Today's paper: Thursday, Dec. 5th

PHOTO ESSAY: A LENS INTO R.O.T.C. p.7-8

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Thursday december 5, 2013 vol. cxxxvii no. 115

WEATHER

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } HIGH

LOW

63˚ 55˚

Mostly cloudy with showers. chance of rain:

30 percent

Follow us on Twitter @princetonian

In Opinion Jason Choe argues that Princeton should focus more on alcohol safety, while Rebecca Kreutter argues that our current alcohol policy is right to promote self-responsibility. PAGE 5

In Street Street asks why we get all dressed up, Seth Merkin Morokoff gives us the deets on Princeton Pi, and Jennifer Shyue defends top bunks. PAGE S1

The Archives

Dec. 5, 1955 The sophomore bicker committee begins hosting a series of “bicker precepts” for those interested in joining clubs.

On the Blog Aaron Robertson shares what he believes are the two paradigms of social service.

STUDENT LIFE

Website gives data on eating club members

By Lorenzo Quiogue staff writer

The launch of a new official website about the eating clubs has provided a unique window into the clubs’ real membership numbers, one which suggests that a significant number of students drop the eating clubs before graduating.

As of the beginning of the current semester, 1,710 students in the Classes of 2014 and 2015 are members of the eating clubs according to the InterClub Council website. However, of the students who joined eating clubs between spring 2012 and spring 2013 — the period that accounts for all current members — at least 333 of 2,043, or 16 percent, have dropped or left, according to historical aggregate data maintained by The Daily Princetonian.

The aggregate numbers do not count Quadrangle Club, which currently has a membership of 113 students according to its website, because until very recently the club did not disclose membership numbers to the ‘Prince.’ The numbers also do not include the most recent fall bicker and sign-in season.

Although some of the students who joined in that period were members of the Class of 2013 and

have since graduated, this number is minimal, according to membership lists obtained by the ‘Prince‘ last spring.

The largest difference is in the case of Terrace Club, which saw 343 students join between spring of 2012 and 2013, including 183 who joined last spring alone. Terrace, however, currently lists a membership of only 230 members, a full third less than the number of students who signed in.

Terrace is also the club listing the most members in total, although Tower Club follows closely with 220 members.

In the case of Tiger Inn, the number of members has actually increased compared to the number of students who joined through Bicker. Between spring 2012 and spring 2013, 179 students joined TI, but the club now lists a membership of 188.

TI President Christopher Hamm ’14 did not respond to multiple requests for comment asking whether TI allowed students to join between fall and spring Bicker.

Quadrangle Club — which recently lowered membership fees in See NUMBERS page 2

Priorities Committee examines efficient use of U. funds staff writer

U. researchers look at how targeted ads affect web experience In a study examining how the commercialization of online data has personalized web users’ experience, researchers at the University and Belgium’s KU Leuven have released “bots” that mimic the behavior of real people online, according to “Freedom to Tinker,” a blog hosted by the University’s Center for Information Technology Policy.

Their research studies the different personal experiences that arise due to the practices of companies like Google, which stores data on users’ web history and filters their search results based on this history.

The study will compare the search results, ads, offers and prices shown to their various bots to determine what kind of discrimination occurs across different sites.

“What all these and many more examples have in common is that they are ways of using personal information for differential or discriminatory treatment,” assistant computer science professor Arvind Narayanan wrote in a blog post. “Our long-term goal is to be able to run the tool on a web scale to publish a frequently-updated ‘census’ of online privacy and discrimination.”

KASSANDRA LEIVA :: SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER

Members of Theatre Intime rehearse for their adaptation of Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein.’

The show, directed by Kanoa Mulling ’15, will run in Theatre Intime Dec. 5-7 and Dec. 10.

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

By Lorenzo Quiogue

News & Notes

FRANKENSTEIN

Due to recessionary pressures and diminished federal funding for research, this month the Priorities Committee is examining ways to more efficiently use the University’s funds.

The Priorities Committee will make preliminary recommendations on Dec. 10-11 and present them to the Finance Committee on Dec. 13, 2013. Committee members will

then conduct final discussions in January before University president Christopher Eisgruber ’83 and University provost David Lee GS ’99 present the final budget recommendations to the Board of Trustees on Jan. 24, 2014.

At the November meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Committee, Lee explained that the University “was a little bit closer to having to think about trade-offs” and mentioned that sequestration and budgetary inf lexibility would

continue to pose significant financial challenges.

In a late November interview, Lee explained that it was much easier to fund new academic initiatives before the recession but that as endowment returns dropped significantly after 2008, the Priorities Committee was forced to reexamine the University’s use of funds, especially in the face of ongoing uncertainty about the strength of the national economy.

“We’re sort of in the post-reces-

sion period and we don’t really know what’s going to happen – are we going to go back to high returns like we did before or are we going to experience another financial shock?”

Lee said. “We really have to make sure that we’re more rigorous in examining these initiatives, and we really have to think about which ones go first.”

Carolyn Ainslie, vice president for finance and treasurer, explained in an interview last month that the See TRADE-OFFS page 3

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

STUDENT LIFE

U. purchase becomes a donation

Residential colleges allow mixed housing

By Daily Princetonian Staff Princeton formally donated $4.1 million to the University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro in fiscal year 2012. The charitable contribution, however, did not function as a donation, but rather was used to complete the sale of a parking lot, whose price had been agreed upon before the recession and has since dropped dramatically.

Before moving to its current location on Route 1 in 2012, UMCPP was on Witherspoon Street, less than one mile north of the University. As part of the move, which was planned years in advance, the University bought a parking lot from the hospital for $5 million.

“We bought a parking lot on Franklin Avenue from the hospital for an agreed-upon price of $5 million, which at the time of contract we believed represented fair value for that property,” University Spokesperson Martin Mbugua said. Nevertheless, the University was not allowed to actually close on that property until the hospital formally relocated outside Princeton, Mbugua explained.

The property’s value dropped when it was reSee HOSPITAL page 3

By Loully Saney senior writer

Students had the option to live in gender-neutral housing in the residential colleges for the first time this academic year. The program, which allows students to live with roommates of the opposite gender, is popular with students who choose it, though some suggested certain improvements.

For Brenaea Fairchild ’16, who lives in Butler College, gender-neutral housing is a necessity.

“I am married, and so I wanted to live with my husband obviously,” she explained, adding that the situation wasn’t perfect. “The residential colleges don’t really fit the needs of a married couple.”

Fairchild said the couple has difficulty sharing the college’s communal kitchen, among other disadvantages. She does not regret the decision to live in gender-neutral housing, she explained, as her commitment to her marriage is what allows her deal with issues that arise.

“If you are not married, you don’t have that commitment of knowing you are going to work through this no matter what,” Fairchild said. She suggests that couples should only live in genderneutral housing if they have a commitment to making things work. “Living with someone, even of the same sex, is a lot of work because of the demands of Princeton.”

Currently 56 students live in gender-neutral housing, according to information provided

by Manager of Undergraduate Housing Angela Hodgeman, who declined to comment further. Of See GENDER page 4

LU LU :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Ballard Metcalfe ‘14 and Izzy Kasdin ‘14 share a room in 1901 Hall.

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

TRYING TUXEDOS

Thursday december 5, 2013

JOINING AND DROPPING: CLUB MEMBERSHIP 233

Statistics from ICC website as of September 1, 2013

179 188

165

Daily Princetonian Aggregate Data as of Spring 2012-13 343

Colonial

Tiger Inn

230

WASHINGTON ROAD

MERRILL FABRY :: PHOTOGRAPHY EDITOR

PROSPECT AVENUE Tower

Terrace

Cannon

Quad

Ivy

Cottage

Cap & Gown

Charter Cloister

234 220 197 150

113

146 135

173 172

198

180

172 160

168 110

NA

A male student searches for the penguin suit that fits him best in anticipation of the formal events occuring this weekend.

JESSIE LIU :: STAFF DESIGNER

Terrace, Tower have most members NUMBERS Continued from page 1

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

an effort to attract more students, is one of few clubs to report losses in its assets, and until recently had a longstanding policy of not disclosing its numbers — now has more members than Cloister Inn. Quad currently has 113 members, while Cloister has 110, according to the ICC website.

The remaining eight clubs have all lost a significant number of members, except for Cottage Club, which has remained almost constant.

“While inevitably there are a few people who drop out for different reasons, the vast majority of members stay in the club. Our members are happy and membership is growing,” Quad president Branden Lewiston ’14 said.

Colonial Club, which accepted a total of 233 students in the past three sign-in seasons, lists a membership of 165, 68 members fewer, or 29 percent less, than the total

number of those accepted.

Katrina Maxcy ’14, the president of Colonial, explained that some students join clubs on a trial basis before deciding whether to stay.

“Generally, a lot of sophomores join eating clubs in the first semester just to try them out and then maybe switch out from there,” she explained.

Cannon Dial Elm and Cloister also list significant declines, with Cannon listing 150 members versus 197 accepted members in the previous three bicker seasons, a drop of 24 percent, and Cloister listing 110 members versus 168 in the previous three sign-in seasons, a drop of 35 percent.

Cannon and ICC President Connor Clegg ’14, explained that the number provided for Cannon’s membership on the website is more of a ballpark figure than an exact number.

Cloister President Paul Popescu ’14 said that there was no particular reason for this drop.

Cottage Club, which accepted a total of 173 students in the past three bicker seasons, lists a mem-

bership of 172 on its page on the website. Cottage President John McGee ‘14 did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

In the case of Ivy Club, Cap & Gown Club, Tower Club and Charter Club, the drop in membership exists but is not particularly significant.

Ivy Club listed a membership of 135 versus a total of 146 in the previous three bicker seasons.

Similarly, Cap & Gown listed a membership of 180 versus a total of 198 in the previous three bicker seasons.

Tower listed a membership of 220 versus a total of 234 in the previous three bicker seasons, and Charter listed a membership of 160 versus a total of 172 in the previous three bicker seasons.

Ivy president Thatcher Foster ’14 did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Tower President Doug Stuart ’14, Cap & Gown President Justin Perez ’14 and Charter President Sam Halpern ’14 declined to comment on the drop.

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday december 5, 2013

page 3

U. discusses faculty salaries and student tuition as well as loss of federal funding TRADE-OFFS Continued from page 1

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

trade-offs the Priorities Committee was looking into have all been examined before.

“I wouldn’t say we’re looking at any new trade-offs; we’ve pretty much been looking at the same ones every year, especially since the recession,” she said. “It’s really important that we examine the rate of growth of our expenditures versus the rate of growth of our revenue, and we continue to do that.

Lee mentioned at the CPUC meeting that some of the trade-offs that the University was exploring were changes to faculty salaries and student tuition. However, Ainslie noted that even though the University is looking into potential changes to faculty salaries, it will ensure that faculty salaries remain competitive

in the marketplace.

One particular point of emphasis in this year’s Priorities Committee’s discussions is the loss of federal funding for research, which has been critically impacted by the budget sequestration.

“We’re looking over many years, and we’re thinking about the funding of research. As you know, the federal government has sequestration ongoing, and there are issues with the debt ceiling and the government shutdown, so going forward, we’ll definitely be looking at that,” Ainslie added.

Both Lee and Ainslie said these financial problems are not unique to Princeton.

“All of these issues are the same issues that our peers are all facing. In that sense, our position relative to our peers is not threatened, and we remain excellent in all our areas of research and teaching. The factors I laid out are all macro factors and

not Princeton-specific,” Lee explained.

Financial reports from both Harvard and Yale for 2013 describe similar financial challenges, particularly regarding diminished federal research funding.

Former University President William G. Bowen GS ’58 pointed to the 1970s as a period of financial difficulty for the University that it ultimately survived and offered advice for colleges managing budget constraints.

“Wise places that are well-led respond surgically.

They don’t adopt one-sizefits-all across-the-board approaches,” Bowen said of colleges and universities responding to the recession.

“They think very carefully about their priorities, and about where savings can be achieved with the least damage, not no damage, but with the least damage to the enterprise.”

During the CPUC meeting

Mbugua: Donation is not conditional HOSPITAL Continued from page 1

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

assessed in 2010, when properties throughout the county were revaluated.

“By the time this happened,” Mbugua added, “the valuation had dropped, so we paid $5 million for a property that by then had declined in valuation to $1.3 million. The difference between the two numbers became, for tax purposes, a charitable contribution.”

Mbugua explained that the $4 million dollar difference between the property’s value at the signing of the contract in 2005 and the closing of the acquisition in 2012 made it a charitable contribution for filing purposes only.

However, between 2008 and 2010 the parking lot tax assess-

ment actually increased from $229,000 to $691,000 according to Mercer County property records.

In 2012, the most recent tax property assessment available, the parking lot was assessed at $681,000.

The donation was disclosed in the University’s 2012 990 form, a return filed annually to the Internal Revenue Service by nonprofit organizations.

The University, considered a nonprofit institution by the IRS, does not pay taxes on its educational functions and does not pay income tax. While charitable contributions, such as this one, usually incur an income tax deduction, the fact that the University does not pay any income tax means that a tax deduction was not utilized in this case, Mbugua explained.

However, Mbugua also ac-

knowledged that the University has provided financial assistance to the hospital in the past.

“We made an intentional decision to give $2 million to the hospital, and we are doing that over five years at $400,000 a year,” he said.

Princeton is not expected to receive any special treatment or favors as a result of its support.

“This is not a conditional donation,” Mbugua explained.

In a statement provided by UMCPP President and CEO Barry Rabner, the hospital noted that these donations would help the hospital fulfill its mission and enhance the quality of its care.

However, Rabner did not explain the purpose of the charitable donation in the statement.

The new UMCPP location is located 2.8 miles away from Frist Campus Center and cost more than $500 million to construct.

and in his interview, Lee explained that the University used a significant portion of its reserve funds during the recovery from the 2008 economic crisis, and that this move reduced the University’s ability to reallocate resources in the event of a crisis.

“It was like having a bank account as a safety valve: you can draw down on that in case of an emergency, but you eventually have to think about building it back up so when there are downturns, you can go back to it,” he explained of the University’s

measures. “That’s where we’re at, we’re trying to figure out a way to get back to rebuilding that safety valve,” he explained.

Staff writer Jacob Donnelly contributed reporting for this article.

page 4

The Daily Princetonian

Done reading your ‘Prince’?

Recycle

Thursday december 5, 2013

Gender-neutral not open to freshmen GENDER

Continued from page 1

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

these, 20 live in upperclass dorms, 18 live in the residential colleges and 18 live in quad rooms in Spelman Halls.

Gender-neutral housing began as a pilot program in the 2010-11 academic year, making Princeton the fifth Ivy League school to offer a mixed-gender housing option. It was limited to the Spelman at that time.

In 2012, gender-neutral housing available for upperclassmen was expanded to 278 beds. Expanding the policy to the residential colleges has attracted both upperclassmen and underclassmen. Among the 18 gender-neutral occupants in the residential colleges, five are sophomores, 10 are juniors and three are seniors. The option is currently not available to freshmen, who are not able to choose their roommates.

Among students who have opted for the program, couples like Fairchild and her husband are certainly not the norm. Most gender-neutral occupants are mixed-gender groups of friends, rather than people in romantic relationships, according to Melody Edwards ’15, who lives in gender-neutral housing in Spelman.

“For me, it is just kind of a pragmatic choice, rather than feeling more comfortable living in a gender-

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester.

Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Telephones: Business: 609375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@dailyprincetonian.com.

Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2013, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

neutral context,” Edwards said. She explained that she chose her housing based on who she most wanted to live with, not based on whether those people were male or female.

“The residential colleges don’t really fit the needs of a married couple.”

Brenaea Fairchild ’16

Edwards said that she sup-

ports the expansion to the residential colleges, but is disappointed that the program requires that all bedrooms be singles. For example, a draw group of two men and two women would not have the option of living in a quad with double rooms, she pointed out.

CORRECTION Due to an editing error, the Dec. 3 News & Notes article mischaraterized the relationship between the bacteria responsible for the outbreak at Princeton and the outbreak at UC Santa Barbara.

They are of the same serogroup, but not the same strain. The ‘Prince’ regrets this error.

Opinion

Thursday december 5, 2013

page 5

{www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Is Princeton's alcohol policy effective?

Out of the frying pan and into the fire Jason Choe Columnist

T

he Princeton administration is undoubtedly dedicated to keeping its students as safe as possible. But in the process of pursuing policies that promote safety, it seems that the administration has chosen to unnecessarily emphasize some aspects of campus safety over others. Case in point: fire safety.

According to the annual fire safety reports published by the Department of Public Safety, there was a single fire in campus residential housing in 2012, three fires in 2011, nine fires in 2010 (of which 4 occurred in the graduate student houses) and four fires in 2009. What’s more, over the course of 14 fires in four years, the only damage incurred to the University or its inhabitants was the damage of two microwaves.

In contrast, take another activity that is commonly associated with a high incidence of college student injury or even death — high-risk drinking. According to P-Safe, on campus in 2012 there were 28 judicial referrals for liquor law violations and zero arrests; in 2011, there were 35 referrals and zero arrests; in 2010, there were 33 referrals and zero arrests; in 2009, there were 90 referrals and 10 arrests; and in 2008, there were 109 referrals and 10 arrests.

Clearly, alcohol abuse is more prolific an issue on campus than is fire danger. Part of the reason that the numbers are so skewed might be attributed to the different rhetoric espoused by the administration in regard to the two aforementioned issues.

During freshman orientation week, fire safety was introduced as a rigid, line-in-the-sand issue — if you broke a fire safety regulation, you were fined, end of story. Further, such regulations included violations like blocking or obstructing routes of egress, improperly using electrical cords, propping open doors or owning an unapproved appliance. In total, there are 20 such rules that must be obeyed, as well as fines ranging from $25 to $100 per violation. Of course, the rules aren’t set in stone. But in order to, for instance, petition that an appliance be added to the “approved appliances” list, students must first “read the technical criteria” of said appliance, then “make an appointment” to bring the appliance to the manager of dormitories, all the while aware that “disassembly of the appliance may be required to examine it.”

On the other hand, alcohol safety was presented in a more lax light, based in large part on a policy of self-responsibility. Indeed, Princeton’s alcohol policy reads “students are expected and encouraged to be aware of the social, physiological, psychological consequences and personal risks of excessive drinking in order to make responsible and informed decisions about the service and consumption of alcohol.” Emphasis of “personal risk.”

That is not to say that P-Safe will not or does not crack down on alcohol violations (they explicitly prohibit students from serving hard liquor, for instance); they certainly do. But their actions do not entail random searches of dormitory rooms and are on the whole less intrusive or extreme as those of the fire safety program.

From a national standpoint, approximately 3,800 university housing fires occur annually, according to the U.S. Fire Administration, and of those 3,800, 88 percent result from cooking fires (it is notable to point out that the majority of Princeton dormitories don’t have kitchens themselves). Further, according to the USFA, the fires cause “a yearly average of zero deaths and 25 injuries.” In contrast, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, “1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes” and “599,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol.” Thus, low rates of fire safety issues nationwide indicate that the equally low rates of fire hazard incidence on campus are not necessarily a result of the excellence of our fire program, but rather a national trend. At the same time, the data indicates that alcohol-related incidents are, nationally, a much more prolific safety issue, just as it is at Princeton.

Interestingly, since Princeton’s inception, fires have been responsible for major damage to University buildings on only six occasions — Nassau Hall in 1802 and 1855, Marquand Chapel and Dickinson Hall in 1920, John C. Green School of Science in 1928, University Gymnasium in 1944 and Whig Hall in 1969. In all six cases, which were the most severe instances of significant conflagrations to occur on campus property, no loss of life occurred, and only one injury was reported.

It can be argued that we, being college students, are intrinsically more prone to get involved in alcohol related activities — after all, partying and drinking with friends is fun, lighting furniture on fire and staring into the flames is not. What’s more, it may be Fire Safety’s vigilance and strict adherence to rules that has allowed the University to remain unscathed from major fire damage.

Thus, this is in no way an attempt to condemn the work that the University does to keep students safe on a daily basis. It just seems that there is at times a disjoint between the amount of resources and effort invested into policies like fire safety and the resulting benefit derived, in terms of students helped.

Maybe it’s time the University re-evaluate its programs and its focus more heavily on other aspects of student safety.

Jason Choe is a freshman from Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. He can be reached at jasonjc@princeton.edu.

readjustment terry o'shea ’16

137TH BUSINESS BOARD vol. cxxxvii

Luc Cohen ’14

editor-in-chief

Grace Riccardi ’14

business manager

business manager Grace Riccardi ’14 director of national advertising Nick Hu ’15 director of campus/local adversting Harold Li ’15 director of web advertising Matteo Kruijssen ’16

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 vice presidents John G. Horan ’74 Thomas E. Weber ’89 secretary Kathleen Kiely ’77 treasurer Michael E. Seger ’71 Craig Bloom ’88 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Richard P. Dzina, Jr. ’85 William R. Elfers ’71 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John G. Horan ’74 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Betsy J. Minkin ’77 Alexia Quadrani Jerry Raymond ’73 Carol Rigolot h ’51 h ’70 Annalyn Swan ’73 Douglas Widmann ’90

director of recruitment advertising Zoe Zhang ’16 director of operations Elliot Pearl-Sacks ’15 comptroller Kevin Tang ’16

NIGHT STAFF 12.4.13 news Night Chief: Carla Javier '15 Paul Phillips '16 copy Jean-Carlos Arenas '16 Chamsi Hssaine '16 Elizabeth Bradley '17 Kathleen Mulligan '17 Sharon You '17 design Julia Johnstone '16 Sean Pan '16

A different policy for a different problem Rebecca Kreutter

associate editor emerita

I

’ve been blared awake by a tripped fire alarm several times in the middle of night, been fined twice for propping my means of egress and learned during the fire talk of frosh week the dangers of contraband candles and unattached microwaves. When it comes to fire safety, like Jason, I don’t agree that every aspect of the regulations is necessarily worth the priority that the University gives it. Yet, I don’t agree that alcohol safety is “presented in a more lax light, based in large part on a policy of self-responsibility."

Yes, alcohol policy relies more on self-responsibility than the fire policy. After all, we don’t have alcohol inspectors that can come into our dorms without warning to dole out fines for specific unsafe behaviors. Contrary to Jason, I do not believe this policy of self-responsibility is “lax.” Instead, it is consistent with promoting student welfare. Jason implies that fire safety and alcohol safety are governed by the same principles and that what works in fire safety will work in alcohol safety.

Top-down regulation makes sense for fire safety.

With the exception of door propping, which has yet to convince students that the danger outweighs the convenience, most students learn after the first fine that candles, toasters and microwaves aren’t worth the penalty. It is hard to imagine a similar situation occurring if the University tamped down on alcohol in the dorms. After all, no one believes that prohibition of alcohol would prevent drinking; just ask the 18th amendment. Alcohol safety is more about moderation than prevention.

We are college kids, not yet "real-world," but no longer living at home. It makes sense that the University would educate us about safe alcohol use, but then leave us to make our own decisions and even a few of our own mistakes. Self-responsibility with alcohol use is recognition that each of us has the ability to control where and how the night takes us.

Though everyone can do their part to reduce the risk of fires, fire safety is not subject to the same selfresponsibility standards. A dorm fire, as unlikely as it is, can pose a threat to other students in the dorm; dangerous drinking contains the risk within the individual. This is not to say that high-risk drinking does not have high consequences for the individual.

It can. Nor that the intoxicated do not occasionally harm property or other people. They do. Rather, the University does not have the same liability issues for students who drink.

A comparison of the stats of fires at Princeton vs. referrals for liquor law violations neglects the fact that more students drink alcohol on a regular basis than light fires in their rooms. Though the goal of no high-risk drinking should always be the priority, we

shouldn’t interpret alcohol stats as a failure on the part of the University to promote student safety.

Princeton University’s alcohol policy balances safety with the realities of college life. The University acknowledges that not all drinking is bad; it is just some drinking behaviors that should be banned. It targets high-risk drinking, drinking from common sources, alcohol-induced disorderliness, pregaming and drinking games. Students have the resources to learn about alcohol safety during Frosh Week, alcoholEdu and zee group conversations. Residential college adviers go on rounds on the weekends and remain on-call throughout the night. The Street is open almost every weekend to students who can find a least a few clubs open to PUID. The Street is within walking distance — which means the University doesn’t need to prioritize designated driver education — and doesn’t serve

Instead of reducing high-risk drinking, a top-down policy would almost certainly increase risk. hard alcohol during Street hours. Most importantly, students cannot get in trouble for being drunk or from needing medical instance and are required to take students who do need help to McCosh Health Center. The combination of these policies earned the University a B in terms of drug and alcohol policy from Students for Sensible Drug Policy. In particular, an open medical amnesty was a cornerstone to achieving a higher grade from SSDP. Consider the effect of a stricter alcohol policy. Completely banning alcohol, or more realistically banning underage students from the eating clubs, would likely only lead to higher-risk drinking in dorm rooms as pregames turn into THE game. Instead of reducing high-risk drinking, a top-down policy would almost certainly increase risk.

I am fully aware that students still engage in highrisk drinking and that this risk should be minimized.

I disagree that fire safety is over-prioritized at the expense of alcohol safety. Rather, the University’s alcohol policy does a good job of managing student risk while still allowing college kids to be college kids.

Rebecca Kreutter is a Wilson School major from Singapore, Singapore. She can be reached at rhkreutt@ princeton.edu.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

................................................................. some facts about graduate housing I would like to clarify and correct some of the recent discussion in The Daily Princetonian about the University’s commitment to graduate student housing and the fate of the Butler Apartments. Providing graduate student housing is a priority for the University.

(We provide much more than almost all of our peers.) When the University first announced plans to replace the Butler Apartments with the new Lakeside apartment complex, the news seemed to be welcomed by graduate students.

I appreciate the attachment that many graduate students and alumni have to the Butler Apartments. However, the general deteriorating condition of these barracks-style housing units, which were first installed in 1947, became clear years ago.

The complex was coming to the end of its useful life, despite continuing efforts to keep it patched together. Besides the high cost of frequent structural repairs, most of the units have gas-fired wall heating units and neither sprinklers nor smoke alarm systems connected to the Department of Public Safety.

Among other challenges, most apartments do not meet federal guidelines for accessibility. In all, it was becoming neither feasible nor cost-effective to continue maintaining the complex.

Given that reality and a desire to provide higher quality graduate student housing close to campus, a decision was made to construct new housing and discontinue the use of the Butler Apartments. This decision was made as part of a planning process that was initiated in

2004. My colleagues in the Graduate School office and I engaged graduate students in the planning process to shape the design of the Lakeside complex via student surveys and data gathered over a number of years. Two graduate students were part of the planning team, and the Graduate Student Government was involved at every stage of the planning process.

The planners sought to identify the kinds of units most desired by graduate students and their families, while being sensitive to costs. In making comparisons, one should note that a two-bedroom unit at Butler (620 square feet) is smaller than a one-bedroom unit at Lakeside (649 square feet), which surveys repeatedly showed to be preferable for graduate student couples. The Lakeside one-bedroom will cost only about $90 a month more for rent and utilities than the Butler tract predecessor, while the increase for most shared units for single students will be even less.

When Lakeside is ready and Butler is closed, the University will have the capacity to house 75 percent of eligible graduate students. This additional capacity was built into our planning to allow us to maintain our longstanding commitment to house 70 percent of eligible students for the next decade, even as our graduate student population grows over time. We will have more housing capacity than a decade ago, when the effort began to replace failing facilities, and substantially more than 20 years ago.

Princeton graduate students will have more and better options than ever before.

In addition to providing

greater proximity to central campus and other graduate student housing, the Lakeside complex is designed to promote a sense of community, evidenced by amenities such as volleyball and basketball courts, a children’s play area and a community garden. The complex will also include a common lounge space, a fitness room, study spaces and a barbecue area. Pets will be welcome in many of the individual units and shared townhouses. Each unit will have a washer and dryer, and shared units will have multiple bathrooms. A new 504-space parking garage next to the complex will be available to graduate students and their guests. The new units will far surpass Butler in terms of quality, and they are being constructed in an environmentally friendly way, consistent with the University’s commitment to sustainability.

When the Lakeside project is complete, graduate housing will be sitting on approximately 20 acres of on-campus land, representing a substantial investment by the University in graduate student housing.

I know that many former Butler residents have fond memories of their time there, even as they recall the challenges of living in increasingly outmoded units originally intended for other purposes. My hope is that future residents of Lakeside will have equally fond memories of living in a community overlooking the lake, in units designed with them in mind and of a quality that provides accommodations that are safe, comfortable, convenient and affordable.

William B. Russel Dean of The Graduate School

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday December 5, 2013

BY KATHERINE GAO :: SENIOR DESIGNER

AN UPSETTING FINALE

BY

THE

page 6

NUMBERS

17

Number of players who earned Ivy League Honors, a league best

6

Number of players that earned first team All-Ivy

26.6

Junior quarterback Quinn Epperly’s points responsible for per game, an FCS best

3

Sacks by senior defensive linemen Caraun Reid against Dartmouth

10

Number of Ivy League titles the Tigers have earned after claiming a share of the title this season

8

Number of wins for the Tigers this year after having won 7 total games in the three years prior

43

Total number of touchdowns Epperly scored this season

PRINCETON

DARTMOUTH

403

0 14 14 7

7 7

3 0

24 28 331

TOTAL OFFENSE

140

RUSHING YARDS

239

263

PASSING YARDS

92

3

TURNOVERS

1

26

FIRST DOWNS

15

30:57

TIME OF POSSESSION

29:03

25.0

3RD DOWN CONVERSION PERCENTAGE

26.7

BY QUARTER 1ST QUARTER

10 10 RUSHES PASSES

NET YARDS

2ND QUARTER

12 RUSHES

18 PASSES

NET YARDS

3RD QUARTER

12 PASSES

15 RUSHES

NET YARDS

4TH QUARTER

8 RUSHES

18 PASSES

NET YARDS

33 yards passing

83 yards passing

72 yards passing

75 yards passing

20 yards rushing

35 yards rushing

55 yards rushing

30 yards rushing

POSSESSION TIME

POSSESSION TIME

POSSESSION TIME

POSSESSION TIME

7:29

8:14

8:47

6:27

The Daily Princetonian

page 7

Thursday december 5, 2013

IN THE NATION’S SERVICE: A LENS INTO R.O.T.C.

BY KAREN KU

“CRAWL-WALK-RUN.” This is R.O.T.C.’s incremental training philosophy for cadets, theoretically allowing for any interested Princeton student to join and slowly work towards building the necessary leadership, physical and mental skills for the military. The experience of being in R.O.T.C. is extended as an open invitation to any Princeton student — no commitment, but the typical schedule involves 6:30 a.m. physical training, evening classes and off-campus field training. Multiple student cadets say that the juggling academics and R.O.T.C. commitments requires good time management. But it’s worth it according to Platoon Sergeant Sean Webb ’15, who notes, “It gives a sense of purpose and meaning beyond … just doing school.”

With the spirit of tring to visually capture this “sense of purpose,” senior photographer Karen Ku embedded herself into R.O.T.C. for two months to capture a typical week in the life of a student cadet.

It’s certainly different.

Check online Friday for an interactive look at a week in the life of Tiger Company, featuring more photos, audio and interviews with student cadets.

Thursday december 5, 2013

The Daily Princetonian

page 8

COURTESY OF RYAN FULMER