sort of huge natural disaster phenomenon at the global level. There have also been earthquakes in Nepal and Ecuador. At the moment, my deputy is in Haiti to look at what we can do immediately to help the government and people after the Hurricane Matthew. So, there have been lots and lots of natural disasters that we have had to also take care of. Essentially, what we do is to provide development support in that kind of context. I mean, it essentially boils down to two areas. One is to create emergency employment. If you think about it, if you have a chance, if you’re in that kind of situation and you have a chance to be able to work and earn money so that you can actually live and support your family or you have to depend on food assistance, which one would you choose? In terms of dignity, it is much better to create emergency employment so that people can work and make their living. So we go in, one of the things that we really try to increase our efforts is to go in very quickly and create emergency employment projects on a large scale. That’s what we’ll also be doing in Haiti. But, the second area is also quite important, and that is to help the basic service delivery functions of local governments. It could be water, it could be sanitation, it could

be health clinics, all sorts of [things]…. In many of those developing countries, it doesn’t happen because the government capacity is very, very low so that’s where UNDP can come in and help the local authorities to restore very quickly so people can actually quickly receive basic social protection and basic services. So, those are the contributions of the developing community. This is not a peacekeeping work and this is not humanitarian organizations’ work so you can see why development organizations really have to become faster in terms of our contributions coming in.

DP: So, the Syrian crisis has been brought to light by various news stations.

Do you have any idea of any current issues that aren’t well known to the public that should be better known?

IN: One priority agenda for us and for the new Secretary-General — that’s large movements of refugees and migrants. You know massive movements of people, it’s very visible, about 65 million displaced people, out of that about 24 [million] are refugees, 40-plus million are internally displaced peoples.

The plight of those IDPs are very often not really coming to visible picture. For example, in Syria, because the situation is so bad, you see all these refugees who actually come out of Syria into neighboring countries or those who reach Europe.

But, the people who are in most difficult situations are actually still in Syria, not being able to cross the border and f lee the situation. So, I think that the plight of IDPs is something that people should be much much more aware of. I would like media to be able to report much more on IDPs. basically those in the most vulnerable situations, the voiceless people: … women, children, and those who are really at the bottom of the situation. I think those are the people that we need to really focus on and we need to do that also because we have these SDGs, sustainable development goals. The slogan of that framework is “leave no one behind” which means that those most vulnerable have to be pulled off.

DP: Peace is one of the most difficult objectives to achieve because of how

Mutunga: Liberal democracy is not a Trojan Horse for imperialism LECTURE Continued from page 1

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

Madison ref lect the judicial review in place in the Kenyan government.

Mutunga expanded upon this by explaining that “in times of judicial review, the constitution has codified principles that are important, and [the government] has picked some very good practices and coded them into the document that will propel the nation further.”

In the last portion of his formal lecture, Mutunga illustrated how reforms would take place and the basic framework of the principles associated with the new constitution.

“The framework has four pillars: access to justice, further developing infrastructure, transformative leadership, and promoting the use of technology,” said Mutunga. He said that the implementation of these pillars would help augment the strength of the system of checks and balances set in place.

To generate change in Kenya, where there are court backlogs, Mutunga suggested that the best way to go about creating effective change in that environment would be to advocate for the policies that have the least resistance.

“This notion of the judiciary as a political actor is interesting because of the theory of separation of powers,” Mutunga said.

“Judiciaries are an emerging consciousness about change and fighting corruption that a transformative constitution will help open up a lot of spaces that need to be altered.” He also stated that judiciaries become very strong when they deal with unpopular issues.

After the lecture, Mutunga took questions from the audience. Questions pertained to the the nature of jurisprudence of a human rights state, to institution building, and to juvenile justice.

Children’s courts were not effectively run — or focused on — but in par-

ticular using the pillar of technology, young people were able to play a critical role in Kenyan politics in recent years,” Mutunga said.

“I am always fascinated by how a legal system imported from the colonial past is adapted and reclaimed,” Jessica Sarriot GS said. “One of my favorite quotes from the lecture was when he said that ‘liberal democracy is not a Trojan horse for imperialism.’ ” Sarriot is pursuing a Masters in Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The lecture, entitled “Transforming Judiciaries in the Global South,” took place in Robertson Hall Bowl 016.

conf licts are so multi-faceted. Could you speak to something that you want to achieve?

IN: Guterres, the new SG, has said that that is the most important. The number one most important obviously is Syria because it is unbelievable, what is going on. What has already happened in terms of conf lict really needs to be put to an end which means that the political solutions will have to be found. But, I think there is something that we can actually do much more realistically and that is to work much harder on the prevention.

Because today’s conf licts are so hard to resolve, it’s much better to actually not let them happen. The word prevention has been a very popular word in the U.N…. going back to the early ’90s. But so far, most of the efforts have actually been and most of the studies have actually been on political prevention or diplomatic prevention efforts. Early engagements and facilitation dialogues between opposing parties and that’s certainly very important and we have made good progress in that. Now the U.N. and the international community in general have much better capacity to engage early and try to facilitate, manage the conf lict so that it won’t become violent conf lict. What has not been really done so far is much more of a structural prevention efforts and here again it is actually development cooperation: How can we direct development money to the fragility that might actually become conf lict? It’s an investment and that area is much more difficult to actually prove.

I don’t even know if there is methodology to prove that if you invest development cooperation in this area, there is a direct impact on prevention of conf lict.

So, that big area is a very important area and we are now working together with the World Bank to make some study of this.

DP: How exactly do we define what a crisis is?

When is something a crisis and when is it just something we need to keep an eye on? How does the U.N. make that distinction?

IN: We have certain categories: there’s level one, level two, level three, and

it’s all sort of a collective decision. We do have mechanisms to monitor the situation. [There are] different types of processes within the U.N. to do basic scanning and analysis of human rights situations in any given situation in any given country. Put that together with the political analysis of how things are moving in a given situation and when you start to see some clashes, then it becomes a very important case to very closely monitor. So, we do have internal mechanisms so I think these are very bureaucratic terms. I think you sort of know when you need to increase your deployments of people, for example increase the deployments of resources and we do actually trigger that at the U.N. level. Many times very quietly because the impact that we have will be reduced if it is actually a public engagement. Those are very sensitive situations, very often if we stay very low profile, it has a much better impact. For example, in Myanmar, the treatment of Rohingya, these are the Muslim minorities in a largely Buddhist country, Myanmar. Rohingya people don’t even have citizenship in Myanmar and they have been living in really, really appalling situations.

Trying to engage this in a public way with the government would probably cause more reaction, so our engagement has been very sustained and very strong but we do it sort of behind the scenes and I think now, with the government change in Myanmar, I hope they will be on the way to find a more sustainable solution. It’s not necessarily that we declare prices that will have a positive impact. They are actually much more sophisticated approaches that we often have to take.

DP: How much field work do you still do?

IN: I do very often. I like doing that, it’s much more fun than to be at headquarters. I get energized in the field.

this space.

FOR SALE price on request.

For more information, contact ‘Prince’ business.

Call (609)258-8110 or Email business@dailyprincetonian.com

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@ dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

Tuesday October 18, 2016

Both alumni recognized for distinguished career ALUMNI Continued from page 1

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

lated to health through Alphabet’s life sciences project and has promoted internet access in Cuba and North Korea in his unofficial role as Google’s global ambassador.

Outside of his role at Alphabet, Schmidt heads a Pentagon board that is tasked with bringing innovation from Silicon Valley into the military.

Schmidt, during his time as Google CEO, also oversaw the development of Gmail and AdSense, as well as the acquisition of YouTube, among many other projects during what was a period of massive expansion for Google.

After attending the University, Schmidt earned his Ph.D. in computer science from the University of California-Berkeley.

Kuczynski, who graduated with a master’s degree in public affairs, began his five-year term as President of Peru in July. He has also

been chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers, Minister of Economy and Finance, Minister of Energy and Mines, and Manager of the Central Reserve Bank. Outside of government, he has served as chairman of Ternium, the largest steel company in Latin America, a partner with the Rohatyn Group, which is an asset management firm specializing in emerging countries, and a founder of Agualimpia, an organization that helps implement water and sanitation projects in impoverished areas in Peru.

Kuczynski taught at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru and at the University of Pittsburgh. Before coming to the University for his graduate education, he graduated from the University of Oxford with a degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

Students appreciate funding efforts, but think that it should affect more FUNDING Continued from page 1

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

are doing a six-year Ph.D. We would need almost half those spots, of forty is not crazy much,” said Simon Schmickler GS, a second-year graduate student in the economics department.

He added that he thought the program would be a great help to those selected for it. “Even if it’s not crazy much, it’s still super helpful because right now we have to do an enormous amount of teaching in sixth year. So there are quite a few people who worry about this,” he said.

He added that he thinks the fund is also generally helpful for University graduate students as it allows them to finish their dissertations more efficiently.

In turn, this increases the students’ competitiveness in the job market.

Similarly, Vivian Chang GS, a second-year graduate student at the Woodrow Wilson School, said she thought

the program was a good idea, but was concerned that it wouldn’t have a significant impact because of how few students would be selected for it.

“I think it shouldn’t just be a f lat number, I think it should be based on how many students need this, how many students are continuing into their sixth year and still finishing up their Ph.D.s.”

According to Chang, the graduate school’s task force recently released a report that showed that University graduate students generally do have a longer program completion time.

“You don’t want to be struggling while finishing your Ph.D., especially at a really great institution at Princeton. If we want people to be able to really succeed academically and professionally we should give them more funding,” she said.

When asked how this new initiative would affect graduate students’ recent unionization efforts, David Walsh GS, a third-year

SYMPOSIUM

graduate student in the history department, said that while competitive sixth-year funding was “a step in the right direction, … it does not go far enough.”

Like other graduate students, Walsh explained that there was only a small number of students who would benefit from the program.

He added that many of the University’s peer institutions have created more generous programs, particularly Yale’s sixth-year funding initiative, which provides increased funding to all sixth-year students in good standing.

“That is a much broader commitment than Princeton, and is in no small part due to the activist work done

by Local 33–UNITE HERE, the graduate student union at Yale,” he said.

Did you know... that the ‘Prince’ has a Facebook page?

Like our page!

Procrastinate productively!

COCO CHOU :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

University faculty and external guests participated in the Inaugural Symposium sponsored by the Kaheman-Treisman Center for Behavorial Science & Public Policy.

Wanna be papa-paparazzi?

Join ‘Prince’ Photo.

Follow us on Twitter! #BeAwesome

@Princetonian

48 University Place Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Tuesday October 18, 2016

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

L

On plurality of women*s narrative

anguage should be used not to please the ears, but to shatter the silence and pluralize voices and narratives.

On October 17, the Editorial Board of the Daily Princetonian wrote a piece arguing that events hosted by the Women*s Center should be more accommodating of politically conservative students. While I agree that feminism on this campus and beyond should be inclusive of all women, I do not agree with their points that the Women’s Center should prioritize events related to career development over those related to sex, that their language around sex and sexuality is “crass,” or that they should sponsor less “politically charged and overwhelmingly liberal” events, in order to be more accommodating to conservative women, a sentiment I believe to be shared by many of my staff as well.

Some of my issues with the piece rise from the fact that as a woman of color I find it difficult to comprehend how simply saying one has the right over one’s own body and the right to life get labelled singularly as liberal. Another issue is with their claim on priorities; how is figuring out how authentic your presence is, how valid your experience is, or how powerful your body is less important than believing you are indeed qualified enough to be a leader or knowing your rights. In fact, how could the two be separated at all?

Other concerns come from the fact that I believe, contrary to the Editorial Board’s claim, that free and open discussion around sex and sexuality does empower women, and particularly through the language that provokes its

audience. We all know how powerful language is, how it shapes the way we perceive and interact with the world – but in whose language, whose rhetoric and logic are we speaking? Who has the power to decide which subjects are appropriate to be discussed and in which manner? Who can say that because discussions surrounding certain topics are not being told in words that are pleasing to the ear, things should be otherwise – and just how much power and privilege is involved in this particular act of labelling and stigmatizing? Again, language should be used to pluralize, not monopolize, the narrative.

Inclusion is about giving each voice a space it deserves, in order to shatter the historic silence that has been forced upon many minority groups, most notably minority women.

It is not only about demanding the podium, but also about learning – to listen to voices and experiences drastically different from your own and to respect those voices. It is not about listening to voices of power that have already been heard over and over again, but about listening to voices that were muff led for centuries. The Women*s Center, with its mission to recognize and redress historic and persistent gender inequality at Princeton and beyond, is a place where many of these voices find home. Let women on this campus have a room of her own, and let her speak her own mind.

Do-Hyeong Myeong is an anthropology major from Daejeon, South Korea. She can be reached at dmyeong@princeton.edu

vol. cxl

Do-Hyeong Myeong ’17 editor-in-chief

Daniel Kim ’17

business manager

140TH MANAGING BOARD managing editor Caroline Congdon ’17 news editors Jessica Li ’18 Shriya Sekhsaria ’18 opinion editor Jason Choe ’17 sports editor David Liu ’18 street editors Andie Ayala ‘19 Catherine Wang ‘19 photography editor Rachel Spady ’18 video editor Elaine Romano ’19 web editor Clement Lee ’17 chief copy editors Omkar Shende ’18 Maya Wesby ’18 design editor Crystal Wang ’18

your daily dose of multinym

associate news editors Charles Min ’17 Marcia Brown ‘19 Claire Lee ‘19

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

associate opinion editors Newby Parton ’18 Sarah Sakha ’18

Grace Koh ’19

associate sports editors Nolan Liu ’19 David Xin ’19 associate photography editors Ahmed Akhtar ’17 Atakan Baltaci ’19 Mariachiara Ficarelli ’19 associate chief copy editors Megan Laubach ’18 Samuel Garfinkle ‘19 associate design editor Jessica Zhou ’19 editorial board chair Cydney Kim ’17 cartoons editor Rita Fang ’17 Blog editor Michael Zhang ’17

NIGHT STAFF 10.17 .16 staff copy editors Morgan Bell ‘19 Arthur Mateo ‘19 contributing copy editors Sarah Deneher ‘20 Sharon Xiang ‘20 Stuti Mishra ‘20 Savannah McIntosh ‘20 Alice Xue ‘20 Alia Wood ‘20 design Rachel Brill ’19

Women’s liberal agenda Sarah Sakha

associate opinion editor

I

n its most recent piece, the Editorial Board of The Daily Princetonian criticizes the Women*s Center for an array of “overwhelmingly liberal events,” such as events around the #BlackLivesMatter movement and abortion stigma for students.

In doing so, it presupposes a liberal agenda that rejects all opposing views — one monolithic set of views to which not only all liberals subscribe, but also apparently the Women*s Center as well.

Although I fiercely oppose the imposition of a “liberal agenda,” I don’t deny that most liberal students here support the BLM movement and women’s full reproductive rights. However, an event on black lives is not solely about the politics behind police brutality — although that is arguably a transgression of basic human rights rather than an issue predicated upon political party affiliation. It is about broadening the conversation to include a plurality of voices, to include black women, black queer women, black transgender women. Although I did not attend the event with Alicia Garza back in February 2015, having read about her and her work as a black feminist

and activist, I can confidently say that broadening the conversation is the goal of such an event, not to advance a politically liberal agenda.

Likewise, an event on the stigmas surrounding abortion is not solely about a “pro-life” versus “prochoice” debate — a problematic dichotomy that I’ll leave out of this discussion. Addressing — in an effort to mitigate — pervasive abortion stigmas is a matter of promoting a culture of understanding and respect for women. And if people on either side of this debate fail to recognize the harmful implications of censuring and alienating women who have had abortions, we will continue to exacerbate problems with women’s reproductive health. Advocating against abortion is separate from providing a space for women to comfortably open up about an inconceivably difficult decision that may already have planted deep sadness and regret in the individual. Arguably, the recognition of alternative routes requires an honest, open conversation around why women, particularly female students, may choose to get an abortion, without judging or rebuking them.

The Board fails to acknowledge and recognize the valid intersectionality of racism and sexism. In fact, by branding such programming as singularly liberal, the Board perpetuates the harmful politicization of basic questions of human dignity and identity, which lie at the core of these issues. Gender and equal individual rights should transcend political labels. Discussing these subjects should not serve to further the divide, but bridge it. Regardless of political views, the ultimate objective of Women*s Center programming should be supported by liberals and conservatives alike — no labels needed.

Sarah Sakha is a Wilson School major from Scottsdale, Ariz.

She can be reached at ssakha@princeton.edu.

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday October 18, 2016

page 5

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

A

In response to the Editorial Board’s recent publication, “Yes All Women’s Center”

s a Women*s Center student staff member and the Vice President of Programming of the Princeton Women’s Mentorship Program, I would like to respond to the recent editorial, “Yes All Women’s Center.” In this piece, the Editorial Board calls upon the Women*s Center to refocus its programming and take greater input from students. While this perspective is certainly valid, and the Women*s Center welcomes any and all feedback from the student body, I would like to address some claims made in the editorial.

Even before discussing this editorial, its title must be appraised. The YesAllWomen hashtag is meant to give women a platform to share experiences of misogyny and violence that too many women face.

Using that phrase in this title is trivializing and demeaning, not only to this movement but also to the Women*s Center’s attempts to address issues of sex-positivity, which helps counter such misogyny.

In the editorial itself, the Board first calls on the Women*s Center to “refocus its programming to emphasize core issues directly affecting the undergraduate experience,” citing the recent events concerning sexuality, genitalia, and selfpleasure as examples of events that do not fit this standard. However, this sex-positive, informative programming was wellreceived by the student body, as evidenced by high attendance by people of all genders, from a wide variety of backgrounds and identities. Talking about anatomy, sex, and sexuality in a supportive setting empowers people to make decisions about their own bodies. Furthermore, while the Board deemed the publicity for these events “crass,” this advertising helped spark open, honest, and clear dialogue between students of all backgrounds and political perspectives regarding sexuality.

Calling these statements “crass” reinforces the lack of prioritization of comprehensive, inclusive sex education, making such events necessary to provide important information that many students failed to receive in high school.

The Board also claims that the Women*s Center publicity was “off-putting to many students,” while emphasizing that it (the Board) supports freedom of expression.

Yet if open and informed discussions, through events like the ones held last

week, cannot be held by the Women*s Center, how and where can students express and develop their views on these matters at all? Preventing such events does a disservice to students of all genders and political perspectives by failing to provide a platform to hold such discussions respectfully and openly.

Despite the fact that the sessions with Ellen Heed included sessions on male and intersex genitalia, the Board only focuses on the discussion of female genitalia, claiming that “over-emphasizing issues related to sexuality at the expense of other valuable programming…could harmfully reduce Princeton women to their bodies”. However, informed discussions of sexuality, self-pleasure, and genitalia do exactly the opposite. These discussions allow women on college campuses to understand and value their bodies in a society that polices female sexuality (and its discussion). Censoring such events only reinforces this policing of women’s bodies, by claiming that their sexuality is not important or appropriate enough to be discussed. Furthermore, open conversation about sexuality benefits people of all genders by allowing them to discuss questions in a safe space and gain an understanding of anatomy and sexuality that are too often censored in schools. This relates to the notion that the Women*s Center is a space for all genders, which is reflected in our title itself, the “Women*s Center” rather than the “Women’s Center.”

This title is meant to recognize past and present gender inequality at Princeton, while using the asterisk to complicate the idea that the center is for women only.

Instead of last week’s events, what should the Women*s Center focus on?

The Board claims that higher-impact programming would focus on helping women who are “pursuing leadership opportunities or seeking career advice.” Not only is the Women*s Center involved in such programming, but more importantly, the Board’s emphasis on such programming over discussions of sexuality echoes the “lean-In” feminism that places excessive value on ensuring that women can access corporate leadership positions. This approach fails to question the role of capitalism in sustaining gender inequality and forgets that initiatives to place women in corporate leadership roles often only benefit white, heterosexual, cis-gendered,

well-off women. Promoting women’s leadership is important, but it is not the only role of the Women*s Center.

Thus, it is not a failure in prioritizing that caused the Women*s Center to hold the “Sex with the Lights On” events before career-related events. Rather, events about sexuality are equally important, and assuming that sexuality is irrelevant or unimportant reinforces taboos and stereotypes that often police women. Furthermore, events are often timed based on speaker availability, complicating the Board’s claim about prioritization. An event’s proximity to the beginning of the year does not reflect its priority, given that it is so difficult to find speakers who are available when students are during the semester.

On event cited by the Board, Elect Her, is being sponsored by the Women’s Mentorship Program (WMP), a group that has been supported and advised by the Women*s Center. WMP’s mission is to address issues pertaining to women’s leadership, meaning there is actually an entire organization on campus dedicated to this mission that the Board deems worthwhile.

Yet WMP’s focus on women’s leadership strives to go beyond reinforcement of traditional perceptions of leaders. For example, Elect Her is meant to not only encourage women to run for elected positions, but also to provide women with selfpresentation skills that will help them in any field, thus helping counter traditional capitalist perspectives on women’s leadership. Hence, the timing of Elect Her, while perhaps inconvenient for those who would have used this workshop to help them run for Freshman Class Office, is not a tragic result of “misplaced priorities.”

In terms of the Center’s “politically charged and overwhelmingly liberal events,” it is self-contradictory of the Board to claim, on one hand, that it promotes freedom of expression while, on the other hand, deeming events like the ones discussing Black Lives Matter and abortion stigma too liberal and political for discussion. Such events are not party affiliated. Instead, discussions such as the one about abortion stigma specifically serve to reveal perspectives that are rarely shared on campus. Given the fact that the Women*s Center allows organizations of all political perspectives to use its space, for example through the open

Personality Survey 1. What was the first thing you did this morning?

a) Scan through your Google alerts.

b) Checked your Facebook photos.

c) Edited your paper.

d) Came back from the Street.

e) Checked ESPN.

f) Read The Daily Princetonian.

2. How will you be spending your break?

a) Writing papers.

b) Taking awkward family photos.

c) Finding the comma splices in the family holiday newsletter.

d) Going to indie concerts.

e) Watching basketball and curling on TV.

f) Checking dailyprincetonian.com and assorted blogs.

3. What will be at the top of your New Year’s resolution list?

a) To talk with Shirley Tilghman.

b) To watch a football game from the field.

c) To stop using Oxford commas.

d) To correctly predict the Academy Award winners.

e) To get in shape for the New York City Marathon.

f) To join The Daily Princetonian.

If you answered mostly...

a) Join the Daily Princetonian staff !

b) Join the Daily Princetonian staff !

c) Join the Daily Princetonian staff !

d) Join the Daily Princetonian staff !

e) Join the Daily Princetonian staff !

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

house held by Princeton Pro-Life in the Center last Friday evening, the claim that we are politically homogenous is simply not true. If the Women*s Center cannot hold programs and host student groups that take stances on contentious issues, these important discussions will remain undiscussed – for what better place to host events that allow people of all genders to discuss controversial issues that deeply and personally affect them, like issues of police brutality and reproductive justice?

It is important to note that the Board is right in suggesting that the Women*s Center incorporate student feedback. However, the Board fails to acknowledge that the Women*s Center’s has already undertaken efforts to do so. For example, around when the Fields Center started the Fellows program, the Women*s Center hired six new student staff members for a total of seven student workers, all of whom are certainly “culturally and politically diverse.” Furthermore, the Women*s Center has and will continue to use survey data to better serve the student body. We will continue to incorporate student feedback, including feedback from this editorial. Our programming on topics like sexuality, however, does not show a failure to engage. In fact, it does just the opposite. Of course we will do our best to address the concerns of those who feel excluded by our programming. But it is crucial that we continue to host programming like the discussions with Ellen Heed. These discussions may not fit traditional expectations of what is needed to “support female Princetonians,” but they instead help us truly support and engage Princetonians of all genders.

Aparna Raghu is a Molecular Biology Major from Short Hills, NJ. She can be reached at araghu@princeton.edu.

She would like to thank Amina Simon for her significant help in editing this article; also the Women*s Center student staff (Tess W. Jacobson, Teresa Irigoyen-López, Mikaela Gerwin, Melissa A. De Queredo, Rachel H. Marek, and Jillian Silbert) and the Women’s Mentorship Program Leadership Team (Emily Kraeck, Nadia Diamond, Adriana Rubertone, and Isabella Lloyd-Damnjanovic) for providing ideas and clarifications.

The Daily Princetonian

page 6

Tuesday October 18, 2016

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Don’t rush the vote Amit Halevi

guest contributor

T

he graduate student body recently held a unionization meeting on Oct. 13, during which they provided information and opinions regarding whether to affiliate with the American Federation of Teachers or the Service Employees International Union, two national unions. At the meeting, the graduate student body voted against a proposal to move forward a vote that had previously been planned to occur on Oct. 18. They did so quite rightfully, in my opinion, considering that most graduate students only learned about the existence of a unionization committee a few days before the informational session, and many did not even know then.

While I acknowledge and sympathize with a desire on the part of Princeton Graduate Students United to keep a low profile and guard against the danger of intervention or retribution on the part of a hypothetical wrathful administration, the end result of these efforts was a completely opaque process.

When I first heard about the amicus brief that the University filed (together with several other Ivies, Stanford, and MIT) with the National Labor Relations Board last spring, I immediately started talking about unionization but was unable to take action as I was studying for my preliminary exams. I was away for most of the summer, and when I returned a few weeks before classes started, I began hearing rumors about a group of students discussing unionization but was utterly unable to figure out when or where they met; as it turns out, there was a Facebook group created at the end of August, but it was understandably set to private. Awareness of and membership in this group seemed to spread primarily through word-of-mouth.

Thursday evening’s meeting was the first time I got a concrete time and date for a place to involve myself in union matters — at a meeting that one of PGSU’s founding members tried to turn into a vote! Just as opaque, if not more so, is the manner in which it was decided to definitively vote on joining one of two possible unions.

There are at least two other major unions, the United Automobile Workers and UNITE HERE, that have graduate student members in the United States, and when I asked how the group had come to the decision of choosing between their two specific options, I was told that it was because representatives of those two unions had approached us through personal connections between their members and members of PGSU. Contrast this with the Graduate Student Government charging an officer with the responsibility to research and investigate all possibilities; that officer, in fact, spoke briefly at the meeting, and indeed seemed better versed on the details of the various unions than the meeting’s organizers.

This begs the following questions: Why do these students feel that they can represent the graduate student body at Princeton, and why do they want to push through the vote so quickly?

The answer to the first is not entirely clear, as it’s certainly the case that the meeting of Oct. 13 was not a typical cross-section of the grad student body. For example, when an attendant asked for a brief survey, and members researching humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering raised their hands in turn, it was revealed that the vast majority of the 70-odd attendees were humanities students; yet, those departments collectively make up 22 percent of the PhD student population. And that’s without even touching on the sheer ridiculousness of having 70-odd students make a decision that would affect 2,400. While I applaud the initiative of any group of concerned citizens willing to take it upon themselves to organize such a movement for the common good, I have deep apprehensions about what appears to be a group taking unilateral action that could have deep implications for all possible union-related activity going forward. For example, say that this group invites one of the two unions in question to come campaign here; what if the student body as a whole later decides they prefer a different union? Would it be easy, or even possible, to “switch over”? Are the graduate students at large aware

of what it would mean to bring in an external campaign manager? I certainly am not, and I feel that I’ve done more to educate myself on the matter than most.

Which brings me to my main issue with PSGU and their current actions: it’s all happening far too fast.

While the GSG (a body that has representatives from 36 of the 41 academic departments and graduate programs) is forbidden from taking sides in any sort of labor relations issue, they have taken it upon themselves to set up a factfinding mission, and have set forth a plan to organize a series of town halls to allow for open debate, with a tentative schedule of assembling facts by mid-November and organizing a vote on union affiliation before the end of the semester. Considering the complete lack of negative action or even pressure on the part of the university administration, I personally think that even that time table might be faster than is necessary, but it would certainly give most students enough time to receive the pertinent information, pursue independent research if they feel the need, and make an intelligent, informed, and considered decision. As it stands, PGSU has given the student body at large roughly a week to educate and inform themselves, assuming that they weren’t at a conference, or doing field work, or locked up in a room studying for generals.

And so, in the absence of a decision by PGSU to delay their vote — not to cancel it, but simply to push it back a few weeks so that we, the students, can figure out what is going on — I call upon my fellow students to submit a vote of “No Vote” on Monday or Tuesday, indicating that they don’t want to be rushed into a decision about which they can’t possibly be adequately informed.

Amit Halevi GS is in the program in applied and computational mathematics, and comes from Boulder C.O. He can be reached at ahalevi@princeton.edu

Dispelling misconceptions about grad student unions Max Grear

columnist

I

t’s an exciting time for graduate student labor. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board decided to grant the right to unionize to students who work as teaching and research assistants at private universities. Since then, graduate students at a number of institutions have begun organizing support around unionization and even petitioning the NLRB for union recognition. Graduate students at the University may be next.

However, there are signs that graduate students here may face unsympathetic responses from the University community.

The Editorial Board has done their part, penning a strikingly uninformed piece against unionization earlier this month.

This editorial deserves a response because it articulates several misconceptions about organized graduate student labor that seem unfortunately common among the larger campus community.

The Editorial Board’s unconvincing claim that any opinion on this issue must be “speculative” because of “the scarcity of graduate student unions at peer institutions” serves as a convenient excuse to forego any substantive research that might back up their reactionary assumptions. Among them: that unionization would present significant and overall harmful administrative and financial hurdles, that a labor union would only benefit graduate students for a few years and unfairly saddle future students with bargaining arrangements they did not decide upon, that a union would damage relationships between students and other members of the university community, and that graduate students’ academic roles should preclude them labor protections.

First of all, the Editorial Board exhibits a glaring neglect for existing evidence on graduate student organizing. While it is true that, due to the NLRB’s 2004 decision against organizers at Brown University, graduate student unions have not previously existed at private universities aside from New York University, unions have a long history at public universities. When it comes to many aspects of academic labor, such as student-

faculty relationships or short-term contracting of teaching and research positions, the commonalities between public and private institutions are strong enough to dispel the Editorial Board’s “speculative” concerns about damaged University relationships or prohibitive administrative and financial challenges.

Administrative and financial hurdles should be far easier for the University to handle (with its ever-growing $22.2 billion endowment) than it would be for schools, like the University of Michigan, that are frequently forced to deal with budget cuts and political pressure. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that unionization has harmed relationships between public university graduate students and their larger campus communities. Most aspects of student-faculty relationships, such as personal and professional support or academic freedom, should not be impacted differently by unionization at the University than by organizing at advanced research institutions like the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, and the University of California system.

Despite some critics’ concerns that student organizing would negatively impact relationships with faculty, evidence suggests the opposite; the American Association of University Professors has come out in support of unionization, arguing that “the most current research on the issue finds that graduate student unionization poses no adverse effect on faculty-student relations.” The AAUP also notes that collective bargaining promotes academic freedom by allowing students, faculty, and administrators to “discuss collectively how best to do their shared work of teaching and research” and by providing contractual guarantees that protect individual academic freedom.

A 2013 study of public university unions supports these claims, demonstrating that unionization does not harm faculty-student relationships or academic freedom, and instead offers benefits in the form of higher pay and higher reported levels of personal and professional support.

The Editorial Board’s piece also reflects

a poor understanding of the way that academic labor functions in the current University model, particularly in its argument that unionization would saddle future students with a bargaining arrangement that they did not decide upon. The problem with this line of thinking is that it treats research and teaching assistant work as a temporary stop-over between being either a full-time student or a full-time working professional. How can current graduate students, the Board wonders, justifiably put in place a long-standing legal and administrative arrangement with the University when these students will likely graduate in a few years?

The reality of academic labor today is that short-term contracted teaching and research jobs have become careers in themselves as the number of tenure-track positions has steadily declined. Maggie Doherty has been employed by Harvard University for ten years teaching writing to freshmen and teaching tutorials on American history, and she observes that graduate students end up spending seven, eight or nine years “doing faculty-level work for a fraction of faculty pay, under the pretense that they are being ‘trained’ for jobs that don’t exist.” If graduate students should be discouraged from organizing because of their temporary status at particular institutions, as the Editorial Board seems to think, then unionization is frowned upon for the very same reason that graduate students have little leverage to bargain with universities and “feel pressured to stay silent in order to protect their health care.”

Unions have already shown concrete benefits for students at institutions similar to the University. Largely thanks to collective bargaining, NYU increased graduate student stipends from $12,500 to $22,000 a year and eliminated health care premiums. At Harvard, the mere threat of unionization seems to have recently sparked an intentionally-timed enhancement to funding packages. While the University may offer a higher stipend than many other institutions, unionization is not solely a question of money — to quote Columbia student Paul R. Katz, “it’s a question of power and de-

Look at our pretty photos! photo.dailyprincetonian.com

mocracy in a space in the academy that’s increasingly corporatized, hierarchical.” Former Cornell student Robb Willer, who was involved in unionizing efforts, emphasizes “the ideals of collective bargaining, like the right to have a say in one’s workplace” rather than focusing solely on stipend levels.

Finally, as an undergraduate, I feel compelled to respond to the Editorial Board’s argument that unionization could harm the undergraduate experience. For one thing, their concern that unions would make it difficult for preceptors to meet with students is unfounded; Brown University, for example, states that “it is unlikely that the educational policy regarding allocation of student time would be subject to collective bargaining.”

More broadly, however, the Editorial Board’s attitude reflects a sense of entitlement to the work provided by graduate students. While graduate students, like undergraduates, partake in an educational environment, this participation does not invalidate their status as employees. If the undergraduate experience as it exists now requires that these employees are barred from having a fair say in their workplaces and relegated to a position of little real leverage, then it is time for us to rethink the way that we as undergraduates interact with the larger campus community.

Max Grear ’18 is a Spanish and Portuguese major from Wakefield, R.I. He can be reached at mgrear@ princeton.edu.

Tuesday October 18, 2016

The Daily Princetonian

page 7

Yo, Taylor, I’m really happy for you ... Imma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time! One of the best videos of all time!

- Kanye West

Buy an ad. Say what you want.

For more information, contact ‘Prince’ business.

Call (609)258-8110 or

Email business@dailyprincetonian.com

Sports

Tuesday October 18, 2016

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S TENNIS

Women’s tennis takes down top teams at University of Michigan

By Isabella Haegg contributor

Senior Caroline Joyce and sophomore Nicole Kalhorn handily defeated the ITA’s No. 4 doubles team of University of Michigan’s Brienne Minor and Mira Ruder-Hook 6-2 in the highlight of Princeton Women’s Tennis’ showing at the Wolverine Invitational hosted by the University of Michigan this past weekend.

In Princeton’s only doubles win on Saturday, Joyce and Kalhorn opened the match with a decisive 3-0 lead before closing out the set, putting the pair up 4-2 this season.

University of Miami and University of Washington also played in the invitational with three days of play from Friday to Sunday.

Princeton picked up four of eight singles wins on Friday. Freshman Gaby Pollner rallied in the third set to defeat Miami’s Clara Tanielian 1-6, 7-5, 6-4, while junior Sara Goodwin closed out two sets against Miami’s Sara Culbertson 6-4, 6-1, and freshmen Tiffany Chen and Clare McKee beat their Michigan opponents in three sets, 6-3, 2-6, 6-4 and 6-3, 4-6, 6-4 respectively.

Princeton doubles also made an impressive debut on Friday, winning three of four

matches. McKee and Pollner as well as senior Sivan Krems and junior Katrine Steffenson beat their Washington opponents 6-2 and 6-3, and Chen and Goodwin followed with a 6-3 win against Miami.

After her success in doubles, Kalhorn had Princeton’s only singles win on Saturday against Miami’s Dominika Paterova 7-5, 6-1. Krems gave No. 32 Yolimar Ogando of Miami a tough fight in three sets, losing 4-6, 7-5, 4-6.

The Tigers closed out Sunday with two singles wins against Washington with Krems and Kalhorn bringing home 6-1, 6-3, and 7-5, 6-1 wins, respectively.

In a notable match of the day, Pollner demonstrated her tenacity in a nailbiter 6-7 (17) first set against No. 117-ranked Ana Madcur of Miami before falling 6-1 in the second.

Princeton split doubles on the last day of the Invitational, with Pollner and Krems edging out Miami 6-4 and Chen and Steffenson executing a flawless 6-0 win over Miami.

With promising performances under their belt, the Tigers will look to build upon their upward momentum at Yale in the ITA/USTA Northeast Regional Championship starting on Oct. 20.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The women’s tennis squad took down the No. 4-ranked University of Michigan’s doubles team.

MEN’S SOCCER

Men’s soccer drops tough match to Columbia

By Chris Murphy contributor

The Tigers learned Saturday that playing with fire will occasionally get you burned. Princeton (6-5-1 overall, 0-2-1 Ivy) couldn’t effectively clear Columbia’s corner kicks in extra time, as Vana Markarian scored for the Lions (8-2-1, 2-0-1) to break the one all tie and hand Princeton its second straight Ivy League defeat.

Playing up in the city on the afternoon of Oct.

15, Princeton had hoped to ride momentum from its 4-1 beatdown over instate opponent Rutgers (0-10-2) earlier that week.

Princeton was carrying a two-game road win streak into Columbia, hoping to collect its first Ivy League win of the season. Senior defender Greg Seifert looked like he would lead the charge, having four great chances to score — two in each half. The first nearly went by Lion goalie Dylan Castanheira before he saved it between his

legs. The second chance midway through the second half was shot hard and ricocheted off the right post on what would have been the go ahead goal.

Siefert scored the lone goal of the contest for the Tigers in the 51st minute, weaving between two defenders to score off of a feed from sophomore midfielder Sean McSherry. That was Seifert’s seventh goal of the season, the most of any Tigers player this year. Seifert

once again looked poised to lead the Tigers to victory if his shots went through.

However, Columbia’s John Denis scored the first goal of in the 37th minute and once again in overtime. Columbia, like Princeton, also had some good chances, but senior goalie Josh Haberman stood tall and saved six of the eight shots on goal.

Haberman was the reason this game went into extra time, stopping a header off of a free kick in the fi-

RACHEL SPADY :: PHOTO EDITOR

Men’s soccer suffered a close overtime loss to Columbia on Saturday, falling 3-1 after struggling against corner kicks in extra time.

Tweet of the Day “It’s officially Harvard week.” dorian williams (@ DWilliamsPU), senior defensive back, football

Stat of the Day

7 goals Senior defender Greg Seifert scored his seventh goal of the season on Saturday.

nal minute of regulation.

He also had a great save in the 56th minute to keep the game tied 1-1.

The overtime period was thrilling to watch. Columbia had three consecutive corners, two of which resulted in headers on goal and the third of which accounted for the game winning goal. Princeton attempted to clear the ball multiple times, but def lections and redirects left them little opportunity to clear without forcing another Columbia corner.

The loss hurts the Tigers, as they have dropped their second straight Ivy league contest and have fallen to 0-2-1 in league play this year. That currently puts them at No. 7 in the Ivy League with one point, trailing league leaders Columbia, Dartmouth (4-2-5, 2-0-1), and Harvard (7-3-2, 2-0-1), each with seven points. The Tigers will look to take control of league games moving forward as they attempt to claw their way back into the title race.

They have shown their heart before and it is clear they can compete and win any game.

The Tigers face Georgetown on Oct.18, concluding their three-game road trip in the nation’s capital.

They then have a few days off before a critical showdown on Saturday against the Harvard Crimson.

The Tigers won last year’s meeting in Massachusetts by a score of 3-2.

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