May 12, 2017

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Friday May 12, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 61

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } S T U D E N T A F FA I R S

Students celebrate Mexican-themed party, chant “Cinco de Mayo”

By Marcia Brown Head News Editor

RYAN CHAVEZ:: OPINION COLUMNIST

The party featured students in sombreros, ponchos, and other colorful clothing, and took place in the first entryway of Henry Hall.

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Officers from the Department of Public Safety shut down a Mexicanthemed party on Thursday night at which University students chanted, “Piñata!” and “Cinco de Mayo!”

Around 50 students were in attendance at the party; some wore sombreros, ponchos, and other colorful clothing. One student noted that the party was taking place in commemoration of the death of a lizard.

“We’re not racist! We’re celebrating,” said one student in attendance.

Multiple students outside of the event alleged that the party had been thrown by the University men’s hockey team.

The party took place in the first entryway of

Henry Hall, an upperclassmen dorm. Revelers wearing Mexican attire were visible in a window on the ground f loor of the dorm. Students also mingled outside of the dorm, where orange streamers had been hung in likely conjunction with the party.

Although Cinco de Mayo is often mistakenly thought to be a celebration of Mexico’s Independence Day, it is actually an annual celebration of the unlikely victory of Mexico’s army over the French forces in the Battle of Puebla. In the U.S., the holiday has often been the theme of college parties. Members of various Latinx groups called Public Safety to shut down the party.

Two Public Safety officers declined to comment

S T U D E N T A F FA I R S

Senators call for inquiry ‘Prince’ to partner with into Carl Icahn ’57 yearbook on new content

By Sarah Hirschfield staff writer

Eight senators wrote a letter to the acting heads of the Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday, calling for a federal investigation into Carl Icahn ’57’s investment in the oil refiner CVR Energy, Inc., the New York Times has reported.

Icahn, a billionaire investor and generous donor to the University, currently serves as an adviser to President Trump.

Icahn’s donations funded the Carl C. Icahn Laboratory, which houses the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrated Genomics.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) led the delega-

tion of concerned senators.

According to the Times, the senators are worried that CVR Energy, which is controlled by Icahn, “made decisions based on nonpublic information it had access to thanks [to] Icahn’s close ties to the Trump administration.”

Warren did not respond to request for comment.

These senators’ concerns were first expressed when Icahn’s informal role was still being established. In March, several Democratic senators sent a letter to Icahn requesting that he clarify his role with the Trump administration and indicating they were concerned about possible conflicts of interest.

The March 27 letter was signed by Senators Sheldon See ICAHN page 3

JESSICA ZHOU :: DAILY PRINCETONIAN

See YEARBOOK page 2

In a new venture with the Yearbook Agency, interactive content will be featured in the ‘Prince’ for photos such as the one shown above.

U . A F FA I R S

U. presidents reflect on their time in office senior writer and associate news editor

AHMED AKHTAR:: PRINCETONIAN STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

In a talk on Thursday, U. President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 and former U. Presidents Shirley Tilghman and Harold Shapiro ’64 spoke about the role of the U. president.

In Opinion

The Editorial Board advocates a return to the “clear and persuasive” burden of proof for sexual assault cases, and Liam O’Connor argues that the U. should tell freshmen to drink less beer to cut down on assault.

PAGE 4

Two former University presidents, Shirley Tilghman and Harold Shapiro GS ’64, joined University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 in a lecture on Thursday to reflect on their times leading the University and provide life lessons to the graduating class of 2017.

The presidents’ conversation covered topics including the role of the University president, suggestions to improve the University, and personal moments of self-doubt and uncertainty.

Shapiro explained that running a University is a unique experience — one that is not analogous to running a large corporation.

“It’s like being a general partner at a law firm,” he said. “You need to do whatever you can so that the students and faculty do

Today on Campus 7 p.m.: Violin Extravaganza: Performances by music certificate students. Forbes Living Room

what they need to do.”

Tilghman noted that being the University president entails being the public face of the University, and so the president has to deeply believe in what the University is doing and articulate it well. However, it is also important for the president to be deeply critical of the University, she said.

“The president has to be the University’s biggest fan and also her biggest critic,” Tilghman said. “One of the greatest risks that an institution like Princeton faces … is that you begin to believe your own propaganda.”

She added that the president needs to determine how the University can improve, and this has to be viewed as a long-term endeavor.

When asked about advice for graduating students, Tilghman said that there is one thing that she said to the graduating class every year during commenceSee PRESIDENTS page 3

WEATHER

By Kristen Quin and Abhiram Karuppur

HIGH

59˚

LOW

47˚

Partly Cloudy chance of rain:

56 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Friday May 12, 2017

Princeton Research Day 2017

AHMED AKHTAR:: DAILY PRINCETONIAN PHOTOGRAPHER

Members of the U. community celebrated research and presented independent projects at the event, which took place on Thursday afternoon.

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Salman Rushdie emphasizes Former Sec. of State role of literature in politics Baker ’52 advocates

By Hamna Khurram staff writer

Where novels were once seen as a way to bring journalism to a larger audience, Sir Ahmad Salman Rushdie explained that it has since become more challenging to determine their role in an environment in which readers are less trusting of the news.

“We face the crisis of an administration that is very determined to control and rewrite the narrative of this country,” said Rushdie, in a talk about the current state of public affairs and the role of artists within them. “We as writers and artists must know how to respond to this.”

Rushdie, a British Indian novelist, won the 1981 Booker Prize with his second novel Midnight’s Children. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for his services to literature and is an elected fellow of the United Kingdom’s Royal Society of Literature.

In his talk, Rushdie ad-

dressed the question of what role literature can play in a society in which there are more ways to get news, but in which we are simultaneously growing “more suspicious of the news we are getting.”

In the past, Rushdie explained, social impact was one of literature’s main functions.

“People saw the novel as a way to bring news,” he said. He cited the example of Charles Dickens, whose writing brought attention to the poor treatment of orphans during the Victorian era. However, Rushdie said, novels are not currently seen as bearers of news. He added that people are also ceasing to believe in journalism as a news source, a trend which he said poses a grave danger to our understanding of what is true. He noted that this mounting skepticism of journalism grants power to authorities to control the narrative instead.

“Should we be writing fiction when the world is so full of lies?” Rushdie asked the room.

“One of the things power

wants to do is to control the narrative, and the more authoritarian the power, the more control they have over the narrative,” he explained. Writers, he said, should not accept attempts to control the narrative and should instead use their abilities to create their own.

“Art is trying to increase by some small measure the total of what is possible for us to perceive, understand, and learn,” Rushdie said. For our development as a society, he noted, is it imperative to continuously push the boundaries and expand our limits, especially in the face of “very powerful forces pushing back.”

“If we are prevented from doing this,” Rushdie said, “it is an attack on human beings.”

Rushdie spoke in McCosh 50 at 6 p.m., and he addressed a filled room. An overflow room with a live stream was also set up for the event. The event was sponsored by the Spencer Trask Lecture Series and was part of the Princeton University Public Lectures.

Content will be able to be accessed on phones with the Aurasma app YEARBOOK Continued from page 1

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

In a partnership between the Yearbook Agency and The Daily Princetonian, readers of the ‘Prince’ will soon be able to view animated video footage with selected news headlines in the print paper. The animations team of the Nassau Herald will produce the video, which will be able to be accessed via the Aurasma app.

Readers can download the app for free for iOS and Android.

In a press release, the Herald said they hope that the content will provide readers with “an interactive ‘new era’ perspective on printed newspapers.”

“We are taking the traditional morning paper and synchronizing it with the Aurasma platform to provide an entirely new experience twist on your morning routine,” the press release stated. ‘Prince’ articles that can be accessed through the app will be marked, and readers will be

able to point the camera of their smart devices at the print content in order to access it.

Hidden content will range from animated text and pictures to an extensive library of events on campus, such as Lawnparties. The content will only be available in printed versions of the ‘Prince.’

A more extensive version of the footage seen in the ‘Prince’ will be exposed in the 2017 Yearbook.

for carbon tax

By Jane Sul

staff writer

With climate change becoming a more urgent issue, advocates on both sides of the aisle have begun to push President Donald Trump’s administration to address the topic. In a talk on Wednesday, James Baker ’52, who served as United State Secretary of State under former President George H.W. Bush, said that the carbon tax is a tool that both parties can back in the fight for sound environmental policy.

“As with so many other challenges confronting our country today, this hyperpartisan divide is keeping us from going far,” said Baker.

But he also noted that e has a plan.

Baker’s initiative to combat climate change, also called the “carbon dividends plan,” consists of four pillars: The first is to impose a gradually increasing carbon tax; second, to return all proceeds from carbon dividends to American people on a monthly basis; third, to install border adjustments for the carbon content of imports and exports; and fourth, to decrease government regulation, such as through the Environmental Protection Agency.

Baker admitted that finding a solution to climate change is fraught with problems. However, he said that his new plan, which is based on conservative principles of free markets and limited government, would serve as a steady insurance policy for a sustainable planet.

Baker spoke to an audience of approximately 200 students and community members about his proposal.

Baker explained how he became involved with the carbon tax, as the issue is not normally considered a Republican priority. He said that he became more aware of the issue when the CEOs of major oil companies, such as Shell Oil Company and BP Global, warned him of the real threat that man-made carbon emissions could have on the climate.

“You have to remember, I am a conservative Republican from Texas,” Baker said by way of explanation.

He characterized the Kyoto Agreement, which former President George W. Bush rejected, as an unfair solution because it excluded other major carbon emitting coun-

tries such as China, India, and Brazil.

According to Baker, the carbon tax is the most efficient and sensibly priced way to combat climate change.

More importantly, Baker said it could send a powerful market signal by promoting greater demand for more sustainable energy sources. The carbon dividend payments, which could amount to approximately $2,000 in the first year, would help working class families, he added.

This solution “showcases enduring conservative convictions and embodies the principles of free markets and limited government,” Baker said.

Baker’s proposed carbon tax has garnered support from many prominent conservatives, such as former U.S. Secretary of State George Pratt Shultz ’42, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Greg Mankiw ’80, and former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson.

While speaking about his efforts in advocating for the carbon tax, Baker noted that the divide between Democrats and Republicans “is a recipe for the kind of gridlock and dysfunction that has shackled our country for recent years.” Ironically, he added that convincing Republicans in Congress about the carbon tax will be more difficult than convincing Democrats.

When asked about the likelihood that President Trump’s administration will involve itself in climate change issues, Baker seemed hopeful. He mentioned that the White House is reviewing the carbon tax proposal at present. “We know that at least they are talking about it and considering these things,” he said.

Baker also noted that there is ongoing debate within the Trump administration about American involvement in the Paris Agreement, adding that Trump’s top aides are currently divided as to whether the United States should remove itself from the agreement. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced that the decision will be made after the G7 summit later this month.

Baker’s talk was held on May 10 at 4:30 p.m. in McCosh Hall 10. It was hosted by the Princeton Environmental Institute as this year’s Taplin Environmental Lecture.

Friday May 12, 2017

The Daily Princetonian

Student at the party wore sombreros and shouted, “Piñata, piñata, piñata!”

PARTY

Continued from page 1

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

for this article.

“With Cinco de Mayo parties, they make Mexican culture seem like it’s just about tequila and sombreros and piñatas, but it’s about other things,” said Samuel Santiago ’19, co-president of Princeton Latinos y Amigos.

The party takes place amid recent campus conversations about cultural appropriation and the harm it can inf lict upon others. In a May 4 email to the Whitman community, director of student life for Whitman College Momo Wolapaye reminded students to “be mindful of harmful themes [of social events and parties] and participating in actions that may objectify and denigrate the cultural and social identities of others.” This email is similar to those sent to other residential college communities.

Additionally, a recent f lyer distributed by the Carl A. Fields Center that proposed alternative ways to celebrate Cinco de Mayo warned students, “Don’t you dare put on that ‘sombrero.’”

Student leaders on campus voiced concerns about the offensive nature of the event, particularly in light of these campus conversations.

“It’s just sad that we see this type of thing repeated every semester,” said Ryan Chavez ’19.

Chavez is a contribut-

RYAN CHAVEZ:: OPINION COLUMNIST

About 50 students attended the party, which was shut down by the Department of Public Safety later in the night.

ing opinion columnist for the ‘Prince.’

Danny Navarrete ’19, who identifies as MexicanAmerican, expressed anger and confusion about the party.

“There’s this appropriation of culture that’s kind of reducing it down to a caricature, which I find really offensive considering the history of racialized violence based on those caricatures,” said Navarrete. “I find it offensive that they use the theme when it’s convenient for them.”

“It shows that it’s kind of a cultural insensitivity [that this] still exists even though a lot of people think that they’ve moved

on past it, even after many talks about how this can be offensive,” said Navarrete. “It’s surprising to see that people — I guess it’s not that surprising for some of us — but people decide to have these parties knowing that it’s problematic.”

The University has not yet responded to request for comment.

“I think people just fail to realize that it is offensive because it’s hard for them to experience it themselves,” said Navarrete. “They have no similar experiences, being white people, so it’s just hard for them to understand that.”

“Also, just the small

population of MexicanAmericans on this campus is another factor, I think, because people think they’re in a community where there aren’t that many Mexican-Americans and the Mexican-Americans don’t have that much voice in the first place,” said Navarrete.

“I’m pissed, I’m so pissed, because it happens every Frosh week, every Cinco de Mayo, every Halloween,” Arlene Gamio ’18 said. “And it’s almost always a sports team,” they added.

Gamio explained that this is the third time they have been tipped off about some kind of Mexican-

Senators concerned Tilghman: U. president about conflict of must be U.’s biggest interest in Icahn’s fan and biggest critic investments PRESIDENTS Continued from page 1

ICAHN

Continued from page 1

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

Whitehouse (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).

Icahn has partnered with Trump in the past on business ventures, including

his announcement that he is planning to start a super PAC with the president to end corporate tax inversions. Icahn has also donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee, $5,400 to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., and $50,000 to Trump Victory, according to an FEC report.

Icahn did not respond to request for comment.

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

ment ceremonies.

“Aim high and be bold, don’t be afraid to take risks, don’t be afraid to try something that doesn’t have to be a decision that’s going to determine the rest of your life,” she said. “I want some of you to take opportunities to smell the flowers … take some time to reflect and enjoy.”

Eisgruber said that his advice to graduating students is to set aside one hour and privately write

on a sheet of paper what they genuinely care about and what matters in life. He explained that it is worthwhile to revisit this write-up, and he said that this exercise can have a huge impact in overcoming stereotypes, citing research presented in Claude Steele’s “Whistling Vivaldi.”

“You need to know when to walk away from an opportunity,” Eisgruber said. “Know what you stand for,” he added.

The president’s talk took place as part of the Last Lectures series.

The event took place at 2 p.m. on May 11 in McCosh 50.

Summertime Stress sophia gavrilenko ’20 ..................................................

page 3

themed party and come to see what was going on.

“It’s just random groups of white people throwing all these parties and saying it’s not racist and not owning up to it,” Gamio said.

Gamio, who is the president of Princeton University Latinx Perspectives Organization, said that mobilizing against parties like this one is something the organization has been working toward. “[These students] want to be Latinx for one night, but they don’t want to accept the consequences such as being racially profiled by police and discriminated against by their professors,” said Gamio.

Gamio called for the University administration to take action.

“I think the administration needs to have disciplinary action and they’re too scared to do that. These parties keep happening because they walk away with a slap on the wrist and they have no understanding of what they did was wrong,” Gamio said.

Santiago was in agreement that the administration should address the incident.

“It’s not the first time that it happened,” Santiago said. “It goes back to the issue of diversity and inclusion.”

The University has not yet responded to request for comment.

Done reading your ‘Prince’?

Recycle

Friday May 12, 2017

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } EDITORIAL

Ensuring due process in sexual misconduct cases The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of The Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its Co-Chairs, the Opinion Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. It can be reached at editorialboard@ dailyprincetonian.com. s sexual assault has become an issue of increasing concern on college campuses and in national politics, the Board has advocated proposals to help prevent assault at Princeton and encouraged students to take the We Speak survey. We must consider a related issue with equal concern: how the University can ensure a fair, impartial process as it adjudicates alleged sexual misconduct. The lack of due process at many institutions is a growing problem. As of July 2015, more than 40 accused students had filed lawsuits against their schools complaining of due process violations, and tragically, this March, a student at the University of Texas at Arlington, Thomas Klocke, committed suicide following his punishment in a sexual harassment hearing that his parents allege violated his legal rights.

We preface this editorial by noting that, due to the seriousness of sexually based offenses, we believe these cases would be best handled within the criminal justice system, rather than by the University. From the accuser’s perspective, an outside court would underscore the severity of the alleged crimes and allow for harsher punishment if the accused were convicted.

Trials would also be fairer to the accused than University proceedings, because the justice system includes protections of the United States Constitution, to which Princeton, as a private institution, need not adhere.

However, given that the status quo is far from this ideal, with most sexual misconduct cases reported and investigated on campus, the Board offers recommendations to ensure that Princeton affords accused students a fair hearing and due process. We believe our proposals would also help victims of sexual misconduct by legitimizing the process they use to seek resolution. If the trend of accused students suing their schools continues, campus adjudication bodies will continue to be dismissed as “Star Chambers” and “kangaroo courts.” A more respected and fair process would reduce possible stigma relating to filing a report and to the system more broadly, making it more likely that victims and witnesses would come for-

A

W

hile we agree with the majority that the University should use a “clear and persuasive” evidence burden of proof while adjudicating sexual misconduct cases, we disagree with its assertion that “these cases would be best handled in the criminal justice system rather than by the University” and with several of its specific procedural recommendations.

Forcing victims of sexual misconduct to take allegations to the criminal justice system is flawed for two reasons. First, many victims, for various reasons, are unlikely to want to take an allegation to the police. Whether because of students’ desires to keep their experiences private or by hesitance to have fellow students charged with crimes, this aversion to involving the criminal justice system will result in fewer victims coming forward, harming efforts to destigmatize bringing these incidents to light. Second, this assertion ignores the interests of

vol. cxli

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

ward.

We first address the standard of proof by which the University finds a student responsible.

Currently, Princeton decides sexual misconduct cases under a “preponderance of evidence” standard; this is the lowest standard possible and holds a student responsible if there is only a 50.1 percent chance, or if it is more likely than not, that the charges are true. Princeton adopted this standard in fall 2014 as part of an agreement with the Department of Education that involved an expansive interpretation of how the federal government can apply Title IX. The decision to adopt the current standard also followed a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Obama Administration that called on educational institutions “to take immediate and effective steps to end sexual harassment and sexual violence,” including lowering the standard of evidence.

Princeton previously required a more rigorous standard of “clear and persuasive evidence” to convict in sexual misconduct cases. Moreover, every other campus disciplinary body uses higher standards than preponderance of evidence, including the Committee on Discipline, which uses “clear and persuasive” evidence and the Honor Committee, which uses “overwhelmingly convinced.”

Lowering the burden of proof is a problematic change. As a recent lawsuit an accused student filed against Cornell underscores, sexual misconduct cases often arise under he saidshe said circumstances, cases which often also involve alcohol and foggy memories. This may lead to inconsistent and unclear stories from both parties. Preponderance of evidence is an unfairly biased standard because it allows conviction if the accuser’s story is marginally more likely to be true than the accused’s, even if the accuracy of both accounts is in question. This is far too low a burden under which to mete out punishments such as suspension or expulsion that would radically alter students’ lives. The Board accordingly advocates a return to the “clear and persuasive” standard of proof, which is rigorous enough to be appropriately fair, but still not as high a metric as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in U.S. criminal cases. While this would entail disregarding the University’s 2014 agreement with the DOE, returning to the previous standard is essential not only for ensuring our students’ due process, but also for

protecting the University from the types of litigation seen at other institutions. Moreover, the Trump Administration may be less likely to apply Title IX as expansively as did the Obama Administration, which would mitigate any potential outside ramifications from the change.

Additionally, sexual misconduct cases at Princeton are currently heard by a three-person panel, only two of whom are required to vote affirmatively to convict. We believe an affirmative vote from all three panelists should be required to find a student responsible. This is particularly important because these cases are often based on subjective personal accounts that lack hard evidence. And given that the panels are assembled in an environment of extreme political pressure for universities to, to quote Obama’s “Dear Colleague” letter, “take immediate and effective steps to” punish more students for sexual misconduct, requiring unanimous judgement would serve as added assurance that the process is objective and fair.

Second, the Board proposes three reforms to the panel’s investigative procedures. Currently, the accused and accuser “may select an adviser of their choice who may accompany them to any meeting or related proceeding, but the adviser may not actively participate in the interview process.” We would move to expand the adviser’s role and allow him or her to participate in the interview by giving the student advice on how to respond to questions.

This is important because active counsel is a long-standing and essential component of due process.

Next, the status quo allows either party “to identify individuals who may possess relevant information (and request that such individuals be interviewed).” When a party identifies a witness, this should not merely be a “request that such individuals be interviewed,” but a mandate that the panel interview these individuals. We would also allow both parties to designate questions that must be asked of their witnesses.

This would in no way restrict the panel’s ability to determine the course of its investigation; it would merely ensure that the panel is made aware of the information that each party wanted their witnesses to bring to light.

Finally, Princeton’s process perhaps most egregiously violates due process in its exclusion of cross examination, which is a core element of a fair

trial. We acknowledge that, due to potential privacy concerns, an in-person examination of witnesses by either party or their advisers may not be feasible. Instead, we propose an alternative mechanism to mimic cross examination. Currently, after the panel completes its interviews, it “prepares a case file of all interview summaries, witness statements, and other documents” that is given to both parties with personal information redacted. The Board proposes that, upon receiving these materials, both sides be able to submit follow-up questions that the panel must ask of previously interviewed witnesses. This would capture some of the benefits of cross examination by allowing each party a chance to call attention to any perceived inconsistencies or inaccuracies in witness statements, while also preserving privacy given the matter’s personal sensitivity.

While we believe sexual misconduct cases would be best addressed in the U.S. legal system, the reforms we propose above — returning to the “clear and persuasive” evidentiary standard, requiring unanimity of the three-person panel to convict, and enacting procedural changes to give students better adviser representation and mimic cross-examination — would help Princeton afford all accused students a fair hearing.

The dissent to this editorial has an unexplained aversion to “court-like proceedings,” yet such procedures are designed precisely to provide for fair and equitable outcomes. In an April 2016 ruling regarding a lawsuit by a Brandeis student who alleged due process violations in a sexual misconduct hearing, Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote that “Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s rights to a fair and impartial process ... It is not enough simply to say that such changes are appropriate because victims of sexual assault have not always achieved justice in the past. Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.” The Board concurs with this sentiment. While the University continues to bolster its efforts to reduce the incidence of sexual misconduct on campus, it is essential that Princeton concurrently ensures its adjudication process is as fair and impartial as possible, to the benefit of accusers and the accused alike.

the University in enforcing community standards. Though some incidents of sexual misconduct carry a criminal penalty, the University also has an interest in investigating and dealing with these incidents on campus independent of the criminal justice system. There are also incidents of sexual misconduct that are legal but not allowed on campus under Rights, Rules, Responsibilities. Princeton is a residential and social community, and certain norms should be enforced to make all students feel welcome in this learning environment.

By creating a way for victims to come forward and report allegations on campus for investigation outside the criminal justice system, Princeton makes it more likely that perpetrators of sexual misconduct will be punished for their actions.

In general, the majority also attempts an unnecessary micromanagement of specific details of University sexual misconduct proceedings. The University’s

Title IX investigations are not meant to act as a court in the fashion of the criminal justice system.

Instead, the University is investigating, through a three-member panel, whether a violation of the sexual misconduct policy that is outlined in RRR has occurred.

Both of the disciplinary committees cited by the majority, the Honor Committee and the Committee on Discipline, do not require consensus to find a student responsible under a “clear and persuasive” evidence standard.

The assertion, then, that students should only be found responsible for sexual misconduct through a unanimous vote of an investigative panel is divorced from current practice in the disciplinary system. A finding of responsibility under a “clear and persuasive” evidence standard by two of three members of an investigative panel, composed of administrators and outside investigators, is certainly sufficient to punish a student for sexual misconduct.

Although we agree with the

majority that the role of advisers should be expanded in proceedings to provide more advice to students, there should not be a requirement that certain questions be asked or that witnesses be called by the investigative panel. The panel’s role is to gather facts and statements and, based on those findings, make a determination on the accusation. The panel should be free to focus its resources where these findings lead, based on their expertise in these issues. Furthermore, the existing process already allows parties to request that certain witnesses be interviewed and respond in writing to the case file compiled at the end of the investigation before the final decision.

Under the guise of due process, the majority attempts to dictate the specifics of a process they know little about and project their vision of a court-like proceeding onto a University investigative panel.

For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

DISSENT

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 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Randall Rothenberg ’78 Annalyn Swan ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73

141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 Head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 news editors Abhiram Karuppur ’19 Claire Lee ‘19 opinion editor Newby Parton ’18 sports editor David Xin ’19 street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 web editor David Liu ’18 chief copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 chief design editor Quinn Donohue ’20 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Nicholas Wu ’18 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Claire Coughlin ’19 associate street editor Andie Ayala ’19 Catherine Wang ’19 associate chief copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 editorial board co-chairs Ashley Reed ’18 Connor Pfeiffer ’18 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19 Editorial Board Co-Chairs Ashley Reed ‘18 Connor Pfeiffer ‘18 Editorial Board Cydney Kim ‘17 Theodore Furchtgott ‘18 Sergio Leos ‘17 Jack Whelan ‘19 Daniel Elkind ‘17 Megan Armstrong ‘19 Allison Berger ‘18 Dee-Dee Huang ‘20 Carolyn Liziewski ‘18 William Pugh ‘20 Paul Draper ‘18 Jacob Berman ‘20 Thomas Clark ‘18 Gabriel Swagel ‘20 Richard Furchtgott ‘20 Rachel Glann ‘19 Cole Campbell ‘20 Caden McLaughlin ‘20

NIGHT STAFF copy Douglas Corzine ‘20 Alex Levinger ‘20 Jean Cho ‘20

Signed, Connor Pfeiffer ’18, Carolyn Liziewski ’18, Ashley Reed ’18, Cydney Kim ’17, Gabriel Swagel ’20, Dee-Dee Huang ’20, and William Pugh ’20 Daniel Elkind ’17 abstained from the writing of this editorial.

Opinion

Friday May 12, 2017

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Stealing time Leora Eisenberg

Senior Columnist

On a mischievous afternoon in my childhood, my cousin Michael and I were looking for something to do. “We are going to make some prank calls!” he announced proudly, beaming at the prospect of teaching trickery to his naive younger cousin.

Convinced of Michael’s ingenuity and compelled by my newfound sense of mischief, we picked up the phone and dialed random numbers, each time introducing ourselves as salespeople to an unsuspecting listener. Giggling hysterically, we continued our prank calls until his mother came to check on us. “What are you up to?” she asked.

“Nothing,” we lied. Michael and I looked at each other, half daring each other to tell the truth, until I whimpered that we had been making prank calls. Clearly disappointed, Michael’s mother sat down and asked us an important question: “Would you ever steal?”

Both of us, indignant, cried out, “Of course not!” She smiled to herself and asked, “Well, then, why are you stealing someone’s time?”

My cousin and I were horribly confused. We hadn’t stolen anything. What was she talking about?

Adults don’t need to be told that stealing a chocolate

bar from the supermarket is wrong or that shoplifting a sweater is illegal. In doing so, we rob the store and its employees of their rightfully deserved payment. Most people don’t realize, however, that stealing time is an equally grievous offense.

Stealing time is so egregious because, unlike chocolate bars and sweaters, we cannot give time back, nor can we reimburse individuals for time lost. 15 minutes stolen are 15 minutes that you cannot spend learning, exercising, or talking with a loved one. The value of such experiences cannot be repaid, and this is part of the travesty.

Fifteen minutes isn’t a lot.

But, if every week, three of your friends are 15 minutes late to dinner dates, one of your professors wanders in 15 minutes late to class, and a teammate is consistently 15 minutes late to daily practice, you’ve lost 165 minutes of your time. And while that too may not seem like much, this casual attitude toward other people’s time creates massive inconvenience in our lives. Small inefficiencies compound to great inconveniences.

When we stop respecting each other’s busy schedules — whether we are CEOs, students, or senators — we incur great losses of precious time, money, and grades. In the UK, employee lateness is estimated to cost the econo-

my £9 billion. Several years ago, the phenomenon cost Ecuador $724 million yearly.

And, in the US, tardiness stole $300 billion from the national economy. Fifteen minutes add up quickly and expensively.

But it’s not just the large scale economic loss that matters. I often think back to the people whom Michael and I prank called so many years ago. While it may seem insignificant that I wasted two or three minutes of these people’s time, I have no idea what they were doing — perhaps they were spending time with their family, working on an important project, or planning on taking medicine. Their time is valuable in a personal way.

Whenever I’m running late for something, my cousin’s mother’s voice rings in my head: “Are you stealing someone’s time?” I’m forced to answer yes. Admitting the theft of time, and being aware of the consequences of our tardiness, is how we can avoid stealing time in the future.

While most students don’t habitually steal chocolate bars from the store, knowing that such an act is unfair to the employees, I wonder when they’ll realize that when they steal time from their peers and superiors, they are guilty of the exact same crime.

Leora Eisenberg is a first year from Eagan, Minn. She can be reached at leorae@princeton. edu.

The problem with diversity programs Jacqueline Thorbjornson Senior Columnist

I

recently attended a leadership conference series at a consulting firm in New York that was designed to help women explore their identities in professional settings and to learn more about consulting at this particular firm. One of the last parts of the series was a question and answer session with one of the female partners, in which a fellow attendee asked a very thought-provoking question.

The attendee asked, “How, as a woman, do you combat those you encounter in the professional setting who assume your achievements are the product of advantages given to you based on gender, advantages like programs such as this one?”

The query certainly rattled the conference leaders. They exchanged glances for a moment, looking at one another expectantly as if they were unsure how to answer, before one responded, “That’s a great question.” Silence filled the room until one of the leaders finally continued, “I think you just have to keep working hard and continually prove yourself — continually prove to everyone around you that you deserve to be here.”

There is great truth in this response, not just for women, but for all groups. But at its core the partner’s response was troubling to me. Until that moment, I hadn’t considered the negative ramifications of programs

designed to aid women — programs that, evidenced by my attendance at this conference, I bought into completely. My colleague’s question prompted me to consider a line of logic whose end I did not feel particularly comfortable examining.

Programs designed to increase diversity and help historically disadvantaged groups, however well intentioned, add credibility to the flawed presumption that such groups need these programs to achieve equal success — that they could not do this on their own, without these advantages. They make it harder to prove the equal merit of those who benefit from programs and those who do not.

My mind raced back to mu senior year of high school, when, at the height of my euphoria from being accepted to Princeton, the parent of one of my classmates who had not been admitted commented that it’s “so much harder for boys to get in.” She didn’t have to be explicit — I knew then and I know now that she was implying that I, as a woman, had received more consideration in the admissions process because of my gender — consideration that, she presumed, had been denied to her affluent white son.

I remember feeling outraged at her comment — not because it was necessarily untrue (I wasn’t sure if she was wrong, at least not at the time), but because of the implications it carried with respect to my admission. I had gotten into Princeton because I earned it! Not because I was

female. How could she think otherwise? Three years later, my colleague’s question invoked the same feelings in a new setting: the corporate world.

My problem with the corporate leader’s response is not the idea that individuals must work hard to continually prove themselves worthy and capable.

My issue is that she feels this is required to a greater extent by individuals who benefit from affirmative action and similar initiatives. It is not only unfortunate that diversity programs create skepticism about the merits of recipient groups; it is damaging. These programs make it hard to substantiate the abilities of those who have benefited from them because they were given formal advantages in achieving their goals that other groups were not. How can potential employers be confident in the equal abilities of an individual who has achieved something because of their merits, versus an individual who has achieved the same thing because of the advantages of diversity programs? As a woman, and thus the beneficiary of at least some level of diversity initiatives, I like to believe that I fall into the former category — but why should anyone else believe that I don’t fall into the latter?

The problem with diversity programs, then, is the fact that this question arises at all.

Jacquelyn Thorbjornson is a sophomore from South Thomaston, Maine. She can be reached at jot@ princeton.edu.

Progmatic prevention of sexual assault Liam O’Connor columnist

This is the second article in a series about alcohol and the college experience. t the beginning of each school year, first years watch a play written by the Princeton group Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources & Education to raise awareness about sexual assault and campus resources that are available to help victims of such assault. In the play, a male and female student are at a party and they drink beer until they are heavily intoxicated. The male student takes the female back to his room and rapes her while she is unconscious. At the end of the play, a SHARE peer talks about the importance of bystander intervention in preventing sexual assault.

Throughout SHARE’s debrief, one crucial message is absent: The entire situation probably could have been prevented had everyone chosen to drink less alcohol at the party. It is not the victim’s fault for being raped. Rather, the student and bystanders likely could have better recognized the risks of traveling back to the dorm of a stranger and taken a different course of action had they not been drunk.

Sexual assault is undeniably one of the greatest problems that faces colleges across the country. Bureau of Justice statistics estimate that between 6 and 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted.

Moreover, the link between sexual assault and alcohol is very strong. A poll conducted in 2015 by the Washington Post found that 62 percent of college students had been drinking alcohol prior to their sexual assault. 56 percent of the surveyed students thought that alcohol and drug use was a big problem at their schools, and 77 percent said that drinking less alcohol could prevent sexual assault.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has found that women “who had been drinking prior to being sexually assaulted reported that their intoxication made them take risks that they normally would avoid” and that alcohol’s effect on motor skills prevented people from resisting sexual assault.

But in spite of the overwhelming evidence that alcohol plays a role in sexual assault, students largely ignore it, and the University does not directly tell them to prevent it by drinking less.

The reason for this is simple.

Students like to get drunk.

If they admitted that alcohol has a role in sexual assault, then they would have to cut back on drinking. Princeton does not tell students to prevent sexual assault by drinking less because it would result in backlash from students who would accuse the University of being sexist for advising women to drink less

A

than men.

Sexual assault itself is not directly caused by alcohol. It has been well established that the crime is primarily perpetrated by predators in rape culture. But there are also a number of instances — like that of the SHARE play — where rape occurred because both parties were too intoxicated to judge risks and communicate their desires or lack of desire.

Whenever alcohol’s role in sexual assault is mentioned during conversations with students, they immediately say that it is victim blaming and places the responsibility on a substance instead of a person. But that could not be further from the truth.

We live in a reality where sexual assault is caused by rape culture and also significantly magnified by alcohol.

These issues are not mutually exclusive. By failing to directly address alcohol’s role in sexual assault, we are doing a disservice to ourselves and the college community.

When students drink to unconsciousness, they lose full control of their bodies.

This leaves them extremely vulnerable to sexual assault, theft, kidnapping, murder, or any number of other crimes.

Although we would like to live in a world where we can drink to unconsciousness and not worry about being raped, the fact is that there are dangerous people and we should take every possible measure to mitigate the chance that they take advantage of us.

This is victim prevention, not victim blaming.

Dually, this message should be conveyed to students of all genders and sexualities. Men become more aggressive when drunk than when sober. Sexual assault is also much higher for LGBT students in college than it is for their heterosexual classmates. It too is surely magnified by alcohol use.

We should continue to educate students about bystander intervention, but bystanders are not always present outside of the college setting. Moreover, people who have not taken bystander intervention classes — which is still the vast majority of the population — are less likely to intervene, so we cannot always expect them to help us.

Changing rape culture is a long-term endeavor and will not be fixed overnight.

But the conscious decision to drink less beer at a party can be made instantaneously on any given night. The University should directly tell incoming first years to do this during their alcohol training.

While this will not completely eliminate sexual assault, I am certain that the number of cases will decrease if students heed this advice.

By addressing this issue at the start of each year, we can build an academic community that is safer and more inclusive for all.

Liam O’Connor is a first year from Wyoming, Del. He can be reached at lpo@princeton.edu.

T HE DA ILY

News. Opinions. Sports. Every day. 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.

Sports

Friday May 12, 2017

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } SOFTBALL

Softball clinches second consecutive Ivy League title and NCAA bid

By Jack Graham Staff Writer

For the second consecutive year, the Princeton women’s softball team has won the Ivy League Championship, earning the team a coveted spot in the NCAA tournament. The team made quick work of Harvard this year, sweeping the Crimson in a doubleheader at 1895 Field.

Game one of the series, played on Saturday afternoon, was a defensive struggle throughout. Through six innings, neither team was able to put a point on the scoreboard.

For Princeton, senior pitcher Claire Klausner was dominant throughout. Although she allowed 6 hits and 3 walks, she was able to come through in high-pressure situations with runners on bases in order to prevent Harvard from scoring.

Meanwhile, however, the Princeton offense struggled to find a rhythm against Harvard’s starting pitcher Kathleen Duncan. The Tigers generated plenty of base runners but, like Harvard, were unable to convert any of their opportunities into runs. Thus, the game headed into the seventh and final inning deadlocked in a scoreless tie. Finally, freshman infielder Allison Harvey drove in senior infielder Haley Hineman with a one-out single in the bottom of the seventh to give Princeton the walk-off win and a 1-0 series lead.

Unlike the pitcher’s duel that was game one, game two was a slugfest throughout, with the Princeton offense waking up in a big way en route to a 13-4 romp. Sophomore Kaylee Grant kicked off the scoring in the first with a two-run double.

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The women’s softball team swept Harvard last weekend to take the Ivy League and earn a spot in the NCAA tournament.

Princeton would go on to score another run in the third and three more in the fourth off of doubles from Harvey and senior outfielder Marissa Reynolds, allowing the team to take a commanding 6-0 lead.

Harvard, despite the long odds against it, would battle back against Princeton starting pitcher senior

Erica Nori over the next two innings.

An Erin Lockhart home run for Harvard in the top of the fifth narrowed the deficit to two, bringing the score to 6-4. From there, however, Princeton would retake control. The Tigers scored seven runs over the next two innings, receiving contributions from hitters throughout the lineup.

Sophomore Riley Wilkinson pitched the final two innings for Princeton and was nearly flawless, allowing no hits and only one walk. After she struck out Lockhart to end the game and series, the team mobbed in celebration around the mound and the boisterous home fans charged onto the field.

The Tigers will find out about their destination and pool play opponents for the NCAA Tournament this Sunday. The team will not enter the tournament as a favorite by any means, but given their resume and talent, potential opponents would be wise to take them seriously.

WOMEN’S GOLF

Women’s golf finishes 11th in NCAA Regional, Walton advances to finals

By Claire Coughlin Associate Sports Editor

For the first time in 12 years, the entire Princeton women’s golf team opened the NCAA regional tournament on Monday at the University of Georgia’s golf course in Athens, Ga. The Tigers’ spot in the competition was a result of earning the Ivy League’s automatic bid after a 31-stroke victory over Harvard at the Ivy League Championships, which ended on April 23.

The tournament started off with a total of 18 teams, including host Georgia, Northwestern, and Quinnipiac. In the first round on Monday, the Orange and Black’s team of five — sophomore Tiana Lau, freshman Maya Walton, senior Hana Ku, freshman Alison Chang and sophomore Amber Wang — teed off at 9:09 a.m.

Through the first 18 holes, Michigan State, Alabama, Georgia, Northwestern, Baylor, and Tennessee were positioned as the top six teams to move on to the next round. However, at the eighth hole, the Tigers put themselves in a strong position to beat out one of those teams and continue as well. Chang, who tied for 24th at +2, was the Tigers’ top performer. Right behind her, and tied for 30th, were Walton and Lau at +3.

Ku and Wang ended at 38th and 67th out of 96 total competitors.

Tuesday was an earlier morning for the Princeton players, who teed off at 7:33 a.m. While the whole team ended its play in 11th place, there was

one Tiger whose play ranked among the best and pushed her to the final rounds. Although only a freshman, Maya Walton was in a group of seven players who were just one shot back at +1, behind the tournament’s top 3 players — Wake Forest’s Jennifer Kupcho, College of Charleston’s Laura Fuenfstueck and University of North Carolina’s Leslie Cloots. Walton closed her day with a birdie on three of her last four holes, improving her play by a total of fives strokes on Tuesday’s round.

Wednesday was another early morning at 7:33 a.m., but the Tigers remained energized and ready for play. Walton played some of the best golf that she has played all season, achieving an individual bid for the final round of the tournament. She repeated her play from Tuesday, birdieing on holes seven, eight, and nine to move from 1-over to 2-under.

Walton’s play was not only fantastic, but also record-breaking — she will be the third Tiger and the first Princeton freshman to play in the NCAA finals.

The entire team of Tigers finished in 11th place. Their best play of the tournament was in the final round on Wednesday, ending with a 6-over 294 to finish at +36. Alabama won the entire regional over runner-up Northwestern, with Baylor, Clemson, Michigan State, and North Carolina rounding out the six advancing teams. Walton will play among those teams and a field of 132 players on May 19 at Rich Harvest Farms in Sugar Grove, Ill.

Tweet of the Day “3 weeks from today the PVC will host the 20th Gary Walters ‘67 PVC Awards Banquet. Event/ticket info is available at http://www.PrincetonVarsityClub.org ” PrincetonVarsityClub (@ PVCTigers), University Sports

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

After an 11th team finish in the NCAA Regional, freshman Walton will represent Princeton at the NCAA Championships next weekend.

Stat of the Day

4.12 goals

Leading the nation in goals per game at 4.12, Olivia Hompe of women’s lacrosse has been named a finalist for the Tewaaraton Trophy.

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