Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998
Friday may 5, 2017 vol. CXLI no. 58
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } ON CAMPUS
BEYOND THE BUBBLE
Kopp ’89 talks Harari GS ’73, Leighton ’78 thesis, Teach inducted into National Inventors Hall of Fame For America By Jackson Artis staff writer
By Allie Spensley staff writer
Local, contextualized solutions are needed to begin solving issues of educational inequity in America and abroad, Teach For America and Teach For All founder Wendy Kopp ’89 said in a lecture on Thursday. Teach for America is a national nonprofit organization that places recent college graduates in high-need rural and urban school districts for two-year teaching commitments. The organization grew out of Kopp’s senior thesis, titled “An Argument and Plan for the Creation of the Teacher Corps.” In 2007, Kopp created Teach For All, a global network of independent partner organizations in 44 different countries that have adapted the Teach For America model. Kopp said that she became obsessed with fighting educational inequity during her years at the University. As president of the student organization Business Today, Kopp organized a collegiate conference on education during her senior year. Debate at the conference gave her the idea to make her thesis a recruitment plan for a national teachers’ corps. “I’m grateful for the senior thesis requirement,” said Kopp. “Without it, Teach For America probably wouldn’t exist.” Kopp’s experience with Business Today introduced her to organizational leadership, which helped prepare her to found Teach For Amer-
ica the year after she graduated. Although she joined the group almost on accident — they were short on writers, so a member asked her to write an article her freshman year — she ultimately became its president, which included “managing a team of 60 people and learning how to build an organization,” Kopp said. When asked whether she had imagined that Teach For America would grow to the size it is today, Kopp said she had envisioned the organization quickly reaching the size of the Peace Corps, but did not anticipate its global impact. At first, she didn’t think about forming a multinational organization because she was focused on improving American education, but input from reformers in various countries made her interested in creating a worldwide effort. “There was something in the water, and in one year I heard from 13 people in 13 different countries,” Kopp explained. “I’ve learned how much more quickly we can move when we’re sharing across borders.” Kopp said that one of the most important things she’s learned from her experience with Teach For America is that local leadership is essential for effecting change in the educational system. She cited Anseye Pou Ayiti, a partner organization of Teach For All based in Haiti, as an effort to transform a country from within by developing its own leadership. See KOPP page 2
ALLIE SPENSLEY :: DAILY PRINCETONIAN
In a lecture on Thursday, Wendy Kopp discussed her journey from Princeton to founding Teach For America.
“The world needs more inventors and more entrepreneurs and people who are going to change the world,” Eli Harari GS ’73 said. Tonight, two alumni, Harari and F. Thomson Leighton ’78, will be inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Harari and Leighton will be recognized along with 13 other honorees for their accomplishments in their respective
fields. Harari received his Ph.D. from the University in mechanical and aerospace engineering, but he said that his eventual career path was actually an accident. He explained that his original intention was to be a researcher, but his research led him to invent an Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory, a type of memory used by many computers that allows small amounts of data to be stored or erased, and reprogrammed if nec-
essary. “This is a great honor to join the hall of fame which has all the legends before me,” Harari said. “It’s a wonderful surprise.” Harari added that he was very honored and excited to be among the ranks of world-changing inventors like Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, and Alexander Graham Bell, who are also part of the Hall of Fame. Reaching this point was not his See INVENTORS page 3
ON CAMPUS
COURTESY OF UPENN.EDU
Kane’s lecture was given in honor of the late physicist Donald Hamilton.
Kane discusses exotic properties of quantum mechanics, electronics By Samvida Venkatesh senior writer
Approximately 200 people gathered on Thursday to hear professor Charles Kane from the University of Pennsylvania discuss how quantum mechanics can enable electronic phases of matter to have both exotic and useful properties. Kane believes that Benjamin Franklin, who was the first to coin the term electric charge and whose discoveries led to much of the discussion on quantum matter today, epitomizes what is good about science. “Good science is both fundamental and useful, and that’s where quantum is,” he said. Kane explained that our
understanding of the fundamental properties of quantum matter is continuing to evolve. “The organizing principles of quantum matter, topological phases amongst them, continue to be uncovered,” he said. Kane explained that one of the fundamental difficulties in quantum computing, that of accidental measurement and destruction of quantum information, could be solved using topological superconductors. Instead of using bits that are either 0 or 1, like a regular computer does, a quantum computer uses “qubits” that can be 0, 1, or both at the same time, enabling the quantum computer to process much
larger data than a regular computer, he noted. However, since measurement destroys quantum information, finding the state of the qubit is a challenge that can be overcome using topological superconductors that allow a qubit to be split in half, Kane said. He added that once the qubit is split in half, no local measurement can determine the state of the qubit, thus topologically protecting this quantum information. Kane recognized the work done at the University that enabled many of these discoveries, including Duncan Haldane’s Nobel Prize-winning work on topological phase matter and the growth and spectroscopy of crystals. This work has allowed for the study of atomic level transitions and scanning tunneling microscopy experiments that have verified some of the results. Kane graduated from the University of Chicago, earned a Ph.D. at MIT, and worked at IBM before moving to the University of Pennsylvania, where he discovered topological insulators in three dimensions. A topological insulator in three dimensions is an insulator on the outside and a conductor on the inside, Kane said. However, when cut, the outside insulating surface wraps around and topologically protects the conductor. While regular phases of matter, like solid-liquid or conductor-insulator, are familiar to us all, topological phases are equivalent if they can continuously be deformed into each other, Kane explained. So while a See HAMILTON page 3
S T U D E N T A F FA I R S
PPPD creates petition to send proposal to Board of Trustees
staff writer
Princeton Private Prison Divest has urged members of the University community to sign a petition in support of an open letter to the Board of Trustees, encouraging the Board to state that they will not invest in private prisons in the future. In an open letter posted online, PPPD claims that “the consultative and governance processes for recommending divestment have broken
In Opinion
down.” “Although we have met all three of the necessary bars for placing the matter of prison divestment before the board — sustained engagement, demonstrated campus consensus, and a conflict with core university values — Princeton University’s Resources Committee has publicly announced that they will not bring this matter to the board,” the letter states. PPPD member Eliot Callon ’20 said that the group is asking the Board of Trust-
The Board calls for the reestablishment of the campus pub, guest Teddy Fassberg explains his support for J Street U, and the Network of Enlightened Women and Isaac Martinez separately criticize “The conservative prosecution complex.” PAGE 4
ees to look at the proposal regardless of whether the CPUC Resources Committee recommends divestment to the Board. She noted that normally, a proposal regarding divestment is sent to the Resources Committee for consideration before recommendation to the Board of Trustees. However, according to Callon, the Resources Committee is not adequately addressing the issue, necessitating alternative action. “The Resources Commit-
tee has not taken us seriously. They have not shown any evidence that they have engaged seriously with our proposal,” said Callon. “[Resources Committee Chair Michael Littman] really displayed a shocking lack of knowledge about the issue ... and after meeting with [the committee] for over a year and explaining these things to them both on paper and in person, the lack of knowledge that they exhibit on the issue shows that they are not qualified to be assessing this.”
Today on Campus 8:30 a.m.: The Ethics of Computer Science Research Conference will take place in Frist Campus Center MultiPurpose Room B B04B from 8:30 - 1:30.
“We’ve had several referenda [that demonstrated] overwhelming support from undergraduates, from graduate students. We’ve had, I think, over 180 faculty sign a petition calling for divestment,” noted Callon. Callon also described supporting private prisons as incredibly hypocritical and “against University values.” “The biggest argument against private prisons ... is that they incentivize incarceration and they make peoSee PPPD page 3
WEATHER
By Mashad Arora
HIGH
70˚
LOW
58˚
Rain. chance of rain:
100 percent
page 2
Kopp: Without senior thesis requirement, Teach For America might not exist KOPP
Continued from page 1
.............
“The issues we’re fighting right now are eerily similar from place to place. If the issues are similar, then the solutions are shareable,” Kopp said. She also emphasized that interaction and discussion between different groups in the educational system is a crucial part of forming workable solutions to inequities. “Students, parents, businesspeople, and key stakeholders need to come together and say: ‘What do we want for our kids?’” she said. “Without doing this, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere.” A common misconception about Teach For America is that its only goal is placing teachers in low-income urban and rural communities for two years, Kopp said. In actuality, the organization’s primary aim is to find solutions for “the big, complex, systemic challenges that can’t be solved in classrooms alone,” Kopp explained. The teacher placement component aims to help students who are not having their educational needs met within their current system. Kopp cited Washington, D.C., Camden, N.J., and Chicago, Ill., as examples of urban school districts where Teach For America has found success in increasing high
The Daily Princetonian
school and college graduation rates. “The college graduation rate of kids in the Chicago Public Schools has doubled in the past eight years,” Kopp explained. She acknowledged that there is still much work to be done in these communities, as the college graduation rate in Chicago is still only at 12 percent. Kopp said that many of the teachers she’s spoken to realize how complex the problem of solving educational inequity is after their two-year commitment, but also gain a sense of possibility and a belief that they can make a difference in changing the system. Audience questions dealt with how Kopp used her thesis to create Teach For America, whether she has considered partnering with prison education groups, and the retention rate of Teach For America corps members after their two-year commitments. The lecture, titled “Wendy Kopp: From Senior Thesis to Global Impact,” took place at 6 p.m. on Thursday in Frist 302. The event was sponsored by Teach For America at Princeton, the Ivy Club Leadership Committee, and Business Today, and was moderated by Business Today president Colleen Kang ’18.
T HE DA ILY
The best place to Write Edit Opine Design Produce Illustrate Photograph Create on campus. join@dailyprincetonian.com
Friday may 5, 2017
01011101101000100101001010010010100100101110001 01010010111011010001001010010100100101001001011 10001010100101110110100010010100101001001010010 01011100010101001011101101000100101001010010010 10010010111000101010010111011010001001010010100 10010100100101110001010100101110110100010010100 10100100101001001011100010101001011101101000100 10100101001001010010010111000101010010111011010 00100101001010010010100100101110001010100101110 11010001001010010100100101001001011100010101001 01110110100010010100101001001010010010111000101 01001011101101000100101001010010010100100101110 00101010010111011010001001010010100100101001001 01110001010100101110110100010010100101001001010 01001011100010101001011101101000100101001010010 01010010010111000101010010111011010001001010010 11101101000100101001010010010100100101110001010 10010111011010001001010010100100101001001011100 01010100101110110100010010100101001001010010010 11100010101001011101101000100101001010010010100 10010111000101010010111011010001001010010100100 10100100101110001010100101110110100010010100101 00100101001001011100010101001011101101000100101 00101001001010010010111000101010010111011010001 00101001010010010100100101110001010100101110110 10001001010010100100101001001011100010101001011 10110100010010100101001001010010010111000101010 01011101101000100101001010010010100100101110001 for (;;) 01010010111011010001001010010100100101001001011 { 10001010100101110110101001010010100100101001001 System.out.print(“Join ”); 01110001010100101110110100010010100101001001010 System.out.println(“Web!”); 01001011100010101001011101101000100101001010010 } 01010010010111000101010010111011010001001010010 10010010100100101110001010100101110110100010010 10010100100101001001011100010101001011101101000 10010100101001001010010010111000101010010111011 01000100101001010010010100100101110001010100101 Dream in code? 11011010001001010010100100101001001011100010101 00101110110100010010100101001001010010010111000 Join the ‘Prince’ web staff 10101001011101101000100101001010010010100100101 11000101010010111011010001001010010100100101001 00101110001010100101110110100010010100101001001 01001001011100010101001011101101000100101001010 01001010010010111000101010010111011010001001010 01010010010100100101110001010100101110110100010 join@dailyprincetonian.com 01010010100100101001001011100010101001011101101 00010010100101001001010010010111000101010010111 01101000100101001010010010100100101110001010100 10111011010001001010010100100101001001011100010 10100101110110100010010100101001001010010010111 00010101001011101101000100101001010010010100100 10111000101010010111011010001001010010100100101 00100101110110100010010100101001001010010010111 00010101001011101101000100101001010010010100100 10111000101010010111011010001001010010100100101 00100101110001010100101110110100010010100101001 00101001001011100010101001011101101000100101001 01001001010010010111000101010010111011010001001 01001010010010100100101110001010100101110110100 01001010010100100101001001011100010101001011101 10100010010100101001001010010010111000101010010 11101101000100101001010010010100100101110001010 10010111011010001001010010100100101001001011100 01010100101110110100010010100101001001010010010 11100010101001011101101000100101001010010010100 10010111000101010010111011010001001010010100100 10100100101110001010100101110110100010010100101001001010010010111000101010010111011010001001010 01010010010100100101110001010100101110110100010 01010010100100101001001011100010101001011101101 00010010100101001001010010010111000101010010111 01101000100101001010010010100100101110001010100 10111011010001001010010100100101001001011100010 10100101110110100010010100101001001010010010111 00010101001011101101000100101001010010010100100 10111000101010010111011010001001010010100100101 00100101110001010100101110110100010010100101001 00101001001011100010101001011101101000100101001 01001001010010010111000101010010111011010001001 01001010010010100100101110001010100101110110100 01001010010100100101001001011100010101001011101 10100010010100101001001010010010111000101010010 11101101000100101001010010010100100101110001010 10010111011010001001010010100100101001001011100 01010100101110110100010010100101001001010010010 11100010101001011101101000100101001010010010100 10010111000101010010111011010001001010010100100 10100100101110001010100101110110100010010100101
Friday may 5, 2017
Leighton, Harari credit U. education for success INVENTORS Continued from page 1
.............
primary goal when he entered his field of entrepreneurship, Harari explained. Rather, he had been retired for roughly six years before receiving the good news. Leighton graduated from the University with highest honors in the electrical engineering and computer science departments. Leighton, along with his partner Daniel Lewin, invented a means of efficiently copying and distributing content over wide areas and large networks of servers. Leighton and Lewin founded Akamai Technologies, which works in content delivery, the same area as Leighton and Lewin’s invention. “It was quite an honor and very exciting. [It was] really a testament to the hard work of thousands of people at Akamai over the past couple of decades that really made this recognition possible,” Leighton said. Leighton said that his ultimate goal was to make the internet faster, more reliable, and more secure. “I began to get interested in the process around internet congestion, and how could we get the internet to work better, and ulti-
The Daily Princetonian
page 3
mately that lead to the creation of a company, Akamai, to make that happen,” he explained. Leighton said he initially pursued a career in academia and thoroughly enjoyed the work, but through his academic work, he was able to recognize the problem of internet congestion and ultimately strove to fix it. “I think entrepreneurship is really a very valuable and exciting thing,” Leighton said. “It can be a great learning experience and you can make a real difference in the world.” Leighton emphasized that although it can often be challenging to achieve one’s dreams, students should always try. Although entrepreneurship is certainly a 24/7 endeavor, he said it is one that can have significant payoffs both for the individual and the world around them. Leighton and Harari both emphasized that they thoroughly enjoyed their time as students at the University. Citing the learning environment and the presence of many great minds, including professors and students, Harari and Leighton both said they truly appreciated their education and felt that their time at Princeton was pivotal for their paths.
COURTESY OF AKAMAI (LEFT) / PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
F. Thomson Leighton (left) and Eli Harari were recently inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame.
Callon: Private prisons Kane: Benjamin Franklin epitomizes incentivize incarceration what is good about science PPPD
Continued from page 1
.............
ple into merchandise,” said Callon. “If you look at contracts of private prison companies, whether it’s private prisons or it’s private immigration detention centers, they refer to people as units, and a lot of the states have quotas that have to be met in order to fulfill the contracts which means that they’re working hard to keep their prisons full.” Callon also noted that something many people don’t think about often is private immigration detention centers, which she claimed can be as harmful as private prisons. She noted that even
if private prisons are reduced or eliminated, corporations “are immediately going to pivot and find another place to make money.” Under Trump,” Callon noted, “I personally am very worried of [private immigration detention centers] becoming a booming industry.” “We have this huge problem with prisons right now. It’s a prison crisis, and I don’t want to see this country headed in a similar direction with immigration detention,” Callon continued, “and I think that’s something that we have the moral duty to step in the way of, to solve.” Members of PPPD did not specify when they plan to turn in the petition to the University.
HAMILTON Continued from page 1
.............
clay coffee mug can be reshaped into a donut, with the handle becoming the hole, an orange and a donut are not topologically equivalent because there is no way to make the donut from the orange without poking a hole in it, he added.
“The impossible can happen at the boundary of two different topological phases,” Kane said. An electron, which is known to carry a quantized unit of charge, is split in half — but the principle can be applied more generally, enabling the splitting of qubits in quantum computing. Kane’s talk constituted the 42nd Annual Donald
R. Hamilton Lecture given in honor of the late Donald Hamilton, an atomic and nuclear experimental physicist who made significant contributions to the University’s Department of Physics. The lecture took place in McDonnell A02 at 8 p.m.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 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.
T HE DA ILY
Revealing the truth, one news story at a time.
Opinion
Friday may 5, 2017
page 4
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
EDITORIAL
Reestablish the campus pub
The Editorial Board is an independent body and decides its opinions separately from the regular staff and editors of The Daily Princetonian. The Board answers only to its CoChairs, the Opinion Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief. It can be reached at editorialboard@dailyprincetonian. com.
F
or far too long Princeton has been without its old watering hole, the campus pub. From 1973 through 1983, Princeton faculty and students commonly converged on the campus pub to socialize over a cold brew after a long day of class. Sadly, the campus pub’s run ended in 1984 when the University shut it down after New Jersey raised the legal drinking age to 21. Thirty years after the pub served its last drink, the conversation to bring back the campus pub began. In 2010, the Working Group on Campus Social and Residential Life, a task force composed of undergraduates, faculty members, and various staff of the University including Vice President and Secretary Robert Durkee ’69, was asked to investigate whether the University should reintroduce the campus pub. This task force unanimously recommended the campus pub be reestablished. Shortly after, a steering committee was formed, and in November 2012, the University sought a license from the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the project. Nearly five years have passed
with no further developments. During this time, the Editorial Board has continually supported the proposition of bringing back the campus pub and, as recently as two years ago, offered advice on reestablishing the pub. In light of the extended lull in conversation and the absence of further action, the Board feels it necessary to reaffirm our support for bringing back the campus pub. We believe the campus pub should return to its original location where Chancellor Green Café now operates. This location is central enough on campus to accommodate all students, faculty, and staff while being far enough from the Street to discourage patrons from abusing the pub. The pub and café would operate at different times of the day, allowing for the cafe to maintain its usual operations. The pub would operate from 5 p.m. until around midnight while the café would maintain its current hours during the week, staying open until 4:30 p.m. at the latest. In order to accommodate the new dual role of the space and to create a pub-like atmosphere, a few minor renovations would need to occur to achieve the appropriate wood-paneled taproom feel. A campus pub would bring many social benefits to the campus community and greatly aid in building a healthy atmosphere of academic discourse. The University is a community of scholars who crave intellectual
engagement and can only engage with one another through personal interaction. A campus pub would provide the perfect venue for the University community to interact with one another over the shared experience of consuming refreshing drinks and delicious food. To remain inclusive to those under 21 and fulfill its purpose of fostering a sense of community, the campus pub would serve non-alcoholic beverages and pub food, along with alcoholic beverages for those over 21. Furthermore, a campus pub would provide graduate students with an additional social opportunity that would allow them to interact more with the campus as a whole, specifically undergraduates. An improved dialogue between the graduate college and the undergraduate student body would allow undergraduates to discuss career or academic issues with graduate students, helping bridge the divide between the two groups. Opening the pub during the café’s off hours would restrict student groups’ ability to reserve the space. But there is a surplus of places on campus that students can reserve, and we believe the café would be better utilized if it were transformed into a pub that the entirety of the campus, rather than just a few, would be able to enjoy. There are also worries that some students may abuse the pub by using it as a place to pregame or practice unsafe drinking behavior. In order to
minimize possible abuse, the campus pub would be staffed by professional bartenders who would have the prerogative to stop serving overly intoxicated individuals. If the situation escalated after a patron was cut off from drinks, the pub would have a Public Safety officer positioned at its entrance to deal with any further rowdy behavior that occurred. The presence of Public Safety officers and the judgement of trained bartenders will effectively protect the friendly and social atmosphere of the pub in the unlikely event that people attempt to utilize the pub in a manner not conducive to community building. With these checks in place, the campus pub would foster an environment modeling the responsible use of alcohol and, as a result, offer a healthy alternative to the high-risk drinking that occurs at pregames and on Prospect Avenue. As a place where all members of the campus community could come together to socialize and where the responsible consumption of alcohol is practiced, the campus pub would be a great addition to the University. We hope the University will begin to take the necessary actions to make the campus pub a reality so we won’t have to write this editorial again in another two years. Megan Armstrong ’19 abstained from the writing of this editorial.
In defense of the Pre-read
A response to the open letter to the President on the 2017 Pre-read Blakyi Kenyah columnist
A
ny current Princetonian has probably seen the open letter addressed to University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, appealing for (political, though it never says so directly) diversity in the selection of books assigned as Prereads to incoming first-years. The author bemoans the “tediousness” and “aridity” of recent selections, and posits what she describes as unfamiliar views, to be beneficial not only to “the free debate of diverse perspectives,” but also to stimulating discussion during and beyond the orientation discussion of these texts. While I am often reluctant to wade into public political discussions as I am not American, nor am I usually inclined to action, I found the author’s argument interesting and impulsively began to pen a response. I found her claim that the Preread is a good opportunity to introduce diverse texts to be misplaced, and laced with the unfounded accusation that this tradition serves as a channel through which readers are fed biased information. And while I agree with many of the author’s premises, I disagree with her about replacing the “dry” Pre-reads with more exciting texts simply to stimulate conversation. The Pre-read, as far as Princeton traditions go, is remarkably young, having made its entry only four years ago into the life of a 271-year-old institution to “[introduce] incoming freshmen to Princeton’s intellectual life.” Since 2013, works have been assigned from fields as diverse as philosophy (Kwame Anthony Appiah’s “The Honor Code”) and social psychology (Claude Steele’s “Whistling Vivaldi”). These texts have not been without their critics. A piece published in 2015 criticized
how unreadably high-brow Susan Wolf’s “Meaning in Life and Why It Matters” was. Another from the same year lampooned “Whistling Vivaldi” for its repetitiveness. Thus, this letter follows a long line of complaints. Yet, no other piece has questioned the partisanship of the texts — until now. But a look at the selection lineup over the years will quickly refute that claim. I cannot speak to the political affiliations of the authors, but the texts selected have no political bent. Indeed, the texts only started becoming relevant to present-day politics in 2015, with the assignment of “Whistling Vivaldi,” a monograph on stereotypes. The text afterwards was a reading of the Declaration of Independence in terms of equality and freedom. This year, the incoming first-years will be fortunate enough to enjoy Jan-Werner Müller’s “What is Populism?”, which is rather pertinent. Although I agree with the letter’s author that it is important to introduce people to all sides of an argument, I think it is also important to be exposed to non-partisan texts that articulate fundamental concepts, not as given truths, but as foundations for developing nuanced opinions. Such a foundation cannot be contained in texts propounding opposing views, which the author suggests as an alternative, as it can be in texts on social commentary, much akin to Plato’s “Republic” or Rawls’ “Theory of Justice.” I would be remiss not to point out that the concern in the open letter is rooted in the current criticism of liberal biases on college campuses. While I share that concern as a solid supporter of free speech, the Pre-read is not the arena for this tussle. Is it accurate to characterize the texts as implicitly partisan, as the letter does? I say no. Let’s look at the recent assign-
ments. The body of evidence from the scientific community overwhelmingly supports stereotypes as heuristics, and their harmful effects are indisputable. To assign to an entire class a book that suggests the opposite is tantamount to assigning a book on climate change denial in a climate science class. To label Steele’s work partisan is to claim that she was attempting a revisionist reading of the Declaration (to which, I would ask, what is wrong with reading a text as to foster inclusion?). Certainly, inclusion is beneficial. Besides, originalism is not just reserved for the right, as the news might have you believe. As for the present Pre-read, Melenchon (and perhaps Sanders) and populist illiberal democracies are proof that populism spans both wings. If the texts have no partisan bent, then is there a need for balance with an “engaging, scholarly book that argues for a non-liberal position”? Pre-reads are given with the expectation that first-years come in the fall prepared to discuss themes of the text with their peers under student leaders. The author of this letter argues that these accompanying small group discussions are unstimulating “not because students are “intellectually incurious ... but because many students find the texts tedious and arid.” Even ignoring the false dichotomy that students do not engage with texts either because the text is boring or because they are uninterested, this claim is still replete with much to discuss. I assume that the author describes the discussions as boring without evidence because she expects it to be common knowledge. However, this lack of evidence means I cannot engage with this claim beyond drawing from my personal experience. I led a Community Action trip last fall, and I learned
from leading one of these discussions that the texts are meant to guide conversation and serve as a fulcrum, not as the entire body. I learned that conversations are richer when we encourage students to draw from their personal experiences and perspectives as well. The conversations depend on so much more than the book, and the people leading the conversation matter. My co-leader was phenomenal, and our conversation lasted hours. We may be outliers, but our group was certainly not assembled based on our ability to discuss the Preread. It is therefore not unbelievable to suggest that the experience was not unique, or that it can be recreated. Now to the texts themselves, which the author describes as “tedious and arid.” One would wonder, then, what text would qualify as non-tedious and non-arid. Fortunately, the author does not leave us in suspense: “By assigning a reading that challenges students to consider views strikingly unlike their own, Princeton could induct students into a culture in which they are expected to engage openly and rigorously with the best arguments for views they reject.” So, a not-tedious and notarid text is one that contains views strikingly unlike one’s own. If Princeton is full of people who believe that stereotypes are heuristics that people draw on to make decisions and that they have to be aware of them, then it must be a great place for minorities! If Princeton’s student body consists of people who do not just pay lip service to equality and freedom, but actually believe they are fundamental to this country’s success, then the admissions committee is doing superb work! What a magnificent cohort they have drawn from all corners of the world! Alas, we know the truth, that truth must be constantly drummed, lest the
vol. cxli
Sarah Sakha ’18
editor-in-chief
Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager
BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 William R. Elfers ’71 Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Joshua Katz Kathleen Crown Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Randall Rothenberg ’78 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Annalyn Swan ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Jerry Raymond ’73
141ST MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Grace Rehaut ’18 Christina Vosbikian ’18 head news editor Marcia Brown ’19 associate news editors Abhiram Karuppur ’19 Claire Lee ‘19 head opinion editor Newby Parton ’18 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Nicholas Wu ’18 head sports editor David Xin ’19 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Claire Coughlin ’19 head street editor Jianing Zhao ’20 associate street editors Andie Ayala ’19 Catherine Wang ’19 web editor Sarah Bowen ’20 head copy editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Omkar Shende ’18 associate copy editors Caroline Lippman ’19 Megan Laubach ’18 chief design editor Quinn Donohue ’20 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19
NIGHT STAFF copy Jordan Antebi ’19 Douglas Corzine ’20
tune be forgotten. I appreciate the concern of the author, and the conservative in me even sympathizes with it, to some extent. However, I question whether taking on the Pre-read is the way to go, when it does not present any partisan views, implicitly or explicitly. Furthermore, if a text is “boring,” the core issue should be how to better present the concepts, rather than replace them with more contestable ones. I personally look forward to reading Müller’s text, agreeing and disagreeing where I have to, and discussing it in any core groups I find myself. And if in the future, a partisan text is assigned as a Pre-read, I can assure the author that they will be seeing a letter penned by yours faithfully. Blaykyi Kenyah is a sophomore from Sekondi, Ghana. He can be reached at bkenyah@princeton. edu.
Friday may 5, 2017
The Daily Princetonian
page 5
Letter to the Editor: CJL and the sound of silence
Teddy Fassberg
guest contributor
E
arlier this week, along with other veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces, I signed a letter in support of J Street U Princeton’s decision to invite the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence, composed of former IDF soldiers who seek to share their military experiences in the West Bank with Israeli society. J Street U had requested to host the photo exhibition in the Center for Jewish Life, and was turned down, sparking some controversy. Our letter did not address the role the CJL at Princeton played in this episode; I would like to do so here. The official reason given for the CJL’s refusal, that the exhibition coincides with Israeli Memorial and Independence Days, seems dubious. BtS had no intention of holding the exhibition on either of these dates. The details remain murky, presumably purposely so, but they are not important. Nor are the intentions of the decision makers
at the CJL, which I am far from doubting. What is important is the significance of what, with the greatest charity, could only be described as an unequivocal reluctance to host BtS. In order to appreciate its significance, context is needed. As fate would have it, the previous week the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, canceled his scheduled meeting with the German Foreign Minister in anger over the latter’s meeting with representatives of BtS and B’Tselem, which documents human rights violations in the occupied territories. Netanyahu used the same excuse, calling the minister’s meeting with these representatives in the week between Holocaust Remembrance Day and Memorial Day “tactless and insensitive.” The truth, as reported in Haaretz, is different. Netanyahu meant only to pander to his political base, not actually to endanger diplomatic relations with Germany, which is why the Israeli Foreign Ministry, headed directly by Netanyahu, directed the Israeli President to meet
with the German Foreign Minister. The next day, the Deputy Foreign Minister called BtS and other left-wing organizations “enemies of the state,” comparing them to Hamas. In light of the CJL’s almost literal adoption of Netanyahu’s rhetoric, its refusal — not to mention its alleged attempt to thwart BtS’s very visit to campus, and threat to cut ties with J Street U — implicitly acknowledges Netanyahu’s branding of BtS as illegitimate and obsequiously furthers it by extending the sphere of its de-legitimization within the Jewish world. In doing so, the CJL ironically aligned itself with Israeli politicians who do not consider Conservative or Reform Jews to be Jews at all, and who believe the idea of a female rabbi to be sacrilege. A few days after Netanyahu’s deputy declared them “enemies of the state,” two Israeli-Palestinian NGOs, Combatants for Peace and the Parents Circle, held their 12th annual joint Memorial Day ceremony, honoring victims from both sides. The Is-
raeli Minister of Defense refused to grant permits to 225 Palestinians who applied to enter Israel in order to attend the joint ceremony — that is, to honor fallen Israeli soldiers and victims of terrorism. Instead, Israelis traveled to the West Bank to hold a joint ceremony with them there. Four thousand other Israelis, among them members of bereaved families, crowded into a basketball arena in Tel Aviv for the main ceremony, and on their way in and out were attacked by scores of right-wing activists who, on the eve of Memorial Day, called them “Nazis,” “whores,” and “traitors,” who spat at them, threatened them, and hurled bags of urine at them. The police did little to intervene. The government did not condemn the violence; the Twitter account of the Israeli Minister of Education, Naftali Bennett, belittled its victims. The next political murder is but a matter of time. The significance of the refusal to host BtS within this context, then, is complicity in the persecution of the Israeli left and in
the attempts of the Netanyahu regime to quash resistance to the occupation. As the Israeli public has no right to silence the testimonies of soldiers it sent to the occupied territories, the CJL does not have the right, at least as long as it counts Israel as one of its “pillars,” along with leadership and social justice, to willfully ignore the occupation, let alone take part in the despicable attempt to erase it from public discourse. Through its pillars, the CJL’s mission states that it “aspires to lay the foundation for Jewish adulthood.” What kind of Jewish adulthood do its decision-makers set as an example for students, and what kind of foundation does it lay by being complicit in the greatest moral failing in Jewish history? As an Israeli, I feel betrayed by the CJL. As a Jew, I am ashamed. Teddy Fassberg is a member of Combatants for Peace and a graduate student in the Classics department. He can be reached at fassberg@ princeton.edu.
Letter to the Editor: A NeW take on women and conservatism guest contributors
W
e, the Executive Board of Princeton’s chapter of the Network of enlightened Women, write in response to this week’s opinion piece “The conservative persecution complex.” We do not consider ourselves persecuted or oppressed, either as conservatives or as women. Yet the piece’s author, Bhaamati Borkhetaria, charges that “social and even fiscal conservatism in the government often directly contributes to creating an imbalance of power against ethnic minority groups and women.” She goes on to describe conservative viewpoints as “racist, misogynistic, and often ignorant.” These claims present a biased and incorrect assumption that conservatives are not people of good will, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of what conservative policy ideas seek to accomplish. One of the most harmful trends in our national politics today is the tendency of people to assume that those who disagree with them are evil, “racist or sexist.” This cannot be assumed on face: very often those with whom you disagree are people of genuine good will who do not have negative intentions, but merely propose a different policy by which to achieve the same goal, or have a different order of policy
priorities. To cite the abortion example Borkhetaria mentions in her piece, it would be wrong for pro-life individuals to assume pro-choice individuals actively want to harm unborn children rather than acknowledge the premise that pro-choice individuals genuinely seek to uphold women’s autonomy. And it would be just as wrong for pro-choice individuals to assume, as Borkhetaria does, that pro-life individuals want to “harm” women rather than acknowledge the premise that pro-life individuals genuinely seek to protect life and unborn children. It should not be assumed that someone who disagrees with you on abortion or many other issues is a sexist or bad person. Reviewing actual conservative policies and their goals reveals that conservatism in fact seeks to empower women to achieve and thrive. For example, many conservatives oppose proposed measures like the Paycheck Fairness and FAMILY Acts that would intrude on wage negotiations and decisions between employers and their employees or mandate employers provide certain benefits. This is not because conservatives do not want women to receive equal pay or paid maternity leave, as many on the left erroneously claim. Rather, conservatives recognize that the more government mandates there are, the less individual choice and flexibility
each woman has to shape her own workplace and compensation decisions. Consider a female job applicant who does not plan to have children. Mandated maternity leave benefits would raise the cost of hiring female workers, and existing anti-discrimination laws prevent employers from having candid conversations with female applicants about their family plans. These two effects could combine to make it harder for the female applicant to find a job because employers would have no way of knowing she did not plan to have children, yet they might still assume the cost of hiring her would be as high as for a woman who did plan to have children and use maternity benefits. Or consider a young mother who may want to negotiate with her employer for a lower salary in order to spend more time working from home. Government mandates of equal pay may make this negotiation more challenging, as employers may be reluctant to pay a lower salary for fear it would appear their company has a discriminatory wage gap between men and women. These negative consequences are why conservatives support leaving salary and benefit decisions beyond government reach and to personal negotiations between individuals: we believe women will achieve better outcomes from this approach. For similar reasons, many
conservatives support lowering regulations and letting business owners, including women, pursue their dreams without burdensome government requirements. Many conservatives support lower taxes so all workers, including women, can have a higher take home pay. Many conservatives support school choice programs, such as vouchers, so that parents can be empowered to make the best education decisions for their children. These policies moreover have support from Republican women of diverse backgrounds from across the country: Mia Love, the first Black American elected to Congress from Utah; Susana Martinez of New Mexico, the first Hispanic female governor in the United States; Elise Stefanik of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress; Nikki Haley, the first female governor of South Carolina and the second Indian American governor in the United States; Condoleezza Rice, the first female African American Secretary of State; Carly Fiorina, former Presidential candidate; and many others. During the 2012 election, President Obama’s campaign released an interactive graphic titled the “Life of Julia,” depicting a fictional woman named Julia being supported from age 3 to 67 by various government programs. Some might say such “cradle-tograve” reliance on government
portrays an image of “Julia” and women more broadly as unable to support ourselves without government intervention for the entirety of our lives. Some might even call this a sexist depiction. We will assume the intention of the Obama campaign was not to portray women as weak and dependent but rather a good-willed intent to highlight policies that the campaign genuinely thought would improve women’s lives (albeit we disagree about the efficacy of these policies). We likewise hope our liberal peers will not assume conservative policies with which they disagree are born out of sexist attitudes. They are not; they rather aim to empower and support women. The upshot is clear: neither conservatives nor liberals are broadly sexist, and both conservatives and liberals want to support women and their economic and social advancement; their differences often lie in alternate policy solutions that target the same or similar ends. Signed, Allison Berger ’18, NeW President Rachel Glenn ’19, NeW Vice President Carrie Pritt ’20, NeW Treasurer Sofia Gallo ’17, NeW Senior Liaison These are our individual views and do not represent an official stance of NeW.
Letter to the Editor: In response to “The conservative persecution complex” Isaac Martinez
guest contributor
T
he article “The conservative persecution complex” by columnist Bhaamati Borkhetaria ’19 questions whether conservatives are being oppressed. In the first few paragraphs, she does an excellent job in setting up the conflict in question: Many conservatives feel hesitant to share their opinions when there is convincing evidence that right-leaning policies are harmful to minorities and foster power structures favorable to rich white males. But even as a politically liberal student, I could see that when analyzing the motivations behind conservative beliefs and policies, Borkhetaria’s article became more hostile and lacked a holistic view of conservative incentives. Take the talk on traditional marriage by Ryan Anderson ’04. Borkhetaria correctly says that views like those of Anderson invalidate the legal recognition of gay marriage, and students can even argue that Anderson’s is a sexist position. But there’s an important distinction between the policies that people advocate for and the motivations behind their beliefs. Many students claim that An-
derson’s viewpoint is sexist, but it’s harder to say that Anderson himself has sexist motivations, for a few reasons. First, anyone who was at his talk a few weeks ago can tell that he is a respectful individual. He made his arguments from an academic perspective, promoting studies that argue that a loving man and woman can raise children better than two loving gay parents. If we give Anderson the benefit of the doubt and say that he truly believes these studies, then it would be hard for me to call his motivations sexist. Granted, the data that he uses is mostly debunked. For this and other reasons, I disagree with Anderson on many of his points, and I think the implications of his position are problematic. But the point still stands that if Anderson truly believes in his data, his motivations are not rooted in sexism, but come from what he thinks would benefit society. Certainly, I wouldn’t want to give him or other conservatives who espouse similar viewpoints a position of political power, but I also wouldn’t call them sexist. To do so, you would have to call all your friends who oppose gay marriage — and respected leaders like Pope Francis — sexist. Borkhetaria assumes that the
viewpoints people espouse are inherently tied to their motivations. While this is certainly true in many cases, it is too strong of a statement to make as a general claim. As illustrated in the brief analysis of Anderson above, false beliefs about data and facts can cloud a person’s judgment on issues, whether it’s a conservative or a liberal viewpoint. There is another question that is raised through this discussion: What is to be done? Borkhetaria gives conservatives the green light to discuss their “sexist” and “racist” viewpoints and be called out for it. Unfortunately, arguing in this way is extremely unproductive and usually results in a heated discussion without any progress. For example, when discussing abortion, most Republicans believe that the life of an unborn child is as precious as the life of an adult. Democrats contend that the right of a woman to choose is more fundamental, even if they concede that the baby is alive in the womb. All too often, I have seen arguments on abortion turn into shouting matches. If we take Borkhetaria’s suggestion and have the liberal call his debater “sexist” for opposing women’s rights, this hostile statement automatically puts the con-
servative in a defensive frame of mind. Similarly, if the conservative calls the liberal a “baby killer,” then the liberal will only get angry, resulting in little progress in the discussion. Instead, there should be thorough conversation on the political policies of abortion laws and lengthy moral arguments about abortions in general. All of this should be done in a manner that aims at making both sides understand the facts and the philosophical positions of their debate opponent — something which I’m sure Borkhetaria agrees with. Simply labeling someone as sexist, however, will automatically impede this discussion by fostering hostile sentiments. The sexism (if it exists) can be called out, but it should be called out tactfully. Maybe there are some instances where racism and sexism need to be called out immediately, but certainly not in all discussions. Returning to the question of whether prejudice exists against conservatives, I agree that conservatives are not discriminated against nearly as badly as the black and LGBTQ+ communities. But if we take Borkhetaria’s definition of oppression as “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power,” is it unreasonable to say that being a minority on campus is a form of
being under social authority? Is it unreasonable to say that articles in the ‘Prince’ that label conservatives as racist and sexist are a minor form of social oppression from the majority? The “you are free to express your opinions, but we’ll call you a racist and a sexist” sentiments espoused by Borkhetaria’s article are exactly the reasons conservatives want to retreat into the closet, as no one wants to be labeled in such a negative way. Granted, obvious examples of racists and sexists are present and often easy to find within the conservative movement right now. You don’t need to look further than President Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, or Alex Jones. But many conservatives at Princeton and in the world have good intentions. Even if racist and sexist beliefs exist within certain ideologies, civil and nuanced conversations are the best way for both conservatives and liberals to be led toward the truth. Having these discussions in an appropriate manner is the best way that we as students can avoid any unintentional forms of oppression. Isaac Martinez is an operations research and financial engineering major from Peoria, Ariz. He can be reached at isaacm@princeton.edu.
Sports
Friday may 5, 2017
page 6
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S LACROSSE
Women’s lacrosse faces off against Penn in Ivy League tournament By Owen Tedford staff writer
With its win last Saturday against Columbia (7-8 overall, 2-5 Ivy), the women’s lacrosse team captured its fourth straight Ivy League title, its 13th in school history. Now that the regular season is behind them, the Tigers will turn to postseason play this weekend with the Ivy League tournament when they play the University of Pennsylvania at Cornell. Princeton has won two of the last seven Ivy League tournaments, most recently in 2015 and before that in 2011. Princeton (12-3, 6-1) had a great regular season, earning it a No. 6
ranking in the IWLCA Coaches Poll; this was the best in the Ivy League. The Tigers’ tournament draw of the Quakers in the first round is tough, as Penn is the next highest-ranked team tied for No. 7. Cornell and Harvard, the other two teams in the tournament, are No. 11 and unranked, respectively. Penn handed Princeton its only league loss so far this season in a midweek game at Penn. The Tigers were plagued by turnovers and cautions throughout the game, but were unable to overcome the Quakers’ five-goal lead in the first half. Princeton has since been undefeated, including a double overtime win at Cornell.
The Tigers’ success this season has been driven largely by two seniors: goalie Ellie DeGarmo and attack Olivia Hompe. Both were named in the top 25 nominees for the Tewaaraton Trophy, awarded to the top player in women’s college lacrosse. DeGarmo is the reigning NCAA Division I Goalie of the Year, and she is currently ranked fourth in the nation in saves per game, averaging 11.8 per game. Hompe, this year’s Ivy League Attacker of the Year, is currently leading the nation in goals per game, averaging 4.00 per game. The two players, who were both named to the All-Ivy First Team on Wednesday, will be vital to Princeton’s efforts
to beat Penn on Friday. Since the Ivy League tournament was created in 2010, the Quakers have been the most successful, winning more games and championships than any other team, with nine and three wins, respectively. Penn has been hot for a while, having not lost a game since late March, when it lost 11-7 against No. 1 Maryland. The Quakers’ key to success has been its defense, which is third best nationally, allowing just 7.73 goals per game and never giving up more than 12 in a game. The team’s defense is also best in the Ivy League. Moreover, on attack, Alex Condon has led Penn all season with 52
points on 41 goals and 11 assists. Condon’s performance this season has earned her recognition as one of the top 25 nominees for the Tewaaraton Award, as well as winning her the Ivy League Midfielder of the Year Award. Friday’s game has all the makings to be a classic addition to the Princeton-Penn rivalry. The game is set to face off at 4:05 p.m. at Cornell’s Schoellkopf Field. If the Tigers win on Friday, they will advance to Sunday’s final at the same location, starting at 11:05 a.m. The game will be streamed live on the Ivy League Digital Network.
TENNIS
Tennis holds fundraiser for Jacob Kaplan ’18
By David Xin
head sports editor
This Thursday, the tennis team held a fundraiser for junior Jacob Kaplan at the Lenz Tennis Center. Members of the community could play against varsity athletes in support of Kaplan’s fight against cancer.
Participants were asked to donate $15 towards Kaplan’s cause. Seniors Sivan Krems and Katrine Steffensen decided to organize the event after reading Kaplan’s GoFundMe page. “About a week ago I came across Jacob’s GoFundMe page. He raised a lot of funds through
that and it was very nice to see the Princeton community was being very involved in that page,” said Krems. “And we were just wondering what we could do. And maybe try to use our sport and friend groups to help out as best we can.” The fundraiser featured a round-robin doubles tourna-
ment, as well as a drill court for less experienced members. In addition, there was a raffle for prizes to cap off the afternoon. “We just wanted to get a lot of traction from our friend groups to donate and do something they would have fun doing. Once the event’s over, please read Jacob’s updates on
COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM
The men’s tennis team organized a fundraiser event for Jacob Kaplan ‘18, who was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in April.
his GoFundMe page. It’s just amazing what a community coming together can do,” said Krems. “We are all rooting for him.” “One family here at Princeton. Shows us to not take anything for granted,” said Katrine Steffensen, who helped coordinate the fundraiser. “We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so we have to make use of it.” Kaplan was diagnosed with stage 4 angiosarcoma in early April. Since then, Kaplan has shared his story through a GoFundMe campaign. He has raised $98,241 of the $150,000 goal, reaching over 1,500 donors. Due to the rarity of this type of cancer, its treatment is significantly costlier than for other cancers. Kaplan has pledged to donate any contributions exceeding the cost of his treatment towards angiosarcoma research. An avid programmer and member of Princeton Club Baseball, Kaplan plans to return to the University and complete his degree in computer science upon recovery.
MEN’S TENNIS
Gamble, Day head to NCAA tournament By David Xin head sports editor
Senior Alex Day and junior Luke Gamble earned an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament this past Wednesday. Gamble is a former opinion columnist for The Daily Princetonian. The pair, ranked as high as No. 13 earlier in the season, will compete in the NCAA Doubles Tournament later this month. They are the first Tigers to accomplish this feat since Kyle Kliegerman and John Portlock qualified as seniors in 2001. While Gamble and Day have partnered for a long time, the pair did not initially aim for a NCAA bid when the season started. “I was really surprised but also immediately grateful. Until this year, the possibility of going to the NCAA was not even on my radar. Now it is a possibility,” Gamble stated. “We had one really big win in the fall which catapulted our ranking quite a bit. After that I think we both
started thinking about it. It only really became part of the public thought process about halfway through the season when we realized it was a real possibility.” The Princeton duo earned the NCAA bid for being the highestranked Ivy League team and being ranked in the top 60 nationally. Indeed, Day and Gamble had their fair share of success this season. The doubles pair is 19-13 this season and 3-1 against other nationally ranked competitors. This season, the two managed to top then top-ranked Julian Cash and Arjun Kadhe of Oklahoma State. They have also bested two No. 9-ranked doubles teams from Rice and UC Santa Barbara, respectively, in dual meets during the season. Part of this success can be attributed to the strong chemistry between Gamble and Day. “Alex and I have been playing together for a long time. We actually played in junior tennis several times. We played all of last year together and every match this season until the very end,” Gamble stated. “We are a team
Tweet of the Day “Congrats to @PtonMensTennis’ Alex Day and Luke Gamble, who earned a bid to the @NCAA doubles championship” princeton tigers (@putigers)
that tends to perform well under pressure. I think we both really enjoy playing doubles so we tend to play pretty relaxed and I think both of us just kind of enjoy the opportunity.” In addition to receiving an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, Gamble and Day have also earned All-Ivy League hon-
ors. The two won second-team doubles honors, while Day also earned second-team singles recognition. The Princeton team will compete at the University of Georgia from May 24 to 29. Tournament brackets will be announced later this month. “I am really looking forward to
just being able to play in Athens at the tournament,” said Gamble. “It is kind of a culmination of a lot of hard work and some fun wins. Athens is kind of the Mecca of college tennis. All the greats have played there and it is an honor to be able to compete at the highest level of college tennis.”
COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM
Senior Alex Day (left) and junior Luke Gamble are the first two men’s tennis athletes to qualify for the NCAA Doubles Championship since 2001.
Stat of the Day
.450 batting average
Earning CoSIDA Academic All-District honors, senior outfielder Marissa Reynolds leads the Ivy League in batting average at .450.
Follow us Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!