The Daily Princetonian: November 14, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Thursday November 14, 2019 vol. CXLIII no. 104

Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Q&A with 2018 Democratic nominee for Florida Governor Andrew Gillum Assistant News Editor

Former mayor of Tallahassee and 2018 Democratic nominee for governor of Florida Andrew Gillum visited the University on Nov. 13. Gillum, who now serves as chair of the voter registration organization Forward Florida Action, visited as part of the Woodrow Wilson School’s Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation Leadership through Mentorship Program. The Daily Princetonian sat down with Gillum to discuss the present state of Florida politics, his 2018 run for governor, and the upcoming 2020 presidential election.

The Daily Princetonian: In March, you launched a voter registration effort in Florida. So, how successful has Forward Florida Action been thus far?

Andrew Gillum: Yes. So, Forward Florida Action is our C4 [organization] that we began. On day one, we weren’t 100 percent sure how we were going to get to the goal of registering and reengaging a million voters, but we knew we had to do it differently than how organizing had been done in our state before. The truth is, is that Florida does a terrible job on the Democratic side organizing outside of ma-

jor election cycles. Republicans, however, organize inside and outside of election cycles.

So what our strategy ... is that, you know, we want to invest early on in registration, or reengagement. And when I say reengagement, I mean people who were registered to vote in ’16 and did not show up at the polls — right — nationally, six million people. In Florida, there are four million eligible, registered people in my state who we got to go out there and get registered, not to mention reengage. And so we’re extremely proud of the coalition that we built, and I’m really excited, frankly, about our ability to reach our goal by November 2020.

DP: Last month you tweeted that many of your friends running to beat Trump call you often about how to win Florida. So what do you tell them when they ask you that?

AG: Precisely what we’re doing ... We have to invest now. We have to invest early.

And my response to them is, ‘Look, you think you’re going to be the Democratic nominee. This work will be to your benefit if you become the Democratic nominee.’ Republicans in my state build a strategy to win, regardless of who the nominee

ON CAMPUS

ZACHARY SHEVIN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Former mayor of Tallahassee Andrew Gillum came to campus on Nov. 13.

is. They didn’t want Trump, they got Trump. They didn’t want [incumbent Governor] Ron DeSantis, establishment Republican Party, but they got him. And they organize around the clock, 365 days, sleeping in shifts in order to deliver a win. Democrats have got to exercise the same discipline in muscle …

If you’re serious about winning this state, we’ve got to make the investment now.

It boggles the mind how I hear and see and read people saying that Florida is now lost for Democrats. We got closer in the race for governor than any Democrat had in 24 years — 0.4 percent difference, 30,000 votes, at eight-and-a-half million votes cast.

How in the world do you conclude that the biggest swing state in the country, the one state that could deny

Bret Stephens, Yoram Hazony ‘86 debate consequences of nationalism, future of the GOP

By Shira Moolten Associate Prospect Editor

The Republican Party is at a crossroads, agreed Bret Stephens and Yoram Hazony ’86 during a lively discussion, titled “Nationalism, Conservatism, and the Future of the GOP,” held by the Princeton College Republicans on Tuesday. They couldn’t agree on much else.

The direction the GOP takes regarding nationalism, which

In Opinion

Stephens and Hazony disputed, could determine the electoral future of the United States and even the world.

“The countries we live in are dissolving,” said Hazony, an Israeli political theorist and author of “The Virtue of Nationalism.” “They’re headed for civil war.”

He sat on stage across from Bret Stephens, a Pulitzer Prizewinning columnist for the See STEPHENS page 4

The ‘Prince’ Editorial Board stands with DACA Dreamers in light of recent Supreme Court cases, and contributing columnist Oliver Thaker contemplates how his lifestyle has changed upon entering college.

PAGE 7

See GILLUM page 2

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Carlos Lozada GS ’97 and David Remnick ’81 elected to Pulitzer Board

Boettcher ’14 advances to Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions final, Collins GS ’99 eliminated

Contributor

Bret Stephens and Yoram Hazony ’86

someone selecting the vice president. My job is to invest in Florida and help to build our state to win.

DP: In January, you joined CNN as a political commentator … I know some have said that having political commentators or pundits argue on screen, in a way, can treat politics as a sport, giving megaphones to people who don’t deserve them, creating false equivalencies, or just being polarizing in general. So, I guess, what do you think about the existence of [the] position that you have?

AG: Well, I will tell you, I was very reticent to do TV. After the race, I was reached out to by almost every cable — not Fox — to consider doing this, and I was resistant, originally. And I will tell you

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

By Caitlin Limestahl

MARIE-ROSE SHEINERMAN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Donald Trump the presidency, is a state you give up on?

That doesn’t make sense.

DP: And so that tweet I referred to was in response to reports that you were sort of “talking” to the Warren campaign and reports in general about rumors that some campaigns might consider you [to be] a vice presidential nominee. So, I guess, first, do you have any favorites among the 2020 candidates?

AG: I like a lot of them, and I’m friends with a lot of them, and I talked to a lot of them.

And I have not talked to anybody about being vice president. I think if someone were to broach that conversation with me, I would say it is premature. You need to win the primary that you’re in first and then, you know, move to the next step of

On Thursday, Nov. 7, Columbia University announced Carlos Lozada GS ’97 and David Remnick ’81 as the newest members of the Pulitzer Prize Board.

The majority of the board — comprised of 19 members — is made up of leading journalists and media executives.

The board presides over the selection of winners and finalists of the Pulitzer Prize.

Lozada has been at The Washington Post for 14 years, where he is an associate editor and nonfiction book critic. Prior to this work at the Post, Lozada was the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine.

He won the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for Criticism “[f]or trenchant and searching reviews and essays that joined warm emotion and careful analysis in examining a broad range of books addressing government and the American experience,” according to The Pulitzer Prize website.

He was a finalist for the

award in 2018.

Lozada earned his master’s degree from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Remnick began his career with The Washington Post in 1982, where he later spent four years as a Moscow correspondent. He joined The New Yorker in 1992.

He became editor of The New Yorker in 1998.

Under his tenure, the magazine and its writers have won four Pulitzer Prizes. The 2018 Prize for public service was awarded to The New Yorker and The New York Times for their joint reporting on sexual misconduct allegations against former film producer Harvey Weinstein.

Remnick was the Class Day speaker in 2013.

He has said that taking the legendary writing seminar of Ferris Professor of Journalism and famed New Yorker staff writer John McPhee ’53 was one of his favorite classes that he took as a Princeton student.

Remnick received his B.A. in Comparative Literature.

Today on Campus

12:00 p.m.: James Loeffler, Double Amnesia: Zionism and Human Rights in Historical Perspective Julis Romo Rabinowitz Building / Rm A17 4:30 pm

ByZack Shevin Assistant News Editor

Goliath will get a rematch against David in the Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions Final, with James Holzhauer facing off against “giant killer” Emma Boettcher ’14, who ended Holzhauer’s historic 32-game winning streak in June.

Over three months and 33 games, Holzhauer accumulated $2,462,216 on the show, in a run that included the 10 most profitable single games of all time. Winning an average of over $74,000 per game, he finished just $58,484 short of Ken Jennings’ record for most regular-season winnings.

Competing alongside Boettcher and Holzhauer in the final will be high school physics teacher Francois Barcomb, who defeated Woodrow Wilson School Director of Global Health Programs Gilbert Collins GS ’99 in a semifinal game on Nov. 13. The two-night final round will air on Nov. 14 and 15, with the winner taking home a grand prize of $250,000.

In the quarterfinal round, which aired last week, Boettcher more than doubled her opponents’ scores. In her semifinal game, Boettcher took on music teacher Kyle Jones, who lost his quarterfinal match to Collins but made it into the semifinals as a wild card based on total points See JEOPARDY page 6

WEATHER

By Zack Shevin

HIGH

46˚

LOW

27˚

Partly cloudy chance of rain:

0 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday November 14, 2019

Gillum: election refrom is critical to maintaining democracy GILLUM

Continued from page 1

that I’m growing into the role — it is not something that you are comfortable with on day one. And I will tell you, I try to consciously, when I am talking about whatever the subject matter may be, to make it as plain as I can, to reflect what is, I think, an everyday person’s experience, you know?

As one of my political mentors used to say, ‘Put the cookies on the bottom shelf, so everybody can reach in.’

And his point with that saying is, ‘Look, you talk highfalutin about politics and then you leave, you know, the average person who needs to be brought along on these issues behind.’ And so I try to be honest, I try to be direct, I try to be persuasive when I have to make an argument — but, most of all, real.

DP: So, one moment from your 2018 election that garnered a lot of national attention was when after hours after you became the first African-American gubernatorial nominee, Ron DeSantis made the comments about …

AG: ‘Monkeying the state up.’

DP: Yeah, exactly. And so, I guess, how did race and issues of race relations play into your campaign in 2018, and how do you see them playing out now on a national scale?

AG: Unfortunately, we had, you know, barely finished celebrating the win the night before, before the phones just lit up. And that comment by DeSantis was the shot over the bow of, frankly, what was to come for the next two months. I mean, he had supporters who were, you know, donors, fundraising hosts who were overtly, you know, sort of nationalist. For me ... I try not to internalize too much of the insult. I know it’s a campaign, and I know those things can

happen. But I do know that it was intended to gin up a particular part of his base.

It was very much reminiscent of the Trump campaign.

Donald Trump came to the state three times, called me a criminal, the most corrupt mayor in Florida of the highest crime city, in spite of the fact that my city had, under my leadership, experienced historic decline [in crime] year over year. But none of that mattered … They had decided that I was a socialist, corrupt, I don’t know, “monkeying it up” candidate, and that was going to be sufficient for moving their base.

DP: So, now that we’re about a year into Ron DeSantis’ term, how has his tenure as governor compared to what you initially expected on election day? And how does it compare to Rick Scott’s?

AG: Well, I tell you, his folks learned very quickly that if you want to stay in politics in the state of Florida, you’re going to have to do some populist things that bring more people back into the fold. So he announced plans around an environmental portfolio that he was going to be leading on, rolled back a ton of Rick Scott appointees — and I tell you, if you want to satisfy Democrats in the state of Florida, you undo something that Scott did, you know? Really unpopular governor in the state of Florida …

Even though I could see that it was clearly a power struggle — I mean, Rick Scott stacked a bunch of these things before he went off — the average person saw it as a breath of fresh air. I think from that standpoint, they were smart. But the truth is, is that from a public policy standpoint, what they actually did is a different story. I mean, one of his first steps was appointing, you know, a big charter school advocate as the Secretary of Education, somebody

who didn’t really believe in the public education system, right, which will cause lasting damage in the state of Florida, the public infrastructure of our state. The fact that he … made appointments of young conservative justices who will be on the bench for a very, very long time with strong conservative ideological bands of which I disagree with ...

I would separate what some of the superficial gestures have been from what the public policy is. The governor signing into law a poll tax for 1.4 million returning citizens is unconscionable.

Yet they did it, and they did it to preserve power.

DP: Right now, a lot of the general conversation … is revolving around impeachment. You’ve been vocal about impeachment for quite a while, so how do you feel about where the discussion is now?

AG: Well, I tell you, I held out hope that the Republicans would treat this seriously, as seriously as the charges would dictate, but it is clear to me that people have moved to their partisan corners.

I am not optimistic that the Senate will remove the President, although I do believe that he will be impeached. And I have to tell you, I believe that it is critical that this President be held accountable for these atrocious actions. If he is not going to be removed, history should reflect that this was an intolerable act by a president of the United States, period.

I don’t know how we can claim a higher moral ground in the future if we let this President conduct himself in such an unpatriotic manner, and corrupt manner, and in any way claim a high moral ground. We can’t do that … I also think by and large that the residue of this will be far out of the mind of voters by the time we get to the No-

vember election.

DP: And with a lot of the national attention surrounding impeachment right now, what’s, sort of, another issue that you think should be getting talked about?

AG: Man, there’s so many.

Because a lot of my work is around voting, House Resolution One — that Speaker Pelosi sponsored — was a comprehensive reform bill on elections, and voting integrity, and an effort to restore Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. That’s critical. I know it feels a little in the weeds, but it is consequential to our democracy, the integrity of our elections. People don’t have faith that our elections, by and large, are being run fairly … so we’ve got to address that.

Infrastructure is an important piece. Health care, which has consumed a lot of, you know, time and attention, sometimes unproductively in my opinion, should continue to be a theme for Democratic candidates. And … I know some take issue with this, but I think the conversation around economic inequality — the structures of our country fundamentally being broken when it comes to helping all Americans achieve the American Dream and the ideas around what we can do about that — I think is a very, very critical conversation.

And I think it’s particularly one that’s potent for younger voters, who, for the first time in our history, would be the largest voting bloc should they vote at their strength.

DP: Which of those issues do you think candidates should be emphasizing when they’re campaigning in Florida?

AG: Well, climate change is a real deal in Florida, so that’s going to be important for voters in my state. I also believe that health care is going to be important for voters that are sick. Whether you have it or not, in the state of Florida, and frankly around the country, when your premiums are increasing year over year over year, where Republicans are attempting to usher in the ability for insurance companies to yet again deny you coverage based off of preexisting conditions … We need a candidate who is going to speak to what can be done, if they were to be elected President, to help alleviate the unfair burden that saddles far too many families who are terrified of getting sick.

DP: You were the mayor of Tallahassee, obviously the state capital. So, is there anything going on right now in the Florida state legislatures that you think is of particular importance or interest?

AG: Well, thankfully, the legislature is out of session.

They’re doing their [work] in committees.

But I will tell you, Amendment Four — which was a constitutional amendment that was passed in 2018, which automatically restored voting rights to returning citizens — obviously faced Republican roadblocks to implementation. And a federal judge has come down with a very, very strong opinion. He didn’t use the words poll tax, but a clear read of the opinion will show that he chastised the governor and the Republican legislature and has admonished them to correct the mistakes of the last session, or he will.

That is imperative and it will have, in my opinion, a tremendous impact on the state of Florida in the presidential election, especially when you consider that my state is a state that Democrats lost, in my case, me, by 30,000 votes.

DP: What kinds of voters in Florida specifically do you think can make the difference because of how close the margin was?

AG: Latino.

First of all, obviously, I should say “all voters.” We want to move as many voters as we can to the polls. But migration into the state of Florida is, for the first time in 2018, majority Puerto Rican and international. Those numbers are more than the 49 states combined, right?

So this emerging American electorate, which is more black and more brown, is going to be critical, in my opinion, to any Democrat winning the state of Florida.

It’s one of the reasons why I’ve been trying to sound the alarm on this “socialism” attack, because it is one that has acute meaning for Latinos in my state, many of [whom] have fled the Maduro, and the Ortega, and the Castro regimes — murderous, authoritarian regimes — where socialism means something very, very different in those places.

And the Republicans are really keen. They don’t care who the nominee is, they’re running against socialism, and they are going to paint every Democrat as a socialist. And so we have to take some of the sting out of that word, and, quite frankly, call the Republicans out for what is in my opinion an insult to all of our intelligence, that they will use the murderous and dangerous regimes of Venezuela, and Cuba, and others as a foil to gain political power … especially when their public policy does not match their rhetoric.

The President refused to extend temporary protective status for Venezuelans.

We are exporting or rejecting Venezuelans out of the United States at record rates right now. So he saber-rattles on one hand against Maduro, and then on the other hand, he placates his nationalist base by saying, ‘We’re not going to allow Latin Americans into the United States.’

Shame.

DP: Sort of a similar thing.

You said Republicans are using the word ‘socialism’ in a politicized way. One thing, especially in South Florida with a very large Jewish community, there’s a similar sort of thing going on with ‘anti-Semitic’ being thrown around at certain progressive Democrats. I guess, what do you make of all that?

AG: I mean, look, I think we have to do the difficult work of making clear our positions to the constituencies that help make up the Democratic Party and our ability to win.

I ran into some of those challenges when I was running for governor. A strong supporter of Israel — I’ve been there three times [and] as mayor of the city of Tallahassee, I maintained a sister city relationship with Ramat HaSharon. I didn’t think I had to go down that list of credentials until the Republicans started to describe me as, you know, an anti-Semite, which is so deeply offensive to my person. Yet that was the kind of gutter politics that we had to confront.

So I think we’ve got to be very clear with the Jewish community where we stand and not allow for a minority position of some national Democrats to become the moniker for what Democrats believe.

DP: Alright, and I know we’re probably nearing the end, so is there anything else you’d want to add?

AG: Just very, very happy to be here. I’ve never been to Princeton, New Jersey. I just left a meeting with some of the doctoral students in government, and if they are any sign of the caliber and quality of the students here, our country is in really good hands with the kind of intelligence and brilliance that’s coming off this campus. I’m looking forward to the rest of my visit.

Thursday November 14, 2019

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

page 4

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday November 14, 2019

Hazony: we have to admit that nationalism is here STEPHENS Continued from page 1

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

New York Times and a prominent conservative writer. Contrary to Hazony, however, Stephens believes in a strong American international presence. Both speakers, known for their contributions to modern conservative thought, spoke before a sizable audience, which included many members of the Princeton College Republicans.

Their opposition brought to light a widening rift emerging in the Republican Party between proponents of nationalism and its skeptics. The conversation, which took place in McCormick 101, provided a glimpse at the intensely polarized debate.

Both speakers struck a pessimistic tone. “Once you establish [nationalism] as a guiding principle of all politics, people who aren’t willing to participate are going to have to get on trains and run for their lives,” Stephens said, before referencing the partition of India and postcolonial countries in Africa, among other examples.

In Hazony’s view, nationalism functions as a saving grace, rather than a catastrophe. In fact, he believes that nationalism ultimately aims to preserve diversity around the world, by promoting the independence and free will of each country.

“Where we as Americans, as Westerners, tend to see a way to bring peace and prosperity to the world, others see that as a new form of imperialism,” Hazony said. He later added, “We’re not choosing nationalism or not nationalism, we’re choosing between nationalism and imperialism.”

Hazony compared this vision of the United States to the Roman Empire. “You are a Roman,” he said to Stephens.

Yet Stephens playfully described Hazony’s thesis as “total garbage and hypocritical and absurd and dangerous.”

He sees the nation-state concept encouraged by Hazony as fundamentally un-American.

“We are a nation in which it makes total sense to be in this room regardless of different identities as individuals in a liberal democratic republic,” Stephens said. “Conservatism should champion that liberal democratic idea.”

He characterized the American identity as a set of liberal values, rather than a common geography, religion, tradition, or culture.

“I’m not interested in an America as the place that is bounded by the 49th parallel, the Rio Grande and the two oceans,” Stephens said. “I’m interested in an America that is founded on a set of principles and ideas.”

The conversation also turned to the state of Israel and the fate of Jewish people in a nationalist world. Despite their shared Jewish heritage, Stephens and Hazony clashed on nearly all fronts.

In one exchange, Stephens described Hazony’s proposition as “blood and soil nationalism.”

“I don’t recognize myself in any of this blood and soil, which is just a way of waving Nazi at me,” Hazony said in response.

He had begun the conversation by identifying himself as a “Zionist Jewish nationalist Israeli” and described Israel as a country with a “nationalist political tradition,” an example of nationalism existing at the core of liberation movements.

But Stephens contended that it was American interventionism, not nationalism, that led to Israel’s existence in the first place, as a result of the Truman Doctrine in 1947, which called for the protection of “small embattled countries.”

“Those of you in this room — I see a lot of kippahs — those of you who are concerned about the safety and security of Israel should be so glad that the United States, at moments like 1973, didn’t simply say, ‘The Egyptians and the Israelis want to duke it out? Fine by us,’” Stephens said.

He pointed to Hazony. “I’m almost more pro-Israel than this guy.”

“In a twisted way,” Hazony said.

The two speakers did find common ground during the question-and-answer session when discussing immigration.

They agreed that the white identitarian movement in the United States is a rising threat.

What to do about this threat and how to protect vulnerable groups from its rise remains an open question, as does the best course of action for the Republican Party and the United States as a whole.

According to Hazony, that course of action has already been decided by the American people, who increasingly reject Stephens’ notion of America as the world’s policeman: “If we don’t want to be floating in the world of fantasy, then we have to admit that nationalism is here.”

Want to see YOUR photos published in a newspaper?

Join ‘Prince’ photo! join@dailyprincetonian.com

Thursday November 14, 2019

The Daily Princetonian

page 5

The Daily Princetonian

page 6

Thursday November 14, 2019

Boettcher ’14 enters final match with $53,401 JEOPARDY Continued from page 1

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

scored, and Brown University junior Dhruv Gaur.

Although Boettcher came up with more correct responses and fewer incorrect responses than both of her opponents in the semis, the game was anything but a runaway.

“At the time, I felt very fortunate to have made it that far, and I was trying to basically, you know, stay in the moment and not preemptively get too hard on myself if I didn’t make it into the finals,” Boettcher noted. “And that allowed me to enjoy it and focus on the clues.”

In Single Jeopardy!, Boettcher answered eight clues correctly, worth a total of $5,200, but responded to two high-dollar-value clues incorrectly and ended the round with $3,200.

Jones came up with the most correct responses with 10 and ended with a slight lead, while Gaur ended the round with $0.

Early in Double Jeopardy!, Gaur wagered and lost $2,000 he did not have on a Daily Double! about former University mathematics professor John Nash GS ’50. Though Gaur was able to pick up some steam later in the round, ending with $2,000, it quickly became a two-person competition.

Boettcher took the relative lead in that round, steadily accumulating points throughout the Double Jeopardy! round. She dominated early on, at one point more than doubling Jones’ score with $12,400.

However, after pulling himself up to $6,200, Jones picked a Daily Double and bet it all. With a correct response of “serial,” Jones tied things up midway through the round. Of her six games played, this semifinal was the only one in which Boettcher did not find a single Daily Double.

“It’s weird to say that I was proud of him, but also, it’s a great move, right?” Boettcher said. “So I wasn’t necessarily happy that I didn’t get the Daily Doubles, but at the same time, I could be impressed by the way they were played.”

If Jones’ jump in points made

Boettcher nervous, she did not show it, answering the next three questions correctly and retaining her lead through the entirety of the round. In total, Boettcher was 13-for-13 in Double Jeopardy!, bringing her score up to $19,200, ahead of Jones’ $14,800.

Boettcher and Jones both came up with the correct response in Final Jeopardy!, which asked for the title of the 1890s New York City slums exposé “How the Other Half Lives.”

With a wager of $10,401, Boettcher retained her lead and sent Jones and Gaur home with $10,000 consolation prizes.

“Back in June [when the episode was recorded], it was something I didn’t necessarily believe until Alex said it. It’s a great feeling to have come that far, but even during the final round I was constantly looking over my answer,” Boettcher said. “It just never really feels real until Alex says so.”

One moment of the game that got a particular amount of immediate media attention was Gaur’s Final Jeopardy response. Trebek, who announced that he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in March and has hinted at retiring from the show, choked up briefly after Gaur wrote “We ‘heart’ you Alex” as his response.

“Seeing that all over again [on Monday] just really brought back that feeling of how lucky we all were to be there and be playing in that tournament with Alex still as host,” Boettcher said. “Seeing that game … was just a reminder of how special this show is. Not just the knowledge and trivia, but also the people behind it, both the contestants and Alex.”

Boettcher also noted that, as part of a fundraiser organized by past Jeopardy! champion Steven Grade, viewers are encouraged to play along when watching the two-day final round and invited to donate $1 to a pancreatic-cancer research organization for each clue they respond to correctly.

Collins also noted that the contestants wore purple ribbons throughout the tournament as a way to honor 2018 Teacher’s Tournament Champion Larry Martin, who passed away from pancreatic cancer before

being able to compete in the Tournament of Champions.

“I was excited to be able to talk about that a little bit on the show this evening,” Collins said. “Given that Larry Martin passed away from pancreatic cancer, which is the same thing that Alex is fighting right now, it was very exciting to be able to wish Alex all the best too.”

“That was actually a thought I had going into the game,” he added. “Of course I want to win the game, but, win or lose, one of the things I really cared about the most was being able to tell Alex we cared about him a lot and supported him as he was fighting cancer.”

After winning by $1 in the quarterfinal round, Collins finished third in the semifinals.

Collins said he watched his semifinal game air in the Louis A. Simpson International Building, surrounded by 70 people, as he gave the watch-party goers a bit of color commentary and behind-the-scenes during commercial breaks.

“It made it into not just watching a TV show, but more of a fun interactive thing,” he said.

In Single Jeopardy!, physician and health care analyst Lindsey Shultz ended with $6,400 and a slight lead over Barcomb and Collins, who responded correctly for nine of the 11 clues he buzzed in on. Shultz answered the most questions correctly in the Double Jeopardy! round with 11, bringing her score up to $17,400.

However, a correctly-answered $8,000 Daily Double! helped propel Barcomb to an eventual $22,000.

Collins ended Double Jeopardy! with $12,600 after eight correct answers, keeping himself alive with several late-game correct answers.

“I was actually not in a particularly bad place going into Final Jeopardy!,” he said. “I was in a place where if both Francois and Lindsey bet in predictable ways, at least ways that many people might bet if they were in their shoes, if everybody gets this question wrong, then I will win.”

However, this did not pan out for Collins, with Barcomb answering the question correctly and retaining his lead, sending both Shultz and Collins home with consolation priz-

es of $10,000 each.

Collins said that he will use some of his winnings on work around the house and plans to donate a portion to charity.

“We’ll give some to charities serving vulnerable folks in Central Jersey and Trenton,” he said. “And then we do some donations to animal conservation organizations that our kids are very passionate about.”

He will also be giving some to his kids.

“Many years ago, before I even tried out to get on Jeopardy!, I would be watching the show with my two boys … and the kids said, ‘Oh you could have won. You should go on Jeopardy!. Can I have half of whatever you win?’”

Collins says he eventually negotiated them down and promised to give them 1 percent of anything he won on the show. Originally, he thought the 1 percent would amount to $20 or $10, since the second and third place winners on Jeopardy! earn $2,000 and $1,000 respectively, but Collins still kept his word after winning $84,201 on the show. Keeping with this tradition, he will give $100 of his Tournament of Champi-

ons winnings to each of his kids.

Though no longer competing himself, Collins said the final game will be exciting to watch. With “James Holzhauer against the person who beat James Holzhauer,” Collins said that fans of the show will get to see if lightning strikes twice.

All three finalists have proven their ability to compete through the quarterfinal and semifinal rounds.

Holzhauer has been particularly dominant thus far, earning over $30,000 and locking up victories in both rounds prior to Final Jeopardy.

Barcomb has put up even bigger numbers, locking up his quarterfinal win with $34,300 and defeating Collins in the semifinal with $34,801, the two highest scores throughout the tournament. Boettcher earned a combined $53,401 through her two games.

By making it to the final match, Boettcher has already guaranteed herself $50,000, a total she can double with a second place finish and quintuple with a win.

The two-part Tournament of Champions finale will air beginning at 7 p.m. on Nov. 14 in Princeton on WPVI ABC Philadelphia.

COURTESY OF GILBERT COLLINS GS ’99

Gilbert Collins GS ’99 (left) and Emma Boettcher ’14 (right), who both competed in the Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions.

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday November 14, 2019

0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101 1100010101001011101101000100101 0010100100101001001011100010101 0010111011010001001010010100100 1010010010111000101010010111011 0100010010100101001001010010010 1110001010100101110110100010010 1001010010010100100101110001010 1001011101101000100101001010010 0101001001011100010101001011101 1010001001010010100100101001001 0111000101010010111011010001001 0100101001001010010010111000101 0100101110110100010010100101001 0010100100101110001010100101110 1101000100101001010010010100100 1011100010101001011101101000100 for (;;) 1010010100100101001001011100010 { 1010010111011010001001010010100 System.out.print(“Join ”); 1001010010010111000101010010111 System.out.println(“Web!”); 0110100010010100101001001010010 } 0101110001010100101110110100010 0101001011101101000100101001010 0100101001001011100010101001011 1011010001001010010100100101001 0010111000101010010111011010001 Dream in code?

001010010100100101001001011100 0101010010111011010001001010010 Join the ‘Prince’ web staff 1001001010010010111000101010010 1110110100010010100101001001010 0100101110001010100101110110100 0100101001010010010100100101110 0010101001011101101000100101001 0100100101001001011100010101001 join@dailyprincetonian.com 0111011010001001010010100100101 0010010111000101010010111011010 0010010100101001001010010010111 0001010100101110110100010010100 1010010010100100101110001010100 1011101101000100101001010010010 1001001011100010101001011101101 0001001010010100100101001001011 1000101010010111011010100101001 0100100101001001011100010101001 0111011010001001010010100100101 0010010111000101010010111011010 0010010100101001001010010010111 0001010100101110110100010010100 1010010010100100101110001010100 1011101101000100101001010010010 1001001011100010101001011101101 0001001010010100100101001001011 1000101010010111011010001001010 0101001001010010010111000101010 0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101 1100010101001011101101000100101 0010100100101001001011100010101

(if(equal? web love) (join the ‘Prince’ now) (join anyway))

Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 7

Opinion

Thursday November 14, 2019

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

EDITORIAL

In support of Dreamers, on campus and beyond On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for and against the Trump administration’s attempted rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The program, enacted

by President Barack Obama in 2012, forestalls deportation for more than 600,000 Dreamers — undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

On behalf of plaintiff Maria De La Cruz Perales Sanchez ’18, the University and Microsoft jointly filed one of the suits

presented before the court. We commend Nassau Hall for taking action against the White House’s nativist cruelty.

As hundreds of organizations, including the University, have noted, our community benefits from the presence of Americans who are Dreamers.

Contrary to President Trump’s racist haranguing, students such as Perales Sanchez contribute invaluably to our university and our country.

DACA allows hundreds of thousands of Americans to remain in the United States.

In the face of bigotry and bias, affirming that Dreamers belong is a moral choice.

We concur with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor ’76, who challenged her colleagues on the bench to consider the moral ramifications of repealing DACA. “This is not [just] about the law,” she said. “This is about our choice to destroy lives.”

Though Princeton may seem a world away from the uncertainty and terror that Dreamers endure every day, we must not forget that we have peers

who are living through this hell. We stand with them as friends, students, and Americans.

Board Chairs Chris Murphy ’20 Cy Watsky ’21 Board Members Samuel Aftel ’20 Arman Badrei ’22 Ariel Chen ’20 Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 Madeleine Marr ’21 Jonathan Ort ’21

Work for the most respected news source on campus.

vol. cxliii

editor-in-chief

Chris Murphy ’20 business manager

Taylor Jean-Jacques’20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Chris Murphy ’20 Taylor Jean-Jacques’20

143RD MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Aftel ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Jon Ort ’21 head news editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news editors Linh Nguyen ’21 Claire Silberman ’22 Katja Stroke-Adolphe ’20 head opinion editor Cy Watsky ’21 associate opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22

join@dailyprincetonian.com

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

Like our page!

Procrastinate productively!

T HE DA ILY

Enjoy drawing pretty pictures?

Like to work with Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign?

Join the ‘Prince’ design team! join@dailyprincetonian.com

head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editors Samantha Shapiro ’21 Jo de la Bruyere ’22 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

NIGHT STAFF copy Catherine Yu ’21 Neil Brahmbhatt ’23 design Jaimee Simwinga ’23 Juliana Wojtenko ’23

Thursday November 14, 2019

Opinion

page 9

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

The transition

Oliver Thakar

Contributing Columnist

Perhaps no life change has been romanticized as much as leaving home and entering college. Such a major life alteration had been impressed on me by family, friends, and especially school. Last May, even after all of my high school classmates and I had decided where we would attend college, our college counselors invited us all back for a Transition Night — an introduction to the dramatic differences between high school and college life.

Yet I found little truth in this romanticizing.

After two months of college, I decided to reflect on my own personal transition to undergraduate life. I found little on which to reflect. For me, the transition to college, while repeatedly described to me as an unforgettable milestone in life, was, in actuality, anticlimactic.

I was fortunate enough to acclimate quickly to the major differences between my lifestyle at Princeton and my lifestyle in high school, much to my surprise.

Therefore, I will reflect

on why my transition to college did not feel like a transition at all. Unintentionally, I treated each difference between high school and college as a blessing; I now know that this attitude minimized the implications of my transition.

I was reminded on several occasions — with the same cliché metaphor each time — that while I was a “big fish” in high school, I would become “one of the little fish” at Princeton. I would transition from the top of the class to average. I have certainly found this to be true — every student I have met so far shares an immense passion for their studies, which was not at all common in my high school.

Surprisingly, I do not feel too much of an effect from the new passion and intellect that I am surrounded by in my studies or my personal life. Yes, such passion and intellect can enliven seminar discussions to a degree that those in high school never attained. Yes, among the students in my math class, I am no longer the sole advocate that mathematics should be appreciated for its intrinsic

beauty.

I was, however, never lonely in my position that mathematics should be appreciated for its intrinsic beauty; I see the addition of other students who agree as a pleasant surprise, rather than a dramatic change in my academic life. Likewise, though I appreciate the increased depth reached in classroom discussions in college, the existence of such depth is not new to me. Only its pervasiveness is.

Perhaps the most obvious difference between high school and college life is the separation from family. But while geography may keep me away from my parents, electronics never fail to bridge the physical gap.

In truth, I might spend just as much time calling my parents now as I spoke to them in high school.

Although my parents no longer share my physical space, they do share approximately the same amount of my time; such adjustments need not be viewed as a major lifestyle change.

There are two more points in which many students experience a major life transition, yet I did

not, which can be attributed to my own peculiarities. First, the freedom of a college class schedule allows many students to choose their own sleeping patterns. I chose to remain on my old high school pattern, waking at six each morning.

The other aspect of college life was undeniably different from my high school life: the proximity of class to home. Previously accustomed to 25-minute commutes to school that were highly dependent on traffic, I quickly acclimated to five-minute walks to class. Such a convenience did not burden me with a sense of novelty; instead, it comforted me with a sense of ease.

In conclusion, for many, the transition to college is subjective. It can be a major change in lifestyle, or in my case, a few small adjustments to an otherwise consistent one. The finale of high school is either called graduation or commencement — an end or a beginning, both ideas connoting a dramatic transition. In reality, one’s high school diploma is neither an end nor a beginning; it is simply another symbol of the

continuous movement of life.

We often hear of ways to ease the college transition — perhaps the best way to do so is not to acknowledge the differences between our past and future lives, but rather to minimize those differences, as I did unintentionally.

I wish I had known this on that Transition Night last May. Perhaps that night would have been better spent on more practical advice for daily, pragmatic concerns, which constituted the majority of my psychological transition to college. Perhaps my college counselors could have taught us various mental games to keep one’s brain from forgetting their ID card while taking a shower. I might have benefited more from a lesson on how to distinguish a washing machine from a dryer before one inserts a load of clothes and detergent and sets the machine spinning. I would have appreciated that greatly a month ago.

Oliver Thakar is a firstyear from Owings Mills, Maryland. He can be reached at othakar@princeton.edu.

Don’t whine.

Opine.

Write for ‘Prince’ Opinion.

48 University Place Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Sports

Thursday November 14, 2019

page 10

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S HOCKEY

Princeton men’s hockey to play RPI, Union in first home series

By Emily Perez Contributor

After four away games, the Princeton men’s hockey team (1–2– 1, 0–2–0 ECAC) will return to the Hobey Baker Rink this Friday to play against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Union College in its first home games of the season.

Princeton’s hockey season began strongly on Nov. 1, with a 5–3 win against the St. Cloud Huskies (1–2–2). This game marked the Tigers’ first win over a ranked opponent in nearly a year. Goals were scored by five separate Princeton Tigers: sophomore forward Corey Andonovski, senior forward Liam Grande, senior forward Jackson Cressey, junior forward Luke Keenan, and first-year forward Spencer Kersten. Three power plays in the second period, as well as 28 shots across the three periods, made this game an excellent start for the Tigers, who ended the 2018-19 season with 10 wins to 18 losses.

“I think we started off really strong,” said Jackson Cressey, who recently reached 100 career points.

“We played really well as a team … and the first game was great for us to get our confidence up.”

A second game against St. Cloud the very next day completed the series and ended in a 5–5 tie, once more with goals scored by a variety of players. Goals by Jackson Cressey, Luke Keenan, and a hat trick from Andonovski ended the third period in a draw, and the overtime period was ultimately fruitless. St. Cloud outshot Princeton 30–24, and won 32 face-offs to Princeton’s 26.

Princeton traveled to Cambridge, Mass., on Nov. 8, and struggled during the ECAC Hockey League opener against Harvard (2–0–0, 2–0–0). Although Princeton outshot Harvard 31–30, they failed to score a goal, and the game ended with a 3–0 win for Harvard.

Most recently, Princeton played Dartmouth (1–2–1, 1–1–1) in Hanover, N.H. in another ECAC game. Although a goal from junior forward Jake Paganelli brought the game to an even 1–1 in the third period, two goals from Dartmouth shortly followed, re-

sulting in a 3–1 loss for the Tigers.

Dartmouth also outshot the Tigers 35–28.

“I’m very positive from what I saw from the first four games,” head coach Ron Fogarty said. “We have a lot of players who are playing in different roles, so it’s taking a little time for the adjustment period, but I’m excited for the season and especially excited for this weekend’s games against RPI and Union.” He added that, going forward, the team will work to strengthen their defense.

“We’re very comfortable that we can get a couple wins here,” Cressey added.

The Tigers will come home for the first time this season on Nov. 15 to play the Rensselaer Polytechnic Engineers in another ECAC game. This threatens to be a challenge: RPI has a 32-game lead in the all-time series against Princeton. It’s also a high-pressure game, as the Tiger’s current standing in the ECAC does not bode well for the rest of the season.

Following RPI, the Tigers stay at home on Nov. 16 to take on Union.

JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Matthew Thom and Princeton hockey will take the ice at Baker Rink this weekend.

COLUMNS

Examining compensation to college athletes

JONATHAN SCHILLING / WIKIMEDIA COMMONS

The rafters above Princeton’s Jadwin Gym.

By Matthew Fuller Sports Columnist

On Tuesday, Oct. 29, the NCAA’s top governing board unanimously voted that it would “permit students participating in athletics the opportunity to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness in a manner consistent with the collegiate model.” The rationale taken was that college sports must provide additional flexibility and “continue to support college sports as a part of higher education.”

The decision came after pressure from the state governments of Florida and New York pushed for legislation similar to California’s Fair Pay to Play law. The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30, allows college athletes to make money from endorsement deals. The bill introduced in New York goes a step further, requiring all New York colleges to set aside 15 percent of their revenue from ticket sales for their athletes,

with half of that money going towards health and savings should a player suffer an injury.

With the introduction of these bills, the NCAA was apparently pressured to vote this way so that no state would have an advantage in recruiting visà-vis players choosing colleges in states with compensation.

Amid criticism for their strict policies, the NCAA was quick to highlight systems already in place, such as scholarships, which would show they were already making an effort to better accommodate studentathletes.

Last week, ‘Prince’ contributor Sam Kagan ’23 wrote an excellent article on this subject, giving a voice to studentathletes at Princeton and their opinions on the subject. Students expressed conflicting viewpoints on the issue. Those in favor suggested that independently earning money and profiting off the hard work put into the sport should not be seen as a bad thing, but rather as an incentive for athletes to

invest in their sport.

On the other hand, some argued that this ruling would detract from the drive and camaraderie of college sports, as well as education in general, highlighting that “student” comes first in the formulation of “student-athlete,” meaning that academics should come first. Also, those against compensation argued it would not affect small-market sports and small-market colleges, while the few athletes who would benefit from this policy would go on to make money anyway.

While the Ivy League has different standards from other colleges, many of these same talking points have been debated for a long time nationally. Recently, Tim Tebow responded negatively to the California bill, saying on ESPN’s “First Take” that he did not want to make any money off his name when he played quarterback at the University of Florida, despite the fact that at the time, his jersey was one of the top-selling in the country across all sports.

Like many, Tebow argued that compensation would distract from the team-centric culture of college sports.

His take quickly became the quintessential argument supported by those in favor of forbidding payment to college athletes. He said, “Now we’re changing it from us, from we, from my university, from being an alumni where I care, which makes college football and college sports special, to then, okay, it’s not about us, it’s not about we, it’s just about me. And yes, I know we live in a selfish culture where it’s all about us, but we’re just adding and piling on to that where it changes what’s special about college football.”

As proof, Tebow cited that the passion fans and alumni had for college football, as opposed to the NFL, stemmed from this culture, which is why college stadiums are much larger than professional ones.

Tebow was met with significant criticism over his comments from others in the sports world. Many of these critiques centered around the fact that Tebow came from a place of privilege and would never know what difference this compensation could provide for some.

David Mulugheta, a popular agent for the sports agency Athletes First, was one of the first to respond, tweeting “Just in case anyone is curious, this is what “privilege” sounds like.

I guarantee @TimTebow never missed a meal growing up because his parents didn’t have the means, nor does he understand what having to help your mother pay bills so the lights stay on feels like.”

One of the other prevailing arguments against compensation has always been about education. Those who receive scholarships are often told not to complain because they are receiving a free tuition, which in itself may be considered a form of payment. The term “education,” however, should be used loosely here.

At major athletic schools, not only is the time commit-

ment more strenuous than it would be in the Ivy League, but the quality of education is may be comparatively limited. Jourdan Lewis, a cornerback for the Dallas Cowboys who was a student-athlete at the University of Michigan, discussed this often unspoken point, saying, “Don’t talk to me about a free education, because when I got to school[,] I was told I couldn’t major in graphic design. It didn’t fit my, ‘schedule.’” Lewis, like many athletes at Michigan, was steered toward taking sociology, which was seen as a more manageable major in Ann Arbor.

For eighteen years at the University of North Carolina, football and basketball players were recommended to take classes that never met and gave out free A’s to students in what became a famous scandal five years ago.

Though the NCAA limits time spent on collegiate sports to 20 hours a week, athletes spend far more time than that on athletics. Based on a testimony that included Northwestern University football coach Pat Fitzgerald, it was determined that for a single game a short distance away in Ann Arbor, Northwestern players spent 24 hours traveling, preparing for, and playing the game. The NCAA calculates this time as just 3 hours, no matter how long the game goes and no matter how long it takes for everything else.

Fitzgerald called this commitment a “full-time job.”

Ultimately, the arguments that defend the status quo in college sports reflect only a single viewpoint. Often, they fail to consider what profiting from one’s own likeness or from ticket sales could do for athletes who may not be able to reach professional level but still face the pressure of supporting their family, maintaining a very limited education, and finding time for physical and mental health.

In this sense, student-athletes face a unique and particularly challenging combination of stress and uncertainty.

Tweet of the Day

Stat of the Day

Follow us

“#Shrine Bowl Bound! Congratulations to @ PrincetonFTBL QB Kevin Davidson on accepting an invite to the @Shrine_Bowl”

4

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

Princeton Football (@ PrincetonFTBL)

Four Princeton women’s soccer players were named to All-Ivy teams Wednesday