Page 1

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Tuesday June 6, 2017 vol. cxli no. 64



Q&A: George Whitesides ’96, CEO of space exploration firm Virgin Galactic By Abhiram Karuppur associate news editor

George Whitesides ‘96 is the CEO of Virgin Galactic, which is developing commercial spacecraft aimed at providing the public with flights into suborbital space, starting as early as 2018. Whitesides sat down with the ‘Prince’ to talk about his Princeton experience, his foray into the aerospace industry, and the ramifications of spaceflight on our daily lives. The Daily Princetonian: Could you talk about your Princeton experience, and how you got involved with the space exploration field? George Whitesides: I’m from the Boston area, my dad is a Harvard professor. I loved the community feel at Princeton, I loved that people would smile at each other. So I came to Princeton and actually thought I was going to be an engineer, but ended up in Woody Woo taking some engineering classes, including a terrific course by Jerry Gray, who taught a course called MAE 399 [Faster & Higher: The Romance and Reality of Space Flight], which was a really creative course. It allowed you to sort of think through a space project from all aspects, not just the technical, but also business, and regulatory and everything, and I loved that integrative approach and, by the way, I think it’s awesome that the new Dean of Engineering is speaking about that integrative learning approach. I got a Fulbright Scholarship when I graduated, and I went to Tunisia, and I had a lot of time to think about what

I wanted to do in the future. The headline was, there were sort of a few different areas that were going to be big in terms of the future: one was neuroscience, another was space. I decided my true passion was space, so I came back and I started working in space areas, space businesses, space policy. I started a few things, I started a business that did zero gravity flights for people, and ran a space policy organization called the International Space Society. Then, I went to NASA, where I was chief of staff. I had bought a couple of tickets to Virgin Galactic, and they recruited me to be their CEO, and I’ve been there for about seven years now. DP: As a Woody Woo major in a science-dominated industry, do you have a unique perspective when dealing with the company operations or identifying new projects? GW: I like to think that I have enough of a technical background that I can reasonably be technically literate. As a manager, I mostly deal with people. One of the things I do is that I’m on the MAE Advisory Board at Princeton … and the same thing at Caltech. The thing that I tell folks is that you can be the most brilliant person, but unless you can help make a team work, you won’t be as effective as you can be. I think that the top educational institutions can do more to train future leaders by working in teams, because that’s what you do in the real world. In general, you don’t work alone, it’s very rare to be alone working on something. I think that in many aspects of

the educational system where you do work alone, you don’t really mimic real life. So, I deal with people, and Woody Woo was pretty good at that because it has the policy seminar … where you work together on teams. It’s not perfect, but I think that kind of thing is a really helpful background. DP: In April 2017, Virgin Galactic had a successful test of SpaceShipTwo, the spacecraft that will eventually take people into space. Could you describe how SpaceShipTwo is different from the conventional spacecraft people are used to seeing, and why it’s significant? GW: At a top level, I think space is going to be really important to the future of humanity, for a lot of different reasons. Understanding our climate, communications, navigation, transportation, exploration, all of these things are the best parts and really important parts of the human experience. Space plays an important role in all of them. What’s the problem? One of the problems is access in space, it’s still a very expensive and challenging endeavor. That is starting to change, which is really exciting, and why is it starting to change? I would say that there are two different reasons. One is that there’s been an influx of private capital, primarily from visionary investors like Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos ’86 and Elon [Musk], new sources of capital organized in private corporations. Also, the concept of reusability is really starting to take See WHITESIDES page 2


Judge Clifton was, in part, responsible for an appeals court decision that upheld the earlier ruling staying the immigration ban.

Q&A: Trump E.O. Judge Richard Clifton ’72 By Abhiram Karuppur associate news editor

Richard Clifton ‘72 is a Senior Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where he has served since 2002. In February 2017, he was one of three judges on the Ninth Circuit that heard and ultimately resolved the case dealing with Executive Order 13769, the first iteration of the Trump Administration’s immigration executive order. He talked to the ‘Prince’ about his Princeton experience, his long career in law in Hawaii, and his analysis of the immigration executive order case. The Daily Princetonian: Why did you decide to apply to

Princeton, and how was your Princeton experience? Richard Clifton: I went to a high school that regularly sent graduates to Princeton, so I learned about it from people in the class two years older than me. This was New Trier High School in the suburbs of Chicago, and I knew a couple people pretty well, let’s be blunt, a couple guys really well. I was a member of the last all-male entering class, so it was only guys then. I knew a couple guys two years ahead of me in high school…and they were all enthusiastic and encouraged me See CLIFTON page 4


Q&A: Judge Andrew Napolitano ‘72 associate news editor

Judge Andrew Napolitano ‘72 is a national syndicated columnist and a senior judicial analyst at Fox News, providing legal commentary, where he has been for 20 years. He sat down with the ‘Prince’ to discuss his time at Princeton, and the rise of “fake news” and his own experience dealing with the issue. The Daily Princetonian: Why did you apply to Princeton, and how would you describe your Princeton experience? Andrew Napolitano: Well, I received a full scholarship to Princeton, which enabled me to attend. I come from a bluecollar family, and in the firstgeneration in my family to attend any university, much less Princeton. So, it was a great gift for which I continue to be grateful. I majored in history, if you look at the records of The Daily Princetonian from that era, 1968-1972, you’ll see that I was incredibly active in campus politics. There were not very many conservative political activists on campus in that Vietnam era, pre-Watergate era. But, I was among them. It was a fabulous experience that I look back on with quite fondness. There were a lot of ideological and intellectual clashes in the classroom as well as the undergraduate assembly and elsewhere. But, I

In Opinion

would retain it tomorrow and I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

DP: Could you talk a little more about your major, and how you decided to study it? AN: Well, I probably decided before I got there, but I majored in history, in my case it was mainly American history. But, at the time, the history department wouldn’t let you major in just the history of one country or one region. So, I also studied European history and Roman history with a notorious professor by the name of Frank Bourne, who was immensely popular with students, and he taught courses in Roman history and Roman law, and a lot of the students going to law school took his course. I also took a course by the late, great Walter Murphy called Constitutional Interpretation, a class first crafted by Woodrow Wilson when he was a professor at Princeton. A course which then, nearly everybody who was planning to go to law school took. I assume it’s the same today, it’s taught by Robbie George today. DP: How did you wind up serving on the New Jersey Superior Court? What kind of cases did you here? AN: In Jersey, judges are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate for seven years, and when recon-

Senior Columnist Ryan Dukeman reflects on his time at Princeton, and Columnist Ryan Chavez explains why a Mexican-themed party is problematic. PAGE 8

firmed, then you have it for life. So I was appointed by a fellow Princetonian, Tom Kean [‘57], for whom I had worked as a very young lawyer in his first election campaign, which was the subject of a recount, and he won it by 1,700 votes out of 2.5 to 3 million cast. Governor Kean was very generous to me, and was looking for someone who was young, had an Ivy League education, and who wanted to make the judiciary a career, and I seemed to fit his mold. The New Jersey Superior Court has jurisdiction over everything in the state, state and federal matters, and hears everything from jaywalking to murder, from divorces to complex commercial disputes, and everything in between. I probably have sentenced about 1,000 people, presided over more than 150 jury trials, and handled thousands of motions, applications, nonjury procedures of every stripe and variety that you can imagine. I was given my lifetime tenure position when Governor Christine Todd Whitman reappointed me to the bench. I obviously didn’t serve the full term, since I left ostensibly to go back into private practice, but television beckoned, literally a couple of weeks after I left when the O.J. Simpson trial came along, and CNBC, for which I worked before Fox, engaged me to be one of their legal experts in the O.J. case.

DP: Is there a reason you decided to leave the judiciary?

AN: You know I publicly stated my reason about a 100 times, and it sounds a little crass but it’s true: I was tired of being poor. My work on the judiciary had evolved into a lot of teaching. I was teaching full-time at Seton Hall Law School, and I was lecturing all over the country, where we’re not allowed to be compensated for it. It was an era where young lawyers were making a lot more than judges were in their first year of practice right after law school. I suppose if I had been among the elder judges, rather than among the younger, who had already accumulated a nest egg, I might have looked at it differently. But at the time Tom Kean appointed me, I was the youngest in the state, I’m still the youngest to have achieved, or it’s not an achievement since it’s biological, still the youngest to have received a lifetime position. But the prohibition on lifetime incomes and the low judicial salary drew me back into private practice, in my own case, not imagining that television would come along. DP: How does your prior service as a judge affect the way you approach and analyze the news? Does it give you a different perspective?

AN: It does, it does. You know, I have been teaching for many years the Constitution at Delaware Law School and Seton Hall Law School, and now at Brooklyn Law School. So I tend to look at what the government does through the focus of a person who has studied the Constitution, and also through the focus of a judge, thinking what I would do if I were there. I try to take the side of the Constitution, rather than the side of one of the litigants in the case, probably because of my years as a judge. At Fox, for example, I serve a couple of roles, one is to explain the law and the Constitution, and in my case as well Economics 101. So, those not educated in the law, in the Constitution, or in Economics 101 can understand it. Because of my fairly well-defined ideological views as the house libertarian here, I’m also called upon to express my small government view of these issues. It’s just the way my work here has evolved. I’ve written nine books on the Constitution, and they’re titled “It’s Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong,” “Nation of Sheep,” you know they’re all written from the small-government, Jeffersonian, Madisonian, since we’re talking about Princeton, view of the Constitution, as opposed to the Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson view of the Constitution. See NAPOLITANO page 2

Today on Campus 10:30 a.m.: Commencement for the graduating senior Class of 2017 will begin, ending at 12:30 p.m.


By Abhiram Karuppur





Cloudy with showers. chance of rain:80 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Tuesday June 6, 2017

Whitesides: For graduates, it’s the most exciting time since Apollo WHITESIDES Continued from page 1


root in space. That’s really important because, for the past 50 years, the way spaceships have gone to space is like you build a spaceship, which is sort of an order of magnitude the cost and complexity of a modern jetliner. And then you fly it to space, and you throw it away at the end of that journey. So you’re building this 100 million dollar object and then you throw it away, so no wonder space is expensive. If you had a 747 and you flew it across the Atlantic, and you threw it away and never used it again, air travel would be expensive too. Of course, it’s not expensive because we reuse that, the 747 [we use] 10,000 times or whatever it is, and we’re just starting to use [spacecraft]. So SpaceX has made some progress on that, Blue Origin has made some great progress on that, and we’re starting to make progress on that. Our vehicle SpaceShipTwo is a fully reusable vehicle that’s designed to take people and experiments up into space on a high-frequency basis. Right now, you take a reusable space shuttle, flew it multiple times a year, but really the separation and time was

months and months between flights of a single vehicle. Our aspiration is to be flying once a week, maybe a couple times a week, which would be truly revolutionary. It would open up space in a way that it has never been done before. What would be the benefits of that? Dramatically more people could go to space, or scientific experiments could get access to the space environment. In general, it would essentially pave the way for trips around the planet, that would be space based. Instead of spending 15 hours to go to Europe or Asia or whatever, you could get there in an hour or two. We’re just at the start of that, in many respects sort of like the very start of commercial aviation in the United States. We’re still trying different ideas, different technologies, there are new companies popping up to attack these problems, create new solutions. So it’s a really exciting time. DP: You and Richard Branson have indicated that Virgin Galactic will take its first passengers into space starting in 2018. Could you describe what the experience will be like on that first flight? GW: What we’ll be doing is

that you’ll come down to, we have a spaceport in New Mexico called Spaceport America, and it is a commercial spaceport, where you’ll get trained for three, four days down there on how to use the vehicle, how to be safe, how to get the most out of your experience. Then, on flight day, you’ll get up early and your spaceship will be out on the tarmac. We have an airlaunch system, so we have a carrier aircraft that carries the spaceship up using just a jet engine, up to about 50,000 feet, where the spaceship releases and the rocket motor ignites, taking you up into space. That whole journey will last around two hours or so … and once the rocket motor stops firing, after about a minute, everybody will feel weightless. You can get out of your seat, roam around the cabin, and you’re not in space for a dramatically long time, but it’s a suborbital journey. Then you come back in, and you’ll basically glide to a landing at the same runway which you took off from originally. DP: If you were to project 10, 20 years in the future, what will be the direct impact of space travel? Will it be possible to set up human colonies in outer space?

GW: I think there will be a lot of different effects. Closer to home, we will have the opportunity to build what we call point-to-point vehicles, which are rocket-powered or partly rocket-powered, that will dramatically reduce the time it takes to get to different points on the Earth’s surface. We’ve already begun putting together some designs for that. Having more access to space will enable significantly more satellites in space, whether for weather prediction, climate analysis, super-high precision navigation, for the next generation of autonomous cars, or autonomous airplanes, or electric aviation. Ubiquitous high-bandwidth communications, so wherever you are on the surface of the planet, you’ll be able to get broadband with space and terrestrial networks. All that will be really exciting, those are all benefits that will accrue to the people on planet Earth. As we look outwards, I think depending on your time framework, we’re going to be establishing some kind of outpost on the Moon. We’ll make expeditions to Mars. I think that there may be opportunities to take advantage of resources in space, which is something that we’re starting to contemplate

now. That means taking advantage of ice in the lunar poles for rocket fuel. A little bit further out, you’re starting to look at really exciting things like creating arrays of telescopes in orbit so that you can actually see the surface of planets that are orbiting around other stars, which is a really exciting area right now. We may be able to detect eventually forms of life around other stars, which are really big things that fundamentally impacts the way that humanity thinks of itself and its place in the cosmos. I think it’s a really exciting time, we have several Princeton grads who work for us here … I think for folks coming out of school right now, it’s the most exciting time since Apollo was in space, no question, just because of the amount of innovation, the number of opportunities to work in really exciting stuff. The opportunities for relatively young engineers, scientists to work on really big things very quickly in their career. For a long time, you sort of joined the aerospace industry and you’d be assigned to work on some bolt or bearing, but now you’re running entire engine development programs in your 20s, and it’s a really great time to be in aerospace.

Napolitano: Remedy for hurtful speech is not suppression NAPOLITANO Continued from page 1


DP: We hear a lot about “fake news” in the media, thrown around by people of both sides of the aisle, so what are your thoughts on this phenomenon? AN: Well, you know I really don’t know how to put a handle on fake news, other than it is something that is profoundly untrue, which is advanced by news media as if it were true. I think sometimes the news media advances it and thinks it’s true, I don’t think they’re involved with the fakery or the origin of what turns out to be fake news. On the other hand, for the President summarily to dismiss unwanted news by calling it fake is a political stunt on his part. So there’s some wrong on both sides and some right on both sides. He has suffered allegations, which in my view were untrue, but he has also dismissed truths by claiming that they’re fake. I myself have been the subject of fake news, these things happen when you engage in controversy. I don’t take it personally; it can be a little uncomfortable at the time. It seems to be more of a phenomenon now than it had been in the past, and it has to be subjected to rigorous investigation and truth-telling before it can be advanced. DP: You brought up the fact that you yourself have been targeted by allegations of “fake news,” specifically concerning British intelligence supporting President Trump’s wiretapping assertions. Could you talk about that incident, and do you think there was any ulterior motive to pushing you off the air? AN: Well, I recounted what

sources told me, sources that have been credible in the past and turned out to be correct, which was that British intelligence had been spying on Trump since 2015. It caused an uproar, I think, by people who thought I was shilling for Trump because it seemed so outrageous. The uproar was furthered by a refutation directly from 10 Downing Street itself, something that 10 Downing Street rarely, rarely does, particularly with respect to something stated in American news media. I’m not going to be critical of my bosses, but I believe that taking me off the air for six days, seemed like six months but it was only six days, was believing that the tumult would die down, believing it would be easier to do my regular work once I came back. But when I came back, they had one of my colleagues interview me and he said, “Do you stand by your story?” and I said, “Yes I do.” These sources were true, and they’re going to be proven true, and sure enough about two weeks later, about five British [intelligence] agents went to The Guardian in London and said, “That judge in New York that everyone is skewering is correct. The NSA and the [GCHQ , British Intelligence] have been spying on Trump since 2015.” And of all places, my adversaries at CNN reported that I was correct. You know, these things happen, it’s now just a footnote. But the fake news aspect of it really got out of control. I was walking my dog in Central Park and a guy said to me, “Judge I love you!” I turned around and looked at him, of course he had a camera on me, and he goes, “You’re the one who told Trump that Obama tried to kill him!” Kill him? So, you can see how this stuff gets grossly exaggerated, God only knows where he got this from, I didn’t

see it in print anywhere. I just sort of waved and left him to his own rantings and ravings, but these things get exaggerated. If you take them personally it can drive you crazy. DP: What suggestions do you have then for your colleagues in the media, since it seems like the news media is getting more polarized? AN: Yes, I think there’s a lot of my colleagues in the media who are as distraught today as they were the day after Trump was elected. They despise him so much, and they want to undermine his presidency. You know, having lived through the resignation of Richard Nixon, for profound reasons, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton, for utterly frivolous reasons, this dramatic that they want the country to go through this again, we’re facing very difficult and very perilous times. I understand their animus against him, and his personality, and the way he treats them, and the way he governs, it just adds fuel to their fire. Look, I’m not in the news end of things here at Fox, I’m in the opinion end. I have very strong opinions as well, as you know, and I am paid to articulate and explain those opinions. So when my colleagues on other news outlets do that and are open and honest about it, I respect them. When they do it under the guise of reporting news neutrally, I don’t respect them. DP: How do you then get news back to being independent and unbiased? AN: Listen, I’m an absolutist on the First Amendment, so I would condemn any efforts to make the government less transparent or to make the

First Amendment protections any less than they are now. The remedy for bad speech, or hurtful speech, is not suppression of speech but more speech. I’m not on the news side here, I’m on the opinion side, and I get paid to articulate my opinion, and if I give reasons for the opinion, then my bosses are happy and I have earned my paycheck, and I respect when others do that. But I don’t respect when others claim to be neutral, reporting the news neutrally but really have a bias. You have a bias, you think that Trump’s a jerk, you think that he’s mentally unqualified to be President, you want to drive him out of office, acknowledge it! Express all the opinions you want. DP: Shifting gears a bit, I know that you own a farm in northern New Jersey. Is that something you’ve always been interested in doing? AN: No, it’s something I stumbled upon, right around the time that I began television. It has generated in me an appreciation for the Earth and the environment, far beyond anything that I have ever had. And it has generated a love of natural sciences, which has caused me to study many things on my own, which I didn’t do in high school and college, and certainly didn’t do in law school. It’s an agricultural farm, we supply a lot of vegetables to an 1854 era hotel in Pennsylvania that has two restaurants in the hotel. We grow a lot of vegetables, apples, pears, corn, tomatoes…it’s a sea of tomatoes! And we make maple syrup, and we market all this. It’s very therapeutic. I also do a lot of my reading and writing out there, I have a personal library of 4,000 books, which is my pride and joy, one of them,

and I spend a lot of time out there on weekends. It’s actually not very far from where the Princeton football team spends its Augusts, in Blairstown, New Jersey, my farm is a little north of there, but very close to where all those guys are. DP: What advice do you have for students interested in pursuing a career in law or journalism, or both? AN: Well, you know I entered journalism after having been a trial lawyer and having been a trial judge, so my entry was not an orthodox one. I also entered television in an unorthodox way, with no television experience, being asked to cover something so dramatic and widely viewed as the O.J. Simpson trial. I don’t know if that would happen today, cable television is far more sophisticated. I’m in my 20th year at Fox, and this is after a year and a half at CNBC, and after a year at what used to be called Court TV, so there are a lot more regimented procedures for entering all this today. For somebody interested in television journalism, you should probably move to a small city of about 100,000 people that has a local television station, and do whatever they ask you to do, whether it’s chasing ambulances or covering the school board, and just get a lot of experience in front of a camera. But entering directly from another profession like law into the national level, as I did, is something that would be unheard of and nearly impossible in this era. I was present at the creation of Fox, and the people who were running it at the time thought it would be cool and interesting to have an ex-judge on the air, and I just happened to be the person that they picked.

Women’s lacrosse finishes season with 15-4 record LACROSSE Continued from page 8


contested than the last as No. 4 Princeton and No. 6 Pen n State went back-andfor th, t y ing n ine times and sw itch ing leads seven times. George, Hompe, McNu lt y, Hal lett, D’Orsi, jun ior attacker Colby Chanenchu k, and sophomore attacker A l l ie Rogers a l l contributed goals to convert a 6-5 ha l ftime PSU lead to a tense 12-11 tal ly in the last six m inutes of the game. But a Princeton yel low card and th ree late Pen n State goals gave the

w in to the Nittany Lions, ending an ex hilarating and h istoric season for the Tigers. In addition to a notable season for the team, 2017 saw many ind iv idua l accomplish ments, including those of Hompe, DeGarmo, and jun ior m id f ielder Abby Fin kelston. The I nt e rcol leg i at e Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association an nounced f i rst-tea m A l l-A mer ica honors for Hompe and DeGarmo th ree days after the f irst NCA A match. The 2017 Iv y League Attacker of the Year, Hompe leads the nation in goals (4) and shots (8.33) per game and is th ird

in points per game (5.94) . She contributed 110 points, 75 goa ls, and 35 assists du ring the 2017 season and is Princeton’s cu rrent al ltime lead ing scorer and goal-scorer at 285 points and 198 goals. DeGa r mo’s accol ades aren’t any less impressive. The goa l keeper has amassed a record of 235 season saves and she is also a national leader for her second consecutive season w ith a .556 save percentage and 12.2 average saves per game. The Iv y League Tournament MVP, DeGarmo is in consideration for a second Goaltender of the Year title. Both Hompe and De-

Garmo were contenders for the prestigious Tewaaraton Award, given an nual ly to the most outstand ing A merican lacrosse player. The ind iv idua l honors didn’t stop w ith Hompe and DeGar mo, as Fin kelston was given the One Love Foundation’s 2017 YR L Unsung Hero Award last week. The award is given an nual ly to a male and female Div ision I lacrosse player who has demonstrated dedication, integrit y, hum i lit y, hard work, com mun it y ser v ice, leadersh ip, k indness, and sportsmansh ip, al l of wh ich Fin kelston has embodied th roughout the season as a team leader de-

spite her h ip inju ries and as a member of Best Budd ies and fou nder of the Wounded Tigers Net work. With the leadersh ip of Hompe, DeGa r mo, and Fin kelston, and the hard work and perseverance of a talented roster, the team f in ished the 2017 spring season honorably w it h an overal l record of 15-4, its 13th Iv y League title, a th ird Iv y League Tou rnament championsh ip, and its 25th NCA A appearance.

Tuesday June 6, 2017

The Daily Princetonian

A4 jump headline jump headline jump headline jump CONTINUE Continued from page 1


page 3

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

Tuesday June 6, 2017

Clifton: To enter law and public service, get engaged in a cause CLIFTON Continued from page 1


to consider Princeton. They talked a lot about the campus, I’d never [seen] it until, they didn’t have a Preview program in that day, but after I’d been admitted my father decided it would be a good idea to go see what I might be considering, so he and I went. So I looked at Princeton in late April, early May, it was the first time I had seen the campus. My friends who were going there were enthusiastic, and in particular [I was interested in] the Woodrow Wilson School, because I was interested in government and politics, and it seemed like a good fit, so I signed up and went, and have no regrets whatsoever. I had a great experience, a great education, a great experience outside the classroom. I continue to do interviewing for the Schools Committee 40 some years later. DP: What did you decide to major in, and what were you involved with outside the classroom? RC: I was in the Woodrow Wilson School, which in those days you had to apply for. In terms of activities, I did some things through Whig-Clio, the Debate Panel, speaking organizations, and competitions. I was a broadcaster for WPRB’s music program, and then the sports program, broadcasting football and basketball my junior and senior years. I was involved in university governance, which took the form of the undergraduate assembly, which I was elected to and was a member by sophomore, junior, and senior years. The university council was a pretty new organization then, but I was a member of that my junior and senior years. This may be cosmetic, but I was asked to be the chairman of one of the university council committees, first time it had ever had a student chair, so I was the chair my senior year of the

university council’s Committee on Governance, which was interesting then because they were searching for and identified a new president. Robert Goheen was retiring, formally retired at the end of my senior year. William Bowen, who was the provost, wound up being selected as the next president. So I got to know him pretty well because he had ideas he wanted to start introducing in terms of how the university governance should be modified a little bit, and I’d known him a little bit anyway, so I got to spend a little time with him my senior year. DP: You grew up in Chicago, so how did you wind up living and working in Hawaii? How did you become interested in serving on the bench, and what has that experience been like? RC: Pure good fortune. I went directly from graduating from Princeton in 1972 to starting in Yale Law School that fall together with five classmates from Princeton…After law school, I got a job as a law clerk for a federal judge, a judge on the same court that I serve on now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I did that, it was a key thing to do if you could get hired, you learn a lot about procedures and so forth. I was interested in being a law clerk, and I had never been to the West. I grew up in the Midwest, went to college and law school in the East Coast. I worked on one project in Louisiana, so I had a little bit of exposure to the South, but I had no experience with the West. So, not having a better reason, I decided to apply to some judges on the Ninth Circuit, which covers most of the West. The first judge to offer me a job was from Hawaii, Herbert Choy, was the first AsianAmerican federal judge and the first Hawaii judge on the Ninth Circuit. I had never been to Hawaii before, but it sounded too good to be true, so I took the job and went out expecting to be there for just for the one year of the clerkship, and at the end of

the year, I wasn’t quite ready to come back, so I decided to stay a little longer. I did not expect it to be permanent. Incidentally, the more time I spent there, the more I realized that’s where I wanted to make my home. I did stay in Hawaii after the clerkship, I practiced law for 25 years. When the opportunity came along to put in for the judgeship that I have now, I did so. Anybody who’s a law clerk sort of thinks about being a judge, because you’re doing the function of a judge, giving advice and making recommendations to the actual judge. I didn’t strive for it, frankly if you had asked at the time, I would have thought that the prospect of me becoming a judge in Hawaii would have been pretty slim. I wasn’t from Hawaii, so forth, but I wound up staying, practicing law, getting involved in community activities, and ultimately had the opportunity to raise my hand and put in for the judge that I also got nominated and confirmed for, the one I have now. I wasn’t setting out to be a judge back then, but it’s a great opportunity to be engaged in the community in developing law and making important decisions. I had the opportunity to reach for it, was lucky enough to get it, and I’ve been serving for about 15 years now. DP: As an appeals court judge, what kind of cases do you hear, and what is something that most people don’t know that goes behind the scenes? RC: Well, because we here appeals, our court particularly gets two streams of cases, the largest number, which for us is 2/3, for the other appeals courts it’s much larger, consists of appeals from federal district court decisions. Those can take all forms of cases that have been in a federal court, including federal criminal convictions, civil cases that are in federal court, regulatory actions, environmental or antitrust or national labor relations actions. That’s the first portfolio, for our court

because of where we are geographically located, the immigration system in this country works so that if you become the subject of a deportation order, which is now formally known as an order of removal, and you’ve worked your way through the executive branch adjudication system, which is under the Department of Justice, you’re still subject to this order of removal, then to seek judicial review you file a petition with the federal court of appeals of your region. And because of where we’re located we get about half of those for the whole country, so that makes up over 30 percent of our caseload is immigration cases. So we get this mixed collection of cases, and we work on them collectively. Appellate judges are powerless by themselves, I can’t do anything without getting at least one other person to agree with me, because almost everything we do is in groups of three judges. Appellate courts embody the wisdom of crowds, that’s the theory of it, collective decision making produces a better result than any one person himself or herself would make. That’s been my experience, my observation. DP: You were one of the three judges on the Ninth Circuit to hear the appeal from the Trump administration regarding the immigration executive order in February. Could you talk a little bit about how you decided to hear the case? Was it assigned to you? RC: It’s assigned. The judges have no say in what cases they take on, in this instance, the assignment came because there was a lawsuit filed by the state of Washington, which went to the federal district court in Seattle. The district judge in Seattle issued an injunction… a temporary restraining order, officially, preventing the government from enforcing the first executive order all across the country. The government sought emergency relief from that to the court of appeals, and Washington state is in the Ninth Circuit. A petition for emergency release is referred in the first instance to the Ninth Circuit’s motions panel, and the way we’re organized, we have a different group of three judges assigned to hear motions each month. And that’s set well in advance, sometime last fall, probably last September, we received the assignments for who was going to be on the motions panel for what month through 2017. I happened to be on the February motions panel together with the other two judges who were on the panel with me on this case. I heard lots of other cases that month too, all of them deservedly obscure except for this one. We took whatever motions there were for the month of February, and that’s how I wound up on the panel that dealt with this case. DP: Could you talk about the legal arguments that were made by both sides, and possibly how you came up with your decision? RC: I can’t get inside, but I can describe it, and this stuff is all public. There were lots of arguments being made, some based on statute, some based on the Constitution. In the end, the two arguments that obtained the most attention were one that we based our decision on, and a second one that we recognized but we did not base our decision one, we deferred that to the future. The one that we based our decision on had to do with due process, one of the guarantees of the Constitution. It was that some of the people affected by this order had legal rights under the Constitution. You can’t be deprived of these rights [without] due process of law, that is procedurally, the Constitution provides, as the Supreme Court has interpreted for decades, that you have a right to a hearing, which doesn’t necessarily mean oral argument, but you have a right to know what the allegation is and to respond to it. So in this

case, there were lawful permanent residents, Greencard holders, who may have been outside the country at that time, or who wanted to be in the country, facing the prospect of not being able to return, with no process given to them to try to challenge or question that decision. There were a number of other categories of people who had potential due process rights, and the order, [which] was drafted very broadly and hastily, provided nothing that spoke to this situation. By the time the case came to us, the administration recognized that there was a problem, and so argued to us, that based on a memorandum by the White House Counsel, lawful permanent residents, green card holders, weren’t going to be covered by this. We said on that, and other issues, that we’re not in a position to redraft the order, there’s nothing that gives the White House Counsel the ability to amend an executive order, so we suggested that the best solution would be for the administration to redraft the order the way they think it should be, basically try again. Although the administration at first, or the President at first, said he was going to take it up further, they elected not to do so. They did not seek a hearing before the Supreme Court, and elected instead to heed to the restraining order and draft a new executive order. The second issue which…we basically discussed in our order, but did not base our decision on, is the focal point of the current argument, regarding the second executive order, that is the allegation that the order discriminates against Muslims. We noted that the argument was before us, that it was a serious concern, but it was not necessary for us to resolve the issue at that time, because we’d already established that there was a due process violation to justify a restraining order. So, we recognized that that argument was teed up, but did not ourselves rule on it. With the revision of the executive order by the administration and the current fights, the one that was adjudicated and resolved in the Fourth Circuit last week and one that’s pending before a different panel of the Ninth Circuit, the focal point, and again there are multiple arguments, appears to be the claim of religious discrimination. But we did not pass on that, we simply noted its existence that it was an argument, but we didn’t have to resolve it. That’s why it’s up for resolution now. DP: What advice do you have for students interested in law and public service, who may be interested in being a judge? How would you convince them to consider a judgeship instead of being in private practice or a prosecutor? RC: Well, it’s not an eitheror, and that’s one of the beauties of the Anglo-American system. In some countries, the judiciary is a separate career path, that’s not true for us, and most judges have had substantial practical experience before they have the opportunity to become a judge. I think being a judge is a great position, and there may be some people who are activists at heart, but are better suited as practitioners of the causes they feel strongly for. But, for most lawyers, it doesn’t get any better than being a judge. But it’s something you should come to after having some degree of experience, and getting engaged with the community. Local level, state level, national level, but getting engaged is the way to have an impact, and also have opportunities like a judgeship come to you. Somebody who hangs back and doesn’t get engaged, rarely is given an opportunity to go on and have a greater impact. So what I encourage people to do is find activities or causes that are of interest to them, and get themselves engaged in them.

Tuesday June 6, 2017

The Daily Princetonian

page 5

Tigers basketball looks ahead with successful, young lineup BASKETBALL Continued from page 8


the regular season would have been enough on its own to earn a spot in the NCAA tournament. This year, however, the rules changed. Of all the Division-I basketball conferences, the Ivy League had remained the only one to choose its NCAA Tournament representative solely by regular season play, and did host a postseason conference tournament to determine its league champion. In the 2016-17 season, however, four teams — the Tigers, the Yale Bulldogs, the Harvard Crimson, and the Penn Quakers — would do battle in the inaugural Ivy League tourna-

ment at the historic Palestra in Philadelphia. The Tigers’ games would become instant classics — in their first game, against the Quakers, Stephens proved to be the hero down the stretch, putting in a game-tying tipin with mere seconds to go, and the Tigers would go on to defeat Penn 62-54. Stephens shone the entire game, putting up 21 points in the nailbiter Tigers victory. After surviving the Quakers, the Tigers’ game against the Bulldogs to determine the Ivy League champion proved almost tame in comparison. Despite a tightly contested first half, after which the Tigers found themselves up 31-29, the Orange and Black

pulled away in the second, pushing their lead to double digits and from there hardly looking back. Despite being the Ivy League champions in 2016, the Bulldogs succumbed 71-59 to the Tigers, behind a roaring crowd of Orange and Black faithful cheering them on. With their long-awaited return to the Big Dance now in hand, the Tigers had but a few days to prepare for their next task. As a No. 12 seed, they were to take on one of the Atlantic Coast Conference’s best, perennial basketball powerhouse Notre Dame as the No. 5 seed. Traveling to the frigid land of Buffalo, NY, the Tigers went toe to toe with the fighting Irish, coming back from

down by as many as 11 in the second half to pull within two with under five minutes to go. Indeed, down by three with just under 20 seconds to go, senior forward Pete Miller tipped in a missed Cook 3 to bring the Tigers within one point of bringing it into overtime. After the Irish’s Matt Farrell missed the front end of a one-and-one, the shot to make the Tigers’ dreams come true fell to sophomore guard Devin Cannady. Cannady, a prolific 3 point shooter throughout the season, rose up for what looked to be a pure shot from downtown with seven seconds to go. Looking good for as long as it hung in the air, the shot caught back rim and bounced

away, and with it, a magical Princeton season came to a close. The program has much to be proud of after such a successful year, but the team certainly is not without questions going into the 2017-2018 season. Having lost five seniors, the Tigers will certainly look to rely on Stephens, Cook and junior guard Amir Bell for higher production. As the league continues to grow in strength, many may ask how Princeton’s increasingly young lineup will fare next year. However, after seeing this year and Coach Henderson’s ability to lead teams through a storm, no foe can ever safely count out this Tiger team, no matter what the situation.

Men’s heavyweight crew builds upon success of past four years CREW

Continued from page 8


eight man boat competes in their heat on Friday at 12:10 p.m., Eastern Time. The four man boats will compete at similar times; the V4+ heat is at 2:40 p.m., while the V4 heat occurs at 3:00 p.m. The final events occur on Sunday. For the heavyweight men’s team, the goal is to build upon the massive success of last year and the prior three years. The Tigers have taken home seven medals in the past three years, with the capstone being last year, when they took home at least one of each medal and four medals overall. This year, they will be the fifth seed overall and try to build off of a successful showing at Eastern Sprints; most notably, the 2V will go into IRAs fresh off of a gold at Sprints. A member

of the 2V team this year, sophomore Ralph Elsegood hopes he and the rest of his crew can take gold in IRAs as well. Elsegood won gold last year as a member of the 3V team; speaking for other members of last year’s 3V team, he said “Winning IRAs in 2V would mean a huge amount. Including myself, five of last year’s 3V have progressed to the 2V and we are keen to repeat last year’s success.” The 2V will be flanked by the 1V and 3V, each of whom placed third in the Eastern Sprints behind Harvard and Yale. Both will try to make a move up the polls this weekend and earn the title of best Ivy League performer at IRAs. The 1V will race at noon on Friday, the 2V at 12:50, the 3V at 1:40, and the 4V at 2:10. Like the lightweight team, the heavyweight team will conclude their events on Sunday with the finals. While the men are look-

ing to continue upward trends and overcoming unexpected results, the women have a very clear goal for IRAs: to overcome a .105 second defeat to Wisconsin during Eastern Sprints. The reason is quite simple; the women need to surpass the Badgers this weekend if they want to make it directly to the finals and not have to go through other heats. The top two seeds from each heat automatically make the finals and the Tigers are currently projected as third in their heat behind Stanford and Wisconsin. While Stanford, last year’s IRA champion, is expected to win the heat, the line between Wisconsin and Princeton for second is razor thin. “It is really important for us to do well enough in the heat to go straight to the finals,” said Christina Warren, senior co-captain for the team. “Rowing fewer meters than other teams can never hurt

during championship racing.” The V8 will highlight the Tiger contingency this weekend, but Princeton will also send a V4 and a V2 for the weekend. Each of these boats can take success from Sprints and build upon it to find success this weekend. “One particular strength of our team this year is our ability to feed off of all the internal drive, even when we don’t have the opportunity to piece against other boats” said freshman Emma Hopkins. “I think we have done a good job at continuing to raise our own level of competition even with a break from racing the league”. Added Warren, “We took a lot of confidence moving out of Sprints. It was a hell of a race, and I think we all proved that we were willing to gut ourselves for each other on the course. We did leave with a bit of a chip on our shoulders, though, and that was one

of the major motivating factors for our training the past four weeks ... we fully believe we can take a full swing at IRAs this weekend.” The V8 will be racing at 11:40 a.m. on Saturday, right after the V2 takes the water at 11:30 a.m. The V4 will conclude the women’s initial day at 12:10 p.m., with the finals coming on Sunday. The IRAs will be an exciting, action packed weekend of racing for both the men and the women. 2,813 miles from campus, the Tigers hope that they can end the 2017 spring season with one last set of races and one last set of medals.

Tuesday June 6, 2017


page 6

{ }

Celebrating complacency at Princeton Kate Reed

guest contributor

Ya se agotó,” I said, incredulous (I shouldn’t have been; it’s a weekly occurrence). It’s already run out. The marker I was dragging across the whiteboard was leaving the dingy surface whiter than it had been before I tried to explain the difference between “food” and “foot.” And we were only twenty minutes into the lesson. I ran upstairs, interrupted the Level 1 class, grabbed a handful of markers from the bottom of our bag. They were all bright colors — pink, green, orange — that I knew no one sitting more than two seats from the front of the class would be able to see. I went back downstairs. “Ok, vamos a intentar de nuevo,” I said. Let’s try again. They laughed, gracious as ever, this group of 15 or so people clustered around laminate-topped tables in the creaking basement of a Trenton community center. We resumed our collective struggle with the English language, this time in f luorescent green. The Princeton students managing these Englisha s - a -S e c o n d - L a n g u a g e classes had a meeting later that week, in Princeton’s Pace Center for Civic Engagement. We had reserved the lounge space on the crumpled paper calendar that hangs on the wall, but apparently that calendar only works for other student groups, and not when the Executive Director comes to visit. She and some other important people in suits and sweater sets [vests?] were reclining on the technicolor couches, and so we clustered in the back room to plan our teaching workshop and try to cobble together a summer curricu-

lum for our students. The walls, even in the small, gray, back room, were covered in immaculately-cleaned whiteboard paint. The markers, as we outlined our workshop and our curriculum packets, never ran out of ink. A few months ago, Princeton held a “Celebration of Service” soirée. They didn’t call it a soirée, but that’s what it was. Everyone dressed up in suits and dresses and someone invited the directors of Princeton’s “community partners” (a phrase used without any intended irony) so that we could all sit in panel discussions and then go downstairs to a catered dinner with mini crab cakes and baby hamburgers and tiny cups of seaweed salad (which I promptly dropped all over the f loor and then crawled around on my hands and knees scooping up, but I digress). Chancellor Green Library, where all of this took place, was filled with uncomfortable people milling around in search of (a) people they knew, (b) food that didn’t require the hands of a surgeon to consume, or (c) a conversation that didn’t open with “Isn’t this such a great event?” (I know for a fact I was not the only one in search of (c) because I happened to find all but the second of these objectives). President Eisgruber and Executive Director of the Pace Center for Civic Engagement Kimberly de los Santos both gave brief addresses. Both extolled the virtues of Princeton’s service programs, championing the depth of Princeton’s commitment to its community and urging a broad and inclusive conception of service — a notion that seems innocuous enough. Yet with such breadth comes dilution: according to Eis-

gruber, “Our researching and teaching in my view is itself a very important part of [Princeton’s] service mission. Part of the way we serve is through teaching and research of unsurpassed quality.” No wonder, then, the straight face with which Princeton makes its claims about the centrality of service to University life. If every lecture, every precept, every new book published and every laboratory breakthrough is construed as “service,” Princeton is — according to the f lawed but nonetheless oft-cited US News rankings — second to none. I don’t deny that some of the academic work produced by Princeton’s scholars benefits many people in significant ways. But I think — hope — that we can draw a line somewhere between that kind of work and a group of under-caffeinated undergrads hunched over seminar tables in McCosh, hoping their preceptor doesn’t notice that they haven’t read their Rawls. The scary truth — for the speakers at the dinner and the various camerapeople pushing “community partners” out of the way in order to catch said speakers on tape — is that a narrower definition of service poses a profound challenge to the complacency that characterized “A Celebration of Service.” Because it is not true that service, narrowly defined, is integral to the Princeton experience. It is not true that many classes have service components or are oriented towards preparing students for future service. It is easy — incredibly easy — to go four years here without engaging in meaningful service, even without consciously avoiding it. If the University tru-

ly cares about making service integral to what Princeton is, the answer is not to dabble in lexicography and play with questions about what “service” is or is not. The answer is not to mold “service” to the contours of what the University already is and does. The molding must work in the opposite direction: Princeton, not service, must change. Princeton does buy us new Expos. Pace does maintain the ink and toner and paper levels in the printer we use to copy our worksheets; it keeps the whiteboards on the walls gleaming and the supply of markers well-stocked. But, despite the extensive financial and administrative support Princeton provides, under its broad conception of service, it is those activities that best adhere to a more narrow, more meaningful definition of service that are always first to go when meetings run late or exams are scheduled or a professor doesn’t grant that extension on a paper. Princeton struggles to balance the academic and administrative demands it places on students and faculty with a significant commitment to service; positing that these demands fall under the aegis of “service” is a facile response that cheapens what service is performed by the people on this campus. Princeton may not want to assume the responsibility of making service more compatible with or integral to its other programs. But rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and for us to claim that we do so much good? That is not our right. Kate Reed is a sophomore History major from Annapolis, Md. She can be reached at

What’s wrong with a Mexican party? Ryan Chavez columnist


n May 12, 2017, The Dai ly Princetonian broke a story on a Mexican-themed party that took place on campus the night before. Racially insensitive events are so common on this campus that they have come to be expected. In the past year alone, we’ve already had one particularly f lagrant example, the 27th annual Mandatory Makeout Mexican Mustache Monday Madness Fiesta in September. Then, as we saw more recently this May, one Mexican party was not enough for the year. The day after, many students were asking: “What is wrong with this party?” Why is holding a party based on an identity problematic? Surely the partygoer who said, “We’re not racist! We’re celebrating,” sincerely believed they were doing nothing wrong. To begin, there are a couple facts about this particular party that deserve clarification. This was not a Cinco de Mayo party. This event took place on May 11, not May 5. No one would celebrate the Fourth of July

on the Fourteenth of July. The significance of said holiday is drawn from the commemoration of a specific date and events. This was a party which centered thematically on a racial identity, and its circumstantial proximity to the actual date of Cinco de Mayo is irrelevant. The problem comes down to issues of racial and ethnic identity. When people show up in racially tinged clothing as costumes to an identitythemed party, it screams, “This is how we perceive your identity.” When an identity is chosen as a theme, it more often than not relies heavily on a caricature or stereotype. It denigrates and diminishes the identity not just of an entire group of people, but also of our peers here at Princeton. For a readily apparent problematic corollary to highlight this point, one might imagine a blackface party or a party where attendees show up in dressed like Hasidic Jews. Making light of someone else’s identity for your own enjoyment is incredibly callous at best, and blatantly disrespectful at worst. Prima facie putting on a serape, fake mustache, and sombrero and hitting a pi-

ñata might be innocent ignorance, but, in the diverse student body that is Princeton, can that really be the case? As a biracial MexicanAmerican, I have to ask: Is this what you think a Mexican is? Can a student be so socially isolated as to not have made even a single Mexican or Mexican-American acquaintance? Even so, have reactions to past parties of this nature — like the MMMMMMF held earlier this year — not clued you in to the fact that this is problematic? That party last fall was the reason I began writing for the ‘Prince’; it is sad that at the end of the year, nothing changed. Many of us in our privileged bubble can brush it all off and ignore these events. It is easy to ask minority students to “get over it” or “not be so offended,” as many of my peers did. This is an inadequate and intellectually lazy response. An oped by, Uri Schwartz ’20, a student with Mexican citizenship stating they were “not offended” by the party and dismissing the valid complaints of other minority students is evidence of this view. The issue with this party is not simply offend-

ing Mexican-American and Mexican students. The issue is normalizing ignorance. The repetition of events like these and the lackluster response from the administration is part and parcel of this normalization. Legitimizing the stereotypical imagery helps to entrench racial divides and damaging presuppositions about people of color. This is not to mention the dehumanizing effect of buying into the stereotypes themselves. As much as I find someone caricaturing Mexican people offensive, I am much more troubled by the willingness of Princetonians to defend it on the grounds of it being “not a big deal.” Racism takes hold at all levels. Casual racism being less overtly damaging than a hate crime does not legitimize it. Until we as a community reevaluate what our actions say about how we view not just other people but other Princetonians, I cannot say that Princeton is an inclusive environment, even if the rhetoric we tout says otherwise. Ryan Chavez is a sophomore in history from Arcadia, Calif. He can be reached at

vol. cxli

Sarah Sakha ’18


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 Samuel Garfinkle ’19 Sarah Sakha ’18

Tuesday June 6, 2017

The Daily Princetonian

page 7

What I (actually) wish I knew freshman year Ryan Dukeman

Senior columnist


s of writing this, two weeks from now I’ll be sitting on a beach somewhere. Three weeks from now, I’ll be enjoying my last Reunions as a student. And four weeks from now, I’ll probably be at home, waking up and wondering if this was all a dream. Knowing this is my last column for this paper lends it a degree of introspection and nostalgia my pieces don’t usually contain, but I hope you’ll indulge me. In thinking about what I wanted to write, what last imprint I wanted to leave on and through the ‘Prince,’ I naturally started getting nostalgic about the last four years, about the places, experiences, and the memories that I’m about to leave, but will never leave me. On the whole, I have an enormously positive image of this University, of the people and ideas I have been so fortunate to engage with, and of an Orange Bubble that, for all its f laws, never didn’t and never won’t feel like home. I could spend the next 600 or so words extolling the chances that have been given to me, the trust that has been placed in me, and the chance to grow as a person and an intellectual that Princeton has provided – but I genuinely would not know where to begin, and how to possibly end. I could also spend this column on a nit-picky laundry list of small things I wish I’d known or done – taken Chinese, joined more eclectic clubs early

on, made more of an effort to take service offcampus, and found all those semi-secret organizations that will send you to Austria in the middle of a school week just because – but to leave on that note would disappoint myself when there are more lasting and important things to discuss. Others are more qualified to discuss many of the topics where a Princeton experience can be made to fall short – systematic inequalities within and without the campus, ongoing inadequacies at CPS and UHS, gaps in Princeton’s generous financial aid and out-of-pocket expense minimization efforts that leave certain experiences inaccessible, a relatively restrictive set of options for majors and study abroad, to name just a few. But the one I hope to spend my last column discussing is the professionalized herd mentality that took me to the brink of taking time off from Princeton my junior year. In my previous column, I alluded to the fact that Princeton’s insular campus community has at times been “suffocating,” making “junior year here … the hardest of my life in overwhelming part because there was no physical place or emotional peer group to escape to when a sense of comparative failure came to dominate my experience.” This was a direct, and some have argued intentional, result of conscious choices and cultural norms perpetuated by the university in shaping its graduates’ post-grad destinations. Many previous

columns in this paper have rightly argued that if you polled freshman about how many of them wanted to go into consulting or finance, the proportion would almost certainly be orders of magnitude lower than the roughly 30 percent who actually do. And yet somehow, every year like clockwork, juniors, seniors, and increasingly sophomores and even freshmen, make their way to the Nassau Inn, to Triumph, and to Career Services to schmooze their way into jobs they likely didn’t know existed, and thus almost definitionally couldn’t have been what they dreamt of when they applied to this school. It’s intoxicating, to be sure. You see many of your smartest friends who are “still figuring out what I want to do in the long-term” going to these things, and you’re certainly still figuring out what you want to do in the longterm, so why wouldn’t you go? What’s the harm in just applying? This is then compounded by a set of marketing literature in which (particularly for consulting) these industries pitch themselves as the only entry-level career that won’t close any doors for you down the line, as a place and a role where you, the 22-year-old, can make “client impact” and engage in meaningful “value delivery.” To be clear, I don’t mean to disparage those who go into these fields, which do often provide genuinely stimulating work and open doors to future career possibilities. Rather, I intend to go after the culture that has been allowed to crop up on this and peer

campuses, that says these are the near-exclusive set of options for those who think themselves successful and ambitious, those who envision and hope for a longer-term career that truly might change the world. But to answer my own question, the harm in just applying comes a few months later, when you look around and you find yourself seemingly the “only one” left empty-handed from a process you convinced yourself determines your worth, potential for future accomplishment, and value as a professional and intellectual person. If these jobs truly “don’t care about your academic background, just your skill and potential,” then doesn’t getting rejection after rejection, uniquely among your peers, mean you don’t have any? The big-picture advice I’d like to close my time at the ‘Prince’ with is: It. Does. Not. Princeton takes thousands of dollars from these companies to let them recruit on campus and actively pushes students towards these careers. I recall one friend junior year, who after attending a “Career and Life Vision Workshop” hosted by Career Services, said that “the lesson I was supposed to learn is that no matter your major and passion, there’s a job for you in consulting.” If I could change one thing about Princeton that affected my personal experience negatively to such a degree, it would be the actively created and culturally sustained mindset within the Bubble that

“successful people” and “future leaders” have to work at a “bulge bracket” bank or an “MBB” consulting firm. The people who come to this school are bright because of their self-awareness, drive, and critical thinking, just as much as because of their raw intelligence and skill. But that self-awareness, in an insular community where there is constant comparison and pressure to follow the herd, can be crushed by a mentality that narrows a definition of success so small that it can fit in a three-letter acronym that no one in your hometown will have heard of (unless, perhaps, your hometown is the Upper East Side or Palo Alto). To those about to face this narrowing, constricting, suffocating process that in your head pits you against the friends you’d otherwise turn to, my advice is simple: go home if you can, even if for a weekend. Ground yourself in things you affirmatively decide bring you fulfillment, and would even if no one knew about them. Seek out people not stuck in the same competitions as you – even when it feels like among your friends they don’t exist. Be unashamed to seek professional help if you need it, at least until Paul Ryan finds some way of exempting it from insurance coverage. And don’t lose sight of why you came here, and what you came here to be. Ryan Dukeman is a Wilson School major from Westwood, Mass. He can be reached at rdukeman@

Does political correctness infringe on free speech? Chang Che columnist


he old motto “actions speak louder than words” has always contained a grave misunderstanding: it assumes that words and actions are fundamentally different modes of communication. This assumption, I shall argue, is ill-founded. One result of abandoning such a clear-cut distinction between speech and action is, as we shall see, a harmony between the modern culture of political correctness and our First Amendment rights. The concept of “free speech” has, since its inception, been a symbol of American exceptionalism and pride amidst the foreign threats of Communist and totalitarian regimes. Its value lies, perhaps, in its recognition that speech is a fundamental aspect of the human condition: we are, in addition to the features of our selfconsciousness, unique as speaking beings. This is why censorship of speech, in the American context, evokes nightmares of an Orwellian nature, a deprivation of our individuality, an abuse of institutional power onto the masses — the premises of dystopia. On the other hand, we are quick to understand that there are no such things as freedom of action. It is obvious that ac-

tions must abide by certain rules of conduct and that as soon as actions rub against the freedom of another, that action is no longer free. In recent debates, America’s constitutional interest in free speech has come in direct opposition to its reservations toward “hate speech.” In a country with diverse religious, ethnic, and economic groups, some choice words can undermine our ideal of an accepting society. How, then, can we reconcile this fundamental right as granted by our Founding Fathers with the increasingly pertinent need to question our choice of words? How can we simultaneously recognize the harmful effects of speech onto a certain group of people while upholding the seemingly intrinsic value of speaking truthfully and sincerely, regardless of its unintended consequences? The modern discourse of political correctness has exposed a fundamental ambiguity in the language of our founding fathers, an ambiguity that philosophy has been attuned to since the Middle Ages — such as in St. Augustine’s “On Lying” — and formalized by J.L. Austin in his seminal work “How To Do Things With Words.” The ambiguity concerns the dualistic dimensions of speech: as a mode of expression and as a mode of action. While modern

discourses surrounding the First Amendment equate freedom of speech with freedom of expression — assuming that speech is primarily used as a mode of expressing one’s ideas — expression is but one function of speech. And in the context of harming others with language, it has overshadowed another equally important nature of language: the speech act. Austin defines the speech act as speech that performs some sort of action in lieu of, or in addition to, its conventional meaning. For example, the utterance “I promise” not only refers to the act of promising but is, itself, the very condition by which that action is achieved — I make a promise by merely uttering the words “I promise.” As soon as one becomes attuned to what Austin defines as the performative nature of speech, it can be found in a number of language’s everyday uses: “I bet,” “I pray for you,” “screw you” are such examples. In each case, meaning is partially conveyed through the action that the utterance achieves. Speech, therefore, is not only a mode of communication, but also one of action. And in the context of discriminatory language, these acts can be particularly invidious. The constitutional right to free speech, one that is generally understood as the right to ar-

ticulate one’s opinions and ideas, then, does not and should not encompass harmful speech acts. Since these types of speech primarily serve as actions, they should be evaluated as such, rather than under the First Amendment, which protects against freedom of speech as expression. To see this, we might compare the use of the word “gay” and “faggot” in terms of the actions that they contain. Both words are used to refer to the same type of individual and hence could easily feature in the expression of one’s opinions. However, while the former does not seem to do anything apart from its denotative function, the latter does much more than the conventional use of language as expression — it has a distinct act: the act of demonizing, abnormalizing, or stigmatizing that particular identity. Hence, to use the latter term to describe gays today is to perform an act of condemnation more so than it is to communicate meaning. We shudder at such politically incorrect language, not because of its intended meaning, but because of its unintentional act — one that attaches a stigmatized meaning to a particular group and intends to deprive them membership into society. Political correctness is not, as formerly understood, a blind censorship of opinion, but a suppres-

sion of harmful speech acts. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise; doing so would be to equate the derogatory words of our language with words used primary to communicate — in other words, to refuse the relationship between speech and action. Today, we live in a society in which shoplifting is a punishable crime, but characterizing Mexicans as “rapists” can be rubbed off as an exercise of free speech. In this case, we seem to have severely misunderstood the nature of speech acts. It is quite possible to celebrate our freedom of expression protected under the First Amendment while simultaneously condemning the violent nature of hate speech, which should be evaluated as harmful actions more so than words of communication. But only by recognizing this distinction can we see through the false dichotomy between curtailing harmful speech acts (political correctness) and our right to free speech. It’s time we abandon the assumption that actions speak louder than words because, more often than not, words do more than actions. Chang Che is a comparative literature major from Ann Arbor, Mich. He can be reached at


Tuesday June 6, 2017

page 8

{ }


Looking back at men’s basketball season By Miles Hinson sports editor emeritus

Six years. The Princeton men’s basketball team had spent the last six years on the outside looking in when the NCAA tournament rolled around. Since Doug Davis’ (Class of 2012) magical buzzer-beating game winner to defeat Harvard that put Princeton into the NCAA tournament, the Tigers have had many seasons of coming close to earning a spot again, but without much luck. Indeed, the Tigers earned third place, third place, and second place in the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 seasons, respectively. This year, however, seemed to be at full throttle. The Tigers put on a performance this season that they hadn’t seen in a long, long time. This team led the league in points allowed per game at 59.3. They were no slouches on the offensive end as well,

with the best 3-point percentage and second best field goal percentage in the league, en route to a 14-0 performance in Ivy League play during the regular season. Making the Tigers’ season all the more impressive is seeing how they responded to injuries sustained by key players throughout the season. Senior forwards Henry Caruso and Hans Brase went down with season-ending injuries in the middle of the season. Individual honors for the Tigers were not in short supply. Coach Mitchell Henderson ’98 received the Ivy League Coach of the Year Award, senior guard Spencer Weisz earned Ivy League Player of the Year award, and sophomore guard Myles Stephens took the Ivy League Defensive Player of the Year Award. Both Weisz and fellow senior guard Stephen Cook were named to the Ivy League First Team. In any other year, the Tigers’ outright dominance in See BASKETBALL page 5


Men’s basketball celebrates championship after historic season.


Track excels at NCAA Regionals By Jack Graham contributor

Following a successful season and victory in the Ivy League Championship, the Princeton men’s and women’s track teams performed admirably in this past weekend’s NCAA East Regional Meet in Lexington, Ky. In damp competitions delayed due to rain, several Princeton athletes punched their tickets to the NCAA Championships, held June 7-10 in Eugene, Ore. The men’s team received stellar performances from a number of different athletes, but

most notable were juniors William Paulson and Alex Kiles, who earned bids to the NCAA Championships in the 1500m and the pole vault, respectively. Paulson posted the fourth fastest time of all competitors with a remarkable 3:46.95 to secure his bid to nationals. Kiles finished eighth overall in the pole vault, clearing 5.25m. This mark was short of Kiles’ mark of 5.31 m during the Ivy League Championship, but it was enough for him to earn the opportunity to exceed his personal best at next week’s national championships. Other Tigers competing were junior

Garrett O’Toole, who finished 10th in the 1500m; senior Jared Bell, who finished 39th in the discus; junior Mitchel Charles, who finished 39th overall in the shot put; senior Xavier Bledsoe, who finished 29th in the high jump; senior Ben Gaylord, who cleared 5.00m in the pole vault; and freshman Joey Daniels, who finished 27th in the 60m hurdles. Likewise, the women’s team saw two athletes qualify for nationals. Senior Julia Ratcliffe continued her illustrious collegiate career by winning the hammer throw with a 65.42m toss. Ratcliffe, who

holds the Ivy League record in the hammer throw, earned her fourth consecutive bid to the NCAA championships, in which she was the runner-up in 2015. Senior Allison Harris also earned a national championship bid in the pole vault, clearing 4.10 meters. Harris finished in tenth and will participate in her first ever NCAA nationals next week. Sophomore Anna Jurew and senior Katie Hanss both advanced past the preliminary round in the 800 and 1500m, respectively. In the quarterfinals, Jurew failed to finish due to injury, and Hanss finished

19th overall. Also competing were senior Lizzie Bird, who finished 20th in the steeplechase and freshman Madeleine Sumner, who finished 44th in the 1500m. After a season of impressive individual accomplishments, four Princeton athletes, Paulson, Kiles, Ratcliffe, and Harris, will travel across the country to compete at the highest level collegiate sport has to offer. For all, the chance to earn individual glory and to represent Princeton will serve as significant motivation.


Crew takes on IRA Championships By Chris Murphy contributor

The 2017 Princeton athletic season will officially come to a close this weekend as the men’s and women’s crew teams traveling across the nation to attend the IRA championships. After the past three seasons of IRAs being on Mercer Lake, the championships have now made their home on the west coast at the Sacramento State Aquatic Center on Lake Natoma in Gold Riv-

er, Calif. But each of the Princeton teams attending this weekend has a different storyline and different goals to accomplish. The Princeton lightweight men’s team will look to continue their linear trend up the standings in IRAs over the past four years; after finishing sixth four years ago, the Tigers took third place last season. However, to do that, the Tigers will have to shake off the demons acquired from Eastern Sprints, an event which

sophomore Danny Hogan deemed “an unfortunate wake up call” for the team. The Tigers took fifth in the event, keeping with many teams for the first part of the event, but then losing their composure towards the end. Now, they will look to overcome the tough results of Sprints and conclude the season with a solid showing at IRAs. As Hogan noted, “We have had a good focus over the entire course of IRA training. I thought we did a good job

of maintaining progress.” Sophomore Ryan Born, coxswain for the 1V boat, agreed, stating that “the guys have been throwing down their absolute best.” Princeton looks to build upon a strong few weeks of practice and come to IRAs with a sense of urgency to end the season on a high note. Much of the same field from Eastern Sprints will be there for the IRA Championships, and the Tigers are hope to take what they learned from Sprints and use it against

familiar foes this weekend. “IRAs have the potential to be anyone’s boat race,” said Born. The Tigers have a feeling it could be theirs; “I am confident in our crew that if we apply ourselves in the way we have trained, we can find ourselves in the position to win.” The lightweight crew team will send three boats to the race; an eight man boat and two four man boats, one with a coxswain and one without. The See CREW page 5

Lacrosse advances to NCAA WOMEN’S LACROSSE

By Miranda Hasty

associate sports editor

The women’s lacrosse team had an exciting r un in the NCA A Tou rnament, hav ing defeated Cor nel l to face Pen n State in the quarterf inal round. The match against Cornel l on May 14 was a th ri l ling one, the Tigers pu l ling ahead in the f inal m inutes to cl inch the v ictor y. It was tied at 9-9 w ith less

than f ive m inutes remaining when sophomore m idf ielder El izabeth George scored t wo back-to-back goals off of assists from sen ior m id f ielder Ol iv ia Hompe and sophomore m id f ielder Kath r y n Ha llett. Cor nel l, however, put the f i rst points on the scoreboard w ith t wo quick goals w ithin the f irst th ree m inutes of play, but Princ-

Tweet of the Day “Alright, going to bed across the pond. Let’s do this America. Don’t blow it.” Kareem Maddox (@ KareemMaddox), basketball

eton soon responded w ith f ive goals from f ive di fferent players, includ ing fresh man m id f ielder Tess D’Orsi and ju n ior m idf ielder El l ie McNu lt y, to bring the tal ly to 5-2. Cornel l’s Taylor Reed scored toward the end of the f irst hal f to lower Princeton’s lead to t wo as they headed into the second hal f of the match. The hal f was competi-

tive, the Tigers scoring fou r more goals and the Big Red responding w ith an add itiona l se ven to round out the score to 9-9 w ith just m inutes remaining. The fou r Princeton goals came from Hompe, George, and sen ior m idf ielder A n na Dohert y. The game, however, concluded w ith a Princeton w in at 11-9, 15 saves and a single-season record from

Stat of the Day

42 championships Number of Ivy League championships the Class of 2017 won over the past 4 years

senior goalkeeper El lie DeGarmo, 72 season goals for Hompe, and career h igh of fou r goals for George. The Orange and Black advanced to the quarterf inals for the second time in th ree years in a May 21 rematch against Pen n State who had defeated Princeton in its f irst loss in March. The game was even more See LACROSSE page 2

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

Commencement June 6, 2017  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you