May 4, 2018

Page 1

Friday May 4, 2018 vol. CXLII no. 57 Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

HOW WOMEN BECAME TIGERS By Ivy Truong and Benjamin Ball

Assistant News Editor and Staff Writer

I

n the spring of 1967, University President Robert Goheen ’40 thought he was off-the-record in an interview with Robert Durkee ’69 for The Daily Princetonian. He was wrong. The next day, the headline in the Daily Princetonian read, “Goheen: ‘Co-education Is Inevitable.’”w In the next few weeks, Goheen received a flood of letters from alumni and trustees panicked that the University was going down the wrong path. People felt Goheen was shaping the University according to his bias. In one letter to Goheen, trustee Don Danforth Jr. ’54 expressed concern that Goheen’s strong opinion would inhibit the progress of any committee created to examine co-education. “In fact, a general faculty and administrative study committee, appointed by you and knowing your views that the admission of women is both advantageous and inevitable, would have difficulty recommending otherwise,” Danforth wrote on June 14, 1967. See CO-ED page 3

EDITOR’S NOTE

In anticipation of the University celebration of women’s acceptance to Princeton, this issue shows exactly how women became Tigers — from their first matriculation, to co-ed eating club memberships, to influential student body leadership. While female undergraduates did not join a freshman class until the fall of 1969, the first women matriculated as early as 1961, studying under a critical language program and as graduate students. Since then, the presence of women on campus has fundamentally changed what it means to be a Tiger, and how they got here deserves recognition. This issue seeks to highlight great strides, but also persistent challenges, for women in our community, such as those pictured above. These struggles

and achievements are topics that we will continue to dissect throughout the remainder of the 142nd Managing Board. I’m proud to say that women led, edited, photographed, and wrote this issue; the majority of our masthead editors are women. Please make sure to pick up a copy of the special issue print paper tomorrow for full content and exclusive republication of archival material. Use our hashtags #HowWomenBecameTigers and #CoeducationIsInevitable to share our work. We look forward to the ongoing conversation. Marcia Brown is Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Princetonian. This letter represents the views of the Editor-in-Chief only; she can be reached at eic@dailyprincetonian.com.


page 2

The Daily Princetonian

tigresses of progress nathan phan ’19

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

princetawoman ellie shapiro ’21 ..................................................

Friday May 4, 2018


Friday May 4, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

1968 committee report: Segregation of the sexes is seen as anachronistic CO-ED

Continued from page 1

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

Other trustees and alumni were also concerned that the issue of co-education could not be properly debated among the Board of Trustees if Goheen was so obviously biased. “Furthermore, after the article in THE PRINCETONIAN based upon the interview with you, it is extremely unlikely that a faculty committee could arrive at an unbiased and disinterested recommendation after your views had been made known so clearly,” Harvey Mole ’29, another trustee, wrote on June 30, 1967. The path to co-education was nuanced and complex. By the late 1960s, a trend towards co-education within other universities was emerging. Seventy-five percent of U.S. colleges were co-educational by 1965, and Harvard had been co-educational to a degree since 1879, with the founding of its sister institution, Radcliffe College. Goheen and his fellow administrators engaged in a long process consulting students, academics, experts, and others, ultimately coming to the conclusion that coeducation was the best step forward for the University, finally admitting women for the first time on Sept. 8, 1969. Goheen tried to be careful with his decision for the University to adopt co-education and expressed confusion about whether this decision would be the correct one. It would be the first time in the then-223 year history of the University that women would be admitted as undergraduates. Women had matriculated at the graduate school since 1961, when the first female student was admitted for a doctoral degree in Turkish history. Women were also admitted to the University’s Critical Languages program, which brought women to the University for intensive language study, before the crucial decision in 1969. When the ‘Prince’ wrote an editorial in favor of undergraduate co-education on Jan. 8, 1965, however, Goheen was dismissive of the debate that it stirred on campus. “The fact is that The Daily Princetonian always needs a point to debate, and when no genuine issue is at hand, it sometimes creates one. In the case of co-education, the editors did not so much invent, as disinter, an old, muchdiscussed question,” Goheen wrote on Jan. 19, 1965. But, the seeds of the debate were planted. Research from the admissions office had shown that many students were rejecting their admissions offers to Princeton in favor of Harvard and Yale. The primary reason, according to the research presented in the Patterson committee’s final report, was the introduction of co-education at Harvard. In response to the debate, Goheen created the Committee on the Standing of Women in 1967 to examine undergraduate co-ed-

ucation. In his notes from his presentation to the Board of Trustees in June 1967 announcing the committee, he stated the importance of investigating the co-education issue on the grounds that the University was losing applicants who wanted a co-educational experience. Goheen also argued that having women at the University would boost what the University could offer its students, both socially and educationally. Goheen set out to acquire as much information as he could about the topic, believing that through extensive and openminded research, he and the administration could decide upon the best course of action. In 1967, Goheen wrote a letter to Gardner Patterson, the chair of the Committee on the Standing of Women, stating that the counterarguments to co-education were strong. Margery Somers Foster, who was the dean of the all-women’s Douglass College in New Jersey at the time, had sent a letter to Goheen about the harms of co-education. “I think she [Foster] has a strong point in the “identity” matter, at least for some young people, and I guess that’s why a measure of coordination as against co-education keeps having an appeal to me,” he wrote. “But I wait to be illumined by your investigation.” Her objection expressed concerns that a co-educational model for a university would inhibit the growth of student identities. For instance, men should be able to attend college “undisturbed by having sex around them all the time.” Women, too, would be affected, Foster emphasized. Instead, she believed that women should be afforded the opportunity to be first-class citizens, if only temporarily, in an institution devoted only to them. “The basic point is the same, that the woman must establish her identity and get to understand and appreciate herself as a person before she gets mixed up with herself in relation to men,” Foster wrote in a letter to Goheen on co-education in December 1967. “The fact is that women are second-class citizens. One has only to look around him in the world to realize this.” During the process, Goheen experienced additional pressure from members of the undergraduate body, and had multiple tangles with the ‘Prince.’ For instance, the ‘Prince’ acquired and published a draft of the committee’s early findings, an action which was met by anger from both the committee and the administration as a whole. “The cause of education of women at Princeton is ill-served by the publication of a story based on a portion of an only partially argued, preliminary draft study,” Patterson wrote in a response letter to the editors of the ‘Prince’ on May 24, 1968. In response to the conflict, fellow administrators quickly expressed alarm to Goheen, believing the ‘Prince’ to have once again damaged the administration’s at-

COURTESY OF LARRY DUPRAZ DIGITAL ARCHIVES OF THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

In 1967, President Bob Goheen ’40 created a committee to examine the possibility of undergraduate co-education at the University.

tempts to appear unbiased. “I am sure you realize how I and other members of the Board felt early in the discussion of the increased education of women at Princeton when you were quoted in the Princetonian as saying, ‘Coeducation at Princeton is inevitable,’” wrote George G. Finney Class of 1922, a trustee at the time, in a letter to Goheen. “Knowing the feelings of so many alumni, the turn of events, unfortunately, can only be harmful to Princeton.” Despite the hiccup, the committee released the final report, “The Education of Women at Princeton,” on July 12, 1968, with Goheen’s full endorsement. “‘The Education of Women at Princeton’ is, I believe, a remarkably fine analysis,” Goheen wrote to alumni, students, and faculty. “I commend the thoroughness of its investigations and its judicious assessment of the issues. Its principal recommendations carry my firm endorsement.” For Goheen, the committee’s objective analysis of the matter, which clearly showed the benefits of undergraduate co-education, was what persuaded him to solidly favor the policy. The committee extensively surveyed alumni, faculty, students, and even high school students, performing careful financial analyses and researching other universities’ experiences with coeducation, including Radcliffe College — Harvard University’s coordinate women’s college at the time. The coordinate college system provides separate colleges for men and women. Although 82 percent of the undergraduate student body were in favor of undergraduate education for women at the University, 49 percent simply wanted a coordinate women’s college, compared to 33 percent who wanted a fully integrated system. In contrast, 72 percent of the faculty prefered full integration, with only six percent favoring a coordinating college. “We believe that for Princeton to remain an all-male institution in the face of an evolving social system would be to go back on her tradition of seizing every opportunity to improve the quality and relevance of the education she provides,” the committee reported. The result was a bound report of hundreds of pages that enthusiastically argued for undergraduate co-education, emphasizing the need for hasty implementation. “Segregation of the sexes was fully consistent with our social institutions only a generation ago; but now, in the late 1960s, it is, quite simply, seen as anachronistic by most college students,” the committee reported. Arthur Horton ’42 was the sole dissenter on the committee, believing that co-education should not be the University’s top priority, and that there were other far more important issues they could devote their resources, too. In spite of his dissent, however, Horton did express willingness to fully accept the trustees’ decision. “In a way, you might say we are Butter & Egg men, finding out fairly suddenly that we are also peddling Cheese,” Horton wrote in a letter in 1968. “We have more to learn about the new product.” Goheen tried to be open to whatever data he and the committee found, and ultimately came out of his work concluding that the case for co-education was undeniably strong. To Goheen, the results spoke for themselves — as, he believed, they should. In the original version of his personal notes for his presentation to the Board of Trustees in 1967 — one year before the committee made their final report — he wrote that a university with such a profound a sense of obligation to the world could no longer “ignore the educational needs of one half of our society.” But the man who attempted to dedicate himself to objectivity regarding undergraduate co-education knew early on that some sort of action had to be taken. Later, in blue pen, Goheen would amend his statement. The University, he wrote, could no longer ignore the educational needs of “one half of the human race.”

page 3 S T U D E N T A F FA I R S

Twenty years of female leadership on Prospect Ave. By Ariel Chen Associate News Editor

Eighteen years ago, when Maura George Simpson ’01 considered joining the leadership of Cloister Inn, she initially saw herself as a vice president. “I wouldn’t have run for president myself,” she said. “I tried to have one of my [male] friends run — I was going to put him up and run for vice president.” Then, one of Simpson’s older female friends, who she described as vocal and strong, encouraged her to run. Simpson went for it. She won the presidency. The male peer she envisioned as club president ended up being her VP. “It’s interesting to think back on that election, and that there really was some bias on my own part,” Simpson said. In 2000, Simpson was one of the first female eating club leaders. Her peer Melissa Waage ’01, former president of Colonial Club, said that male peers argued against her running for president. “Because I was a small woman, they didn’t think I had the physical authority to handle interclub politics,” she said. “It’s interesting: I grew up in a fairly socially conservative area, and I never felt that being a woman would hold me back until I got involved in club politics at Princeton.” In contrast, this past year, nine out of 11 eating clubs elected female presidents, and many of this year’s newly elected woman presidents eagerly began their eating club leadership journeys as sophomore officers last year. Kimberly Peterson ’19, president of Colonial Club, became a sophomore officer a few weeks after joining the club and worked on recruitment with the officer corps. “When elections came around I wanted to give back and show everyone the same warm welcoming feeling I had in sophomore year,” Peterson said. President of Quadrangle Club Sarah Spergel ’19 also ran for sophomore representative and said that she loved the experience. Hannah Paynter ’19, president of Cloister Inn, was an assistant to the club’s vice president last year. “It was a lot of recruitment work and was so much fun to work with all of the officers,” Paynter said. “Almost all of the leadership now were assistant officers last year.” Waage believes that women in leadership roles help reinforce opportunities for other women. “Leaders gravitate towards multiple leadership positions,” she explained. “For women interested in building these [leadership] skills, to have that opportunity helps with women in leadership everywhere.” Waage says that the eating clubs serve as an important training ground for leadership across the University, and she hopes that woman presidents on the Street will have a positive impact across the entire University. The Interclub Council, which determines the standards for club policies and best practices, is composed of the 11 eating club presidents. So this year, its membership is overwhelmingly female.

One of the ICC’s main goals this term is improving how sexual assault at the clubs is handled. According to ICC co-president Paynter, the ICC is working with the Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education office and SHARE peers in the clubs and experimenting with implementation of a consent pledge. Rachel Macaulay ’19, president of Tower Club and ICC co-president, deferred comment to Paynter. Jackie Deitch-Stackhouse, who has been director of the SHARE program for just over six years, said that she and the office began cultivating a relationship with the eating clubs early on. “That relationship has grown deeper and stronger, in large part due to student interest in creating environments within clubs that are safe and respectful,” said Deitch-Stackhouse. “I’m very fortunate to be able to build off that foundation.” According to DeitchStackhouse, the SHARE office uses a liaison-based approach. She said that most clubs have at least one member who is a SHARE peer. If there isn’t a peer, the club president is expected to act as that resource. Deitch-Stackhouse said that a few years ago, the Interclub Council, along with the Title IX office, the SHARE Office, the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students, and individual clubs came up with a document she called a “best practice matrix” addressing issues such as new member and officer training, club policies and logistics, and club admissions. Since the learning curve for the club president role is so steep, this common document is especially important when leaders have to make decisions in tough situations, Deitch-Stackhouse said. This year SHARE is also piloting a new optional program addressing obstacles that bystanders might run into if they wish to intervene in tough situations. Deitch-Stackhouse said the process of change is very student-driven and that the new training came about as a result of student requests. “It’s how we approach our work,” she said. “We go into it keeping in mind that it’s students who are serving as the leaders and the clients, and we’re here to facilitate the process.” According to Paynter, the ICC is currently working to establish consent pledges for all clubs. While Charter Club has an established policy of requiring Street-goers to read a consent pledge before entering their club, other clubs have been piloting consent pledge programs. Paynter said that Maggie McCallister ’19, president of Tiger Inn, and RJ Hernandez ’19, president of Cap and Gown Club, have spearheaded the charge for implementing club-specific consent pledges. “We’re trying to go with a data-driven approach, and whether we need to tailor the pledge to specific clubs, so we’re doing research for all the clubs,” Paynter said. The efforts that the ICC and the SHARE office are putting toward fighting sexual harassment repreSee EATING CLUBS page 4


page 4

The Daily Princetonian

Friday May 4, 2018

McCallister: It is amazing to see eating clubs becoming more inclusive EATING CLUBS Continued from page 2 .............

sent a significant departure from the past, according to Waage and Simpson. Simpson says that she hopes things that happened two decades ago, such as the drinking atmosphere leading to problems with harassment, are less tolerated now. “I think that if women who are having trouble can feel more comfortable coming forward to a female president, that’s great,” Simpson said. “Sexual assault was a serious problem when my class was there, but it was being dealt with with not near as much energy and intensity,” Waage said. Waage said she is confident that Prospect Avenue’s largely female leadership will positively impact the Street’s culture for women. “As we’ve seen in business, entertainment, politics, and so on, having women in leadership changes both the tenor of the environment, and the actual policies,” Waage said. “Having women in leadership absolutely translates into a better environment for women, and how we deal with sexual assault.” In addition, the ICC also intends to focus on multiple other goals, such as working to make the Street more accessible for underclassmen, especially during the daytime, and improving the sustainability of nights out by improving recycling programs. “We’ve been talking in ICC about getting people in the door so that it’s a less mysterious process. I fear that some underclassmen never really see the Street through anything but nightlife, and we’ve been talking about making the Street as a whole less mysterious and secretive,” Paynter said. Hernandez expressed

excitement about working with the new cohort of presidents. “Through our first few ICC meetings, it’s already clear that they are going to bring creative and inspiring ideas to their clubs, and to the Street as a whole,” Hernandez said. The ICC of today tackles a much broader slate of issues than that of 20 years ago. According to Waage, the ICC of 2000 focused mainly on Street governance: managing sign-in and Bicker, calendar mechanics, and adherence to Princeton Borough policies. “I believe that there was one other female president at that time,” she said. With the recent inf lux of female leaders, though, ICC may face more scrutiny and pressure than usual. “I think that there’s going to be a lot expected from ICC this year, having so many women on board,” Spergel said. Spergel said she is confident in the ICC’s power to enact change this year however. “I think that we can turn this into something big with Princeton’s eating clubs’ positive image overall,” Spergel said. These women hope to make changes in their individual clubs as well. Paynter emphasized the importance of making sophomore members feel as comfortable as possible by asking for their input on group bonding activities. “We’ve been tailoring our members’ nights to sophomores, trying to make them feel like they have ownership of the club,” Paynter said. “I’m most excited to get to know everyone and build relationships in the club. No year is ever going to be the same, and we just got a fantastic group of sophomores, and next year they’ll be here every day,” Paynter said. McCallister shared simi-

lar sentiments. “My goal is to foster a community that forges strong bonds of friendship that members can carry with them beyond their years at Princeton,” she said. The cohort of presidents is also working on accessibility and communitybuilding outside of the clubs themselves. McCallister said that she plans “to approach this year with a willingness to engage in authentic conversations between the University, our graduate board, and our membership.” Spergel said that Quad has “a new position called outreach chair, whose goal is to reach out to professors and bring them to meals, and work with student groups to host events such as Latin dance night, to diversify the club’s experience.” “We want to make it part of a larger Princeton community, so people don’t have to choose,” Spergel said. Macaulay says that Tower recently hosted a study break which raised $1,700 for HomeFront, a nonprofit that assists the homeless. Conor O’Brien ’19, president of Charter, said he wanted to “work on communicating what the eating club process entails and what the overall culture is like, to underclassmen,” because it seems to him that many people are still mystified by the entire experience. Though these election results are historic, they are not surprising to those elected. “It’s not that it’s nine women, it’s that these institutions elected 11 capable, wonderful individuals and nine happened to be women,” Macaulay said. Her peers, male and female, agree that the group represents a qualified and deserving group. “I already knew a lot of the women who were elect-

ed to the presidency in their respective clubs, and I know them all to be brilliant, intelligent, and determined people, so I was thrilled to find out that they had been elected,” O’Brien said. Similarly, Hernandez explained, “I’m excited to be a part of this moment and to learn and grow from all of the different takes they each are going to bring to the role.” “I had previous relationships with most of the women elected, so it makes the relationships and discussions and projects and goals even more exciting,” he added. Similarly, Spergel focused more on the group’s leadership than on its gender composition. “I think that men are great leaders as well, but this is really refreshing and a sign of progress,” Spergel said. “I shared the news with everyone I could find in Charter, so that they could all see just how far the clubs have come, because really it’s very cool to have a large majority of the presidents be women,” O’Brien said. For Paynter, seeing her fellow women attain leadership roles beside her was especially exciting. “I was excited to see young women stepping up and taking those roles, especially in open clubs. I feel like we have a bond of similar mentality,” Paynter said. For McCallister, this year’s elections are a sign that the eating clubs are changing with the needs of the student body. “Having been historically underrepresented in the eating club system, it is amazing to watch the eating clubs transform to become increasingly inclusive environments for women,” McCallister said. “Three years ago, TI elected its first female president, Grace Larsen [’16], and I feel honored to follow in her footsteps as the second.”

Peterson agreed, saying, “It’s exciting, and it’s not necessarily unexpected. I think that eating clubs are much more egalitarian and gender-balanced now, and that will continue into the future.” For both Simpson and Waage, female leadership is a self-strengthening cycle. “It really took someone who was vocal and strong, who told me ‘You should run,’ for me to do it,” Simpson said. “It helped me go on to other positions in leadership, and to push my boundaries more, and I hope that these current presidents see themselves in more leadership roles during and after college.” “These things come in numbers. Once you look around and see other people doing it, you think you can do it too,” Simpson said. Though both celebrate the advances made by the recent slate of elections, Waage and Simpson also both inquired about the number of women of color in eating club leadership, noting the need for continued progress toward improved diversity. “At the time we really thought we were trailblazers, and yet clearly there’s a lot more work to be done,” Waage said. In the present, though, Waage encouraged the women presidents to believe in themselves, and Simpson advised these leaders to focus on standing up for what is right. “Don’t worry about how you look as a female president,” Simpson said. “Just be a president, and make decisions that you are going to be proud of going forward.” Casey Swezey ’19 of Cottage Club, Julia Haney ’19 of Cannon Dial Elm Club, Mimi Asom ’19 of Ivy Club, and Liz Yu ’19 of Terrace Club did not respond to multiple requests for comment.


Friday May 4, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

page 5

Female Eating Club Presidents Take a look at four of the women changing the scene on the Street.

COURTESY OF MAGGIE MCCALLISTER

Maggie McCallister ’19 is the president of Tiger Inn.

COURTESY OF HANNAH PAYNTER

Hannah Paynter ’19 is the president of Cloister Inn.

COURTESY OF RACHEL MACAULAY

COURTESY OF SARAH SPERGEL

Rachel Macaulay ’19 is the president of Tower Club.

Sarah Spergel ’19 is the president of Quadrangle Club.

Like what you see? Join the ‘Prince’! 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.


page 6

The Daily Princetonian

Friday May 4, 2018


The Daily Princetonian

Friday May 4, 2018

page 7

U . A F FA I R S

Bob Durkee ’69 talks about revealing the news that U. was going co-ed By Rose Gilbert Senior Writer

Robert K. Durkee ’69 is the Vice President and Secretary of the University, but in May of 1967, he was the news writer for The Daily Princetonian who broke the story that President Robert Goheen thought “coeducation was inevitable” at the all-male University. As the news writer covering Nassau Hall, Durkee met regularly with President Goheen to discuss campus issues. Sitting in front of a wall of letters, awards, and photos in Nassau Hall, Durkee told the ‘Prince’ earlier this month that Goheen hadn’t planned on announcing his views on coeducation so soon. When they met on a late spring day in 1967, coeducation was one of several things on Durkee’s list of discussion points, along with the experiences of black students on campus, and a recent speech by Governor George Wallace of Alabama. During the meeting, President Goheen said that “coeducation was inevitable,” and that the only questions that remained were when, how, and on what scale. “I think he had gotten to the point where he was pretty comfortable,” said Durkee. “He was answering my questions thoughtfully and

honestly, but I don’t think he [intended] that this is where he was going to make the announcement.” Durkee said that while student opinion steadily shifted in favor of coeducation, Goheen’s claim about the inevitability of coeducation was a “bombshell.” Durkee said that since he interviewed Goheen in the chaos of reading week, Goheen was probably under the impression that the story wouldn’t be published until the fall semester, after Goheen had met with the Board of Trustees. “Once the story came out, President Goheen was trying to do some damage control since the story came out a little earlier than he had intended,” Goheen said. In response to student opinion and President Goheen’s newly public support, the trustees decided to commission a year-long study on the desirability and feasibility of coeducation, which led to the first admission of women to the University in the fall of 1969. To this day, Vice President Durkee has the notes from that May 11 meeting with president Goheen, a memento of one of the most historic stories ever to appear in The Daily Princetonian. “It was an electric moment,” Durkee said.

ROSE GILBERT :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Bob Durkee ’69, current Vice President and Secretary of the University, sits with his notes from his 1967 interview.

U . A F FA I R S

Sally Frank ’80 discusses the Tiger Inn of 1979, a club she sued for not accepting women By Isabel Ting Assistant News Editor

COURTEST OF DREXEL UNIVERSITY

Sally Frank ’80 sued three eating clubs in 1979 for not accepting women.

When Sally Frank ’80 filed a lawsuit in 1979 against Ivy Club, Tiger Inn, and Cottage Club because they did not accept women, her goal was clear: Get women past the threshold of men-only clubs. New Jersey ended up ruling in Frank’s favor, stating that the clubs must accept women because they are public facilities. Now, in 2018, nine of the 11 eating club presidents are female, which means Prospect Ave is a very different street than when Frank studied at the University. “That’s certainly good,” Frank said, about female majority. “It shows at least some growing impact for women on campus. Females having leadership is very important for their future development as leaders.” In an interview with The Daily Princetonian this month, Frank talked about how opportunities for women were very limited when she arrived on campus as a first-year student during the University’s seventh year of undergraduate co-education. “We were fighting on almost everything,” Frank recalled. The women’s studies department and the Women*s Center were in their burgeoning stages, according to Frank. She also specifically recalled the struggle pushing for locks on bathroom doors and basements of dorms. “Before there were entryway locks, they weren’t locking bathroom doors in areas where no one would hear us scream,” Frank said. As opposed to Frank’s day, the University has now removed codes on all

bathroom doors. Although the University has made strides since when Frank was a student, especially with women spearheading the leadership of eating clubs, Frank urged the clubs to be more inviting and inclusive toward women. Frank recalled how when she was a student here, Tiger Inn members allegedly played a game called “Trees and Trolls,” where male members over six-feet tall wrestled other male members under six-feet tall, while shirtless. Women were allegedly not allowed to play the game. Frank said that if traditions like these were still in place, eating clubs would attract fewer women. Frank also referenced an incident that occurred at TI in October 2014. According to the New York Times, a University female student was photographed performing a sex act on another student on the Tiger Inn dance f loor. Frank explained that the incident was allegedly one of the reasons why Grace Larsen ’16 was elected as the first woman president of TI the following year. Tiger Inn elected its second female president, Maggie McCallister ’19, this year. What’s more, there is presently a noticeably strong female presence in Tiger Inn, with the club admitting 41 female and 38 male bickerees in the spring of 2018. “What I want is for women to feel as welcome at eating clubs as men are,” said Frank. “I don’t know if I want to encourage men or women to join eating clubs, but I want people — regardless of gender, class, or race — to feel welcome at eating clubs and then decide if that’s what they want or not.”


page 8

The Daily Princetonian

Friday May 4, 2018

Women at Princeton: By the Numbers

Infographics describe the story of how women became tigers.

CHARLOTTE ADAMO :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Information for this timeline comes from Robert Goheen’s ’40 personal correspondences, the Larry DuPraz Digital Archives of the Daily Princetonian, and the final report by the Committee on the Standing of Women.

CHARLOTTE ADAMO :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Information for this timeline comes from the Dec. 4 and 11, 1970 Daily Princetonian issues, as well as the Mudd Manuscript Library blog.

CHARLOTTE ADAMO :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

The data includes both undergraduate and graduate students. Information from 1970 onwards comes from the Office of the Registrar. Enrollment information from 1969 comes from Graduate School Records AC127 and the Annual Report to the President 1969-70.

work for the most respected news source on campus. E-mail join@dailyprincetonian.com


Friday May 4, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

page 9


The Daily Princetonian

page 10

Friday May 4, 2018

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

USG President Rachel Yee ’19, former USG president Myesha Jemison ’18 discuss U. female leadership history By Katie Tam and Mallory Williamson

Contributor and Staff Writer

The Daily Princetonian spoke with Rachel Yee ’19, a woman of color who serves as the President of the Undergraduate Student Government about her role on campus, the mentorship of female leaders, and the need for diversity in leadership positions. Daily Princetonian: What does it mean for you to be the USG president, as a woman of color? Rachel Yee: I think that it’s just one more step towards moving in the right direction. In the past four years that I’ve been here, I’ve really seen a dramatic increase in the [diversity] of leadership on campus. Back when I entered in 2014, when I was a first-year, most of the major leadership positions were held by men — some of color, but mostly they were occupied by men. In the last three or four years, we’ve seen an increase [in diversity]. I’d like to think that I’m part of a bigger change. Representation and visible public representation as a woman of color is super important. When I was growing up, there were very few Asian American role models to look up to. It was pretty much segmented to maybe Brenda Song and Lucy Liu. In the public media, there weren’t many people that looked like me that I felt I could relate to. I think having women of color in leadership positions encourages other women of color to believe that they can also achieve or be in those leadership positions. Patternmatching is important. Sociology shows that in hiring practices, or even choosing out of applications, people tend to choose those that are similar to themselves. Having people who are diverse, especially women of color, in leadership positions opens up the door for more women of color to gain access to leadership positions. DP: How do you feel about female leadership at Princeton in general, considering the fact that the University only went co-ed in the recent past? Yee: I think that it’s indica-

tive of the major emphasis on empowering women and encouraging women — I believe this is the fourth year of the Women’s Leadership Task Force. This intentional effort to encourage women and give them the support to run for leadership positions is pretty incredible. Even looking at the eating club presidents, nine out of eleven of them are women, which is testament to how the University has been changing. I think it’s an important dignifier when we have women in top leadership positions at Princeton. We’re a highly respected university; a lot of other universities are paying attention to our leadership and what kind of values and precedence that we set. Having women in leadership at Princeton is important, especially with the current #MeToo and Time’s Up movements. DP: As we move forward, how do you see the future of women leadership at Princeton evolving? Yee: I think that over time, more women will fill leadership positions. I’m a sociology major, and I was reading some studies about women’s leadership. A lot of the characteristics associated with leadership are qualities that women possess — a lot of them are more conducive to promoting good team dynamics and more understanding. It really promotes and breeds good team dynamics when you have a woman in the top leadership position. And I have a list of all the past USG presidents: Before Ella Cheng ’16 was elected, it [had been] 13 years [since] the USG president was a woman. It was Myesha Jemison ’18, and the year before that Aleks Czulak ’17, and the year before that Ella. Before 2002, you have to go back to 1990 when Patricia Garcia-Monet ’92 was president. I really hope that in the future, we can create a network of women that can continue to provide mentorship. It can be really intimidating running as a woman, because women are criticized more and subjected to different critiques that men are not. Mentorship from alumni or women who

COURTESY OF MYESHA JEMISON

Myesha Jemison ’18 was the first black female Undergraduate Student Government President.

have been through similar things is important. That’s something I want to establish before I graduate. I feel optimistic about this. For example, the Company of Female Founders was founded as a subset of E-Club this year, and that’s one of many clubs that are popping up. Women more than ever are starting to band together to lift other women up, which is an incredible thing. More and more, we’re going to see more of these women-centered networks.

The Daily Princetonian spoke with Myesha Jemison ’18, who served as the first black female President of the Undergraduate Student Government last term, about her role on campus, intersectional representation, and the future of women’s leadership at the University. DP: What did it mean to you to be the first black female USG President? Myesha Jemison: It was definitely a lot to digest. It was really important to me to have this kind of representation, not only in USG, but in leadership at Princeton and overall. To be both black and female, to have those two identities intersect in such a visible platform, was exciting and overwhelming. I felt, in a lot of ways, that people expected me to represent both of those identities and saw them before they saw who I was as a person or some of the initiatives I wanted to get across, even the things I was really passionate about. In terms of the history of Princeton, it’s becoming increasingly more important to me that I am a black woman in the position. Now that I have talked to a lot of younger black women on campus, or some of the high school students I end up showing around campus, to have them say that they felt more welcome and more at peace about their decision to come Princeton, just felt that they had a place on this campus because they saw me in this role, they saw me give their Class of 2021 speech, was what I think really sold it for me and let me know that the impact that it had immediately but also in the history of Princeton. I don’t think a lot of people know about the platform. I think some people know kind of colloquially, but I don’t know necessarily how they perceive me on campus. I do recognize that this is an incredibly amazing opportunity, but also a really important goal and something to be managed responsibly. Thinking more broadly about Princeton’s history, it kind of comes full circle a bit, but it wasn’t too long ago that Princeton first started admitting black women to this campus. To think that now I’m holding this position is exciting, but I’ve also said repeatedly that it seems overdue. It’s nice to finally have this, but it’s something that should have happened long ago. DP: How do you feel about female leadership at Princeton in general, considering the fact that the University only went co-ed in the recent past? Jemison: At least in my experience, the way that the University and especially the Women’s Center have been highlighting women’s leadership and the role that it’s had on this campus — but also the number of women in leadership on this campus — has become increasingly more visible. As someone who is a woman, and in that sense a bit marginalized, but also thinking about how I’m black — that is something I think

COURTESY OF RACHEL YEE

Rachel Yee ’19 currently serves as the Undergraduate Student Government President.

about more often within the University in terms of women’s leadership, just to think about how those two identities intersect and how they intersect at Princeton. So not only do I think it’s important to have women’s leadership, but I think also some of these other marginalized identities that women have need to be at that forefront too. So I love to see the intersectionality and also enjoy seeing that recognized. I also think about a lot of the women leaders on this campus, and whether they’ve been the presidents of eating clubs, like Folasade Runcie ’18 and Jade Williams ’18, or whether they’re leading a lot of social justice movements, like Maria Perales Sánchez ’18 and Wilglory Tanjong ’18, these are incredibly important roles that women have had and sometimes may not get highlighted as often. I guess to kind of sum that up, it’s great to see this women’s leadership, especially when it’s intersectional, and then I also think it’s important to highlight women whose work is incredibly important but their work doesn’t get recognized in the way that it should be. DP: As we move forward, how do you see the future of women’s leadership at Princeton evolving? Jemison: I definitely see it increasing. I think, especially at this time at Princeton, you’re seeing it more frequently than I might imagine in Princeton’s history, so I see that continuing. Also, my hope would be that some of the informal ways that women have led on this campus — the people who don’t have a particular role but are still leaders on this campus — will be highlighted in that fashion. I would hope that the University would support them in that and highlight their successes, and just the work they do off campus. I also see it becoming more and more innovative and revolutionary. We’ve again seen that, particularly recently, in my own term I got a lot of comments that I was a political person because I was signing statements and working with the USG to pass resolutions to support students who are from

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, or to pass resolutions about stricter disciplinary action for professors and faculty involved with sexual assault, or signing statements about the University and in support of first generation students, and these different issues that are happening not only on campus but nationwide. I hope that set a precedent not only for USG but just for women in general, thinking about not only the ways that they can lead on this campus, but the way they can be incredibly instrumental in engaging with the wider world. We kind of feel like we’re within the Princeton bubble, but the reality is that this bubble is much more permeable than we think, and it’s important to reach out to those different areas. So I think again, I want to highlight some of the ways that has happened, not only as I’ve been President and restructured the Diversity and Equity Committee, or reached out to national initiatives and wrote statements with one or two other Presidents around the country that were signed by hundreds of Presidents to support DACA students — that’s something that’s been incredibly important to me and I would hope that other students would engage in that. I can also say that other students have engaged in that. I again bring up the students that I’ve already talked about — Maria Perales, who literally just sued the federal government! That’s the epitome of women’s leadership and excellence and activism and putting that all together. Wilglory Tanjong, who’s been an activist for education and social justice on campus, and around the country, and also thinking about Soraya Morales Nunez ’18 who’s been incredibly involved in Princeton Advocates for Justice and has worked on a variety of different efforts that engage with the national community. We need to be engaged in some things happening right in New Jersey, right in our own backyard.


Opinion

Friday May 4, 2018

page 11

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Marriage on this side of paradise

Jake Hamel

Guest Contributor

T

he power box appeared in my courtyard last week, stuck on a wood post and silent, the harbinger of spring in Princeton. Soon, the wooden fences will appear, unannounced and under cover of darkness, to be followed by white tents and finally white-collared alumni, ready for a weekend of nostalgic revelry. Reunions, our annual campuswide, beer-fueled bonanza, is right around the corner, and among all the boozing and schmoozing, plenty of Tigers (this senior included) will be on the hunt for that special someone in orange and black. No one loves Princetonians more than Princetonians. In February, Paddy Boroughs ’18 launched a dating app called “Prospect: Find Your Tiger” catered specifically towards Princeton undergrads, and just a month ago, the New York Times ran an article on how frequently Princeton alums wind up together. The article reinforces what every Princetonian knows anecdotally: that a good number of us hope to and eventually will marry a classmate. After all, a pair of Tigers looks like the ideal

match, with a high degree of respect between two educated and successful partners. However, marriages of equals do not necessarily lead to equal marriages, as traditional gender roles persist within marriages even as women’s positions continue to rise outside of them. For all of us Tigers going into this kind of marriage, this is unacceptable, and deserves a closer look. The mutual admiration between Tigers is part of what social scientists call assortative mating, the phenomenon by which people date and marry individuals similar to themselves both in interests and hobbies, but also in education and socioeconomic status. As a broad trend, assortative mating can be problematic as it concentrates wealth in high-earning, highly educated marriages, thereby contributing to the country’s growing wealth gap. But as an individual choice, assortative mating makes perfect sense. Relationships based on similar interests and shared backgrounds are often happier and more fulfilling, lead to greater health benefits and are less likely to end in divorce. Dating apps like The League and You and IQ , which postered on campus earlier this year,

try to tap into that value by matching equally talented and successful users. For the many talented and successful Tigers out there, marrying another alum seems like a good bet for long-term marital bliss. For women in particular, this looks positive. Assortative mating has risen in recent decades in part because greater gender equality in terms of educational and career opportunities has helped level the economic playing field between women and men. Have these changes spilled over into more equal relationships between the two? Not necessarily. Even as women continue to make strides in economic independence, in heterosexual relationships they still face lopsided burdens in maintaining their marriages. Psychologists Joan Monin and Margaret Clark find that women still report feeling disproportionately responsible for managing the emotional context of their relationships with male partners, regardless of either partner’s relative socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, although men have long been known to do less housework than women, data from the American Time Use Survey shows that

men whose wives out-earn them perform even less housework than male peers who are their household’s main earner (cooking, oddly, is an exception). Sociologists think this is a response to the challenge a highearning wife poses to her partner’s masculinity — if a man can’t prove his manliness through his breadwinning, at least he can do so by folding less laundry. It’s troubling that these divisions of labor persist, even in the supposedly equitable marriages I imagine most of us envision for our futures. As talented Princeton women continue to achieve professionally and increasingly out-earn their male partners, can we still expect them to bear the brunt of the emotional and domestic work that marriage requires? And to the talented Princeton men out there: if we’re to deserve the boosted benefits assortative marriages bring, we’ve got to step it up. After all, we’ve all written theses; can folding some socks really be that bad? Jake Hamel is a senior concentrator in the Wilson School from Arnold, Maryland. He can be reached at jhamel@ princeton.edu.

What my parents taught me Winnie Brandfield-Harvey Contributing Columnist

D

ad “God bless your dad.” “I feel sorry for your father.” “That must be hard for your dad.” “No brothers?” is the typical first response, when I tell people that I have four sisters, followed by condolences for my dad. Often, these comments came from other parents, especially those with sons. As kids, we are conditioned to trust the opinions of adults. So when I was younger, these reactions made me believe that I was somewhat of a burden for my dad. Perhaps he always wanted a son, and he struck out approximately five times. As a kid, I had yet to understand the subtleness of this sexism. Accompanied by a faint laugh, my usual answer was that “he’s fine because my sisters and I are athletic.” I affirmed the stereotypical disappointment that comes with having a daughter instead of a son. I played into their sexist, traditional beliefs, that physical or athletic abilities belong only to boys. Don’t worry, I was telling them, my dad can still play catch in the backyard. Sure, these things were true. My dad followed my older sister Neely across the world as she fenced in international competitions. He

helped my sister Addie carry her oars out to the boat at all her rowing regattas. I have a picture of him cheering in the stands at one of my lacrosse tournaments, his arms stretched out wide in enthusiasm. He did these things, not to fulfill a vision of attending an unlived son’s sporting events, but because he was proud of us. He was proud of having daughters. It didn’t matter to him: We could have been theatre junkies or trumpet players in the school band, and I know for a fact that my dad would have been there, pointing at us and bragging to the other parents. Through his overwhelming pride and support, my dad taught me that I should never feel like a burden just because I am a woman. I am worthy of celebration, appreciation, and support regardless of my gender. It’s funny now when I hear people say they feel bad that my dad has to handle five girls. It’s funny because not a day in his life has he felt anything but lucky. Mom When my mother was in her early twenties, she navigated the male-infested waters of Wall Street where most of the men in the office expressed their jealousy by giving her the silent treatment. When she refused to go out with any of them out of self-respect and for the benefit of her career, they called her a lesbian. She laughed out loud in her boss’s face when he

offered her a promotion in exchange for sleeping with him. Instead of hiding or succumbing, she developed a thick skin in response to the misogyny that pervaded her life. In elementary school, my teacher called my mom because my twin Bitsy and I were being too rough on the soccer field. “Boys will be boys,” the teacher said, followed by “the behavior of the girls was unacceptable.” My mother was the first to explain that phrase to me — a seemingly innocent expression that releases boys from the weight of accountability. In middle school, my other sister Cammy had to present on Hillary Clinton as First Lady. My mom received a call from her teacher, inquiring why Cammy’s speech was about Hillary’s experience as a senator, completely ignoring the assignment about Hillary as a spouse. My mom helped Cammy with her project and defended it to the teacher. She taught us that a woman could be more than a housewife, that family and success were not mutually exclusive. She often harped on this premise when she read us fairy tales, with slightly alternative endings. Snow White woke up with a kiss and realized she was late to the office. Cinderella attended medical school before she married Prince Charming. Sleeping Beauty was taking a nap between shifts. However, I quickly realized the fiction of fairy tales as I watched all the hor-

rible things happening to women in the news. When I would recount the headlines, she told us how unfair the world was for women. I learned from her that daily acts such as going to school and driving a car are not a right, they were a privilege, one that is denied to many women across the globe. I learned that sexual assault wasn’t about sex, it was about power. My mom never lied to me or my sisters. Growing up, I mistook her brutal honesty for cynicism. Now, however, I am thankful that she didn’t sugarcoat my youth. My mom prepared us for discrimination and degradation, but she also taught us how to rise above it. She passed down her thick skin like a family heirloom. I remember once complaining to my mom how easy it seemed to be a man. No menstrual cycles. No pregnancy scares. No shaving. No lipstick. No heels. No looking over your shoulder at night. I listed a number of reasons why being a woman was so hard. I will never forget her response. Despite every obstacle she has had to overcome in her life simply because of her gender. Despite how difficult it is to raise daughters in this world who feel strong and empowered. Despite all of these things, she still looked at me and said: “I love being a woman.” Winnie Brandfield-Harvey is a sophomore from Houston, Texas. She can be reached at wab2@princeton.edu.

T HE DA ILY

News. Opinions. Sports. Every day. join@dailyprincetonian.com

vol. cxlii

editor-in-chief

Marcia Brown ’19 business manager

Ryan Gizzie ’19

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

142ND MANAGING BOARD managing editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Claire Lee ’19 head news editors Claire Thornton ’19 associate news editors Allie Spensley ’20 Audrey Spensley ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 associate news and film editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 head opinion editor Emily Erdos ’19 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Jon Ort ’21 head sports editors David Xin ’19 Chris Murphy ’20 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Jack Graham ’20 head street editors Danielle Hoffman ’20 Lyric Perot ’20 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20 associate chief copy editors Marina Latif ’19 Arthur Mateos ’19 head design editor Rachel Brill ’19 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19 head photo editor Risa Gelles-Watnick ’21

NIGHT STAFF assistant chief copy editor Alex Wilson ’20 copy Minh Hoang ’19 Natasha Thomas ’20 Jordan Allen ’20 Jeremy Nelson ’20 design Irina Liu ’21


Opinion

Friday May 4, 2018

page 12

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Paige Amormino

The gender gap in engineering and what it means for the class of 2022

Guest Contributor

F

or the past two weeks, Princeton University’s campus has been teeming with giddy high school students in bright orange lanyards and drawstring backpacks. Usually, they travel in packs of two to seven, though an occasional singleton can be found looking down at their phone before asking a passerby where the building called “Frist” might be. As I watch Princeton Preview unfold, I wonder: What will the Great Class of 2022 be like? Of the 1,941 students who were offered admission, 50.5 percent were women and 49.5 percent were men. The University Office of Communications publishes these statistics the day that acceptances go out in a short article that is less than a thousand words. Though relatively brief, the article makes a point to mention the statistics on women in engineering: “Of the stu-

dents offered admission, 24.8 percent indicated they want to study engineering and 48.3 percent of those students are women.” Unfortunately, this parity is not likely to last. To understand why, let’s look at the same statistics for the Class of 2019. When these students were first admitted in 2015, women made up 44 percent of all admits who had indicated interest in studying engineering here at Princeton. In the Class of 2018 and 2019 combined, there are currently a total of 682 juniors and seniors concentrating in engineering. Of the 682, only 240 of those concentrators are women — only 35 percent. Why did this initial 44 percent of female students drop down to 35 percent? High school basketball coach Tim Notke once said, “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.” Put simply, this means that talent can only get us so far — hard work is what gets us places. Howev-

er, when it comes to gender disparities in academia, his quote is not the end of the story. There is a belief that in some fields of study, raw intellectual talent is required to excel. A recent study in psychology shows that people believe raw intellectual talent to be most necessary in fields such as philosophy, math, physics, computer science, and engineering, to name a few. In fields such as psychology, raw intellectual talent is not perceived to be necessary for success. Whether or not these beliefs hold true, these beliefs hold power. Research shows that women are underrepresented in academic disciplines that are thought to require this raw intellectual talent (the same holds true for African Americans). Knowing this, the University needs to be more mindful and proactive regarding its messaging in these fields so as to not further deter marginalized students from certain departments. I suggest that it start with the

Mathematics Department’s website — a department whose classes typically include not only math majors, but also physics, astrophysics, and engineering majors, given that introductory math courses are often prerequisites for these departments. On the “Information for Math Majors” page, the first section boldly asks “Why Major in Mathematics?” The answer: join to find “exciting opportunities both for students who enter with a strong background … as well as for novices with strong mathematical aptitude and interest.” This “strong mathematical aptitude” is a synonym for a raw intellectual talent for math. We know that women are underrepresented in fields where this raw intellectual talent is thought of as a prerequisite. Given the math department’s current messaging appealing to students with a “strong mathematical aptitude,” the next step is to look for signs of underrepresentation. And in fact, out of the 35 math majors in

the Class of 2019, only seven are women. That’s 20 percent. And given the amount of non-math majors taking math classes, it’s easy to see how this attitude of required innateness can affect the other STEM majors. Currently, the engineering departments are losing female students as they progress through their undergraduate career. To ensure that the Class of 2022 doesn’t end up like the Class of 2019, I suggest that we reexamine the way in which Princeton goes about defining a successful STEM student — starting with the math department and its messaging. If the University uses messaging that reinforces the belief that students’ hard work will pay off regardless of the field, then we can continue to shrink the gender gap for our future Princetonians. Paige Amormino is a junior concentrator in psychology from Windsor, Calif. She can be reached at amormino@ princeton.edu.

Hey, I’m talking here! Madeleine Marr

contributing columnist

T

he precept system is a central aspect of Princeton’s educational philosophy, one that is designed to allow discussion of lectures and readings with our peers and to deepen our understanding of the relevant class topics. Considering the goals of precept are to hear other perspectives and to think critically, it is understandable that some have criticized precepts for becoming echo chambers where students speak only to appear knowledgeable or gain credit for participation, ignoring other voices to focus on their own insights. However, this criticism ignores an-

other problem with the current precept reality — in practice, female students struggle to express a thought at all without being interrupted, ignored, or overshadowed. Women across campus have expressed their annoyance at the frequency of these occurrences, myself included. I have been in discussions where midsentence a male classmate will begin speaking over me. I admit that I am a chronic interrupter, but I attempt to control myself in the regulated atmosphere of a precept discussion. Even preceptors can be involved in the problem: Jane Blaugrund ’20 noted that “I and other girls are interrupted by male preceptors … and female preceptors are more often interrupted.” The magnitude of the complaints against precept interrupters and the clearly gendered demarcation between those who are interrupted and those who interrupt is too con-

sistent to blame individual bad habits. These interruptions play into a larger cultural tendency to ignore women’s voices and rights to speak. A study performed by legal scholars captures this phenomenon at the shockingly high level of the U.S. Supreme Court. According to their research, female Supreme Court justices are interrupted at disproportionally higher rates than their male counterparts by both the male justices and male lawyers, despite a law explicitly prohibiting advocates from interrupting the justices. Despite their extraordinarily prominent positions, the female Supreme Court justices do not seem to be entitled to the same time to speak as male justices. In class, the workplace, or the courtroom, these patterns of interruption stem from a culture that undervalues female voices. And allowing

precept

victor guan ’21

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

these interruptions to occur in precept just perpetuates the practice, affirming for many male students their entitlement to speech and teaching many female students to undervalue their voiced opinions and thoughts. This results in the loss of valuable input to a discussion literally designed for the expression of diverse thought, hurting all students involved. An easy solution would be to inform female students of the tactics that would prevent their interruption — for example, using polite speech introductions such as “Can I ask a question?” or “Excuse me, but,” or continuing to speak despite the attempted interruption. However, this puts the burden on the interrupted to solve the problem, when really, it’s the fault of the interrupters. While female students who are frequently interrupted should have these methods at their

disposal, the true solution is for male-identifying students to be more conscious of their speaking patterns in class, allowing all voices to be heard until the end of their ideas. The men of Princeton need to be conscious of their habits of entitlement, taking it upon themselves to do better and stop interrupting the women in their classes. Preceptors should also enforce and respect a standard classroom etiquette. While many female students will stand up for themselves, it is an unnecessary mental and emotional drain that disadvantages female students by putting an extra burden on them in an academic setting. Clearly, the women at Princeton are qualified to contribute in precept. Stop getting in their way. Madeleine Marr is a first-year from Newtown Square, Pa. She can be reached at mmarr@ princeton.edu.


Friday May 4, 2018

Opinion

page 13

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

These archival pieces were published in the Editorial section of The Daily Princetonian in 1969, the first year women attended the University.


Friday May 4, 2018

Opinion

page 14

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

u. alumnae isabel hsu ’19

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

EDITORIAL

S

ince the first female undergraduates matriculated in 1969, the University has achieved near gender parity in the undergraduate student body, chartered campus organizations such as the Women*s Center, and begun to combat sexual violence on campus. The University welcomed its first female president, Shirley Tilghman, in 2001. Women have led the past four USG administrations. Nine out of 11 eating club presidents, an overwhelming majority, are women. Despite this progress for women on campus, the University has a long way

How Women Became Tigers

to go in addressing sexual misconduct, combating misogyny on male sports teams, and rectifying the lack of female mentors. Sexual violence perpetrated against women remains a pervasive problem at Princeton. According to the 2017 We Speak survey, 27 percent of female undergraduates reported experiencing sexual misconduct (such as harassment, assault, rape, and other inappropriate sexual behavior) during the 2016–17 academic year. Of that 27 percent, 18 percent reported that they were sexually assaulted and 5 percent reported being raped. While undergradu-

ate men also experienced sexual misconduct, assault, and rape at substantial rates, the prevalence of sexual abuse against this population was significantly lower than the prevalence of sexual abuse against undergraduate women. This disparity also holds between male and female graduate students at the University. In addition to the pervasiveness of sexual misconduct, a recent incident involving the men’s swimming and diving team exemplifies the misogynistic culture embedded in male sports teams. In December 2016, the University suspended the

male swimming and diving team’s season after officials discovered that members of the team had circulated emails with sexist language, along with other offensive material. Despite numerical gender balance in the undergraduate student body, tenured and tenure-track professors, as well as doctoral students and postdocs, are disproportionately male. For example, only a quarter of full professors at the University are women. As a result, female students have less access to female faculty members as advisers, role models, and mentors.

That being said, the University is closer than ever to gender equality. Women are leaders in classrooms, in extracurriculars, and in the University’s administration. We, as a university, should be proud of the progress in the past, invigorated to keep acting in the present, and optimistic for the future. Signatories: Board Chairs Marcia Brown ’19 Emily Erdos ’19 Board Members Samuel Aftel ’20 Jon Ort ’21 Dora Zhao ’21 Isabel Hsu ’19 Claire Lee ’19


Friday May 4, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

page 15

Sports

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S GOLF

Looking back at Princeton women’s golf and their struggle for varsity status By Chris Murphy

Head Sports Editor

More than forty years ago, Princeton Associate Athletic Director Sam Howell ’50 f loated the idea of forming a new club sport to baseball coach Eddie Donovan. Just a few months later, the Princeton women’s golf team became a reality. After several decades, the team has grown into one of the premier teams in the Ivy League and a force to be reckoned with at tournaments throughout the Northeast. Their triumphs include back-toback Ivy League titles this year and last. The team achieved success through both individuals who left lasting legacies and perseverance during trials that stymied the team’s growth. The women’s golf team is currently celebrating its 40th Anniversary, so the Daily Princetonian is taking a look at how these Tigers evolved and came to dominate the Ivy League. A team is born: Betty Whelan leads the charge to create women’s golf Following Howell’s remark, Donovan called local women’s golf legend Betty Whelan in the hopes that she might accept the post. Whelan boasted an impressive golf resume, holding the Ladies Club Championship for nearby Springdale Golf Club — the current home for both Tiger golf teams and the site of the Princeton Invitational — for fifteen years. Whelan also founded the Garden State Women’s Golf Association and was a participant in two National Amateur Championships. Whelan accepted the offer to become the coach of the team; in January 1978, the women’s golf team became a reality. Whelan immediately went to work fundraising for the club, organizing the Princeton Friends of Women’s Golf group to raise money. Led by Susan Blair and Anne Poole, the group used the help of Springdale Members and other friends to raise over $3,000 a year. The team found immediate success. “We scraped together four golfers for our first away match at Rutgers,” Whelan said. “The players met at Dillon Gym wearing cut off jeans and sneakers. We loaded an assortment of clubs into my car, headed to New Brunswick, and won the match! An inspiring beginning!” Later that season, the Tigers took second in the Scarlet Knight Invitational — their first tournament appearance. The team was certainly fueled by its coach, especially during the early years. “Mrs. Whelan was an excellent role model,” said Ellen Longmire ’82 in a letter to the Friends of Princeton Golf. “She made the game look so easy.” Whelan would remain the catalyst for team growth over the next decade as the team grew in size and strength. Just two years after its formation, the team was looking forward

COURTESY OF PRINCETON ALUMNI WEEKLY

Women’s golf during its inaugural varsity 1991 season.

to having nine players on the roster; a significant increase and an indication that women’s golf had taken hold at Princeton. Women’s golf and the struggles to achieve varsity status (late 1980s) Throughout the 1980s, because the University had not granted the women’s golf team varsity status, the team was funded solely through the efforts of the Friends of Women’s Golf Group. In the spring of 1980, Whelan made her first attempt to convince the Princeton Athletic Department to grant the team varsity status. Despite assurances that the team would become a varsity level team once they grew in size, according to Princeton Alumni Weekly, Whelan and the rest of the team were denied this coveted status. Correspondence between Whelan and then Princeton Athletic Director Robert Myslik ’61 indicate that despite her efforts and the continued growth of the team, the University would not consider the women’s golf team for varsity status “for the foreseeable future.” With Whelan acting as a voluntary coach throughout the process, the team spent the entire decade struggling to become a varsity sport. In 1988 — after nearly ten years of fighting for the cause — Whelan retired from her position as the women’s golf coach. “She was the force that kept the team breathing,“ said golfer Shena McLenaghan ’87, ref lecting on Whelan’s retirement. With their first leader gone, the Tigers were forced to turn to a new face to keep the fight alive. Paget Berger, Title IX and the ACLU converge on women’s golf, rewriting the narrative The next four years would prove to be crucial in the club’s advancement and the culmination in their struggle for varsity status. But the situation would not be resolved quickly and quietly; it would take the efforts of numerous Princeton alumni, local politicians, and even the American Civil Liberties Union to earn women’s golf the status it deserved. The first step was made in 1990 by Princeton golf

alumna Lisa Olson ’80. In June 1990, Olson wrote a letter to University president Harold Shapiro *64, urging him to help fight gender inequality in collegiate sports. Olson first argued that, as a self-financing club sport, the elevation to varsity status would come at no cost to the University. Furthermore, Olson noted that the team’s elevation would enhance the team’s reputation and convince more women to join and not the other way around, like the University claimed. “This subtle form of sexual discrimination is all too common in college sports, where women’s teams are routinely relegated to secondary roles, with the implication that in this, as well, women are inferior,“ Olson said. A lackluster response from the University followed — one that argued women’s golf could only be considered varsity if it was already a varsity sport at more than four other Ivy League institutions. “The threat of an embarrassing lawsuit seemed the only way to get the University’s attention,” Olson explained. Olson recruited the help of Deborah Ellis — Legal Director of the New Jersey ACLU — who immediately went to work advocating for the elevation of women’s golf at the University to the varsity level. Ellis and the rest of the women’s golf supporters needed the help of Title IX to support their cause. Whelan had laid the groundwork for this angle, corresponding with then-U.S. Senator and Princeton alumnus Bill Bradley ’65 regarding Title IX and its relation to women’s golf at Princeton. Ellis then implemented Title IX into her argument. In letters to the University general counsel, Ellis wrote that “The club status hampers recruiting, hampers fundraising, deprives the team of access to facilities and perks provided to varsity members, and, most fundamentally, denigrates the athletic endeavors of the team members.” In 1991, Ellis made an official request to schedule an appointment between the University and the ACLU to discuss and solve the matter. At the same time,

the women’s golf team struggled to find leadership with Whelan retired. Relying mostly on the determination of its players, the team desperately needed a new voice to navigate through tough times. This voice turned out to be Paget Berger *90, a graduate student at the Woodrow Wilson School and a passionate golfer. Captain Jennie Thompson ’90 and player Barbara Armas ’92 encouraged Berger to assume a role with the team. Within weeks, Berger became the team’s newest coach and travel coordinator, as well as — most importantly — the team’s fighter for varsity recognition. Berger began her new job by speaking out against the words of Peter McDonough, who at the time served as the University General Counsel. McDonough had contacted the women’s golf program through their ACLU representatives in a series of letters, which explained that women’s golf would be “considered” for varsity status if the threat of legal action was neutralized. Berger replied with a letter signed by the team, denouncing the decision to wait and see, and presenting the current unequal state of affairs between the men’s and women’s golf team, especially when it came to fundraising. “The bottom line is that women cannot be denied the same status as men in a University sponsored activity,” Berger concluded in her letter. An imminent legal clash seemed inevitable, but the women’s golf team finally prevailed. On June 19, 1991, correspondence from the Office of General Counsel to the team indicated that a program would be adopted over the summer to transition the women’s golf team to varsity status. Less than a month later, on July 12, the University officially recognized the women’s golf team as a varsity sport. The longawaited dream had finally become a reality. Onward and upward: the emergence and continuation of an elite program Even before the Tigers became a varsity program, they were on a quick path to elite status. Once they became a varsity team, that growth only inten-

sified. Just four seasons in, the Tigers were recognized by the Ivy League and the Eastern College Athletic Conference as one of the best teams in the Northeast. Multiple players were recognized as all-Ivy or all-ECAC caliber golfers. The team had one of their proudest seasons in 1997, when they not only hosted the first ever Betty Donovan Alumni Tournament (Whelan married Eddie Donovan in 1989), but also celebrated the senior season of perhaps their best player in school history: golfer Mary Moan ’97. Moan qualified for the NCAA Championship three years in a row and was one of the best golfers in the Ivy League during her four year campaign. She remains one of the best golfers to have ever been a part of the program. Today, the Princeton women’s golf program remains alive and well, thriving among their competition. The team has won back-to-back Ivy League Tournaments and are set to make an appearance in San Francisco in the NCAA Regionals on Monday. The team is also very young, being led by sophomore teammates Maya Walton and Alison Chang. They are set up well to continue their success for the foreseeable future. The women’s golf team continues to celebrate their success on the course, made possible by their victorious struggle to attain varsity status. Since their inception as a varsity team, they have positively changed the lives of hundreds of female athletes who are able to compete against the nation’s best. “Golf was not the only reason why I chose Princeton, but the memories I have of my time on the team will be among the most vivid I have of my four years as a Tiger,“ said Caitlin Sullivan ’07. Details about the team’s rise to varsity status come from AC 194 Box 1 Folder 1 in the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library Archives at the University.


Friday May 4, 2018

Sports

page 16

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } LAZARENA LAZAROVA :: THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Future WNBA player Leslie Robinson ’18 breaking barriers in women’s basketball By Chris Murphy and Alissa Selover Head Sports Editor and Staff Writer

Since she could walk, senior Leslie Robinson has loved basketball. Now, she will be able to turn a lifelong passion into a professional career. Leslie Robinson’s dreams came true when she was drafted into the WNBA on April 12 by the New York Liberty with the 34th overall pick. Robinson is the first woman to be drafted from Princeton and only the second from the Ivy League. “I am bursting with pride and all of Tiger nation is so excited to support her through this next chapter,” head coach Courtney Banghart said in an interview. “She’s a proven winner, a gifted leader, the quintessential teammate … she’s earned this.” Robinson’s passion for the game started early. It is unsurprising considering her father — Craig Robinson ’83 — is an Ivy League legend; he won Ivy League Player of the Year twice during his four years with the Tigers and currently is the fourth-highest scorer in team history. Having been a collegiate basketball coach and now a part of the player development staff with the New York Knicks, basketball remains an integral part of Craig Robinson’s life. This has transcended to Leslie’s older brother playing basketball throughout his life and, of course, to Leslie. “I’ve always wanted to play this game for as long as I can,” she said. “I love what I have gotten from it and the person it has helped me become, win or lose. I’ve gained so many friends and they have become my family.” Eight years ago, this fairy tale almost didn’t happen. In an interview with The Daily Princetonian, Robinson explained that her desire to play collegiate basketball didn’t really start until her freshman year of high school when she decided to play basket-

ball instead of focusing on softball. Her decision paid off when in 2014 she began her career as a basketball star for the Tigers. That chapter has been nothing less than incredible. From experiencing a 30–0 season as a freshman to becoming the first woman to record a tripledouble in program history to winning two Ivy League championships, Robinson has become one of the most decorated players in Princeton basketball history. Robinson also finished in the top 10 in program history in career games played and holds the sixth most assists in a single season in program history, with 129. Despite her individual accolades, Robinson perhaps shined most when it came to motivating and leading her teammates. “Playing with Leslie has been amazing. She is one of the greatest teammates that I have ever had,” said fellow senior Kenya Holland. “She is a great leader, extremely passionate, and humble.” Other teammates concurred. “Leslie is an amazing leader and her passion for the game is what makes her stand out,” said Tia Weledji ’18. When asked about her favorite memory with Robinson, she said that senior night was unforgettable. “Our class has always been close, but that night, we felt extra close and sharing that moment with them and sharing all of our accomplishments was extremely special,” Weledji said. On the night of the WNBA draft, Leslie was multitasking. Not only was she in the middle of the draft, but she also had to make one last on-court appearance for the Tigers: playing for her team during the 2018 Princeton Campus Rec dodgeball tournament. Between dodgeball games, Robinson would run back to watch the draft. “I really wanted to watch it because my brother was

Tweet of the Day “...I am incredibly lucky to coach the young women I get to work with every day at Princeton...” Carrie Moore (@CoachMoore33) - Women’s Basketball

there, and I also knew some girls that I played AAU with who were getting drafted,” Robinson said, at the time unaware that her own dreams were about to come true. “I got a call from my agent and he congratulated me, and I was really confused, and he said, ‘You got drafted! Go celebrate!’” Robinson recounted, with a big smile. Robinson said that she walked into the room just in time to see her name on the TV and told everyone to look. She was crying from happiness. Robinson said her brothers, stepmom, and dad were watching. She called her mom as soon as she got picked. “I just wasn’t expecting it,” she said. “It was a lot of phone calls and texts and excitement all at once.” Sharing this moment with her family was extremely special for Robinson, especially with her father. “Having a basketball coach as a father and the relationship that we have has allowed me to become a better player because I am always looking for feedback and ways to improve my game,” she said. “He also taught me that in life, you can’t always succeed, and you can’t always win, but it is the failures and the losses that help you learn. I think that is the most important thing I will take away from that.” Another person not ex-

pecting the call was Leslie’s dad. “I thought she was mistaken,” Craig Robinson laughingly recounted in a phone call he received from Leslie’s mother. “I don’t know how to explain what I was feeling,” Craig Robinson said. “It was happy, excited, and surprised all at once. The only one that truly thought that Leslie was going to get drafted was her eight-yearold brother. I am so proud of her.” “Playing professionally was always a natural instinct in me,” said Leslie Robinson. “Because of the type of player that I am, I know that as long as my body is going to allow me to keep playing, I’m going to. If I can, why not.” Robinson is the first woman to be drafted into the WNBA from the Ivy League in almost 30 years, a signal that may be indicating the growing competitiveness of women’s sports in the Ivy League. Being the first woman from Princeton basketball to be drafted into the WNBA, Robinson has also created a new dynamic in Princeton women’s basketball, one that allows incoming players to see a professional basketball career not as a far-fetched fantasy but an attainable reality. “I think I am laying out the carpet for [the program and the athletes] and this is just the tip of it,” she explained. “The cur-

rent players have so much talent and this shows them what they can accomplish. I am excited that I was able to be another stepping stone for Princeton and Ivy League women’s basketball. I hope to see my accomplishments draw more recruits for Princeton and that we are more respected in the league.” Robinson’s teammates agreed, with Weledji noting that “Leslie has set a path for other women in the program to follow and an achievable goal for them to strive to attain.” When asked about her favorite moment as a Tiger, Robinson struggled to narrow it down to a single moment. Instead, she said that “getting to see her college basketball experience start and end in a very similar way” was amazing. “It has come full circle and it is really special,” she continued. “We were able to finish as Ivy champs and we were able to play in the tournament as tournament champions too. The way that we ended our senior year was exactly what we wanted and our team dynamic and performance is something that I will always remember and cherish.” “Sometimes, the world gets it right,” Banghart said. “This time — with Leslie being drafted — the world certainly got it right.”

COURTESY OF NEW YORK LIBERTY

A promo posted on the New York Liberty Twitter page announcing their 34th pick: Leslie Robinson.

Stat of the Day

402 athletes Princeton currently has 402 female athletes that don the tiger uniform and compete for the University.

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


The Daily Princetonian

Friday May 4, 2018

page S1

STREET EDITORS: DANIELLE HOFFMAN, LYRIC PEROT, LUCY CHUANG

PAGES DESIGNED BY ASHLEY CHANG, DIANA TANG, & WILL RANDALL

A look into the past Bound by June:

Car Crashes, Translational Justice, and Siberian Exile Carson Clay Contributor ‘18

In her Woodrow Wilson School thesis, Camila Novo-Viaño pushed back on the literature surrounding translational justice in Latin America. Using a case study of a unique justice institution in Guatemala, the International Commission against Impunity (CICIG), she assessed the potential of international institutions to strengthen the rule of

law by working within the existing government instead of completely scrapping it. CICIG is the product of a peacekeeping agreement between the UN and Guatemala; it functions as a judicial actor and promotes institutional reform. She found that within its role as a judicial actor, CICIG was less effective because the hidden power structures— the bad guys—were able to operate through loopholes in the system. However,

in its role encouraging reform, CICIG met success and helped pass many reforms and Constitutional amendments. Her analysis gives evidence that working within the system as CICIG does could be replicated and similarly effective in other translational contexts. Look out for NovoViaño in the papers heading up the next UN peacekeeping committee!

Image courtesy of Anna Pouschine

Anna Pouschine explored deep into her ancestry with her Slavic department thesis. Her great-great-greatgreat grandfather, I.I. Puschin, was exiled to Siberia for his participation in the Decembrist uprising in Russia in 1825. She translated and analyzed the letters her namesake sent during his thirty year isolation. Most of the time, she explained, scholars analyze the big events in history. Pouschine took a unique

approach and instead studied the absence of activity—the exile—as a way to understand her ancestor on a more meaningful level. She found the letters provided him with socialization and purpose to his life that helped him overcome loneliness. Interestingly enough, she ended up reading about his affairs and many illegitimate children. This includes a daughter also named Anna! Reflecting on the experi-

ence of reading letters in our current world of instant messaging and social media, Pouschine said it was a reminder that such a straightforward, non-instant correspondence has the ability to provide fulfillment far beyond an Instagram like.

Image courtesy of Anna Pouschine

Sam Perkins investigated the effects of Uber and Lyft on drunk driving rates for his Economics thesis. A Texas native, the idea came to him while visiting his brother at the University of Texas at Austin in 2016. Due to a city legal battle against the two ridesharing companies, Uber and Lyft both suspended their operations in Austin

for a year. Although students and Austin residents alike were disappointed to go without these apps, it provided the perfect natural experiment for Perkins to compare accident rates before, during, and after the stoppage. Utilizing his Computer Science certificate to perform a regression discontinuity analysis, he found a significant de-

crease in accidents when the apps were reinstated. Perkins was excited to find that an entrepreneurial platform, even as a forprofit, was able to significantly contribute to society. Look out for him to start his own venture in the next few years!

Image courtesy of Sam Perkins


Friday may 4, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

page S2

Hickel’s Heckel

Still Remembered Fifty Years Later Francesca Walton Contributor ‘21

On March 5th 1970, students made their way to Jadwin Gymnasium for the United States Interior Secretary Walter J. Hickel’s speech. Although advertised as a discussion on “Ecology and Politics in America’s Environmental Crisis,” he declared, “environmental concerns must be prominent in resource development.” While some students ignored and tried to pass the time, there was a defiant group that ensured their voice was heard. Known as “Hickel’s Hecklers,” their anger toward the Vietnam War has not been forgotten 50 years later. The group of 75 did not hold back. Shouts radiated around the Jadwin for minutes before Princeton University President Robert Goheen demanded silence and proper consideration. His passive statements had little influence on the “hecklers” who continued yelling. Sitting close to the furious students Goheen tried to calm the crowd, but little was made and not much could be done at the moment, except for cancelling the question-andanswer session that should have followed. “Today’s pigs, tomorrow’s bacon! Nixon and Hickel better start shaking!” cried the aggravated students above all of Goheen’s attempts to quiet the mass. Some guest speakers in the past caused internal commotion, but nothing compared to the chaos that was ignited that afternoon in Jadwin. Students were upset for weeks after and repercussions followed. Thirteen “hecklers” who were heavily supported by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) stood before the Judicial Committee of the recent Council of the Princeton University Community. Almost a week had

passed of belligerence at the public hearings, and a 24-page “verdict” resulted: one student was acquitted, nine were given disciplinary probation, and three were suspended. Similar to most student protests, Mr. Hickel should have known how he would be treated and perhaps he did, but the event rang on for hours. Nothing could have been done after the students filed in before Hickel, as it was not the speech itself that infuriated the students, but rather how he had been received publicly. Throughout Hickel’s role in the government, he was known for being a headstrong pro-business politician to a dedicated environmentalist and then return again to his political role. His counterparts were often confused on where his loyalties stood and how he was spending time. President Nixon, who had been bothered by this overpowering independence hit his limit and fired Mr. Hickel. During the strain of the Vietnam War, the content of a confidential letter from Hickel to Nixon were disclosed, informing that the administration was “embracing a philosophy which appears to lack appropriate concern for a great mass of Americans – our young people.” Princeton University was in uproar after Walter Hickel delivered his speech – the students took the opportunity to allow their voices to be heard against his environmental fears. When Goheen spoke to the Judicial Committee about the “hecklers” he reminded that their actions “bring us no nearer an ending of the Vietnam War. … They demean the whole idea of academic freedom. They seriously undercut the ability of the University community to govern itself.” Other parties, including The Daily Princetonian “protested policies and political figures who deserve to be

protested, its effects were far more good than bad, and the demonstration was justified.” Global and national politics as well as specific University issues instigated student activism at Princeton. Looking back at Princeton 50 years ago, there were several protests opposing the Vietnam War and the ROTC program from the 1967-72. The “Hickel Heckle” was one that helped the University rethink its protest consequences, but more importantly, what activism means at an academic institution. Walter Hickel was harassed when he tried to speak, and some of the present students resisted, but many debate the benefits of the outcome. Given incredible media abilities and today’s political climate, universities have been breeding ground for student activism and even protests. Great thanks to a friend who graduated in the Princeton Class of 1970 who was willing to speak about these student protests, as well as the Princeton Alumni Weekly and The Daily Princetonian.

Image courtesy of Princeton Alumni Weekly Interior Secretary Hickel came to speak at Princeton in 1970

Image courtesy of Princeton Alumni Weekly Student activists met in Nassau Hall after the Walter Hickel’s visit

THIS WEEK ON THE SEXPERT:

Hygienically Concerned Dear Sexpert, I have recently noticed a lot of advertisements on TV for feminine hygiene washes, and am seeing them more in drug stores and even in the U-Store. Do I have to use one of these washes, and are they even safe to use? — Hygienically Concerned

Dear Hygienically Concerned, It is smart that you are questioning product marketing and media influences when it comes to your health! Even though we’ve made strides in inclusive marketing and sex positivity, lots of media attention and marketing target specific socialized beliefs and contribute to shaming people for natural consequences of having a human body. Feminine hygiene washes are a good example of this. In this case, the message is that people should be uncomfortable or embarrassed with how a vulva naturally smells and use products to “fix it.” Not only do you not need to spend your money on these washes (or wipes or sprays), many of these products can even be harmful to vaginal health. First, to clarify: there is a difference between washing the vulva (the external

genital area) and the vagina (the first part of the reproductive system inside the body, leading to the uterus). These washes are specifically meant for use on the vulva, while douches are meant to clean the vagina. There is absolutely no need to wash the vagina; it is a self-cleaning device with regular cell turnover and a highly-tuned pH and microbiome. Altering any of these factors with douching can lead to irritation and even infection. Douching is also not effective in preventing pregnancy — a common myth. The vulva, however, one can clean — but should only be cleansed with very mild soap and warm water. Avoid fragrances and other harsh chemicals in this area, as they can cause irritation and inflammation, which can lead to itching and pain. Although many washes claim to be tested by gynecologists, they usually still contain fra-

grances. To further prevent infection and irritation, make sure to dry the area gently but thoroughly after showering or bathing, and wear underwear made of a breathable fabric, like cotton. However, if you notice a change in odor, that could indicate that you should get a checkup. Some natural life cycle changes (like pregnancy or during the menstrual cycle) or even a change in diet might contribute to a slight odor change. A different odor or change in amount/color/ consistency of vaginal discharge could indicate an infection, such as a yeast infection. If this change does not go away with removal of any irritants or is accompanied by pain and itching, visit a medical professional for a diagnosis and treatment. This is another reason why it is a good idea to know (and appreciate!) your own natural

scent, rather than cover it up — so if there is an issue, you can get it checked out! Remember, despite what these hygiene washes might advertise, your vulva doesn’t need to smell like a flower! What matters is that your vulva and vagina are healthy, and with proper care, this is easy to maintain. ~The Sexpert Information retrieved from The Mayo Clinic, Go Ask Alice, and the Summer’s Eve website.


Friday May 4, 2018

-Ask Auntie JThe Daily Princetonian

Hello sweeties!

page s3

you feel comfortable be-

spent enough time togeth-

comfortable in their pres-

looks out for their nearest

ing your true self around

er and become somewhat

ence, they’re much more

and dearest is a sure-fire

the other person. There’s

acquainted, the jump to

likely to feel like you’re

way of demonstrating that

this really interesting idea

confidante and close friend

a person they can trust.

you’re close-friend mate-

of ‘quantity time’ too, dur-

is a much larger leap to

Don’t be afraid to be hon-

rial.

ing which even time spent

make. Even by the end of

est, either; if they ask you

around each other doing

freshman year, it’s totally

how your day has gone, be

tigers: if you have any

pretty menial stuff like

normal to feel like you’ve

honest that your math quiz

questions about life, love,

“How do you make mean-

homework or catching a

not made that many ex-

didn’t go quite as well as

relationships, school, or

ingful relationships (wheth-

quiet meal still goes to-

tremely close friends, if

you’d hoped, or mention

anything in between, go

er platonic or romantic)

wards building that rap-

any at all. But, then again,

that you’re a little worried

ask Auntie J at bit.ly/

while at Princeton?”

port. So, my first call would

there are definitely things

about finals coming up. On

askauntiej!

be to make sure you’re

you can do to start that

the other foot, be engaged

And remember,

spending a decent amount

process. For one, be your-

and empathetic when they

think this is a daily struggle of time with the people

self. As many of Auntie J’s

bring up problems of their

for the vast majority of

you’re interested in get-

closest friends can attest,

own. Showing that you’re a

Auntie loves you all!

us here whether fresh-

ting closer to. Even if it’s

despite appearing normal

real, imperfect human who

man or senior, athlete or

just walking over to get

on the outside, Auntie is

artist. Even for Auntie J

late meal before parting

one of the weirdest, quirki-

(who is, of course, a self-

ways to study, most of the

est people you ever could

proclaimed god), striking

people I know are not just

meet (I prefer misunder-

up friendships that go past

happy to do things with

stood). If you’re at the

the ‘Oh my god, we should

me, but are even grateful

point where you feel com-

grab a meal together

for the attention and ef-

fortable in each other’s

sometime!’ façade is very

fort you put in (by the way,

company, it’s totally fine

much a waiting game.

if anyone has figured out

to be a little quirky and

That’s the first thing you

who I am yet, let’s grab a

show your true colors. At

have to understand: these

meal sometime).

the end of the day, if you

Auntie J back with a bang for your Week Ten dose of love. And, with finals just around the corner, this week’s question keeps it short and sweet:

I’ll be entirely honest: I

things take so much time to get to a point where

That’s a start, but not quite enough. Once you’ve

Don’t forget, my baby

can show the other person that you’re happy to be

Image courtesy of freepik.com

Arti-Choked Up

A Review of Alumnus Jane Hirshfield’s Poetry Reading Shira Moolten Contributor ‘21

On a sunny Monday afternoon at the Princeton Art Museum we piled plates with salad and sandwiches and waited for an artist’s entrance. We made up a smattering of people whose fascination with art blends with all sorts of other interests: astronomy, language, travel. Cecilia Vicuña, Princeton’s new International Artist-inResidence, walked in with a subtly commanding air of quiet wisdom and attention. She had us introduce ourselves and lingered on our responses, somehow weaving all of our disparate backgrounds, experiences, and interests into a picture of the art she has lived and breathed for decades. We got an idea of her unique approach when she mentioned she has worked with astronomers, being of the belief that science and art

have much to learn from each other. Born in Chile, Cecilia Vicuña has lived a life of travel and made her art her mode of activism. Her points of focus as she describes them on her website are the “pressing concerns of the modern world, including ecological destruction, human rights, and cultural homogenization.” Her paintings combine the personal with the political, the familiar with the abstract, in a vivid color array that brings out elements of both joy and pain acutely. Vicuña is also a poet, but does not believe that “the linguistic medium is the main one”; she is very intentional about using other media. Her art often contains elements of performativity and temporality. For instance, she uses string and ribbon along with natural elements like sticks, shells, and rocks in endless configurations and settings.

Image courtesy of Deliciously Organic

Vicuña made it obvious to us what it means to be a traveler, not just a tourist, and how a traveler’s approach, peeling back the surfaces of an area’s communities and histories, can inform an artistic worldview. Vicuña brought up her Oxford Book of Latin American Poetry, which is emblematic of this worldview. It features both Spanish and Portuguese works plus seven indigenous languages. She described it as a different version of Latin American poetry, a version that does not present it as a “colonial reality.” The book went largely overlooked because of its feminist indigenous vision of language; indigenous languages are tonal, and indigenous women were highly influential in inflecting Spanish and Portuguese with indigenous tonality. The complexity of language and culture as well as the broad array of cultural and artistic media are of special interest to Vicuña, who believes that the “globalization of television has erased many of [the] particularities” of different dialects stratified across classes. She also pointed out that “western culture only admits a narrow field of values” and that people from other cultures can serve as a “liberating force.” Vicuña has not always received due recognition for her art and activist message, a fact she recog-

nizes frankly: “I have been completely disregarded for most of my life.” Her mission and determination have never been dependent on fame, however. Working without recognition she describes as a hard but “fantastic” journey. She pondered the dynamics of her invisibility and visibility over the course of her life: “a change in the sensibility of the younger generation” may have precipitated the change in recognition, with young people searching for things “beyond the digital”: things one can touch. She also takes the work of curators very seriously, remarking that it is “thanks to a handful of enlightened young curators…that my work is becoming meaningful, and I’m in awe.” To her, “the most horrendous curators are appropriators and exploiters of the artist,” whereas a good one will do “the exact opposite of that: learn from the artist” about the points of connection. In art and in life, which are perhaps inseparable to her, Vicuña sees always in terms of points of connection: far from a lecture on her accomplishments, our lunch was a discussion during which more than once she jotted down notes in her notebook on concepts and experiences others had brought up, from capoeira to the stars. Perhaps the project Vicuña emphasized the most was Documenta, a contemporary art exhibition that

comes together in five-year intervals. Documenta was originally conceived in order to show post-World War II that Germany still valued art, since Hitler had deemed so much valuable art “degenerate.” Vicuña declared matter-of-factly, “what brought Cecilia back from the dead was Documenta.” She had been “ignored completely by the Chilean art field,” and she recalled that “when it was announced that Cecilia would be the only Chilean artist in Documenta,” everyone’s question was, “who is Cecilia Vicuña?” It is not a question with a simple answer, but rather one well worth taking the time to explore. Princeton has not always been the sort of place where such a question could be explored. Not until the late 1960’s were women given the opportunity to study at Princeton, and it took decades for women to become properly represented in the student body. In 2010, the Princeton Art Museum established the Sarah Lee Elson, Class of 1984, International Artist-in-Residence Program, making the culture of art on campus more globally minded. Cecilia Vicuña gracefully embodies the struggle of diverse groups for due recognition in cultural, artistic, and economic spaces – a struggle we should remember is always ongoing at Princeton as well.


Friday May 4, 2018

The Daily Princetonian

Cecilia Vicuña

page s4

Princeton’s Newest Artist in Residence Isabel Griffith-Gorgati Contributor ‘21

On a sunny Monday afternoon at the Princeton Art Museum we piled plates with salad and sandwiches and waited for an artist’s entrance. We made up a smattering of people whose fascination with art blends with all sorts of other interests: astronomy, language, travel. Cecilia Vicuña, Princeton’s new International Artist-inResidence, walked in with a subtly commanding air of quiet wisdom and attention. She had us introduce

ourselves and lingered on our responses, somehow weaving all of our disparate backgrounds, experiences, and interests into a picture of the art she has lived and breathed for decades. We got an idea of her unique approach when she mentioned she has worked with astronomers, being of the belief that science and art have much to learn from each other. Born in Chile, Cecilia Vicuña has lived a life of travel and made her art her mode of activism. Her points of focus as she describes them on her website are the “pressing concerns of

the modern world, including ecological destruction, human rights, and cultural homogenization.” Her paintings combine the personal with the political, the familiar with the abstract, in a vivid color array that brings out elements of both joy and pain acutely. Vicuña is also a poet, but does not believe that “the linguistic medium is the main one”; she is very intentional about using other media. Her art often contains elements of performativity and temporality. For instance, she uses string and ribbon along with natural elements like sticks, shells,

and rocks in endless configurations and settings. Vicuña made it obvious to us what it means to be a traveler, not just a tourist, and how a traveler’s approach, peeling back the surfaces of an area’s communities and histories, can inform an artistic worldview. Vicuña brought up her Oxford Book of Latin American Poetry, which is emblematic of this worldview. It features both Spanish and Portuguese works plus seven indigenous languages. She described it as a different version of Latin American poetry, a version that does not present it as a “colonial reality.” The book went largely overlooked because of its feminist indigenous vision of language; indigenous languages are tonal, and indigenous women were highly influential in inflecting Spanish and Portuguese with indigenous tonality. The complexity of language and culture as well as the broad array of cultural and artistic media are of special interest to Vicuña, who believes that the “globalization of television has erased many of [the] particularities” of different dialects stratified across classes. She also pointed out that “western culture only admits a narrow field of values” and that people from other cultures can serve as a “liberating force.” Vicuña has not always received due recognition for her art and activist message, a fact she recognizes frankly: “I have been completely disregarded for most of my life.” Her mission and determination have never been dependent on fame, however. Working without recognition she describes as a hard but “fantastic” journey. She pondered the dynamics of her invisibility and visibility over the course of her life: “a change in the sensibility of the younger generation” may have precipitated the change in recognition, with young people searching for things “beyond the digital”: things one can touch. She also takes the work of curators very seriously, remarking that it is “thanks to a handful of enlightened young curators…that my work is becoming mean-

ingful, and I’m in awe.” To her, “the most horrendous curators are appropriators and exploiters of the artist,” whereas a good one will do “the exact opposite of that: learn from the artist” about the points of connection. In art and in life, which are perhaps inseparable to her, Vicuña sees always in terms of points of connection: far from a lecture on her accomplishments, our lunch was a discussion during which more than once she jotted down notes in her notebook on concepts and experiences others had brought up, from capoeira to the stars. Perhaps the project Vicuña emphasized the most was Documenta, a contemporary art exhibition that comes together in five-year intervals. Documenta was originally conceived in order to show post-World War II that Germany still valued art, since Hitler had deemed so much valuable art “degenerate.” Vicuña declared matter-of-factly, “what brought Cecilia back from the dead was Documenta.” She had been “ignored completely by the Chilean art field,” and she recalled that “when it was announced that Cecilia would be the only Chilean artist in Documenta,” everyone’s question was, “who is Cecilia Vicuña?” It is not a question with a simple answer, but rather one well worth taking the time to explore. Princeton has not always been the sort of place where such a question could be explored. Not until the late 1960’s were women given the opportunity to study at Princeton, and it took decades for women to become properly represented in the student body. In 2010, the Princeton Art Museum established the Sarah Lee Elson, Class of 1984, International Artist-in-Residence Program, making the culture of art on campus more globally minded. Cecilia Vicuña gracefully embodies the struggle of diverse groups for due recognition in cultural, artistic, and economic spaces – a struggle we should remember is always ongoing at Princeton as well.

Images courtesy of Cecilia Vicuña