September 22, 2017

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Friday September 22, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 71

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } ON CAMPUS

ON CAMPUS

Q & A: Laura Chinchilla, former pres. of Costa Rica

By Allie Spensley

participation in politics.

senior staff writer

Laura Chinchilla is the former president of Costa Rica, and is visiting the University as a celebration of National Hispanic Heritage Month and the 50th anniversary of Latin American studies at the University. The Daily Princetonian sat down to interview her before her talk, Latin America: A Pending Assignment.

The Daily Princetonian: Why did you choose the topic of your talk to be Latin America: A Pending Assignment?

KRISTIN QIAN :: ASSOCIATE NEWS EDITOR

Former President of Costa Rica lectured “Latin America: a pending assignment”

Chinchilla lectures on Latin America, women

By Allie Spensley and Kristin Qian senior staff writer and associate news editor

Although Latin American countries have made strides in combating inequality and improving their economies, the region still faces a dynamic set of challenges, former Costa Rican president Laura Chinchilla said in a lecture Thursday.

“For the first time ever, more people belong to the middle class than are considered poor; however, large portions of the population are vulnerable to falling back into poverty in the case

of economic shocks,” said Chinchilla. “We must make significant gains in productivity over the next couple decades if we are to survive in an increasingly interconnected world.”

Chinchilla, the first woman president of Costa Rica, was in office from 20102014. Her major initiatives centered around reducing crime, improving public safety, and establishing public healthcare. Before ascending to the presidency, she served both as Costa Rica’s Vice President and Secretary of Justice.

The economies of many Latin American countries

have improved; the region even weathered the 2008 recession fairly well, according to Chinchilla. Economic success translated into social achievement — poverty and unemployment declined, while the middle class grew, she said. Since 2013, however, the total Latin American GDP has been on the downturn again, and unemployment has increased.

Chinchilla said that the three main challenges facing Latin America today are economic competitiveness, social inequality, and democratic governance.

Latin American countries See COSTA RICA page 5

U . A F FA I R S

Laura Chinchilla: This talk is part of the celebration that they have here of Latin heritage.

They organize a series of events concerning the region of Latin America. So, today, what I want to do is give the students a chance to have an updated view of the situation in Latin America in economic, social, and political terms, as well as the challenges that the regions has ahead. From that point of view, I would emphasize the most critical issue in the region has to do with democratic governance, and corruption. Also, we have had problems with violence, and also, we are now in the middle of a period where economic and social performance is not as strong as it was, so that’s going to be my approach. Of course, I will mention something about women in Latin America because I understand that some of them are interested in knowing about my experience as a woman in politics. We have to realize that there are many pending tasks in the region, and this issue, the issue of women in politics, we can say that we have been able to improve the situation of women’s

DP: What do you think the biggest challenge is in Costa Rica today, and what do you think the government can do to address that?

LC: The most important problem we have is trying to overcome the desisting ability of the financing of the public sector.

We have a huge problem of fiscal deficit, and it has not been easy for us to reach an agreement; it has been very difficult to build a consensus around the measures we have to implement. I must say, the most challenging issue in any nation in terms of building political consensus has to do with how much everyone is going to contribute to financing the public sector. In some ways, we also have a problem building that consensus. What should government do? Government should try to do two things: One, try to spend the money they already get from the people through taxes; try to spend in a more transparent and more efficient way. Two, government has to lead in the political negotiations.

DP: In the U.S. presidential elections, gender was an important part of the conversation. To what extent do you think gender played a part in our elections?

LC: According to the Latin American experience, there are some policies and some actions and issues that are very important in terms of promoting women’s rights. When it comes to women’s political participation, the quota system is very important. I have found no other way, at least See Q & A page 5

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Eisgruber writes letter to Senate in Reich ’04 acquitted support of Catholic judge Amy Barrett of LIBOR-rigging senior staff writer

In 1998, Amy Barrett, then a law student at Notre Dame, cowrote a paper for the Marquette Law Review about whether Catholic judges should recuse themselves from capital punishment cases if their religious convictions should render them unable to impartially uphold the law. Almost 20 years later, Barrett, now a law professor at Notre Dame and an appellate-court nominee, is under scrutiny for her religious views, largely due to this same paper.

“The dogma lives loudly within you,” Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Barrett during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in which senators typically question nominees about their judicial philosophies. Some Democratic senators drew criticism after questioning Barrett about her Catholic faith during a hearing on Sept. 6. In response, President Eisgruber wrote a letter to the Republican chair, Chuck Grassley, and the ranking Democrat, Feinstein, in which he criticized Feinstein and others for interrogating Barrett about the religious and spiritual foundations of her jurisprudential views. The senators seemed concerned that such influences might be invoked in abortion cases.

Not everyone shares Eisgruber’s conviction that the ques-

In Opinion

tioning violated a fundamental principle of the Constitution: that people should not be subject to discrimination on the basis of the spiritual foundation of their views.

“I’m quite surprised that someone of that stature and past writing would raise objections based on what appears to be a very appropriate line of questioning for a candidate who has written that a judge needs to be more true to her religious belief than to the Constitution,” said Nan Aron in an interview with The Daily Princetonian. Aron is founder and president of Alliance for Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group that monitors and reports on federal judicial appointments.

“I only wish that President Eisgruber had taken the time to adequately study her record and her comments before making his criticism,” said Aron. “In fact, a review of her record suggests that not only were [these question about her faith] entirely appropriate, but critically important ones to be raised at her hearing.”

Barrett’s paper caused a furor because Senate Democrats seemed to misunderstand the argument, according to Matthew Franck, a visiting politics lecturer at Princeton and director of the Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute.

Columnist Lou Chen challenges Princeton’s hierarchy of majors, and columnist Thomas Clark calls for a greater tolerance and focus on truth in debates on religion and secularism. PAGE 4

“Did they really not get the point that [Barrett and John Garvey, her co-author] were making or did they willfully distort it?” Franck added.

Catholic judges are in a bind, begins Barrett’s paper “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” “They are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty. They are also obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters,” she wrote. So the question, in Barrett’s view, becomes the following: What ought a trial judge, whose duty might include sentencing a criminal to execution, do if they believe that the death penalty is wrong?

“Their answer is that the judge must not twist the law to reach the moral outcome of striking down the death penalty as unconstitutional, and in their view the death penalty is not unconstitutional,” explained Franck. “The duty of the judge is to recuse himself.”

“I believe that the views expressed in [“Catholic Judges in Capital Cases”] are fully consistent with a judge’s obligation to uphold the law and the Constitution,” wrote Eisgruber, a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments.

“It’s very important that we have set in place a set of See JUDGE page 2

charges after second trial in two years Originally published July 10, 2017

By Norman Xiong senior staff writer

Ryan Reich ’04, accused of manipulating the LIBOR rate for profit between 2005 and 2007, was acquitted in April.

Reich, an ex-Barclays interest rate swaps trader, was among the eight individuals acquitted of LIBOR rigging over the past two years.

The ruling comes from a retrial of the case after the jury of the first trial was unable to reach a verdict in July 2016, according to the New York Times.

The LIBOR, short for London Interbank Offered Rate, is a benchmark interest rate used by the world’s leading banks for short-term loans to each other. A total of 35 different LIBOR rates are set each business day for five world currencies across seven different loan periods, from one day to up to one year. Manipulating the LIBOR rate affects financial institutions’ perceptions of the health of the economy, as LIBOR rates are inversely

Today on Campus 12:30 p.m.: Chilean Minister of the Environment, Marcelo Meno, will speak on “Chile’s Energy and Environment” at the Adlinger Center, Maeder Hall.

related to confidence in financial system stability.

Reich was tried alongside Stylianos Contogoulas, another ex-Barclays trader. The two were charged with conspiracy to manipulate the U.S. dollar LIBOR over a period of two years from 2005 to 2007. The three-month U.S. dollar LIBOR is the figure quoted most often for determining interbank interest rates. The rate is used to price over $3 trillion of derivatives, securities, and loans around the world, underscoring the magnitude of the charges.

Contogoulas was also acquitted of LIBOR fraud and manipulation. Reich and Contogoulas will walk free after a five-year investigation lasting from July 2012 to April 2017 by the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office and two trials in two years.

Reich and Contogoulas were initially charged with four other Barclays employees — Peter Johnson, Jonathan Mathew, Jay Merchant, and Alex Pabon — for manipulating the U.S. dollar See LIBOR page 3

WEATHER

By Sarah Hirschfield

HIGH

83˚

LOW

62˚

Partly Cloudy chance of rain:

0 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Friday September 22, 2017

COURTESY OF UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

Amy Barret was questioned about her religion in her senate confirmation hearing.

Eisgruber: Each side refers to virtually everybody on the other side as extreme JUDGE

Continued from page 1

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

practices in this country that respect the ability of people to raise their voices about important topics without being subjected to questioning that focuses to the spiritual foundations of their beliefs,” he told the ‘Prince,’ adding that Barrett’s hearing was of special concern not only as a matter of religious freedom, but also as a matter of free speech and academic freedom.

Aron “vehemently disagrees” with Eisgruber’s statement that Barrett is qualified for federal judgeship.

“She was not selected by President Donald Trump based on her qualifications but rather based on her writing, suggesting that the duties of a Catholic judge are to be true to his or her religious beliefs,” she said.

For judges to recuse themselves from cases because they disagree with the law on the basis of religion is “the definition of putting faith ahead of one’s duties as a judge,” according to Aron.

Feinstein, Illinois senator and Minority Whip Dick Durbin, and Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono caught the public’s attention after questioning Barrett about her Catholic faith during the hearing.

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” asked Durbin, who later released a statement defending his question because Barrett has “been outspoken…. [S]he has taken on the tough challenge of how a person with strong religious beliefs becomes a judge and looks at American law. So I think she has fashioned herself somewhat of an expert.”

“I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges,” said Hirono, who asked Barrett if she would recuse herself as a “Catholic judge from death penalty cases.”

“I would recuse myself and not actually enter the order of execution. That was the only conclusion the article reached.

And I would stand by that today,” Barrett responded.

In his letter, Eisgruber wrote that “the questions directed to Professor Barrett about her faith were not consistent with the principle set forth in the Constitution’s ‘no religious test’ clause.”

He cited Article VI, which prohibits the use of religious tests as a prerequisite for public office, and the Supreme Court’s

decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, which reaffirmed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit states and the federal government from requiring religious tests for public office. “[The Anti-Establishment Clause, the No Religious Test Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment] are rightly interpreted to prohibit discrimination against persons in the selection of officers … on basis of the spiritual foundations of their convictions,” said Eisgruber in an interview with the ‘Prince.’ “I believe that’s what the constitution says. It states a principle.”

Aron, however, says the objection is an “inventive excuse.”

Barrett instead raised the question of whether or not her Catholic faith would guide her judicial decision, according to Aron.

“She put the issue in play, not us,” said Aron. “The principal reason Barrett was selected by the administration was her outspoken and clear views of abortion.”

Feinstein, expressing concern over Barrett’s views on abortion, questioned the nominee about whether Roe v. Wade has a super-precedent status, meaning it is unlikely to be overturned.

Barrett said that it did. She has been critical of Roe in the past, according to a report by Alliance for Justice.

According to Franck, the worry of Democratic senators like Feinstein is that “maybe deep down they suspect that decisions like Roe and Obergefell v. Hodges are not themselves honest results of honest inquiry into the meaning of the Constitution, and they’ll do whatever it takes to defend them. That’s the main story as I see it.”

Aron counters that claim, holding that the questioning was justified. “Isn’t it in the best interest of our system of justice that we have judges and justices who are open-minded and fair, as opposed to people who are dogmatically anti-abortion?”

Aron asked. “It sends a chilling message to any litigant raising a claim — sex discrimination, lack of access to reproductive services — that the judge before whom they appear has already made up her mind.”

“I’m not very optimistic about what’s going on at the Supreme Court level,” Eisgruber told the ‘Prince,’ “and part of it is because the polarization both in our politics generally and around judges has become greater … It’s become really hard to define what counts as a ‘moderate’ and people on each side seem to refer to virtually everybody on the other side as, in their view, extreme.”

Friday September 22, 2017

Finding follows previous acquittal for LIBOR fraud and maniplation LIBOR

The Daily Princetonian

Lorem Ipsum.

Dolor sit amet?

Continued from page 1

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

LIBOR. The six men were charged in February and April 2014, and Johnson pleaded guilty in October of the same year.

The remaining five defendants were subsequently tried in a three-month trial in mid-2016, according to a case brief by the SFO. Matthew, Merchant, and Pabon were convicted, while no verdict was reached on Reich and Contogoulas, resulting in the 2017 retrial.

The retrial lasted from February 27, to April 6, 2017, and featured testimonies from many former and current Barclays executives, according to Bloomberg. Scott Bradley, the University’s current head baseball coach and Reich’s former coach, also testified in his defense.

According to Bloomberg, Bradley spoke to Reich’s character, leadership, and maturity during his time on the team.

Bradley did not respond to requests for comment. However, Dominic Lewis, the 5 Paper Buildings lawyer who prosecuted Reich and Contogoulas on behalf of the Serious Fraud Office, believes Bradley’s testimony helped Reich’s case.

“Evidence of positive good character is always likely to help a defendant,” Lewis said in an email. “It certainly would not have done any harm.”

According to a press release by QEB Hollis Whiteman, the British law firm that represented Reich in the retrial, the jury reached a verdict of “not guilty” for both men after just three hours of deliberation. Reich was defended by QEB Hollis Whiteman barristers Tom Doble and Adrian Darbishire QC. The firm QEB Hollis Whiteman did not respond to requests for comment.

Reich and Contogoulas were prosecuted on behalf of the SFO by 5 Paper Buildings barristers Lewis and Emma Deacon QC. Neither Deacon nor Lewis responded to requests for comment on the final outcome of the case.

Since leaving Barclays in 2010, Reich has held managing positions at a hedge fund and a real estate development company. He is currently a founding partner of New York-based real estate and private equity firm RSW Investments, LLC. Reich studied economics at the University. On campus, he was a four-year member of the varsity baseball team with a batting average of 0.283, a manager of TigerFood delivery service, and a member of Cottage Club.

Done reading your ‘Prince’?

Recycle

Join the ‘Prince’ design team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 3

Opinion

Friday September 22, 2017

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Major Judgment Lou Chen

L

columnist

ast week, I had a conversation that exemplified the University’s cultural hierarchy of majors. It occurred by Wilson, where I came across a first-year who was struggling to move an orange cart full of packages to Forbes. I stopped to help him, and we soon started chatting. Inevitably, talk turned to our studies, and I told him that I was a junior in the music department.

The cart jerked as he did a double take. “You’re a music major?” he asked, dumbfounded. “How are your parents okay with this?”

I almost burst out laughing — not because his thought process was unexpected, but because he had chosen to verbalize it so openly. The idea that at Princeton certain majors are inherently worth more than others has always baffled me, especially since it pays no regard to individual performance within each major. This isn’t a problem exclusive to music majors; we are often joined by our compatriots in the art history, language, or comparative literature departments, to name a few. Rarely are the social challenges we face so humorous as my encounter with this first-year; instead, we face the demoralising suggestion that our classes are less rigorous, our schedules less demanding, our aspirations less ambitious.

There is a well-known Hindi expression, “Log kya kahenge?” which translates

Thomas Clark

P

to “What will people say?”

Life at Princeton can often embody this phrase. As students at a school whose rigor and competitiveness challenge even the most confident among us to reevaluate our self-worth, we are extremely vulnerable to the opinions of our peers.

This can be seen in the carefully cultivated social media posts, the ever-present Duck Syndrome, and the casually conversational humble brags. Like it or not, we seek to impress each other — but when we are met with disdain, it stings.

The consequences of such a stigma can be trivial at best and adversely life-changing at worst. Thanks to the support of those closest to me, I made peace with my decision to become a music major my first year. Yet these days, I cannot help but state my major with a strange defensiveness, sometimes even tacking on a quick “I’m minoring in American studies” as if to assure people that I’m not a completely lost cause. And for some of my classmates, what people will say — and do say — becomes too much for them, and they convert to majors that, although personally non-stimulating and uninteresting, are considered “worthy” and “rigorous” by their community.

Peer pressure’s ability to steer students away from their passions is regrettable.

There is inestimable value in pursuing one’s ideal major — even if it doesn’t fall under STEM or economics, those two most common of current University practic-

es. Setting aside for a moment intangible results like happiness and fulfillment — because even I’m not so naive as to believe that they matter much to University students when compared to resumes or income — one cannot deny the positive impact of pursuing one’s genuine interests on postgraduation plans. After all, if excellent performance in college is crucial to job or grad school attainment, then we might as well do what we love — not necessarily because the money will always follow, but because we’ll probably be good at it.

Consider law school, a prime destination for many University undergrads. The two factors that matter the most in the application process are 1) LSAT or GRE score and 2) GPA. The LSAT score, obviously, has no relationship to one’s major whatsoever. On the other hand, GPA does — in that to attain as high as GPA as possible, you obviously want to select the major in which you will perform the best. In most cases, that will be the major you’re most passionate about, simply because having a natural interest in something typically leads to higher self-motivation and superior work, whereas a lack of engagement is not only difficult to conceal, but also to beautify.

What’s more, beneath the debate over majors lies the fact that at the end of the day, we attend Princeton University. Unfair though it might be, a degree from Princeton is worth more

vol. cxli

than from most of its counterparts, regardless of whatever field it may be in. As such, discussions regarding “The Top 10 Worst/Least Employable/Stupidest Majors” don’t really apply to us. Not for nothing does Princeton’s Career Services tout its impressive statistics: For the Class of 2015, within six months of graduation, 70 percent accepted employment, 19 percent pursued further education, and 93.5 percent confirmed achieving their post-graduation plans. These are pretty comforting results, and only prove that one’s major matters less than how one uses it.

Establishing a hierarchy of majors at any university is questionable. But at Princeton, it is downright frivolous and self-defeating, reflective of our pathological impulse to build ourselves up by putting others down. We should spend less time judging our classmates’ decisions and more time reflecting on our own — whether we’re making the right ones, for the right reasons, and for the right people — and trusting in our collective ability to succeed. Only then will we be fulfilled in the right ways, personally, academically, and professionally, and only then will we topple an unacknowledged pillar of prejudice that stands tall at this university.

Lou Chen is a music major from San Bernardino, Calif.

He can be reached at lychen@ princeton.edu.

resident Eisgruber recently penned a letter to the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, urging the Committee to “refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views.” The issue arose at the confirmation hearing of Amy Barrett, a Catholic law professor and nominee for a judicial appointment.

In the hearing, Barrett was told that “dogma lives loudly within you,” implying that she would not perform her judicial duties fairly on matters where her faith informs her views, from abortion to the death penalty.

The idea that the public arena should be free of religious inf luence has long been present in American politics. In a speech that may have been the turning point of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 campaign, the Catholic JFK told a group of Protestant pastors, who worried that a Catholic president would be a puppet of the Pope, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute … where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference … I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair.” Motivated to be the first Catholic to assume the presidency, Kennedy conceded significant ground on this issue, setting the precedent that a Catholic politician ought to separate his religious views completely from his public duty. Today we observe a similar phenom-

enon — not with Catholics and Protestants, but in the tendency to expunge religion from the public square, disadvantaging religious believers to secular citizens.

Separation of church and state is important for American pluralism, but it is not as cut-and-dried or “absolute” as JFK’s speech might suggest. In April, I attended the oral arguments for Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that the state cannot deny funding for secular purposes (in this case for a safer playground surface) to a kindergarten just because it was affiliated with a church. What this case rightly established was that while no particular religion should be favored, there should be no disadvantage to being religious in America. Contrast this with the situation in places like France, where the “absolute” separation of church and state forbids conspicuous religious expressions — from the hijab to the crucifix — in public schools.

The imposition of secularism may stem from a view of religion as nothing more than a matter of personal practice and cultural heritage, rather than a worldview and a system of beliefs. According to this view, one should respect another person’s religion in the same way one respects their family traditions or their cultural attire, but religious people should not impose their particular customs on others. The problem with this is that a religion, by its nature, makes truth claims that impact society and policy.

Thus, mandating that

a religious person keep their faith “private” is to mandate the suppression of certain truth claims, thereby disadvantaging the religious person to the secular person. A religious person may face scrutiny for proposing policy that is consistent with their religious views, while a secular person is free to accept or reject policy according to their own beliefs about truth. For example, a person may be pro-life because they believe that all human life is sacred — this is not a scientifically provable viewpoint and is simply an axiomatic premise, whether religiously motivated or not. At the same time, the pro-choice person’s counterclaim that reproductive autonomy is a human right is also a matter of assumed premises.

Either way, policy needs to decide between competing truth claims and should do so by facilitating exchange of different viewpoints on a level playing field.

Religion is often thrown around as a special category, but it is really not that special. Whether religious or not, everyone has some unprovable philosophy that is the premise for all their other viewpoints.

Since complete neutrality is impossible, the claims of both religion and secularism must be evaluated on their merits. For example, it is invalid to claim religion as a defense for otherwise wrong practices. There should be no “religious exemption” for ritual human sacrifice or child marriage — the truth claims of these religious stances have lost out in the public square to the truth claims that affirm human life and freedom.

On the f lip side, it is also invalid to claim religion

Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 William R. Elfers ’71 Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Joshua Katz Kathleen Crown Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Randall Rothenberg ’78 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Annalyn Swan ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Jerry Raymond ’73

141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 associate news editors Kristin Qian ’18 Claire Lee ‘19 head opinion editor Nicholas Wu ’18 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Emily Erdos ’19

The truth claims of religion

columnist

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

as a disqualifying reason for an otherwise viable opinion. We must find a way to respect each others’ convictions while engaging with both religious and secular beliefs on the level of truth claims. This means that it is in the interest of religious people to find common ground with secular friends and present their views in an accessible form, while secular people should also seek to engage with these views while examining their own unverifiable presuppositions. Such an attitude is our best hope for keeping the balance of church-state interaction from the two extremes of compelling religion on one hand and infringing on religious freedom on the other.

Thomas Clark is a senior in computer science from Herndon, Va. He can be reached at thclark@princeton.edu.

head sports editor David Xin ’19 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Claire Coughlin ’19 head street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 associate street editors Andie Ayala ’19 Catherine Wang ’19 web editor Sarah Bowen ’20 head copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 associate copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 chief design editor Quinn Donohue ’20 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19

NIGHT STAFF copy Anoushka Mariwala ’21

Retraction: Public Safety and Narcan Beni Snow

columnist

I would like to apologize to the 33 sworn officers of Public Safety and to Princeton University. In a recent column, I wrote that Public Safety needs to carry the opioid overdose drug Narcan if Princeton is serious about keeping students safe. I did not do proper research before writing that column, and as I now know thanks to the Office of Communications, all 33 sworn Public Safety officers are trained to administer Narcan, which is provided free of charge by the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office. I have agreed to retract the article in light of this error.

I still believe that opioid overdoses are an important issue that needs more awareness.

Hopefully, this correction will serve to inform the University community that such resources are available in the unfortunate event of an overdose. The statistics I cited in the column, such as the 92 million people prescribed opioids in the United States in 2015, or the 33,000 overdoses that same year, are still important facts to keep in mind.

The opioid epidemic is a pressing issue right now, and I am very happy to learn that Princeton shares my concern about ensuring our community’s safety.

The ‘Prince’ regrets this error.

Friday September 22, 2017

Latin America has second-highest participation rate for women in politics COSTA RICA Continued from page 1

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

can improve their economies by investing in education and research and finding ways to lower energy costs, Chinchilla noted.

“A necessary discussion of tax reformation is a discussion of how we can increase the efficiency and transparency of our public administrations,” she said.

Chinchilla identified other regional issues that require new approaches in order to fix. She described corruption as “embarrassing for politics in our region” and a “long-term problem in Latin America.” She pointed to studies showing Latin Americans have lower satisfaction rates with democracy compared to countries in Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Violence, drug trafficking, and organized crime continue to afflict the region, causing 100,000 deaths in Latin America each year, she explained. Chinchilla argued that the best way to tackle crime is through prevention methods, pointing out that Costa Rica is one of the most secure Latin American countries — even though it doesn’t have an army.

“We need to decide and implement effective local, national, and regional responses to violence, drug trafficking, and all forms of organized crime,” she said.

In addition to impressive advances in safety, Latin America has also bolstered the role of civil society groups in the political process.

“Despite many challenges, some Latin American countries have advanced considerably in the past couple of decades, encouraging the participation of civil society into their decision-making process and strengthening

The Daily Princetonian

page 5

Sculpted Annie Zou ’20

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

the rule of law,” Chinchilla explained, adding that the same countries have also drastically increased female participation in politics.

Following only Scandinavia, Latin America is the global region with the second-highest rate of female participation in national parliaments and legislatures. The high rate of women leadership is not due to cultural norms, Chinchilla explained, but instead to efforts to pass laws with quotas and to promote affirmative action policies.

“We needed to enforce the change, or we will still be waiting for the change,” she said. “In politics, we are able as a society to gain many things when we open the door to women leadership.”

She added that integrating women into politics and any other field is critical because women contribute new perspectives and values. The complementary leadership of men and women “gives us the possibility to have more robust public policies and programs, and more successful responses for many sectors of the population,” she said.

Chinchilla ended her talk by noting that Latin American countries possess the capability to overcome the issues that face them.

“None of the things I have said are easy. But there are clear signs indicating the paths we need to take,” she said. “We hold the key to unraveling over 500 years of unfulfilled promises.”

The lecture, entitled “Latin America, A Pending Assignment: A Conversation with Laura Chinchilla,” took place on Sept. 21 at 5 p.m. in Whig Hall Senate Chamber.

It was part of a series commemorating the 50th anniversary of Princeton Latin American Studies.

Chinchilla: In the end, the government has to enforce Q&A

Continued from page 1

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

in our region, to improve the participation of women in politics. In the end, you have to enforce that kind of decision in politics. It’s very hard to get that they by themselves will step aside to give women the possibility to participate.

It doesn’t happen just like that.

The quota system that we have, thanks to the laws we have approved, is very important. I think that here in the United States, where we have analyzed the number of women that you have in Congress as compared to the countries in Latin America, is very low. You have around 20 percent of women participating in Congress,

most of them in the House of Representatives, while in many nations in Latin America now you have over 30 percent.

Some countries like Argentina and Mexico have around 40 to 50 percent. How can the United States move ahead? I think it’s going to be very, very hard if you don’t discuss the convenience of implementing a kind of quota system. At the same time, you have the reelection system. So it is even harder, because it is very common that the Congressperson gets reelected, and since you have more men than women in Congress it continues the same problem. So I would say that, as compared with Latin America, the United States could do even more to increase the participation of women.

Oop s, sorly, Dos theeS butherr u?

Join the ‘Prince’ copy department.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

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

Friday September 22, 2017

Sports

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S SOCCER

All eyes on women’s soccer as Tigers head into Ivy League play

By Chris Murphy associate sports editor

Many of the fall Princeton sports teams have had great success so far this season.

Multiple Tiger teams are ranked — some for the first time — and our teams are playing and competing at an elite level in many different sports. However, quite possibly the best fall storyline to date comes from the women’s soccer team and its incredible run through non-conference play.

The Tigers entered this year with what seemed to be a very daunting task: Taking a team that finished fifth place in the Ivy League last season and running through a gauntlet of ranked superpowers on their way to competing for the Ivy League’s top spot.

A team that played well on offense — its 11-goal record during Ivy League play last season was a league high — the Tigers were hoping that they could rely on that same potent office and a stronger defense to help them improve on last season’s mark.

But not many people expected what the Tigers have done to date. This season, Princeton currently sits at 7–1, its lone loss to then-No. 6 West Virginia, which was last year’s NCAA runner-up.

Our strong offensive firepower has led it to two or more goals in seven of its eight games. Perhaps most impressive of all though is

the defense; the Tigers have thus far given up only two goals. They have shut out six of the eight opponents they have played so far, including starting the season with five consecutive shutouts. All of this has Princeton currently ranked No. 16 in the latest NCAA coaches’ poll, its highest mark since 2004 when it finished the season at No. 4. “We’ve got a good rotation of kids and people that are willing to do whatever it takes when they get on the field, and this team wants to grind,” commented head coach Sean Driscoll. “I think if you’re willing to grind, you’ve got a chance to do well.”

Perhaps the highlight of the non-conference slate was the road trip to North Carolina the Tigers took right before the academic year began. Facing backto-back ranked teams, the Tigers downed North Carolina State and Wake Forest each by a score of 2–0. A road trip that wasn’t supposed to end well for the Tigers instead put the women’s soccer world on notice.

“We came down here and we knew we were kind of in an underdog position, but we believed in ourselves and what we can do,” noted junior forward Mimi Asom.

“And we knew that even if everyone else didn’t think it was likely that we were going to come out victorious, we knew that it was completely possible for us.”

Following this performance by the Tigers was a showdown against No. 6 West Virginia, a team that defeated the Tigers handily last year by a score of 3–0. This year, the Tigers looked to turn the tables and keep their undefeated season alive. Unfortunately, the Mountaineer defense was too much to overcome and the Tigers were shut out for the first time this season 1–0. But even during that defeat, head coach Sean Driscoll noted his team’s ability to get into the ring with anyone and put up a good fight. “I think our team definitely can compete,” he said. “I think when we roll up our sleeves and get to work we can go out there and compete with anyone.”

The next test for the Tigers comes in the form of Ivy League play. After their hot start to the season, Princeton suddenly finds itself not as an underdog looking to make some noise, but as a competitor vying for the top spot in the league. Princeton gets its Ivy League schedule rolling with Yale this weekend; currently no members of the team have lost to Yale as Princeton is 2-0-1 in their last 3 meetings. During last year’s 1–1 draw, sophomore Abby Givens scored for the Tigers. This year, the sophomore forward already has six goals — doubling her total from last year — and

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The Tigers have scored two or more goals in seven of their eight games.

was one of three consecutive Tigers that earned Ivy League Player of the Week earlier this season. Givens is currently second in the Ivy League in scoring, behind Brown’s Mikaela Waldman.

The Tigers will look to continue the phenomenal goaltending play by sophomore Natalie Grossi, whose .286 Goals Against Average is currently 10th in the nation, while also leading Princeton to the top 15 nationally

in shutouts, goals allowed, and save percentage.

Yale serves as the first Ivy League test this season for the Tigers. All eyes will be on Princeton as they enter conference play, for if it continues to perform at the high level it’s at now, a first place finish — and maybe even a trip to the national tournament — is something that is certainly within reach.

FOOTBALL

Weekend Preview: Princeton clashes with Lafayette for 50th time

By Owen Tedford staff writer

This weekend, Princeton football (1–0) heads up to face non-conference opponent Lafayette (0–3) at Fisher Stadium with a kickoff set for 6 p.m. on Saturday. Last year, these teams played each other in the season opener, with the Tigers walking away victors after a crazy 35–31 comeback. In the 50th meeting between the two teams, Princeton will be hoping to repeat that success and continue its momentum after last week’s win over San Diego.

Both teams will be heavily reliant on their passing game if past trends are to be any sort of indicator. Last year when these teams went, the Leopards were able to scorch the Princeton secondary with two wide receivers, in particular, Rocco Palumbo and Matt Mrazek. Palumbo had more than 100 receiving yards when he played last and Mrazek was able to shake loose for two touchdown catches. First-year cornerback CJ Wall will play a pivotal role in defending this Lafayette pass attack. In his one game so far for the Tigers, Wall has earned a num-

ber of accolades including an interception and a fumble recovery. All told, Wall put in a performance that earned him the Ivy League Rookie of the Week. Not bad for the only member of the Class of 2021 to start on offense or defense.

When Princeton’s on offense, keep an eye out for senior quarterback Chad Kanoff to be slinging the ball around as he did last week.

Against San Diego, Kanoff completed nearly 75 percent of his passes for 352 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions. This performance moved Kanoff into third on the all-time passing yards list at Princeton. Next in his sights is Matt Verbit ’05, who is 814 yards ahead of Kanoff. One of Kanoff’s key targets for this weekend was one of the ball recipients during last week’s game, junior wide receiver Stephen Carlson who caught six passes for 94 yards and all three of Kanoff’s touchdowns.

One last level of intrigue heading into this weekend’s game is the personal relationship shared between the two teams’ head coaches. Princeton head coach Bob Surace ’90 and Lafayette head coach John Garrett ’88 have known

Tweet of the Day “Tiger Fans! Come out and support your Princeton Women’s Volleyball team this Friday 9/22 @7pm as they face off agains Penn! #TigerUp” Princeton Tigers (@ PUTIGERS),

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The Tigers will look to repeat their success after a stellar performance against San Diego last week.

each other for over 30 years since their time together as undergraduates at the University. They played together in the 1987 season, and would later rejoin each other for three years with the Cincin-

nati Bengals’ coaching staff.

If you are unable to make the trip out to Easton, Pa., for Saturday night’s game, there are a few other ways that you can watch the game.

Lafayette Sports Network

Stat of the Day

No. 12 The men’s water polo team will roll into its West Coast trip this weekend ranked No. 12.

will be carrying it live and the Patriot League Network will have a free live stream.

Radio coverage will be provided on 103.3 FM, which can also be accessed through the TuneIn App.

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