October 25, 2017

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Wednesday October 25, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 93

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } ON CAMPUS

U . A F FA I R S

McPhee ’53 reflects on writing process, journalism senior writer

“So, what happens now?”

Pulitzer Prize-winning Ferris Professor of Journalism John McPhee ’53 half-jokingly, halfnervously asked as he handed the reins of the conversation over to his two former students, Robert Wright ’79 and Joel Achenbach ’82, at a book discussion on Tuesday evening at Labyrinth Books.

Accompanied by Wright and Achenbach, two accomplished writers in their own rights, McPhee answered questions relating to his extensive career as a writer of creative nonfiction and discussed his most recent book, “Draft No. 4: On the Writing Process.”

Wright is a journalist, writer, and professor, with one of his most popular books being “The Evolution of God.” Also a journalist, Achenbach serves as a staff writer for The Washington Post and is the author of books including “Why Things Are” and “A Hole at the Bottom of the Sea: The Race to Kill the BP Oil Gusher.”

Because “Draft No. 4: On the Writing Process” focuses on — as its name suggests — the process writers go through in reaching final drafts, much of McPhee’s talk centered around prominent characteristics of his own work style. A key feature of his personal writing style, according to McPhee, is structure. In explaining this focus on structure in writing, McPhee highlighted the indispensability of a strong framework to any piece of writing’s natural flow.

“When you say you don’t particularly notice [structure], great, that’s what I want to hear.

It should be as visible as a person’s bones,” he said.

Even with this subtlety, however, McPhee’s focus on structure is not lost to his readers.

An attendee of the event, local New Jersey journalist and author Richard Smith, called McPhee, “a hero and an inspiration.” Smith cited McPhee’s emphasis on structure as a key element in his admiration for the renowned journalist.

“McPhee explodes this myth that art has to be just so totally spontaneous, and that if you structure and analyze it, it ruins it,” Smith said. “I think the fact that he has so much structure, and really researches and reports so assiduously, liberates it and makes it so wonderful.”

In discussing conventional journalistic structures, McPhee touched on the common journalistic tool of the nut graph, a kind of thesis statement to a piece of journalism. He explained that he does not like nut graphs in his own writing.

“There is nothing wrong with that [using a nut graph], but to assume that there has to be such a thing is extremely formulaic, and I think formulaic writing is not going to lead to every possibility you could think of,” McPhee explained.

As far as the drafting process goes, McPhee espoused what he described as a common lesson

In Opinion

he teaches to his students of journalism: that a piece “takes as long as it takes” until it is finished. As for when McPhee is able to gauge when one of his pieces is finished, he said he feels lucky to have always had an innate sense of when he has reached the end of a piece of writing, even from the start of his career.

“I’ve always been lucky. I’ve always known when I was done.

When I hit a point, I can do no better; that’s the best I can do,” McPhee said.

As a writer of nonfiction, McPhee has historically been known to keep himself out of his stories, even going so far as to not include a book jacket photo in his books. When pressed by Achenbach about what “the perils of the author being present” truly are, McPhee expressed his preference for keeping the story about its subject, not its author.

“You have the material that somebody collects in a nonfiction piece and you want to talk about it, the author might want to prance around and show off and do all kinds of things so that the piece becomes about the author and not about the subject,” McPhee said. “When that happens, it kind of curls my lip.”

On the topic of the reporting process versus writing, McPhee noted that in reporting, you never know what you miss.

“Some of these nuggets that come along are opportune and you never know what just went by that you didn’t get,” he said.

“If you stay at it long enough, you can assemble material from which you can then do a piece of writing.”

McPhee, Wright, and Achenbach’s discourse concluded on McPhee’s role as a professor, with Wright and Achenbach recounting several of their own memories of McPhee in the classroom.

According to Achenbach, “an obvious lesson of John McPhee” that he took away as a student was “that all the words matter, and they matter a lot.”

Achenbach added that McPhee’s personal investment in each of his students had a tremendous impact on him as writer. “[McPhee] took my writing more seriously than I did,” Achenbach said. “John taught us to actually revere the language and to treat words as though they are not interchangeable.”

McPhee has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1965 and has published almost 30 books.

In discussing the evolution of his career, McPhee noted that the process of being a writer is a long and steady one.

“I was consistently and absolutely rejected until I was 31.

And I tell that story to students … not to be discouraging, but because I think it’s encouraging.

Writers grow slowly,” he said.

“You learn writing in the volume of what you do. And other people like me can comment as you go along.”

The event took place at 6 p.m. at Labyrinth Books on 122 Nassau St.

Guest contributor Kyle Berlin responds to criticism of his Letter to the Editor by Sinan Ozbay, and contributing columnist Jon Ort urges us not to forfeit our privacy online. PAGE 4

COURTESY OF DAVID DOBKIN, PRINCETON COMPUTER SCIENCE

Students will learn about migration in a global context in a seminar led by professor Sandra Bermann.

Bermann to teach seminar about global migration

By Ivy Truong and Sarah Warman Hirschfield contributor and senior writer

For Sandra Bermann, migration is a truly global phenomenon. Migration, she says, is the human face of globalization.

Beginning in the 2018–19 academic year, Cotsen Professor in the Humanities and professor of comparative literature Sandra Bermann will lead a Sawyer Seminar called Global Migration: The Humanities

and Social Sciences in Dialogue with support from a $225,000 grant to the University from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. In the course, Bermann plans to bring in faculty from multiple disciplines, including history, sociology, comparative literature, and politics.

Established in 1994, Sawyer Seminars are designed to be “temporary research centers,” not credit-bearing courses.

Eugene Tobin, senior program officer at The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, explained that migration is rarely studied through the lens of the humanities, like it will be in Bermann’s seminar. Instead, Tobin said that migration studies are often tackled through the lens of economics, sociology, or demography.

“The type of interdisciplinary conversation See SEMINAR page 2

U . A F FA I R S

ON CAMPUS

P-Safe report shows increase in reported incidents of rape, robbery in 2016

Tatum emphasizes importance of diversity

By Benjamin Ball contributor

According to the University’s Department of Public Safety Annual Report, there has been a sharp increase in crimes of rape and theft on campus between 2015 and 2016.

The report stated the number of reported rapes on campus has doubled in a year, from six in 2015 to 12 in 2016. The number of reported robberies has also increased, according to the report. Whereas in 2015 there were no acts of robbery reported on campus, there were five reported robberies in 2016. Burglary has also increased from 24 burglaries in 2015 to 33 in 2016. The Department of Public Safety’s distinction between robbery and burglary, as noted in the report, is that burglary involves some kind of unlawful entry to commit felony or theft, while robbery is an individual’s attempt to take anything that does not belong to him or her.

The DPS report is mandated by the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, which requires colleges and universities receiving federal funding to annually publish statistics on crime at and around their campuses.

The DPS report highlights the reality that not all reported

crimes result in charges. Indeed, the statistics given by DPS are numbers of reported crimes, not charges themselves. For example, spokeswoman for the Mercer County prosecutor’s office Casey DeBlasio told Central Jersey News that to her knowledge, no one was charged for rape occurring at the University in 2016. This statistic stands in clear contrast to the six reported rapes denoted in the 2016 report.

The report states that the statistics outlined in the University’s DPS report are the ones collected from public safety officers’ reports of a crime, which are inputted at the time of the incidents in the department’s integrated record management system. After a report is made and put into the system, a department administrator reviews the report to check for correct classification of the crime. The department periodically examines the data to ensure all reported crimes are recorded in accordance with the crime definitions outlined in the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook and, for sex offenses, the FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System Handbook, the report further stated.

The report also noted that Public Safety crime statistics do not include reports of sexual See P-SAFE page 2

Today on Campus 6 p.m.: Judith Hamera and Dean of the College Jill Dolan discuss the changing nature of work and capitalism.

Labyrinth Books, 122 Nassau St.

By Samvida Venkatesh senior writer

Every campus has the opportunity to bring people together across lines of difference, said Beverly Daniel Tatum in a discussion on the latest edition of her book “‘Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?’

And Other Conversations About Race.”

Tatum — who served as ninth president of Spelman College, the oldest historically black women’s college in the United States — is a renowned psychologist and educator who has widely written on race and education. “‘Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?’

And Other Conversations About Race” was first published in 2003.

“College is often the first space where people have to engage across lines of difference, and they don’t necessarily have a lot of practice in doing so,” she said.

If this engagement is not pursued and prioritized, Tatum noted, students’ ability to engage with different people may be lost forever.

After college, 75 percent See DIVERSITY page 2

WEATHER

By Emily Spalding

HIGH

65˚

LOW

42˚

Sunny. chance of rain:

0 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Wednesday October 25, 2017

Tatum: College is often the first space Bermann: Migration where people engage with differences is not going to end, it’s always been with us SEMINAR Continued from page 1

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

SAMVIDA VENKATESH :: DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Tatum discussed her book “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?”

DIVERSITY Continued from page 1

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

of white adults have an entirely white social network, that is, they live in white neighborhoods and work in primarily white workplaces, added Tatum, emphasizing the unique assembly of diversity in institutions of higher education and therefore the unique opportunity in encouraging dialogue.

At Spelman College, Tatum advised campus activists to persist in their protests and actions because enduring change requires commitment for the long haul. However, she recognized that the key to persistence was self-care. She said that students are eager to see the impact of their efforts in four short years, but she pushed them to remember to care for themselves as they maintained their enthusiasm.

While serving as Dean of Mount Holyoke College, Tatum explained she was able to address institutional obligations and responsibilities in sustaining dialogue on inclusivity. She advocated strongly for need-based rather than merit-based financial aid as acceptance into a college was itself meritorious.

“If you don’t need the money, you shouldn’t get the money,” she said.

According to Tatum, institutions have not changed because it is easier to continue doing the same thing.

Specifically, the creation of an equitable system gives

some people a sense of loss.

To this point, Tatum gave the example of a Protestant chapel at Mount Holyoke that was converted to a worship space for people of all religious backgrounds.

“People who were attached to [the worship space] felt that they were losing because something was being taken away from their group,” Tatum said.

However, she mentioned the importance of other Christian student leaders in engaging with the protesters to see the benefits of sharing the space with all religious groups.

Allyship from those who do have privilege is necessary for productive action, Tatum noted.

“Privilege comes along with being in a dominant group. It is not a character flaw or an insult if someone says you are privileged, but you have a choice about how you want to use your privilege,” Tatum said. “Do you maintain the status quo, or do you interrupt it?”

Tatum explained that in the 20 years since her book first came out, there has been a shift in forms of activism, particularly campus activism. Particularly, Tatum said the #blacklivesmatter movement was far less structured than the movements in the 1950s when she grew up, but included leadership from a variety of communities across the country rather than concentrated in one time and space.

Although some things have changed in the last twenty years, such as the

racial makeup of public schools that are now over 50 percent people of color, others have not, Tatum explained. Regarding school segregation, Tatum noted that black and Latinx children still attend socalled “majority-minority schools” while white children still go to primarily white schools.

“New faces, same places,” she said.

Even though much in the United States remains the same, Tatum does note that some things have changed.

“A 20-year-old in this country today came of age with an African-American president and hearing about being in a ‘post-racial’ era — how do you engage with that?” asked Tatum.

She reminded the audience that a 20-year-old today had far different milestones growing up: They would have been 15 when Trayvon Martin was killed, 17 during the Ferguson disruptions, 19 when Trump was elected last November, and 20 when white supremacists marched in Charlottesville. “How does that shape you?” she questioned.

The discussion with Tatum was moderated by Michele Minter, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, and was cosponsored by the Campus Conversations on Identities Initiative and the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life. It took place in McCosh 10 at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday and was attended by over 100 students, faculty, and administrators.

promised in [Global Migration] — in which the humanities as well as interpretive social sciences and natural sciences have essential roles in comparative research on the historical and cultural sources of contemporary issues — is at the heart of the Mellon Foundation’s Sawyer Seminar series,” Tobin noted.

Regarding global migration as an interdisciplinary field, Bermann noted that, to her, the question of migration is one that isn’t defined by any single discipline. “[Migration] … cries out for insights from many disciplines,” she said. “So I see it as an issue that is really demanding an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary [approach].”

Bermann’s preliminary plan is to invite lecturers and professors not only from multiple disciplines, but also from a variety of careers, ranging from academia to government, to her seminar. As such, much of the Mellon grant will be dedicated to bringing in lecturers from outside the University, according to Bermann.

A big question Bermann plans to tackle is how migration can be dealt with in a way that is more humane and understanding of unique situations and contexts.

“I don’t think that the humanities have an answer for this, and I don’t think the social sciences do,” Bermann said. “But I think by putting our efforts together … we might come up with some creative solutions for affecting our public discourse.”

In 1998, a similar Sawyer Seminar to Bermann’s was offered at the University. This seminar, called Migration and Citizenship in the Americas was led by Jeremy Adelman, Henry Charles Lea Professor of History, and Marta Tienda, Maurice P. During Professor in Demographic Studies. Adelman did not respond to request for comment by the time of this article’s publication, while Tienda declined to comment due to travel.

Bermann noted that though migration has always existed and has been studied for many years, her seminar will be unique in its greater focus on the new kinds of questions

that have arisen in situations of contemporary migration — particularly in Syria, Africa, Asia, India, and Latin America.

Bermann explained it is essential to put heads together to think about migration, especially because of the rising numbers of migrants and the changing tenor of nationalisms in this era of internationalism.

Moreover, she noted that there remain many interesting and pertinent questions about migration that have not been well researched of yet.

The answers to these unanswered questions — why people choose to migrate, why some societies are worried about migration while others are welcoming, how political, journalistic, artistic narratives affect these attitudes — are of consequence to the world stage, she said.

Hermann also emphasises the many questions around language and migration: what happens when migrants have to petition for asylum or simply navigate everyday life without knowing the language of their host culture, or what happens when children become everyday translators since they often learn the languages first. These, she said, will be tackled in the seminar, which Bermann hopes will be open to the public at times.

“Understanding the situation [of global migration] more broadly may help open the discourse [on migration] in the U.S.,” Bermann said, emphasizing her hope that her seminar will open a “broader frame of reference” for developing “many-pronged” solutions to today’s questions surrounding migration.

Bermann hopes that the dialogue within the seminar will extend to the greater Princeton community. In prioritizing community outreach, she believes seminar participants will be able to gain invaluable knowledge from communities at Princeton and throughout New Jersey.

Though Bermann admits her seminar will often operate from a North American perspective, she explained that she plans on featuring lecturers from around the world and sources who study different regions.

“Migration is not going to end,” Bermann said. “It’s always been with us, and it will continue.”

Eisgruber: The only acceptable number of rapes on campus is zero P-SAFE

Continued from page 1

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

assault, harassment, or reports made through confidential resources such as the Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources, and Education office.

The primary reason for this is that these reports cannot be investigated by campus police or University officials unless confidential counselors are given permission to share details that would personally identify the victim.

Yale has also experienced an increase in reported rapes, from 17 in 2015 to 24 in 2016, but has experienced drastic decreases in burglary and theft. Harvard’s

reported rapes have decreased, but remain substantially higher than the other two universities, with 34 reported in 2015 and 27 reported in 2016. Harvard also had no robberies reported in 2016, decreasing from only one in 2015, but burglary took a massive leap from 43 in 2015 to 70 in 2016.

In response to these statistics, the University’s resolve to prevent crimes of this sort is stronger than ever. “The only acceptable number of rapes on a college campus is zero,” wrote President Eisgruber in a 2015 essay in the Princeton Alumni Weekly.

The Department of Public Safety declined request for comment. The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office did not respond to request for comment.

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday October 25, 2017

page 3

STUDENT LIFE

Vertical Farming Project grows plants inside Moffett Laboratory

TALITHA WISNER :: DAILY PRINCETONIAN

The Meet What You Eat dinner at Forbes College presented locally grown vegetables.

By Talitha Wisner contributor

“Plants don’t have weekends, y’know?” jokingly remarked Paul Gauthier, an associate research scholar and spearhead of the Princeton Vertical Farming Project, at the Meet What You Eat dining event hosted at Forbes College on Tuesday, Oct. 24.

The Meet What You Eat event marked the first time since the Princeton Vertical

Farming Project’s founding six months ago that the group has brought its food to the public or students.

The event featured herbs, fruits, and vegetables grown at the farm, featured in different dishes, such as flatbreads.

At dinner, Gauthier discussed the nature of growing harvestable crops for on-campus consumption, a sustainability initiative that both the Princeton Garden Project and the

You could be this guy.

Write for the ‘Prince.’

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Princeton Vertical Farming Project have taken upon themselves.

According to Gauthier, the main reason so many groups at the University are trying to think of new and innovative ways to grow food on campus is due to the imminent threat of population growth’s strain on world resources. He explained that world population is projected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050 and that feeding that population will

be a serious issue. As cities will grow to accommodate this rising population, the amount of arable land needed to produce people’s food will decrease at roughly the same pace, thus causing an eventual “reckoning,” according to Gauthier.

At the Vertical Farming Project, plants are grown indoors hydrophonically in Moffett Laboratory using artificial lighting, water, nutrients, and cuttingedge technology. Gauthier

explained that this process is completely sustainable, producing zero carbon, energy, or water waste. He noted that he even delivers fresh produce by foot.

“We [the Princeton Vertical Farming Project] are showing that we can really produce,” Gauthier said.

“We are proving to the University that Princeton can do it, that it’s sustainable for Princeton to do it, and that we can feed the students with it.”

Wednesday October 25, 2017

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Before proceeding online, ponder privacy Jon Ort

contributing columnist

L

ast week, I stunned a Princeton University librarian. I was at a training session for Zotero, a trademarked software tool that creates citations for online material and works best with Google Chrome. I confessed to her that I do not use Chrome because I worry about Google’s collection of user data. Instead, I use Firefox, a browser that many consider outdated.

To limit the data I hemorrhage into the electronic world, I conduct online searches using Duck Duck Go, a search engine that neither collects nor shares user information. Flummoxed, she declared, “If you want privacy, don’t use the Internet.”

She raised a valid point: if I really wanted to keep my identity secret, I would not maintain an online presence. Despite my recent adoption of Duck Duck Go, I have already forfeited a good deal of personal information by searching on the Internet, establishing online accounts, and making digital purchases.

The librarians at Princeton are an invaluable resource for students. I do not intend to criticize the librarian who helped me.

Nonetheless, I disagree with her premise. We should never succumb to a fatigue in which we no longer care about the information we share with the world.

Rather, we should be deliberate, not resigned, when we make decisions that could compromise our privacy. Doing so requires us to be informed of our rights. Unfortunately, I would be surprised if even a tiny fraction of users review the entire terms and conditions of the software they download. I, for one, do not.

Instead, we download apps and use proprietary software without comprehending that developers could gain access to our personal lives. Recently, the Princeton Undergraduate Student Government discovered that the student managers of Tigerbook, an online search service that allows Princeton students to learn about their peers, have access to user-specific search histories. In other words, the searches are not confidential. To its credit, the USG Executive Committee notified students of this finding and pledged to write clearer and more stringent guidelines in an email on Oct. 15.

I have used Tigerbook oblivious that others could see my activity, and I would imagine this is true of many other students. Refusing this service, on the grounds that it endangers my privacy, would be my prerogative, as it would be for everyone.

The burden of choosing to use or deny a service rests on the individual. Unfortunately, factors beyond our control often influence this choice. For example, stu-

dents who enroll at Princeton University must use school-issued Gmail addresses, regardless of how they feel about Google.

Congress has debated the citizen’s right to online privacy, albeit only after internal leaks revealed the NSA’s illegal collection of private data. When I talk with my peers about this issue, a few of them echo the common refrain that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” They contend that, in the interest of national security, a law-abiding citizen should be willing to cede her record to the government.

Yet, innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our legal system. My friends’ logic fails to explain why, if this were the case, the government would benefit from obtaining our information. In a lecture at the Wilson School on Oct. 19, distinguished diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Kenya and Guatemala Prudence Bushnell argued that the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism” undermined American values, such as our tolerance of immigrants. I would argue that privacy, a civil liberty, falls into the same imperiled category.

I do not mean to suggest that the government is malicious, or that we should be overly cynical of private corporations. Both Washington and Silicon Valley bring tremendous benefits to our society, and the contentions I raise above are

still under debate. Rather, I wish to encourage all of us to critically weigh our own position regarding privacy.

The danger lies in the easiest, most apparent solution: to throw an abstract concern like privacy to the wind. Indeed, Google Chrome has often tempted me, for no search engine exceeds Google in convenience and capability. In my experience, Gmail is the most intuitive email service. Google’s connectivity is amazing. Yet, I have held out.

I could be labeled naïve for sticking my head in the sand and rejecting the most innovative tool in the world. That criticism holds merit, and I do not begrudge Google users their head shaking. But, as I asserted above, we have the right to decide as individuals. My choice of web browser and search engine affects no one but me.

As for Zotero, I need it for one of my classes. Therefore, I have reached a tenable compromise. I installed Chrome and Zotero on my computer. I use Google for scholarly searches, saving pertinent articles that I find on Chrome to Zotero.

As for my personal use of the Internet, business that is none but my own, I elect the road less traveled. I can only hope that it makes a difference.

Jon Ort is a first-year from Highlands Ranch, Colo. He can be reached at jaort@princeton.edu.

Letter to the editor ..................................................

Live arts — Critique as care, idealism as necessity Kyle Berlin

I

guest contributor

n a well-written response to my letter to the editor last week arguing for the live, radical space of the arts while questioning the monumental architecture of the new Lewis Center for the Arts complex, I was accused of threatening “to obscure the great good that the existence of this new center will do for the University.”

The thing is, I never once call into question that the new center will do good things for the University, at least by the standard metrics of success used here. Certainly we will woo more students from Yale and attract more world-class artists. But to what end?

The entire point of my initial letter was simply to question the narratives of competition, progress, and pedagogical success that are quite literally built into the new Lewis Center. To question, not to answer! What’s the point of an education, anyway?

What about the arts?

Might it be that art can occupy the spaces of the everyday, radically awakening us to the world that already surrounds us? Because my criticisms were in part architectural and aesthetic, they were said to be insubstantial, illegitimate, and unimportant.

And so I must ask: Are we still not at the point where we can all acknowledge that the aesthetic (including the architectural) is unavoidably and politically consequential?

Ultimately, my critics and I agree: let’s make use of the fabulous space we now have, dynamically and with heart. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also question it.

And so here we get to why I’m writing again: I am not normally inclined to get in a tit-for-tat in the ‘Prince’ and indeed did not initially plan on responding to the criticism of my letter, but I wanted to make the case for the ethics of even “vague” critique.

Besides my articulate (and snarky) critic in the ‘Prince,’ I received numerous private messages from (rather less articulate and equally snarky) alumni telling me essentially the same thing: How dare you criticize such a great project, you spoiled brat.

I was struck by the vitriol of these messages. If only alumni were so quick to passionately respond to other (real) injustices as they were to respond to an “unjust criticism” of their beloved University.

Rather than refuting point-by-point critics’ response to my piece — which, though I could, would probably be very minimally productive — I would like to make two general assertions inspired by the response.

Firstly, I wish to argue for a different mode of care that motivated my initial letter. In virtually all of the responses I received was the implication that because I criticized the new Lewis Center and the University’s system of values (as expressed in its structures), I somehow showed a terrible lack of

gratitude and respect and care for the institution and the people within that had already given me so much.

To my mind, however, it is precisely in the act of criticism that I express my utmost care — and, indeed, my gratitude and respect — for this place. If I didn’t care deeply about this institution and the people who have labored to make it what it is, I would not engage with these issues.

It is only because I am invested enough to want our shared world to be better that I dare to criticize it.

And, as my loved ones can tell you, I criticize most sharply those I love most.

To my mind, care is not expressed through deferential thankfulness; it is manifested through actions of serious engagement — a live criticism, if you will, akin to (and probably part of) the live arts.

Care does not require the rhetoric of gratefulness — or at least not of a gratefulness without qualification — which is usually tiresome and misdirected in the context of the University. Let us not forget that education is a right and not a privilege: to say this is to care, not to be ungrateful.

Secondly, I would like to argue for the importance of an unlikely, idealistic criticism. As was argued in the ‘Prince’ response, and as many others pointed out, “no matter how much we wish, the University won’t be donating a quarter of a billion dollars to [a] philanthropic organization” anytime soon.

We should be glad, there-

fore, that this incredible amount of money went to an arts center and not some other new campus complex; I should face the facts and appreciate what I’ve been given.

This is, of course, undeniably true. That doesn’t mean, however, that I ought not highlight the stupefying inequities the University contributes to or question the design decisions of a famous architect and the Board of Trustees. It doesn’t mean I shouldn’t dare to imagine a world in which our state’s capital, which serves nearly 100,000 people, has an annual operating budget that is more than a fraction of the cost of a new arts complex for 5,000 elite students.

It’s true that a letter to the editor of the campus paper will not usher in a more egalitarian, justiceminded world in which the University (or, for that matter, anyone) is not fabulously wealthy and the arts primarily promote radical social change; words will not undo concrete walls that have already been built.

But I hope that because we care — from the aesthetic right down to the personal — the words of us idealists and caring critics, stupidly shouted into the unfriendly institutional void, may maintain the sliver of a space in which such a world would be possible.

Kyle Berlin is a senior studying Spanish and Portuguese from Arroyo Grande, California. He can be reached at kmberlin@princeton.edu.

vol. cxli

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 Kathleen Crown William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Lisa Belkin ‘82 Francesca Barber trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73

141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 associate news editors Kristin Qian ’18 head opinion editor Nicholas Wu ’18 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Emily Erdos ’19 head sports editor David Xin ’19 associate sports editors Christopher Murphy ’20 Claire Coughlin ’19 head street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 associate street editors Lyric Perot ’20 Danielle Hoffman ’20 web editor Sarah Bowen ’20 head copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 associate copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 chief design editor Quinn Donohue ’20 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19

NIGHT STAFF copy Paige Allen ’21 Chris Flores ’21 Armani Aguiar ’21 Catherine Benedict ’20 Anoushka Mariwala ’21

Done reading your ‘Prince’?

Recycle

Wednesday October 25, 2017

Opinion

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

PSA

GRACE KOH ’19

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

a grim cartoon just in time for midterms!

Terry O’Shea ’16

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

midterm postmortem Tyler Simko ’18

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

Sports

Wednesday October 25, 2017

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S SOCCER

No. 15 Tigers conclude home schedule Saturday vs. Cornell

By Chris Murphy associate sports editor

With Princeton still chasing the Lions in the standings, the Tigers will head home for the final time this season and look to continue their long winning streak against Cornell while honoring their seniors.

The Tigers will have their final home soccer game of 2017 this Saturday at 2:30 p. m. against the Cornell Big Red. Before the game, the Tigers will continue their great tradition of senior day celebrations as Princeton will honor the seven players from the Class of 2018. The event is a bittersweet moment for the seniors, who will be able to look back on some of the history they have made during their four years as Tigers and hope to end their careers on a strong note.

So far, these seniors have helped create one of the best stretches in women’s soccer history for the Tigers. With the rest of this season still to play out, the 2018 Tigers have contributed to 43 wins, seven all-Ivy League Titles, a 2015 conference title, a consistent place in the 2017 national rankings (currently at No. 15) and the first-ever NCAA Tournament game on Myslik Field at Roberts Stadium.

The Tigers will certainly be looking to add to their accolades as this season comes to an end and would love to end

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Seven seniors will be taking the field at Roberts Stadium for the final time in a regular season game this weekend.

their careers with one final Ivy League title and a deep NCAA Tournament run.

To do either of these things, the Tigers will have to continue their winning ways against the Big Red this weekend. Princeton has won

21 games in a row against Cornell and will try for their 22nd to keep their Ivy hopes alive. Princeton will rely on its seniors — all of whom will receive extensive playing time in the final home game — to keep up the win-

ning streak.

Princeton will also be trying to continue its best record since 2004; they went 13-1 in the 2004 season and currently sit at 12-2. The Tigers also will be looking for their tenth shutout of the

season, their most shutouts since 2008.

Be sure to come out and support the Tigers and show some love for the seniors in their final regular season home game this season!

WOMEN’S ICE HOCKEY

Women’s ice hockey ties in home game against Providence

By Claire Coughlin

associate sports editor

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Women’s ice hockey tied against Providence on Sunday at Hobey Baker Rink.

Tweet of the Day “Tigers jump to No. 12 in NCAA RPI, remain steady in @NFHCA Coaches’ Poll at No. 14 #TigerUp” princeton fh (@TigerFH ), field hockey

Princeton women’s ice hockey matched up against Providence this weekend in a game that ended in a 2-2 tie in the second matchup of a twogame set at Hobey Baker Rink. The Tigers were first to put themselves on the board with a two-goal lead, but the Friars fought back hard to get the tie.

Junior forward Karlie Lund and junior defender Stephanie Sucharda set sophomore forward Carly Bullock up with the assist for the first goal of the game and Bullock’s third of the season. Bullock learned that Providence’s goalie Madison Myers had weak left-side defense, so Bullock shot the puck right into the left corner off a pass from Lund. Providence left this shot unanswered and allowed the Tigers to follow it up in the next quarter at 7:36 into the second when junior forward Keiko DeClerck netted her first of the season off a powerplay. Senior forward Kiersten Falck and sophomore defender Julia Edgar assisted DeClerck before she put the Tigers on the board for the second time.

Stat of the Day

5th place The Princeton women’s lightweight 8+ had a top-five finish in its field at Head of the Charles on Sunday.

Cassidy MacPherson scored both goals for the Friars, her first and second of the season, to lead the game into a tie. Her first came at 14:27 of the second, giving Providence some strong momentum for the rest of the game.

Going into the third period, the Friars outshot the Tigers by a full eight shots, 12-4, eager and ready to defeat the home team. MacPherson shot her game-tying goal at 7:47 off a rebound from teammate Chloe Gonsalves.

Despite the Friars offensive attack, sophomore goalie Stephanie Neatby kept the Tigers in the game, forcing it into overtime. Neatby made 11 saves in just the third period and ended the game with a total tally of 37 stops.

On the opposite end, Myers ended the game with 30 for the visiting team.

Despite only being one for four on the power play, Princeton did end the match at five for five on the penalty kill.

This tie puts Providence at 4-2-2 on the season while the Tigers advance to 0-2-2 on the season. Next weekend, Oct. 27-28, Princeton will begin ECAC play against Ivy League rivals Harvard and Dartmouth.

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