Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998
Friday April 1, 2022 vol. CXLVI no. 8
Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
USG
Three referenda pass first hurdle After two-hour debate, USG Senate votes ‘yes’ on language Senate approves language of of referenda on DEI Committee, referendum regarding U. use mental health initiatives of Caterpillar machinery By Annie Rupertus Staff News Writer
The third referendum proposed at the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) meeting on Sunday, March 27 called for the University to boycott Caterpillar construction products. Deliberations began with a statement from the referendum sponsor, Eric Periman ’23, who serves as president of the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP). During the meeting, Periman explained PCP’s rationale, saying, “We’ve recently been really concerned by the use of Caterpillar manufacturing construction machinery on campus for the various campus construction projects, including the E-quad construction, the art museum, the New Colleges East and West, [and] the Lake Campus development project.” “Their machinery is routinely used for some really despicable and inhumane purposes,” Periman continued. Periman cited the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as one of the motives for the referendum. “BDS is a Palestinian-led organization that targets boycotts, divestments, and sanctions to the state of Israel with regard to their treatment of Palestinian people, [and] the violations that that has for international law,” he said. Periman claimed that Caterpillar machinery was used in the demolition of many Palestinian houses and that “Caterpillar knows that its machinery is being used in the violation of human rights.” The ballot in question, if passed, would call on the University administration to stop the use of Caterpillar machinery in
“all ongoing campus projects,” and discontinue the future use of Caterpillar machines on campus, including use by contractors. Members of the USG Senate raised a number of questions and concerns regarding the referendum during the language review discussion. USG Treasurer Adam Hoffman ’23 spoke in reference to the criterion that USG referenda cannot claim to exercise power beyond what an undergraduate referendum can do. Hoffman previously served as the vice president of Tigers for Israel. “It’s actually illegal to boycott Caterpillar,” Hoffman claimed. He also raised a concern that BDS campaigns on college campuses might lead to an increase in antisemitic attacks, an occurrence that has been previously reported across some U.S. college campuses. He claimed that when a 2015 referendum called for Princeton to divest “from multinational corporations that maintain the infrastructure of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank,” a member of the CJL staff saw a rise in antisemitism on Princeton’s campus. Senator Ned Dockery ’25 later added to this, asking Periman to consider including a clause in the referendum commenting on the potential direct effect of the measure on antisemitic attacks. To this, Periman brought up instances “as recently as this year” of PCP activists and non-PCP-affiliated Palestinian and Muslim students also facing discrimination. He did not amend the referendum language. “It seems to me this referendum tries to sneak in BDS,” Hoffman later argued, referencing the omission of language referSee CATERPILLAR page 3
ANNIE RUPERTUS / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
USG Vice President Hannah Kapoor ’23 opens the Senate meeting on Sunday, March 27.
By Annie Rupertus Staff News Writer
The Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Senate approved the language of three ballot referenda in its meeting on Sunday, March 27, including two Senatesponsored referenda regarding the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee and mental healthcare, and one student-sponsored referendum calling for the University to cease its use of Caterpillar machinery. Before the language review process began, U-Councilor Stephen Daniels ’24 presented a proposal for Senate sponsorship of a mental health referendum which calls on the University to “allocate institutional resources to satisfy unmet demand
U. AFFAIRS
Firestone exhibit of Jewish art featuring works by Confederate soldiers canceled By Kalena Blake
Associate News Editor
On Dec. 14, an exhibit dedicated to Jewish American artists in the late nineteenth century was canceled because it would feature the works of two soldiers in the Confederate army: sculptor Moses Jacob Ezekiel and painter Theodore Moise. The exhibit was funded by Leonard Milberg ’53, who as of 2019 had gifted well over 13,000 items to Princeton. The University had agreed to organize the exhibit last summer to complement Milberg’s fifteenth pub-
lication, a collection of essays tentatively titled “Yearning to Breathe Free” and slated to be printed in 2022. It was co-edited by historians Adam Mendelsohn and Jonathan D. Sarna. Milberg had previously organized an exhibit at Princeton entitled “By Dawn’s Early Light: Jewish Contributions to American Culture from the Nation’s Founding to the Civil War” which opened in Feb. 2016. Given that the art museum is currently undergoing renovations, Milberg had hoped to arrange this new exhibit in the Firestone Gallery. According to an article in
Religion News Service, problems with the exhibit began to emerge in the fall of 2021. The centerpiece of the exhibit, which included approximately 50 objects, was a marble copy of a figure called “Faith.” Sculpted by Moses Jacob Ezekiel, “Faith” is a “64-inch marble sculpture of a boy grasping a flaming lamp in one hand as he raises his other hand to the heavens,” according to Religion News Service. During the Battle of New Market, Ezekiel fought as a member of the Confederate Army. Ezekiel is best known for his 32-foot Confederate MemoSee FIRESTONE page 2
T H I S W E E K I N F E AT U R E S | PAG E 1 3
A mysterious email, a scalpel, and a Princeton professor: The search for extinct wolves Bridgette vonHoldt, a Princeton researcher specializing in canids, received a mysterious email from a curious citizen in Texas. The results of her analysis revealed the genetic material of an extinct wolf species maintained in a population of coyotes in Texas.
This Week on Campus
for University-provided mental health care identified by a review, completed by the start of the Fall semester.” Daniels explained that because the Senate would be heavily involved in the implementation of the referendum, choosing not to sponsor it would “send the wrong message that [the Senate doesn’t] think it should be a priority.” “I truly do believe that this is crafted in a way that will elicit a response [from] the administration, as per the feedback that we’ve gotten so far,” Daniels continued. In response to a question from Senator Ned Dockery ’25, Daniels clarified that this referendum is now a single measure encompassing both of the individual referenda he had originally proposed
earlier this month. The Senate voted unanimously to sponsor the referendum. USG Vice President Hannah Kapoor ’23 additionally noted that “student-sponsored referenda can be proposed by any member of the student body to advocate for any sort of change they wish to see on campus.” She added that unlike Senate-sponsored referenda, “after the language review, studentsponsored referenda are required to undergo a petitioning process.” She also emphasized the role of USG as a “neutral facilitator” and clarified the Senate’s responsibilities during the language review. “During the Senate language review, the USG Senate is not voting on whether See DEI page 4
ON CAMPUS
Actress Ali Stroker speaks on Broadway’s disability representation at AccessAbility Center event By Tess Weinreich Staff News Writer
Tony Award-winning actress Ali Stroker performed an original show and discussed her experience navigating the professional musical theater world as a person with a disability at an AccessAbility Center event on Monday, March 28. Stroker has performed at the Kennedy Center, New York’s Town Hall, and the Lincoln Center, and had television appearances on “Glee,” “Ozark,” and “Blue Bloods”. She is often recognized for making show business history as the first wheelchair user to perform on Broadway — an accolade she earned for originating the role of Anna in the Deaf West Theatre’s 2015 revival of “Spring Awakening”. Four years later, she became the first wheelchair user to be nominated for, and win, a Tony for her portrayal of
SPORTS | Princeton Softball vs. Dartmouth — Saturday, April 2, 12:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., Princeton Softball Stadium at Strubing Field. The Princeton Softball team will play two games against Dartmouth this Saturday, both which are Purple Games for Epilepsy Awareness.
Ado Annie in “Oklahoma!”. During Monday’s program, Stroker presented an original show, which interweaves personal experiences with five musical numbers: “Be A Lion,” “Natural Woman,” “True Colors,” “Can’t Say No,” and “Here’s Where I Stand.” Reflecting on advocacy, inclusion, and the importance of representation throughout, Stroker shared what she referred to as her disability “origin story,” recounting the car accident that resulted in her spinal injury and subsequent paralysis at two years old. Stroker also spoke about the incident that first sparked her passion for performance as a child — when she starred as Annie in a backyard production of the musical to the delight of neighbors and friends in the audience. “Everyone was staring at me, See STROKER page 4
ARTS | Making Queer Theater — Saturday, April 2, 8 p.m., Donald G. Drapkin Studio, Lewis Arts complex. The Lewis Center, Theatre Intime, and Princeton University Players are hosting Making Queer Theater on Saturday in the Lewis Arts Complex to celebrate the start of Princeton’s Pride Month.
EVENT | MHI Walkathon — Saturday, April 2, 8 p.m., Frist South Lawn. The Mental Health Initiative is hosting a Walkathon on Saturday afternoon to end their Mental Health Week programming, which will include games, music, and raffles.
The Daily Princetonian
page 2
Friday April 1, 2022
U. AFFAIRS
Butler College’s Studio ’34 faces staff shortage, remains closed By Tara Agarwal
Staff News Writer
Studio ’34, a self-service cafe in Butler College, has yet to reopen due to challenges caused by staffing shortages. Popular among students for its late-night meal options, the cafe was slated to resume operations in the fall 2021 semester but now faces an uncertain future. The cafe has been closed since the fall of 2020. “Campus Dining, like many hospitality organizations, is currently experiencing a significant labor shortage. We are down approximately 25 staff members and have only a fraction of our normal student workforce,” Cristian Vasquez, Director of Retail and Catering, wrote in an email to The Daily Princetonian. “Therefore, we have already had to curtail some of our retail operations on campus and are unlikely to be able to divert resources, particularly during the late-night hours, to be able
to open Studio ’34, at least in the near term,” he added. The temporary closure reflects broader trends of understaffed dining halls across campus since students returned to campus in the fall. Currently, there are 23 job openings within Campus Dining listed on the University’s Human Resources Website. Five of these were posted in the last seven days. Studio ’34 is located in the basement of 1967 Hall in Butler College. Before the pandemic’s outbreak, its food offerings included “pizza, hot dogs, sandwiches, sushi, coffee, and other snacks and sundries” with both indoor and outdoor seating options. Students frequented the cafe both for the food options and for the community it created. “Living down-campus, it was definitely a convenient spot given that there are few late-night snack options,” Isabelle Nimick ’22 wrote in an email to the ‘Prince.’ “Studio ’34 mimicked the options of the C-
Store in Frist but offered warm meals like chicken tenders and pizza.” Other late-night snack options for students include the University Store, which operates until 2 a.m. throughout the week, the Wawa, open twenty-four hours a day, and the Frist Food Gallery, open from 11 p.m. until 3 a.m on Saturday nights. Gavin Cotter ’23, a residential college advisor in Butler College, also recalled that Studio ’34 was a “convenient” dining option and Oliver Whang ’22, a Butlerite going on four years, said that he frequented the cafe for pizzas when working late. According to Nimick, Studio ’34 played an important role in popularizing Butler’s communal areas. But she said that the pandemic has rendered the space “desolate now that warm food and snacks are no longer available.” Jackie Wang ’25 said in an interview with the ‘Prince’ that Studio ’34 “seems like
COURTESY OF EMILY DELLA PIETRA
Studio ‘34 is housed in the basement of 1967 Hall.
an easy meal option for students living in residential colleges like Butler and Whitman.” “I hope they are able to reopen soon,” she added. Other cafes run by Campus Dining across the University, including the Frist Food Gallery, EQuad Cafe, and Witherspoon’s, resumed operations in the fall 2021 semester as scheduled. Campus dining will con-
tinue to assess when Studio ’34 can be reopened. “The plan is to reevaluate the operation for the fall semester, and see where we might have opportunities to reopen Studio ’34 and some of the other locations that are currently closed,” Vasquez wrote. Tara Agarwal is a news staff writer for the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at ta3150@princeton.edu.
Baskind: We need to inform and discuss the past, not bury it FIRESTONE Continued from page 1
.............
rial at the Arlington cemetery. Another painter in the exhibit, Theodore Moise, attained the rank of major in the Confederate Army. In explaining why the exhibit was canceled, Anne Jarvis, the Robert H. Taylor 1930 University Librarian, deferred to the University for comment. The University held that it was honoring the academic freedom of the librarians to decide what was appropriate for the gallery. “It is the Library that speaks through its galleries, and the Library is responsible for the messages conveyed there,” wrote Deputy University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss in an
email to The Daily Princetonian. “The Librarian and her senior staff have a duty to ensure that any materials exhibited are presented, explained, and contextualized in a manner consistent with the Library’s educational and research mission.” Hotchkiss stated that the exhibition was ultimately canceled by the donor, not the library or the University, following disagreements between the library and Milberg on the show’s composition. In an email comment to the ‘Prince,’ the show’s curator Samantha Baskind, a professor of art history at Cleveland State University, relayed a different narrative. “Princeton asserts that the University has the right to decide what to include or not include in the exhibit and that it
CANDACE DO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
was not Princeton that canceled the show but the donor,” said Baskind. “The latter is a semantical dance. That Princeton effectively canceled the show after the donor pulled out because Princeton canceled the art, is probably the best way to put it.” The official policy listed on the Princeton University alumni gift page is that “gifts to the University must respect the University’s fundamental commitment to academic freedom and the rigorous and independent pursuit of truth.” Baskind and Milberg, the organizers of the planned exhibit, separately expressed their disappointment with the University’s decision. “Removing the artists with Confederate ties rewrites art history. Art historians examine the meaning of art in its own time as well as how it’s perceived in the current moment. We need to inform and discuss the past, not bury it,” Baskind wrote in an email statement to the ‘Prince.’ When asked about what the general reaction has been in the art community, Milberg claimed he had not heard of one person who agrees with the library’s decision. Milberg, a former class president, also remarked that the University’s decision made him reconsider his personal ties. “It’s certainly something that has set me back. I was really stunned by the University taking this position. I hope we return the way it was, but I was
so hurt by the way it was done,” he said. Baskind and Milberg both said they saw the gallery as serving an educational purpose within the University, while also acknowledging the checkered history of its contributors. Milberg remarked that the exhibit was “groundbreaking” in that it featured works for an underrepresented period of Jewish-American history and had received considerable praise for recognizing what Milberg called “a lost part of American history.” According to Baskind and Milberg, the gallery served to instigate conversation on the complex topic of Jewish-American involvement in the Civil War. Both Baskind and Milberg held that while none of the works directly related to the Confederacy, the exhibit did not attempt to cover up the artist’s affiliations with the Confederacy. According to Milberg, it was very clearly stated that Moise and Ezekiel were Confederate soldiers. Baskind noted that the signage and wall labels that accompanied the works had the goal of starting conversations for the students and the larger community on these challenging topics. Milberg echoed this intent. “I’m interested in bringing knowledge and learning,” he said. Referring to professorships
he endowed at the University, Milberg explained that his passion for learning is “why I brought two chairs, to learn, and I don’t want to tell them what to believe. Once you start canceling things, it never ends.” He continued this message by emphasizing that instead of erasing history, we have to learn from it. Baskind also contextualized the University’s decision within the broader “cancel culture” movement, calling the University’s censorship “an unfortunate anti-intellectual surrender to cancel culture.” In her statement to the ‘Prince,’ Baskind referenced a recent New York Times opinion article written by Margaret Renkl, which argued “It’s Possible to Learn the Right Thing From the Wrong Person.” “Perhaps even more important, we profoundly misunderstand the very nature of art when we think we know in advance what readers — or audience members or gallery visitors — will derive from it. Or, worse, when we presume to tell them what they should derive from it,” Renkl wrote. Kalena Blake is an associate news editor. She can be reached at kalenab@princeton.edu. Staff News Writer and Head Puzzles Editor Gabriel Robare contributed reporting. He can be reached at grobare@princeton.edu or on social @gabrielrobare.
The Daily Princetonian
Friday April 1, 2022
page 3
Senate also voted on whether the referendum was ‘frivolous’ CATERPILLAR Continued from page 1
.............
ring to BDS in the ballot question text itself but the inclusion of the movement in the question’s explanation. He called for fellow USG members to vote no on the language approval. Periman then addressed the Senate body, arguing that “[Hoffman] would like you to believe this is a BDS referendum — it’s not. BDS does not appear in the resolution or in the ballot question. It only exists in the explanation; that’s not what’s being implemented.” Andrew Zucker ’25, a member of the Sustainability Committee, said that “the boycott of a company that conducts business with Israel” qualifies the measure as a BDS referendum, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated. Zucker currently serves as the secretary for Tigers for Israel. Periman, Hoffman, and others continued to debate the phrasing of the referendum and whether the inclusion of BDS in the explanation section constituted part of the resolution. “That’s an interpretation that Senate members are going to have to consider when they vote,” Hannah Kapoor ’23, Vice President of USG said. At this point, the meeting reached the one-hour mark. Senate members extended the meeting in ten-minute intervals for nearly an additional 90 minutes. Over an hour and a half after discussion of this referendum language began, the Senate began the voting process. It approved the referendum language with twelve members voting in favor, five abstaining, and five opposing. The votes are as follows: Voting in favor were USG President Mayu Takeuchi ’23, Senator Sean Bradley ’24, U-Councilor Stephen Daniels ’24, Academic Chair Austin Davis ’23, Senator Kanishkh Kanodia ’23, Kapoor, Senator Mariam Latif ’24, Social Committee Chair Madison Linton ’24, UCouncil Chair Riley Martinez ’23, Senator Walker Penfield ’25, Campus and Community Affairs Chair Isabella Shutt ’24, and U-Councilor Vian Wagatsuma ’23. Abstaining from the vote were University Student Life Committee Chair Avi Attar ’25 and Dockery, as well as several absent Senate members; votes from those who are not in attendance are automatically marked as abstaining, so U-Councilors Mohamed Jishi ’24, Anna Sivaraj ’23, and Jiwon Yun ’22 were marked as such. Voting in opposition were Hoffman, U-Councilor Carlisle Imperial ’25, U-Councilor Alen Palic ’23, U-Councilor Eric Sklanka ’23, and Zucker, who attended and voted by proxy as a representative of Sustainability Chair Audrey Zhang ’25.
The Daily Princetonian was unable to verify the vote of Senator Gisell Curbelo ’23. DEI Chair Braiden Aaronson ’25 advocated that the referendum be considered “frivolous.” After approving the language of the referendum to appear on the ballot, the Senate then debated the question of frivolity. Citing Hoffman’s prior claim that it would be illegal for the University to cease using Caterpillar products, Daniels said that the referendum should be considered frivolous because “the University is not actually able to carry out this action.” Shutt contested that the measure would be legal, saying that the anti-BDS laws discussed do not “pertain to University contracting of construction equipment.” The purpose of the frivolous measure under the Senate’s Constitution, Shutt said, was to prevent “someone put[ing] up a referendum that said every student must wear green on Wednesday, [for example,] that we cannot then allow it on the ballot.” Following Shutt’s comments, Penfield motioned to vote on whether the referendum is frivolous and Shutt seconded. Kapoor granted a request from Daniels to delay the vote to give members the opportunity to resolve the issue of whether or not federal and New Jersey laws would make the referendum’s implementation unfeasible. As the legal discussion continued, Aaronson said that the referendum should be considered frivolous as “a BDS referendum” that attempts to “sneak around the Senate language review process,” done necessarily in “bad faith.” The Senate voted and ultimately did not find the referendum frivolous, failing to reach the 5/6 threshold to mark a referendum as such. The votes were as follows: Voting in favor of deeming the referendum “frivolous” were Daniels, Hoffman, Imperial, Linton, and Zucker (representing Zhang). Abstaining from the vote were Takeuchi, Attar, Bradley, Davis, Kapoor, Martinez, Palic, Penfield, and Sklanka. Jishi, Sivaraj, and Yun were again counted as abstaining because they were not in attendance. Opposing the deeming of the referendum as “frivolous” were Dockery, Kanodia, Latif, Shutt, and Wagatsuma. The ‘Prince’ was unable to verify Curbelo’s vote. After the USG meeting, PCP member Harshini Abbaraju ’22 told the ‘Prince’ that she “watched in great dismay as the discussion around this referendum devolved into bad faith [and] unfounded accusations.” Nevertheless, Abbaraju and other members of PCP expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the vote and their excitement for
the petition and campaign periods to come. The ‘Prince’ requested comment from other community members in attendance but no others provided comment. USG Senate meetings are held in Robertson Hall Bowl 016 at 8 p.m. on Sunday evenings and are open to all. Staff News Writer Alison Araten contributed reporting to this piece. Annie Rupertus is a first-year from Philadelphia and a Staff News Writer who covers USG for the ‘Prince.’ She is also a designer for the print issue. She can be reached at arupertus@ princeton.edu or @annierupertus on Instagram and Twitter.
ANNIE RUPERTUS / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
PCP President Eric Periman ’23 addresses students after the USG meeting adjourned.
THE MINI CROSSWORD By Allie Zhao Senior Constructor
MINI #1
MORE ONLINE
scan to read more !
OPINION
Leonard Milberg ’53: When Princeton blocks exhibits of Jewish art with Confederate artists, it erases history ACROSS 1 6 7 8 9
Ides of ___ “La Boèheme,” for example “See ya” Goofed “Enough!” DOWN
1 2 3 4 5
Double agents Not even close Back in style Inch Like a Friday New York Times crossword
See page 7 for more
NEWS
J-Lats hosts festival to celebrate Purim and Brazilian Carnival THE PROSPECT
Smith’s slap steals the show as CODA wins Best Picture at 94th Oscars
The Daily Princetonian
page 4
Friday April 1, 2022
Stroker: People and society assume that my limitation is my chair, but it’s actually the limitations that society has placed on me STROKER
Continued from page 1
.............
but it wasn’t because I was in a wheelchair. It was because I was a star,” Stroker said during the event, adding that she has been “hooked ever since.” In an interview with The Daily Princetonian, Stroker discussed what the original show she presented at the AccessAbility Center event, titled “Turning Limitations into Opportunities,” means to her. “In many ways I talk about the ‘hits,’ the good things that have happened in my life and the highlights,” she said. “But [it’s] really important to me to also be real with what society has placed on disabled people.” “We need to start conversations,” she continued, “and this is a show where, in addition to the speaking and signing, we’re going to have a conversation.” She went on to emphasize the significance of its name. According to the actress, “turning limitations into opportunities” has long served as a personal motto. “‘Turning limitations into opportunities’ has meant different things to me in different seasons of my life, depending on what I’m going through,” she said. She clarified, however, that the title refers to “limitations”
imposed by an often-inaccessible society, not the differences in physical ability she experiences as a paralyzed woman. “People and society assume that my limitation is my chair, but it’s actually the limitations that society has placed on me,” she said. “[The show is about being] able to identify those and then find the opportunities to flip those.” The event concluded with a Q&A moderated by AccessAbility Center Student Fellows Katie Heinzer ’22 and Harper Chambers ’24. The program was a product of over two years of planning on the part of Heinzer, Chambers, and their co-Fellows Naomi Hess ’22 and Priyanka Aiyer ’23. It all began in the fall of 2019 when Hess traveled with her residential college to see “Oklahoma!” on Broadway; at the time, Stroker was cast in the role of Ado Annie. Hess is a News Editor Emerita at the ‘Prince.’ After the show, Stroker’s father — who according to the actress attended a whopping 76 showings of “Oklahoma!” — approached Hess and offered to introduce her to Stroker. “I was able to talk to Ali for maybe 10 minutes, and we talked about Princeton. It was a really wonderful conversation,” Hess said. In January 2020, Hess brought
JON SWEENEY / LEWIS CENTER FOR THE ARTS
Ali Stroker, the Tony Award-winning actor and first wheelchair user to star on Broadway, at the Lewis Art Complex on March 28.
the idea of inviting Stroker to speak at the University to her boss, Director for Disability Services Liz Erickson. With the help of Administrative Assistant for Disability Services Jennifer Miller and director of the Program in Music Theater Stacy Wolf, the event was initially going to be held on April 21, 2020. But obviously the pandemic got in the way. “We pulled it together pretty quickly until it didn’t happen because of COVID. A lot of the
plans that are coming to fruition now are ideas that we’ve been holding onto for two years,” Heinzer said, adding that the event has been scheduled and then pushed back every semester since. “She’s such a good performer and such a presence that the whole team felt we wanted it to be in person,” Heinzer continued. “I think the visibility of seeing Ali Stroker who uses a wheelchair on stage would be a big image to have at Princeton.”
The event, which was cosponsored by the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity, Lewis Center for the Arts, Gender and Sexuality Resource Center, and the Graduate School, was held at 6 p.m. in the Donald G. Drapkin Studio in the Lewis Arts Complex. Tess Weinreich is a staff news writer and features contributor for the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at tw7353@princeton.edu.
Kapoor: Our role is not to assess the direct effects or implications of a referendum DEI
Continued from page 1
.............
they identify with the opinions expressed in the referendum themselves,” Kapoor said. “Simply, we’re voting on whether or not the proposals fall under what [USG’s] constitution describes to be a power of a referendum and whether or not it clearly describes the direct effects of its adoption. Our role is not to assess the direct effects or implications of a referendum proposal.” Kapoor noted the Senate’s
plan to hold a community forum after the vote. USG Parliamentarian Kate Liu ’23 laid out the referendum process, pointing out that in order for a referendum to appear on the ballot, it must pass a majority vote by the Senate, which approves the language of the referendum and the ballot question. According to the elections handbook, the job of the Senate is to evaluate the language used in a referendum based on three criteria: (1) “the resolution is neutrally worded,” (2) “the resolution
clearly describes the direct effects of its adoption,” and (3) “the resolution does not claim to exercise a power that cannot be exercised by an undergraduate referendum.” However, referenda that are not neutrally worded may be allowed if (1) the referendum is only given under an advisory power — in other words, it calls on the University to take action rather than enables the Senate to take action itself — and (2) the referendum is issued under an advisory power is stated “unambiguously” in the resolution.
Liu added that the Senate must also ensure that the wording of the ballot question “clearly describes” the longer resolution part of the referendum. She noted that sponsors can choose whether to amend their language based on comments from the Senate, but they are not required to make edits. Additionally, Liu referred members to a clause of the Senate’s constitution stating that, with a 5/6 vote, the Senate can determine that a referendum is “frivolous”; should this determination be made, the sponsor would need to get 1,300 signatures during the petition period, as opposed to the usual 500 signatures needed to get a referendum on the ballot. Neither the USG’s constitution nor the elections handbook define the term “frivolous.” According to the elections calendar included in the USG’s March 27 newsletter, referendum petitions are due on Friday, April 1 at 11:59 p.m. The Senate first considered whether to approve the language of a referendum put forward by DEI Chair Braiden Aaronson ’25. If passed by the student body, the referendum would make the DEI Committee a core committee of USG and make the DEI Chair a member of the Senate Executive Committee and a voting member of the Senate. The Senate voted unanimously to approve the language of the referendum. They also unanimously voted to approve the language of Daniels’ mental health referendum that they had agreed to sponsor earlier in the meeting. Details on the discussion and voting of the language of the third referendum, regarding the boycott of Caterpillar construction equipment can be found here. In the meeting, the Senate also heard a brief update from USG Movies Committee Chair Cheyenne Zhang ’22, who reported that about 53 percent of students who register for USG movie events actually attend — up from 48 percent last semester. The Committee “has spent about $5,000 total,” Zhang said, adding that they are hoping to host an outdoor movie kickoff event at the end of April. Tiffanie Cheng ’24 of the Mental Health Initiative also gave a report, emphasizing
the group’s Mental Health Week which begins on Monday, March 28. The group will host mental health-related events through Sunday, April 3 with the goal of promoting wellness and destigmatizing conversations around mental health. Projects Board Co-Chair Nelson Dimpter ’22 presented two funding proposals to the Senate. The first, from the Asian American Student Association (AASA), requests $1,228 of USG funding to bring influencer Elliot Choy to campus as a speaker. Secondly, Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice (PSRJ) requested $1,500 from USG as part of an initiative to provide students with free STI testing. Both requests were approved unanimously. Derek Nam ’23 of the Student Groups Recognition Committee (SGRC) introduced six new clubs that were recently approved by SGRC, including a group called February 24th, 2022, formed “to raise awareness of the events happening in Ukraine and Russia concerning the war;” a stand-up comedy group called Basic; a club called FACET (the Food Allergy and Celiac Education Team); Just Dance Company and Collective; TigerMed EMS Education; and a chapter of National Alzheimer’s Buddies. The Senate approved all six student groups unanimously. After the meeting adjourned, Kapoor indicated to those in attendance that some Senate members would remain in the room for the planned community forum, but community members opted not to engage in a forum at that time. This week’s meeting ran for about two and a half hours compared to the usual one hour, with attendance significantly higher than any other USG meeting this term. Community members constantly filtered in throughout the meeting, with some standing in the back of the room. USG Senate meetings are held in Robertson Hall Bowl 016 at 8 p.m. on Sunday evenings and are open to all. Annie Rupertus is a first-year from Philadelphia and a Staff News Writer who covers USG for the ‘Prince.’ She is also a designer for the print issue. She can be reached at arupertus@princeton.edu or @ annierupertus on Instagram and Twitter.
The Daily Princetonian
Friday April 1, 2022
page 5
U. AFFAIRS
Princeton Town Council continues Witherspoon Street construction plans By Charlie Roth
Staff News Writer
At its Monday, March 28 meeting, the Princeton Town Council discussed Phase 2 of the Witherspoon Street renovation project and honored former University professor and Assistant Dean of the College Dr. Cecelia Hodges Drewry. Witherspoon Street continues to be one of the main points of conversation for the Council, with Municipal Engineer Deanna Stockton and her team presenting concepts for Phase 2 of the construction plan, which stretches from Green Street to Franklin Avenue. Preconstruction utility work is already underway for Phase 1, which stretches from Nassau Street to Green Street, with construction set to begin in April 2022.
The engineering team, led in the meeting by Municipal Senior Planner Justin Lesko, presented two designs, Concept ‘A’ and Concept ‘B,’ for the Council to choose between before awarding a construction contract. Both concepts take community feedback into consideration and are meant to “address speeding and safety concerns for crossing Witherspoon Street,” according to Lesko, with an emphasis on more crosswalks. The two designs differ in terms of biking accessibility: Concept ‘A’ does not include dedicated bicycle lanes while Concept ‘B’ does. While ‘B’ would satisfy the vocal biking community, the engineering team noted multiple problems with the proposed bike lanes. The presentation listed six pros and two cons for Concept ‘A’
and two pros and eight cons for Concept ‘B.’ The Council, including Councilmember David Cohen, voiced their support for Concept ‘A’ and worries about Concept ‘B.’ “My major concern is a safety concern with an enormous potential for conflict with cars that are going in and out of both driveways and the side streets, and a lot of conflict with pedestrians who would need to cross the bike lane to get to the many crosswalks,” Cohen said. “Bicyclists move quickly enough that they can sneak up on a motorist who’s trying to back out of their driveway in a fraction of a second.” Despite their initial support for the first concept, multiple Council members asked that the decision be delayed so that there could
be more input from staff and affected groups. Councilmember Mia Sacks noted the lack of a public presence in the meeting. After discussion with the Engineering team, the Council determined that a decision on the design had to be made by the week of April 18. The deadline to award a construction contract is Nov. 19, 2022, in order to meet the deadline for state municipal aid grants, so a design must be firmly set by then. Earlier in the meeting, the Council honored Dr. Cecelia Hodges, a former English professor and assistant dean at the University, led by Councilmember Leighton Newlin. “Dr. Cecelia B. Hodges has served the town of Princeton for many years as a professor, leader, performer
and faithful steward of her church,” Newlin said. “Her legacy will continue as a valuable woman who gives up her time, her talents and her knowledge. I thank you for all you’ve done, Ms. Hodges. We the people in Princeton love you and we are very happy that you’re a part of our family.” Finally, the Council approved the University’s request to put a banner over Washington Road for the Department of Music. The full meeting can be viewed here. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Monday, April 11. Charlie Roth is an Assistant Data Editor and Staff News Writer for the ‘Prince,’ focusing on local town coverage. He can be reached at charlieroth@ princeton.edu or @imcharlieroth on Twitter or Instagram.
Town Council convenes to discuss cannabis retail in community, faces pushback in public comment portion Assistant News Editor and Staff News Writer
At a special meeting of the Princeton Town Council on Tuesday, March 29, Council members discussed the prospect of approving a marijuana dispensary in town, and many residents logged on to voice their strongly-held views on the proposal. The meeting started with an hour of presentations by stakeholders — including doctors, advocates, and politicians — both in support and opposition of the measure, before they opened the public comment portion that ran for over three hours. On Nov. 30, the Cannabis Task Force (CTF) — which is composed of Town Council members, local health and public safety experts, business representatives, and concerned citizens — submitted a proposal to the Town Council recommending that cannabis dispensaries be allowed to open in town. The Task Force was proposed by Councilwoman Eve Niedergang in 2021 with the goal of discussing whether the town should allow for the creation of marijuana dispensaries, how to best educate the community about marijuana policy change, and how to equitably enforce laws related to marijuana. The CTF meets the second Thursday of every month. The March 29 meeting had plenty of debate between members of the public, with opposing sides citing different studies and reacting to each others’ arguments. The meeting peaked at 345 attendants and ended with 188 people in attendance and 35 people waiting with their virtual hands still raised. With the meeting held over Zoom, the presenters at the beginning had 30 minutes per side, then Council staff read their thoughts, and public commenters had three minutes each to make their viewpoints heard. The Council agreed to stop the meeting at 11
p.m. and continue at a later date to allow the rest of the people waiting to make public comments to share their input. The Council also received 40 to 50 email messages before the meeting, which they intend to publish before the next meeting. The first two speakers were pro-dispensary and included Chris Goldstein, representative of the pro-marijuana advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and the former mayor of Maplewood, Victor DeLuca. “The only way to show kids how to be responsible adult cannabis consumers is to show them. They have to be able to see their parents being responsible consumers buying at a dispensary instead of a street corner somewhere,” Goldstein said. “So if that’s not available in Princeton, what message do you send to kids?” The presenters that opposed opening a marijuana dispensary were Dr. Matt Bellace, Dr. Aaron Weiner, and Will Jones. “The Board of Education and members of the Board of Health have voiced some serious concerns in recent weeks, and I really think that we should listen,” Bellace said. “Pot is still going to be legal in New Jersey. That’s true no matter what we do here. But let’s address some of the risks, some of the unknowns, before we open a marijuana store, or three. Remember opting in is a long-term commitment — at least five years, I’m told, before we can do anything about it. So what is the rush?” The meeting then transitioned to public comment. Many of the concerns expressed were about the potential effects on children. “Just like cigarettes, vaping, and alcohol, if it is made more easily available, our children will find a way to use it and abuse it. I can’t tell you how many times I hear my son tell me he sees kids vaping all the time in the bathrooms,” Dr. Jason Rogart said. “Why expose our town to these risks? We’re better than this. It
will only inevitably harm our town and our children.” “The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Let’s not pave the road to [our children’s] future with poor decisionmaking,” one parent said in opposition to a dispensary. Other opponents, like Lisa Jacknow, emphasized that many people’s vote to legalize cannabis in the state should not be equated to supporting a dispensary in the town. “Most residents voted to legalize marijuana out of concern for wrongful incarceration in the past, not to open retail stores near our schools, people’s homes, or in our walkable family areas,” Jacknow said. Proponents like a member of the public Doug Rubin ’81, meanwhile, argued that having a legally licensed marijuana store in Princeton will ensure the safety and quality of the product, as well as decrease the illicit market for children. “High school kids already get marijuana, they don’t need dispensaries in Princeton to get them,” Rubin said. “It’s in the community’s interest to have a vibrant, available legal market for cannabinoids. Quality is better; profits, wages, and taxes flow. Plus, by making it legal and available to adults, retailers who also sell to children and teens lose those customers and they might go out of business.” “Cannabis is coming to town one way or another, and it is futile to try to wish it away,” Sam Bunting, a member of the public who spoke in favor of dispensaries during the meeting, wrote in an email to The Daily Princetonian. “Trustworthy, knowledgeable local vendors who are invested in the community will ensure that cannabis buyers get a good, safe experience and can act as partners for education efforts.” Dr. Abigail Kalmbach ’00 said she hopes to open Princeton’s first cannabis dispensary, if it is permitted, called Maude’s Potted Plant. “I want to work with my
community to find the minimally effective dose of cannabis that works best for you,” she said in the meeting. “A small, community-focused dispensary will provide more personalized care than the large dispensaries found on Route 1.” “Our end goal is personalized wellness, and we will achieve this through rigorous research and development,” Kalmbach wrote in an email to the ‘Prince,’ in which she also emphasized the many safety measures the store will take to prevent marijuana from getting to underaged hands. The previously proposed dispensary locations are Dinky Area South, the intersection of Harrison Street and Nassau Street, Witherspoon Street between Green Street and Valley Road, the Central Business District, and Route 206 North. The full meeting can be viewed here. The Council intends to set a date for
the next meeting soon, where they will listen to more public comments and have a Council discussion afterward. After the meeting, the Council could choose one of three options: draft an ordinance allowing a designated number of dispensaries, hold a local referendum on dispensaries in November — which many opponents asked for — or deny the push for a dispensary. Lia Opperman is an Assistant News Editor who often covers University affairs, student life, and local news. She can be reached at liaopperman@princeton.edu, on Instagram @liamariaaaa, or on Twitter @oppermanlia. Charlie Roth is an Assistant Data Editor and Staff News Writer for the ‘Prince,’ focusing on local town coverage. He can be reached at charlieroth@ princeton.edu or @imcharlieroth on Twitter or Instagram.
FROM THE ARCHIVES
By Lia Opperman and Charlie Roth
The Daily Princetonian
page 6
Friday April 1, 2022
DATA
1 in 4 Princeton undergraduates tested positive for COVID-19 in 2022. Here’s a look at the numbers. Since Jan. 1, around 26% of undergraduates tested positive Gabriel Robare
Staff News Writer
Since Jan. 1, 2022, 26.4 percent of undergraduates have tested positive for COVID-19 under the University’s testing protocol, which includes both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. The University reports that 31.8 percent of undergraduates have tested positive since the pandemic started. 5.5 percent of graduate students and 9.9 percent of faculty and staff have also received a positive test, creating a combined total of more than 15 percent of the campus community. From August 2020 through 2021, faculty and staff positives represented a slight majority of cases. In 2022, undergraduates have led and continue to lead in COVID-19 cases at the University — despite the fact that they represent barely a third of the campus community. The caseload for undergraduates — as reported by the University’s COVID-19 Dashboard — has reached staggering figures after multiple sharp outbreaks, while cases from other campus communities have increased at much slower rates. The chart below shows the percentage of each major campus group (undergraduates, faculty/ staff, and graduate students) that has tested positive in 2022 over time. Figures for student populations were taken from the Common Data Set, while those for faculty and staff populations were taken from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. The Daily Princetonian’s analysis assumes that each positive test corresponds to a new person; however, it is possible to catch the virus multiple times, causing some data here to be underestimates. Tests are only processed on weekdays. (This explains the sharp incline in the chart
on weekdays, and the plateaus — when no tests are processed — on weekends.) Since Feb. 14, undergraduate cases began to dominate COVID-19 case counts on campus. This phenomenon was especially surprising because of the relatively small number of undergraduates in the University community. If every member of the University community — every student, Ph.D. candidate, custodian, professor — gathered in a room, there would be more than 15,000 people, with undergraduates far outnumbered. The test counts show a similar disproportion: faculty, staff, and graduate students together make up the majority of the people under the testing protocol. In the chart below, we see the same time scale as above, but instead of showing the percentages of the three groups, we only see the number of cases in each group. The rise in undergraduate cases on campus came toward the end of the omicron wave across the United States. While cases were steeply declining across the nation and more importantly, in New Jersey, each passing week saw a large uptick in undergraduate cases. This trend continued until after the sixth week of the spring semester — the week of spring break — when many students left the campus, exiting its testing protocol. The raw case counts begin to show that although only about 35 percent of individuals in the testing protocol are undergraduate students, undergraduates are not outnumbered in one crucial area: positive tests. Despite representing 35 percent of the campus community’s population and comprising 40 percent of the tests since Jan. 1, undergraduates represent 62 percent of the cases in the same period. There are a few confounding factors: some students test more frequently due to
their participation in sports and performing groups, for instance, but those who test positive are removed from the testing protocol, decreasing the number of tests. Even accounting for these blurring factors, compared to population and tests, undergraduates have a disproportionately larger caseload. Last semester, and since the start of the pandemic, case counts have been spread more evenly between the three groups. Below is the same chart as above, but for the full pandemic up to the end of 2021. Note that the asymptomatic testing protocol be-
gan in August 2020 when students first returned to campus. Faculty, who represent 46 percent of the population, represented 52 percent of the cases, while undergraduates, who represented 34 percent of the population, represented 33 percent of the cases. This falls in sharp contrast to the trends of the current spring semester and shows the scale of the recent outbreak among the undergraduates. This increase — from undergraduates representing 33 percent of cases in December 2021 to 62 percent of cases in March 2022 — happened quickly. The following
chart tracks the proportions of year-to-date cases among the major campus groups over the course of 2022. The faculty portion, which used to be the vast majority of cases, shrinks as the undergraduate portion grows larger and larger through the multiple outbreaks in February. Along with this increase in cases, the data shows an extreme increase in positivity rates across all groups. This chart shows alltime positivity rates — a figure calculated as total positive cases, divided by total tests, over a period of time. Positivity rates were low among all groups in 2020 and 2021: fewer than 0.1 percent of 220,454 undergraduate tests came back positive. That figure was twice as high — up to about 0.2 percent of 226,336 tests — for faculty and staff. Since Jan. 1, 1.5 percent of the 46,067 tests faculty and staff have submitted this year have come back positive. But now, the undergraduate figure is twice as high as that of the faculty and staff, with more than a 3 percent positivity rate out of their 46,820 tests. Far fewer tests along with far more cases means an extremely high positivity rate. Note that this is a shorter period, and students were only required to submit one test a week for most of it. This increased positivity rate correlates with the precipitous increase in cases among the undergraduates seen above. In the past few weeks, caseloads have declined as the University lifted its mask mandate and altered its testing protocol; students now only test once a month instead of once a week. With the community taking far fewer tests, COVID-19 data will be difficult to compile in any sense on campus: Students may catch COVID-19 and pass through the course of infection, all while never taking a test. Thus, the figures reported in this article may be an underestimate, due to the change in testing protocol in the last two weeks. Still, the caseload continues to climb, and daily positive tests are still dominated by undergraduates, as they have been nearly every single day since the start of the semester. In 2022, the undergraduate student body defines the pandemic at Princeton. Gabriel Robare is a staff news writer, as well as a Head Puzzles Editor, for the ‘Prince.’ He can be reached at grobare@princeton.edu or on social @gabrielrobare.
Friday April 1, 2022
April 1
The Daily Princetonian
page 7
By Sebastian Hayden and Rishi Dange Assistant Puzzles Editor and Senior Constructor
ACROSS
52 Environmentally friendly prefix 1 Hawaiian garland 53 [Hehe… this will make 4 Radiates them jump up so fast!] 9 What an inverse function 57 High tennis shot retrieves 60 Diminutive suffix in 14 Actor McKellen who Spanish found in a played Gandalf famous Luis Fonsi song. 15 Princeton reject? 61 First part of a play 16 Mario franchise 62 [Hehe… that’s no character ___ Troopa ordinary breath 17 [Hehe… just wait til they freshener!] walk through that 68 Daddy Warbucks entryway!] musical 20 Hives, e.g. 21 Org. made of executive, 69 Where hockey might be played legislative, and judicial 70 Witch branches 71 When a procrastinator 22 Tiny messenger might not act? 23 [Hehe… that’s a lot of 72 McFarlane and Rogen whipped cream!] 73 President pro ___ 28 And, in Austria 29 Tut’s title, had he lived DOWN in Spain 1 Lefty 30 Warning 2 ___ de toilette 34 Pen prefix 3 Bob Parr’s superhero 35 TV channel for sports alter ego, “Mr. ___” 37 ___ Bornes (classic card 4 Not a sight to behold? game) 5 AP Calculus BC, e.g. 38 ___ ghanouj 6 U.N. worker protection 40 “Would you like ___ grp. awarded 1969 Nobel coffee?” Peace Prize 43 Singer Dua 7 Trace of color 44 Speaks in a sing-songy 8 Play by a different ___ manner rules 46 Christmas, in Québec 9 Mike’s counterpart 48 Tool needed to make a 10 Say yes without saying keg flow yes? 49 Tribe in the Iroquois 11 ___ Richard’s Almanack Confederacy 12 “Once” and “a time” 51 “1” is near Princeton, separator and “66” goes through the 13 Skater Lipinski southwest: Abbr.
MINI #2
ACROSS
18 Second half of a popular wafer brand name 19 Climate control system, in brief 23 Southwest settlement 24 Nursing a sprained ankle, e.g. 25 Prefix with beast 26 Kiss ___ 27 Like Jafar in “Aladdin” 31 St. Peter’s became the first 15-seed in NCAA history to reach this stage of the men’s basketball tournament 32 South American camelid 33 Short and stout object? 36 Mum’s mum 39 Give a ___ of the hat (greet someone) 41 “Cloud” beyond Neptune 42 Fix up a straw roof, say 45 Reagan-era “Star Wars” program
The Minis MINI #3
ACROSS
1 Sky lights
1 Start to flower
5 Freak out
6 Soup server
6 Tree that Athena gifted, in myth
7 “Humble” place to live
7 Tiberius, for one 8 Prepared to propose, maybe
DOWN
1 Versatile utensil 2 Claw
3 “Dragon Ball Z” genre 4 Coke, to Pepsi 5 Trail for a bloodhound
8 Excellence 9 “Anything ___?”
DOWN
1 Scapegoat’s burden 2 Record company 3 Reasons to hold one’s nose 4 Bop from the ’70s, say 5 Swimming competition
47 Small blood-sucking parasite 50 “It’s not ___, it’s a when” 54 Others: Sp. 55 Person who broke Usain Bolt’s 100m dash world record? 56 Office address abbr. 57 “Legally Blonde” exam 58 Reaction to watching someone slip on a banana peel 59 It can be ionic or covalent 63 Org. founded by Harry Truman 64 It can be major or minor 65 School whose athletes are known as the Engineers 66 Country with the Burj Khalifa, for short 67 Movie studio with a roaring lion
By Allie Zhao Senior Constructor
Scan to check your answers and try more of our puzzles online!
Friday April 1, 2022
Opinion
page 8
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
‘A Higher Patriotism’: A former Princeton president’s call to action still provides clarity today David Piegaro
Contributing Columnist
V
ladimir Putin invaded Ukraine just over a month ago. As his bombers took flight, the despot attempted to justify the mass murder that was about to take place. In his speech, Putin claimed that Ukraine was ruled by narcotic-addicted Nazis and that his campaign would be one of liberation. A separate speech, given a few days earlier, featured the equally absurd argument that Ukraine had no right to exist as a sovereign nation. Then, his rhetoric was eliminationist. Now, his brutal strikes on civilian targets aim to turn the rhetoric into reality. The Russian military recently struck a theater that was being used as bomb shelter. The word “children” was written in Russian next to the structure but the bombers didn’t seem to care. Endless horror stories can be desensitizing so, in order to understand exactly what is happening, we should hone in on individuals. Serhiy Perebyinis lost his wife and both of his children to Russian shelling. They were murdered for no reason other than delusions of one man that spurred him to invade their country. The photo of their bodies has spread widely online. One struggles to imagine how Serhiy will cope with the monumental loss or how intense his contempt for the aggressor (and for those who have failed to stop him) must be. The day after the invasion, I saw that a friend and fellow Princeton student tweeted, “i miss the era when elite white male university students would form special expat brigades to fight in european wars[.]” He was being facetious, but I think he was also getting at something true. The Princeton of past generations was worse than today’s Princeton in myriad ways. Pure bigotry motivated its exclusion of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized groups. That being said, it seems that the University’s past leaders embodied a spirit that speaks to the current situation. Princeton, as well as the nation it serves, stands to benefit from a revival of that older spirit. I recently read a less-thanflattering profile of Princeton in the Atlantic. In that article, I came across the writing of John Grier Hibben, who served as Princeton’s 14th President from 1912–1932. In response to the beginning of World War I in 1914, Hibben put together a small volume of his own writing to address what he called “the present European war.” As we are now confronted with another European war, I was curious about what he had to say. I searched for his book, found the small, worn out volume in Firestone Library, and dove into its contents. The book begins with an essay entitled, “A Higher Patriotism.” In it, Hibben discusses what patriotism should look like. He says that it must not be parochial. In his own words, “the idea of patriotism in our land cannot be racial or narrowly confined … it should not be without a sympathetic understanding of the needs of human-
ity.” Instead, “it is the office of the higher patriotism to defy and to transcend” the limits of selfishness. The true patriot knows his nation has a mission and a destiny and that a nation “fails to fulfill its destiny if it is wholly self-centered and self-absorbed.” American politics often feels remarkably self absorbed. Culture war debates over masks and school curricula seem petty when juxtaposed with Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The invasion is an alarming wake-up call. Foreign affairs matter not only because they affect our own interests e.g. gasoline prices, but also because when despotic regimes are emboldened by Western division and decadence, they inflict massive suffering on tens of millions of innocent people. The West, which is led by the extraordinarily wealthy and populous United States, has failed over and over again to deter Putin. We failed to react aggressively when Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. Then, in order to avoid provoking Putin, the Obama administration refused to send lethal aid to Ukraine. What’s more, Assad crossed the United State’s red line against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but thanks to Russia’s brutal assistance, the butcher of Damascus still reigns over a country turned to rubble. More recently, The Trump administration was willing to send weapons to Ukraine, but Trump himself was more interested in digging up dirt on his political opponent’s son than in countering Putin’s foreign adventurism and domestic repression. Lacking moral clarity, Trump evinced a personal liking to Vladimir Putin. As made clear in a Superbowl halftime interview with Bill O’Reilly, he failed to see the moral distinction between the US and Russia as both nations kill people. Nevertheless, a track record of failure should not deter us from trying to be better. In fact, we should learn from our past fecklessness and as Hibben’s reflections suggest, embrace a higher patriotism by doing more for Ukraine. We ought to transfer the Polish jets they so desperately need. We should also seriously consider the prospect of a no-fly zone — even when it means direct confrontation with Russia. The risk of escalation is obviously non-zero, but we are a nuclear-armed superpower with the ability to deter a nuclear attack with the guarantee of a devastating response. Putin may be unmoored from reality, but his countless supporters surely do not want to see the world around them turn to ash. We possess astounding wealth, a powerful military, and a population that has some fundamental understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Russia’s invasion is as wrong as wrong can be. To stand idly by the blood of Ukraine while we possess all those astounding resources is unforgivable. In 1913, President Hibben delivered the Baccalaureate Sermon to the graduating class. His rhetoric sounds strange, maybe even vainglorious to a modern ear, but we should take it seriously. He argued that Princeton graduates should leverage their privilege in order
to “produce as well as to consume, to add to and not to subtract from its store of good, to build up and not tear down, to ennoble and not degrade.” He urged the students “to take your place and to fight your fight in the name of honor and of chivalry, against the powers of organized evil and of commercialized vice, against the poverty, disease, and death which follow fast in the wake of sin and ignorance, against all the innumerable forces which are working to destroy the image of God in man, and unleash the passions of the beast.” The entire world is watching what “the powers of organized evil” can do. They bomb maternity wards and replace the joy of millions of people with unbounded suffering. The besieged city of Mariupol is now home to the “poverty, disease, and death” that Hibbens spoke of. There are shortages of food and medicine. In Ukraine “the passions of the beast” have been unleashed. We are now reading reports of forced deportations, rape, and targeted assassinations. President Hibben urged the Princeton class of 1913 not to turn away from the “human cry … of spirits in bondage, of souls in despair, of lives debased and doomed. It is the call of man to his brother.” We all ought to hear that cry. That is what it means to truly be in “the service of humanity.” We ought to urge our elected leaders to do more for Ukraine. And we ought to remember that for all its flaws, a rules-based international order that is led by the United States is better than the alternative where China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other despotic states prey on their neighbors, oppress their own people, and enable each other to do more of the same. America is sorely divided and this reflects real differences in our politics. Still, Americans everywhere ought to take to heart President Lincoln’s words: “We must not be enemies.’’ We as Princeton students should try especially hard to put those words into action as many of us will go on to claim elite positions in the American society that enable us to create a real difference. We should continue to disagree about things that matter, but we should also strive to be a bit less bitter and a bit more generous. We should be less dismissive and try to understand the arguments of those with whom we disagree instead. Divisions at home are reducing our capacity to project power abroad. The forces that are filling that power vacuum are beastly. The fate of the world, at least in part, depends on a strong America, an America that can live up to President Zelensky’s words and be the “leader of the world … the leader of peace.” David Piegaro is a first year student from Ewing, NJ. Before coming to Princeton he served 3 years on active duty in the army as an intelligence analyst and is now a member of the NJ National Guard. This column reflects his opinion alone and not the official policy or position of the US Government, the Department of Defense, or the United States Army.
vol. cxlvi
editor-in-chief Marie-Rose Sheinerman ’23 business manager Benjamin Cai ’24
BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 second vice president David Baumgarten ’06 secretary Chanakya A. Sethi ’07 treasurer Douglas Widmann ’90 assistant treasurer Kavita Saini ’09
trustees Francesca Barber Kathleen Crown Suzanne Dance ’96 Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John G. Horan ’74 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Julianne Escobedo Shepherd Abigail Williams ’14 Tyler Woulfe ’07 trustees ex officio Marie-Rose Sheinerman ’23 Benjamin Cai ’24
146TH MANAGING BOARD managing editors Omar Farah ’23 Tanvi Nibhanupudi ’23 Caitlin Limestahl ’23 Zachariah Wirtschafter Sippy ’23 Strategic initiative directors Accessibility Education Isabel Rodrigues ’23 Evelyn Doskoch ’23 José Pablo Fernández García ’23 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Mollika Jai Singh ’24 Melat Bekele ’24
Financial Stipend Program Rooya Rahin ’23
Sections listed in alphabetical order. newsletter editors head audience editor Kareena Bhakta ’24 Rowen Gesue ’24 Amy Ciceu ’24 associate audience Aditi Desai ’24 editor Isa Yip ’25 Meryl Liu ’25 head opinion editor Sai Rachumalla ’24 Genrietta Churbanova ’24 head cartoon editors community editor Inci Karaaslan ’24 Rohit A. Narayanan ’24 Ambri Ma ’24 associate opinion editor associate cartoon editor Won-Jae Chang ’24 Ariana Borromeo ’24 head photo editor head copy editors Candace Do ’24 Alexandra Hong ’23 associate photo editor Nathalie Verlinde ’24 Angel Kuo ’24 associate copy editors Isabel Richardson ’24 Catie Parker ’23 head podcast editor Cecilia Zubler ’23 Hope Perry ’24 head web design editors associate podcast editors Anika Maskara ’23 Jack Anderson ’24 Brian Tieu ’23 Eden Teshome ’25 associate web design editor Ananya Grover ’24 head graphics editors Ashley Chung ’23 Noreen Hosny ’25 print design editor Juliana Wojtenko ’23 special issues editor Evelyn Doskoch ’23 head data editor Sam Kagan ’24 head features editors Alex Gjaja ’23 Rachel Sturley ’23 associate features editor Sydney Eck ’24 head news editors Katherine Dailey ’24 Andrew Somerville ’24 associate news editors Kalena Blake ’24 Anika Buch ’24 Miguel Gracia-Zhang ’23 Sandeep Mangat ’24
head prospect editors José Pablo Fernández García ’23 Aster Zhang ’24 associate prospect editors Molly Cutler ’23 Cathleen Weng ’24 head puzzles editors Gabriel Robare ’24 Owen Travis ’24 associate puzzles editors Juliet Corless ’24 Joah Macosko ’25 Cole Vandenberg ’24 head satire editor Claire Silberman ’23 associate satire editors Spencer Bauman ’25 Daniel Viorica ’25 head sports editors Wilson Conn ’25 Julia Nguyen ’24 associate sports editor Ben Burns ’23 Elizabeth Evanko ’23 associate video editors Daniel Drake ’24 Marko Petrovic ’24
146TH BUSINESS BOARD assistant business manager Shirley Ren ’24 business directors David Akpokiere ’24 Samantha Lee ’24 Ananya Parashar ’24 Gloria Wang ’24 project managers Anika Agarwal ’25
John Cardwell ’25 Jack Curtin ’25 Diya Dalia ’24 Jonathan Lee ’24 Juliana Li ’24 Emma Limor ’25 Justin Ong ’23 Xabier Sardina ’24 business associate Jasmine Zhang ’24
146TH TECHNOLOGY BOARD chief technology officer Pranav Avva ’24 lead software engineers Roma Bhattacharjee ’25 Joanna Tang ’24
software engineers Eugenie Choi ’24 Giao Vu Dinh ’24 Daniel Hu ’25 Dwaipayan Saha ’24 Kohei Sanno ’25
THIS PRINT ISSUE WAS DESIGNED BY Dimitar Chakarov ’24 Ariana Di Landro ’25 Brooke McCarthy ’25
Annie Rupertus ’25 Juliana Wojtenko ’23
AND COPIED BY
Tiffany Cao ’24, Alexandra Hong ’23, and Jason Luo ’25
Friday April 1, 2022
Opinion
page 9
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
The case against following your passion Rohit A. Narayanan
Community Opinion Editor
I
t’s concentration declaration season for AB sophomores and BSE freshmen and the same old questions are bubbling to the surface: Do I really have what it takes to become a math major? Should I pursue classics or comparative literature? Then there’s the most familiar question: Should I choose the more “practical” major that may land me a stable career or the niche major whose classes truly excite me? Should I follow my head or my heart? It could be a humanities student deciding between psychology and sociology or a STEM major weighing engineering and theoretical physics. There’s no good answer of course, but we seem to have a very stagnant way of thinking about it on this campus: you should follow your passion. Making a choice that prioritizes future earnings is often considered “selling out.”
But this dichotomy neglects the most important factor that we should be considering: the ethics of each choice. And sometimes, arguably even often, the ethical choice is to choose against the major you are most passionate about. All concentration choices are career choices. While your choice of concentration doesn’t necessarily close off possibilities, the questions you study in school inform your career choices down the line. If you choose a theoretical concentration, for example, you grow accustomed to theory and are, at the very least, more likely to choose a theoretical career. Career choices have ethical implications too. If you had two people with equally good intentions, the one who chose a career where they have fewer opportunities to make a difference would be morally inferior to the one who chose a career where they’re very influential and had more opportunities to actually effect change. Imagine a student choosing between declaring politics or history. The student came in wanting to do politics, but
turns out the grubby reality of political life is not to their taste, so they are now considering operating in the murky depths of the past by studying history. Two life paths diverge — one in which the student pursues politics and after a career of distasteful schmoozing, they are able to issue one minor bill that impacts a lot of people, and the other in which they become a well-respected historian whose discoveries are interesting but lacking in impact. Are we supposed to say that these are equally ethical choices? In one, the agent may be less happy, but they are able to do more good for others. In the other, the agent is happier, but they may do less good for others. If Princetonians are supposed to use our capabilities to “do good,” then the ethical choice would seem to be the former. Of course, we can’t predict the future. The student as a politician could be unenthusiastic, unelectable, or worse, corrupted by power. The same student as a historian could elevate a forgotten voice which inspires more people than a lifetime of practical political work ever could.
CANDACE DO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
Students took pictures with their department banners as a part of Declaration Day celebrations.
These are appropriate possibilities to consider. But that still doesn’t leave the student off the hook. We cannot just assume that our personal interests will always line up with what’s ethical. Instead, we have to assess the probabilities, and in this case, minorly influential politicians are far more common than revolutionary historians. And I’m not the first to say so. Effective altruists, led by Princeton’s very own Peter Singer, would argue that to maximize global happiness, people should maximize their earnings so they can donate to good causes. I think that’s too harsh — people don’t have to subvert all their needs and wants to the goal of maximizing total happiness. But I do think there’s a unique responsibility that students have with a Princeton education. Princeton confers upon us countless privileges that the vast majority of the people in the world can’t even dream of, including a chance to rub shoulders with some of the world’s most highly regarded professors on a daily basis. Princeton is an investment by people past and present who believe that Princeton students have the potential to make an impact in the world. Do we not have a moral obligation to choose career paths that directly allow us to make a difference rather than satisfy our personal desires? The entire discourse around “selling out” is all about ethics — we’re very aware that using a Princeton degree to enrich yourself while causing harm in the world is bad. But we have to recognize that using a Princeton degree to indulge in your intellectual desires while ignoring real world problems is not substantially better. So, yes, sometimes it’s worth spurning the academic field you truly enjoy. Some career
paths which involve pursuing a doctorate in a subject that is mostly fodder for scholarly journals for the sake of “following your passion” may not be really impactful, or at least impactful to the extent that we expect to see from a Princetonian. Some career paths considered “selling out” are worth doing, like following through with a computer science major and using it to build an app that saves people hours of their lives. Of course, you have to follow through and actually do the work to truly do good, sometimes in environments that are not conducive to ethics. If you pursue a major in economics but then succumb to peer pressure and use it to scam poor people out of their life savings, then yeah, maybe you should have stuck with French and Italian. But with a major that puts you where the big decisions are made, your positive aspirations can have real tangible impacts on others’ lives. And we should all believe in our ability to make a difference, not seek to minimize our potential future impact. People should not choose fields that make them miserable: that would make for a painful college experience followed by an unimpressive career. But there’s no moral obligation to choose to pursue the field that you love the absolute most in school for the rest of your life either. Life isn’t school — you have responsibilities, not just desires. Rohit A. Narayanan is the Community Opinion Editor at the ‘Prince’ and an unrepentant sophomore electrical and computer engineering concentrator. If you think he’s subtweeting you, you can demand a full tweet at @Rohit_Narayanan on Twitter. Put your philosophy major to good use by emailing him its ethical justification at rohitan@ princeton.edu.
In the name of academic exploration: Why Princeton needs a pass/fail first-year fall semester Ndeye Thioubou Columnist
W
hy is it that at the top-ranked university in the nation, there are still so many complaints about the quality of students’ academic experiences? Students have recently taken to the pages of The Daily Princetonian to document the flaws of Princeton’s academic structure. Abigail Rabieh lamented the lack of support for humanities students in STEM classes, and Allen Liu argued that tough introductory courses discourage Princeton students from sufficiently exploring other disciplines. Liu and Rabieh’s concerns should not be ignored, especially given the University’s insistence that it promotes an academic curriculum that “encourages exploration across disciplines” and provides opportunities “to study what you are passionate about and to discover new fields of interest.” To encourage genuine academic exploration, the University should adopt a pass/ fail fall semester for Princeton first-year students. The standards for determining a pass/fail for a student during their first semester would be the same as Princeton’s existing pass/D/ fail policy, in which a C- and above constitutes a pass and Ds and failing grades are reflected on the transcript. However, students would still receive more specific grades on assignments and
exams in their courses as a marker of their progress. Departmental classes would also be pass/fail for this first term because the majority of first-years are still in the process of figuring out their concentrations. There are many academic benefits to a pass/fail first semester. In their first months at the University, Princeton first-years should not avoid taking certain classes out of a fear of not being able to do well enough in terms of their grades. Freely exploring different disciplines is the cornerstone of a liberal arts education, which Princeton is supposed to provide. Also, a pass/fail first semester would be beneficial in allowing Princetonians to distribute their four pass/fail classes more evenly across their later years. With the implementation of the pass/fail first semester I describe, Princeton first-years will have a much smoother academic transition. Besides the academic benefits, a pass/fail first semester can aid first-year success in other aspects of University life. Without the pressure of grades, first-years can devote more time toward creating connections with their classmates and integrating themselves within Princeton social life. Seeing as the majority of first-years are also living away from home for the first time, not having as heavy of an academic burden can be crucial to preventing burnout and preserving firstyears’ mental health in a time
of huge transition. The University may be concerned that a pass/fail first semester for first-years would not produce the same motivation and drive as letter grades. On the contrary, I believe that the lack of pressure to attain high grades would motivate first-years to learn for the sake of learning. Students benefit not just from their grades at the end of the term, but also from feedback that they receive throughout. In my first trimester of high school, most of my classes were graded on a pass/fail basis (excluding language and math), which made me feel academically liberated. These first few months of pass/fail classes allowed me to adjust while making a transition from an under-resourced public school to my private high school’s rigor and to test out strategies for success. How many students have been robbed of opportunities for academic exploration and potentially the chance to be exposed to a new concentration that they could have ended up enjoying? How many students have struggled immensely in their first semesters because of the pressure of attaining high grades on top of the high workload? The University can vow to ensure that this dilemma does not persist for future Princetonians. I want the upcoming Princeton classes to have more academic freedom during their first year than my peers and I did. If Princeton truly believes that all students should have
the opportunity to explore their passions and interests, then this switch to a pass/fail fall semester for first-years should not be hard to make. After all, there is a precedent for this policy amongst our peer schools; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, and Swarthmore College all have pass/fail first terms for their students. The reasoning behind these pass/ fail semesters specifically for first-year students also applies to Princeton’s mission. According to Swarthmore’s website, not publishing grades for the first semester “presents the chance to stretch yourself and take risks — to focus on learning, not letter grades. The policy aligns with Swarthmore’s larger spirit of close interactions with professors, and collaboration — not compe-
tition — with classmates.” A pass/fail first semester would allow for deeper relationships with a student’s professors and classmates. The latter is incredibly important given that Princeton students hail from a diverse array of backgrounds with varying degrees of comfort in navigating an elite academic environment. Princeton will get stressful enough during a new student’s remaining seven semesters. So at least during the first, can the University cut incoming students some slack and give them the opportunity to freely explore any course and discipline that their hearts desire without regrets? Ndeye Thioubou is a first-year from The Bronx, N.Y. She can be reached at nthioubou@princeton.edu.
COURTESY OF DANTE TISI
Lobby of the Lewis-Sigler Institute.
Friday April 1, 2022
Opinion
page 10
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
Exoticism, misrepresentation, and Native Hawaiian culture: The issues that arise from ‘Gilligan’s Island’ and ‘Hawaiian’ themes
warped imagery that has known as the Māori word, peoples that live there. about the history of lū‘au, defined Hawai‘i and Native tiki), which originally lined With ki‘i being a com- its historical and cultural Hawaiians since the times the dining hall walls before mon sight in emulations significance, and why it of the illegal overthrow. the staff took it down, leans of lū‘au, I want to reiterate shouldn’t be used as a ‘fun’ With that in mind, there into a behavior of exoticiza- Native Hawaiian filmmaker party theme for non-HawaiGisele Bisch are many things to be said tion, while simultaneously and journalist Anne Keala ians. Learn about traditionColumnist about this particular situ- homogenizing Polynesian Kelly’s point on this occur- al Hawaiian foods, like poi ation. First of all, the en- cultures as one due to our rence with these ‘lū‘au’-type or lau lau. Learn about Haon-Natives ‘cele- tire premise of “Gilligan’s similarities (the word tiki social events: “When people waiian history, in general. brating’ with lū‘au’ Island” is built on twisted itself is not Hawaiian, but throw those parties and give Of course, something wearing tacky and racist representations is still used to describe those lei,” she wrote, “It’s so like a ‘beach day party’ is aloha clothing, or of Native people. The show anything in its likeness, no clearly intended to mean as fine. However, when people giving out plastic leis rem- continuously plays on ste- matter the culture). much as one of those party start associating Hawaiian iniscent of the hapa-haole reotypes (usually through As Pacific Island Times favor whistles you can find culture with party events, hula era is nothing unheard brownface, may I add) of writer Gabriel McCoard at a kid’s birthday celebra- mimicking cultural practicof. Hawaiʻ i has always been Native individuals being noted, the use of ki‘i or tiki tion.” es, and celebrating harmful seen as a place for tourists primitive, violent, and un- in such social events creWhile ki‘i are traditional- depictions of Native people, to frequent and act as spec- intelligent. ates “a fascination with the ly used for customs such as they not only misrepresent tators to obscure represenIndeed, their only verbal exotic and enjoyment of a carving the image of ākua and disregard who we are tations of Native Hawaiian communication in the show fictitious place; a caricature (gods), at these events, they as people, but they comculture on display. is shown through gibber- of something that doesn’t instead serve as decora- modify our culture — it And so, when I saw that ish or grunts, and, essen- exist.” To serve “Hawaiian” tions for someone’s drink- becomes something merely Whitman’s “Dining Theme tially, the only behaviors dishes that don’t even au- ing party or ‘tiki bar.’ And used as entertainment for Meal” was commemorating expressed by them were thentically exist and play while the act of giving lei the amusement of non-Haan old (and highly problem- acts of aggression towards up this idea of a ‘tropical is traditionally meant as a waiians. atic) TV show, “Gilligan’s the other characters. Even oasis’ with ‘decor’ just al- sign of love, gratitude, or Island,” in addition to serv- though the show depicted a lows people to welcome a acknowledgement, people Gisele Bisch is a first-year ing “Hawaiian” food (note: ‘fictional’ community, this Westernized view of the instead give cheap, plastic from the North Shore of O‘ahu I have never heard of the portrayal has undoubtedly ‘island culture’ of Hawai‘i. ones out as unique ‘party (Hawai‘i) who plans to concendishes “Hawaiian coconut trickled into the ways peo- It encourages people to favors’ or ‘costumes.’ trate in Anthropology on the chicken soup” and “Hawai- ple view other Native and completely dismiss the exIf you desire to learn more Sociocultural Track. She can be ian fried rice” in my entire Indigenous groups. This is istence of Hawai‘i’s actual about these aspects of Ha- reached at gb8528@princeton. life), it was upsetting, but illustrated in the very way history, culture, and the waiian culture, then learn edu. not entirely unsurprising. that “Gilligan’s Island” was Even so, I couldn’t help but being celebrated at a dinner be unsettled by the gradual event with “Hawaiian” food. implementation of ‘tropical’ To merge “Gilligan’s Isdecor and the parody sign land” with “Hawaiian” food with the phrase “exotic lo- is to put aspects of both cales” in the dining hall. subjects on the same level; I am very appreciative of it creates a link between Nathe dining hall staff modi- tive Hawaiian culture and fying everything upon un- the show’s ideas of Indigederstanding its offensive- nous and Native cultures. It ness. In spite of that, I think does not matter whether the that the fact that such a show was associated with misunderstanding still oc- Hawai‘i or not. The conneccurred shows the need for tion remains there, all the clarification. same. Although Native HawaiBesides the matter of celian culture being used for ebrating “Gilligan’s Island” ‘party’ spectacles has been itself, another issue arises heavily normalized, this from the decor and dishes fact doesn’t make it accept- served at the dinner event, able. Utilizing Hawaiian which enact attitudes of exculture as a ‘social’ event for oticizing and commodifynon-Hawaiians, who likely ing Hawaiian culture and don’t know much about Ha- disregard cultural signifiwaiian culture or history, is cance. GISELE BISCH / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN deeply harmful. It just adds The vaguely depicted ki‘i Whitman College’s Gilligan Island “Dining Theme Meal”. to the exoticization and ‘decor’ (more commonly
N
Why Princeton University should donate the Butler Tract to a community land trust Matt Mleczko
Graduate Student Columnist
This is the second column in an opinion series by Graduate Student Columnist Matt Mleczko about how Princeton University can promote affordable housing in a reparative framework and provide a model for other similar institutions to follow. The following article reflects the author’s views alone — not those of any organizations.
P
rinceton University has a chance to meaningfully reduce housing inequity in the area, but it needs to aim higher than its original 1946 Butler Tract plan: it should donate the Butler Tract for affordable housing construction. Since land constitutes a significant portion of the costs of developing affordable housing, particularly in a place like Princeton, donating the Butler Tract would be a major contribution to making Princeton a more affordable place to live. There’s recent precedent for this: in 2014,
Princeton University donated land for a pending mixed income development just a halfmile north of campus. If 36 acres seems like a lot of land to donate, consider the fact that the University previously donated 127 acres of land for open space preservation. Moreover, given the scale of housing unaffordability in the area and the largely temporary methods of financing affordable housing in this country, Princeton University should donate this land to be held by the community off the private market. The best way to do this would be through a community land trust (CLT), in which the community — rather than landlords, homeowners, corporations, or investors — owns the land that the housing sits on. This means that eligible households, typically those that would qualify for affordable housing, purchase or rent a unit at a discounted price and lease the land underneath it. Should a land trust homeowner decide to sell their home, they would do so at a pre-arranged, discounted price while sharing in some of the equity. This pay-it-forward arrangement keeps housing below-market rate and affordable in the
long-run. Despite success stories nationwide, CLTs are still a fairly uncommon form of housing. CLTs require both funding and technical assistance, which are often lacking. Fortunately, the Princeton community has a considerable amount of expertise that could be brought together to help. For instance, University researchers, students, architects, and real estate professionals would likely have much to contribute to this effort. Moreover, the municipality of Princeton hosts an affordable homeownership program that operates similarly to a CLT, which could be another valuable source of expertise regarding sharedequity housing. This presents Princeton University with an opportunity. The University could help establish a CLT on the Butler Tract, which could host a significant amount of belowmarket rate housing. Communities disadvantaged by the University’s previous and ongoing policies should receive priority for this housing. The historical evidence indicates that this would include Black households along with staff or retirees who do not qualify for generous University
housing assistance. Publicly available data on University employment groups by race and ethnicity suggest that there is overlap between these two groups. As of 2020, Black employees constitute about nine percent of the University workforce, but about three percent of all Dean of Faculty and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory employees — two employee groups whose higher ranks account for a large portion of employees who would qualify for significant mortgage assistance.1 The Butler Tract has surfaced several times in the University’s efforts to promote housing affordability. It was formerly supposed to be the site of a new 220 unit development and was last proposed as a development site in Princeton’s Third Round Fair Share Plan, before the University objected to the development timeline. Before this, in the 1980s, a small portion of the Butler Tract was selected as a site for affordable housing construction as part of Princeton Township’s affordable housing obligation. Yet, several homeowners, including Princeton University faculty, living in the neighborhood surrounding the Butler Tract protested this development in
letters to University officials, with one accusing the University of “institutionalizing a slum” and threatening their property values, only to benefit a developer in the process.2 The striking parallels between these letters from the ’80s and the acrimonious debates about housing development in the municipality today demonstrate just how little the discourse has changed over the past four decades. Residents of the neighborhoods of proposed multifamily housing developments, despite most likely having positive intentions, routinely criticize things like building heights and increases in density, implicitly weighting these concerns above giving people a place to live. Given its size and influence, the University has become an easy target for criticism and suspicion when it undertakes construction and expansion on or around campus. But these criticisms are not always fair, particularly when they are made from those who, as the previous paragraph demonstrates, scapegoat the University only to turn around and undermine housing affordability and integration. See BUTLER page 11
Friday April 1, 2022
Opinion
page 11
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
‘Addressing housing inequity in our own community is a crucial way in which the U. can promote racial justice.’ BUTLER
Continued from page 10
.............
After all, the University has previously acted to promote housing affordability and integration on the Butler Tract. It originally prioritized housing for a specific group of people — returning, married veterans with families — who it knew to be the most housing burdened subgroup among its campus community. Moreover, in 1963, it prioritized two Black, married undergraduates for the scarce Butler Tract housing due to their inability to find any other local accommodations. In defending the decision, former President Robert F. Goheen ’40 acknowledged local conditions — housing shortages and racial discrimination — that made securing housing particularly difficult for Black students and invoked a “decade-old” policy of providing housing to faculty and students of color when necessary. If Princeton University was once able to recognize its role in a racially unjust housing process and intervene, it can certainly do so today. This matters because in their ongoing reckoning with
systemic racism, institutions within the municipality of Princeton have begun considering reparative policies that similar places, like Evanston, Ill., have undertaken. The Princeton Theological Seminary has pledged close to $28 million in the name of reparations to fund initiatives such as scholarships for descendants of enslaved persons or members of underrepresented groups. The Princeton Civil Rights Commission has been holding community discussions and dialogues on reparations. Princeton University itself has launched a campuswide initiative to combat systemic racism. Addressing housing inequity in our own community is a crucial way in which Princeton University can promote racial justice — as the Butler Tract’s trajectory has shown. Importantly, this proposal aligns with and amplifies other University priorities. For instance, if the University takes seriously its effort to reduce carbon emissions, one of the single most effective things it could do would be to provide workforce housing for those employees who currently have no choice but to live miles away and commute, most likely by car, due
to unreasonably high housing costs. Moreover, by acting decisively, Princeton University would be creating a model that other universities could follow. Many of the nation’s most endowed universities and colleges are located in urban areas with acute housing needs. If the University established this model and these universities followed suit, we wouldn’t just be talking about housing for a few hundred households or so — we’d be talking about tens of thousands of housing units nationwide. Universities should take the lead. Local and state governments, despite in many cases having the desire to increase access to housing, rarely have the funds to do so. Despite having the financial means to guarantee housing for all, the federal government budgets far less than it used to for housing assistance and Congressional gridlock continues to delay or thwart necessary interventions. Yet, many universities, particularly over the past few decades, have seen their operating budgets and endowments rise rapidly. This wealth accumulation certainly applies to Princeton University, an institu-
tion whose fortune includes a wealth of donated land — including the Butler Tract3 — that it has received over the years, in some cases from wealthy individuals engaged in the trading of enslaved people. These colleges and universities are institutions with the stated mission of making a difference and the budgets to do so. We desperately need these functioning and less-encumbered institutions to step in and deliver solutions to social problems that our governments have let fester. Make no mistake, this is a bold proposal, but one that has been made before, in one form or another. In addition to internal studies recommending more affordable housing construction, previous University administrators and faculty, such as Robert Geddes, have called upon University leadership to do more to provide affordable housing to the Princeton community.4 The Princeton Housing Group, the Princeton Association for Human Rights, and the YWCA all previously petitioned the University to do the same.5 I join them in asking this University to reclaim its past affordable housing ambitions and to lead by example.
Princeton University prides itself on being a world-class institution that produces research and equips students with an education that makes the world a better place. Yet, we must include our commitment to the surrounding community when we consider the good that this University can accomplish. We live up to our University’s informal motto — “in the service of humanity” — by building trust in the community and applying our work to solve problems and achieve social justice. We should realize that this work and our research and educational pursuits are not mutually exclusive, but mutually reinforcing. Ultimately, this is an invitation for Princeton University to build upon its world-class reputation by pioneering a potentially path-breaking model for housing justice. I urge the Princeton community to explore the resources shared throughout this column and to join in petitioning the University to act on this once-in-a-generation opportunity. Matt Mleczko is a member of the Princeton Affordable Housing Board and a researcher with Princeton University’s Eviction Lab.
The social implications of a maskless Princeton Andi Grene
Senior Columnist
T
he lift of the mask mandate on Princeton’s campus is a decision that will significantly transform the second half of our spring semester. I am confident that Princeton’s decision will facilitate interpersonal connection that, thus far, has been absent and much needed, especially for students who have been on campus solely during the time of COVID-19. 2021 was a school year ridden with COVID-related anxiety. Because almost no one had received their vaccinations, students had to remain cautious, avoid large gatherings, and keep significant physical distance from one another. This caution was not always employed — it is only natural that young adults do not always abide by the rules. However, there was undoubtedly an unspoken consensus among the student body that the consequences of contracting the virus included not only being sentenced to a 10-day isolation period, but also an unknown onslaught of symptoms that could range from a runny nose to a condition that could land you in the hospital. Pre-COVID, I imagined college as a sort of extended summer camp where I would be able to find some of my closest friends over the course of just a few weeks. College is perhaps the most conducive environment to such lasting and rapidly-evolving friendships. This is possible because most undergrads live in close proximity to one another; we share meals with one another almost every day; we study together until the early hours of the morning; and most importantly, we navigate the initial stages of adulthood as a community. By the end of my freshman year, however, I found myself only able to
connect with a strikingly small number of people whom I had met. Though necessary, the COVID-19 restrictions inevitably played a part in stunting my ability to develop new friendships. Without the physical familiarity of friendships that had been formed pre-pandemic, I found it difficult to deeply connect with much of the Princeton student body. The palpable sense of caution around campus disincentivized — and made much less possible — the emergence of relationships as intimate as I had hoped. Unlike last spring, this school year has served to mitigate the pervasive fear of COVID-19, at least within my own social circles. On campus, anxiety regarding contraction of the virus has decreased significantly among those who are not immunocompromised. For most students with COVID-19, symptoms are fairly
mild; most students no longer consider the virus to be potentially life threatening. As a result, students are less consumed by the prospect of contagion and have become more at ease around their peers. The presence of masks inside campus buildings throughout the past semester served as the last remaining source of COVID-19 paranoia until the removal of the mandate on March 14. It was initially difficult to identify why, exactly, the difference between a masked and maskless classroom is so dramatic. My classmates have not changed, nor have the conversations held in lectures or precepts. What the removal of masks does imply, however, is the alleviation of wariness — or the pretense of wariness — of contagion, resulting from inclass interactions. Though this does not immediately
enhance the relationships between my peers and I, it does make it more possible to connect. Without the mandate, Princeton’s campus has begun to once again host a community of students who feel, and look, more at ease with their contemporaries. There is, of course, legitimacy in arguments against the removal of the mandate. In the event of another COVID-19 spike, Princeton’s decision may exacerbate the spread. However, removing the mask mandate also necessitates a degree of social responsibility from Princeton’s student body. If someone is a close contact of a COVID-19 patient, they must proactively re-mask; if asked to keep their masks on by another student or faculty member who is uncomfortable, one must comply. Thus, an un-masked campus will solidify students’
sense of obligation to the University community, ultimately fostering a more compassionate student body with members who are invested in respecting one another’s personal choices. This is strikingly different from last year’s disconnected campus environment, which makes me hopeful that the mandate lift is a step in the right direction. The decision to remove the mask mandate marks the gradual, yet eventual, end to the pandemic’s social repercussions for our campus. Even though we must approach this transition with utmost sensitivity, it is a transition that is much needed. I, for one, look forward to its positive impacts on students’ social life. Andi Grene is a sophomore from New York. She can be reached at agrene@princeton. edu.
SAM KAGAN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
Satire
Friday April 1, 2022
page 12
{www.dailyprincetonian.com }
Student to return from semester abroad feeling, like, totally transformed Liana Slomka
Staff Satire Writer
The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional. Following his semester in Kenya, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology student Reid Myblog ’23 plans to return to campus next fall with a more worldly perspective than he has ever held before, which he expects none of his friends could possibly understand. “I can’t wait to tell my roommates all about the world I’ve discovered that exists outside of our Orange Bubble,” Myblog said. “But I know that without meet-
ing the people I’ve met and seeing the things I’ve seen, they can’t reasonably imagine the great wide world out there.” Myblog does not plan to let this superiority stop him from relating every course, campus event, and mealtime conversation to something that happened during his time studying abroad. He intends to pepper his speech with incorrect usages of common Swahili phrases and decorate his room with souvenirs bought at the airport. “They’re authentic,” he claimed, despite the “Made in Taiwan” stickers on his wooden lion sculpture and beaded bracelet.
Myblog explained that while he looks forward to bringing his newfound worldview back to the University in the fall, he’ll “never feel quite as at home as [he] did with [his] homestay family in Kenya,” whose names he could never pronounce and does not remember. Liana Slomka is a junior studying Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and a staff Satire writer. She is currently studying abroad in what she can only describe as a “truly enriching experience.” She can be reached at lslomka@princeton.edu.
Cartoon Box Food
By Paige Min, Staff Cartoonist
Dinner: Brought to you by study breaks By Adam Wickham, Staff Cartoonist
Princetonian Kryptonite By Fizzah Arshad, Staff Cartoonist
JOSHUA EARLE/CC0
This man studied abroad and will never be the same.
Friday April 1, 2022
Features
page 13
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
A mysterious email, a scalpel, and a lost genome: A Princeton professor’s search for extinct wolves By Paige Cromley
Assistant Features Editor
There was nothing particularly unusual about Bridgette vonHoldt receiving an email from a man in Texas with pictures of strange-looking, reddish-hued coyotes. As an associated faculty member in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) and at the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, vonHoldt specializes in the hybridization of canids, a family of mammals that includes dogs, wolves, and coyotes. As a result, she gets a lot of queries from dog owners in her inbox asking her to identify the ancestry or possible wolf heritage of their furry best friends. But something about the canids in these particular photos, taken on the Texas Gulf Coast island of Galveston and sent to vonHoldt by a man named Ron Wooten, caught her attention. They looked like red wolves, a species native to the southeastern United States. The strange part? Red wolves have been extinct in southeastern Texas for four decades. Intrigued, vonHoldt followed up with Wooten. According to The New York Times, Wooten, a Galveston resident, had become fascinated by the canids, which he suspected might have some red wolf ancestry, after they killed his own dog. He had previously collected two tissue samples from roadkill; having lost one of the samples, he sent vonHoldt the first as well as the scalpel he had used for the second. It was enough for vonHoldt and her team at Princeton to extract DNA and sequence the genomes, and thus determine the genetic makeup of these animals. On that team was Elizabeth Hep-
penheimer, an EEB graduate student at the time who now works as a science writer at the Broad Institute. She remembers her own surprise at the results of the genome sequencing. “I ran a few initial analyses and then ‘Wait a second,’” she said. “I thought I had done something wrong.” The results of the sequencing showed that the samples from the two Galveston coyotes contained 20–30 percent red wolf ancestry. “The red wolf went extinct in the wild by 1980,” vonHoldt remarked. “So why or how can something have red wolf genetics if it hasn’t been around a red wolf for 40 years?” Red wolves used to roam freely throughout the southeastern United States, until habitat loss and predator control programs drove them to near extinction in the twentieth century. By the early 1970s, they could only be found in southeastern Texas and Louisiana; then, even that waning population disappeared. The coyote, known for its adaptability to human-altered environments, took over as the dominant canid in the region. Today, fewer than 20 red wolves constitute the only members of the species not in captivity. These wolves are living in North Carolina as the result of a conservation effort in the 70’s. The era of the wild red wolf roaming the Gulf Coast was considered by experts to be over. That had been the extent of the story, until vonHoldt’s team looked closer at the genomes of the strangelooking Galveston coyotes. Though the red wolf vanished from coastal Texas and Louisiana four decades ago, the results of their research showed that the species’ genetic legacy lives on through the region’s canids.
Now a new story of cross-species lineage has emerged. As their population numbers dwindled, it appears that red wolves mated with the coyotes who were replacing them. VonHoldt noted red wolf genes found in coyotes today could be the result of mating between the species anywhere from 10 to 100 years ago. “Even though the red wolf went extinct in the wild, it left behind first generation hybrid offspring, who had pups of their own,” she explained. “Those offspring probably mated with other coyotes, and each other, and those offspring did the same, so that, even in the eventual absence of the red wolf, those genes are still being passed around to each other.” VonHoldt also thinks coyotes deserve more research attention in general. “People see coyotes all the time, but no one thinks to study them. They mostly just want to kill them,” vonHoldt said. “But they’re more than just pests: they’re a fascinating species who are incredibly adaptable. They live in every nook and cranny, in every habitat from backyards to cornfields.” After all, as Tanner Barnes, a graduate student at Michigan Tech involved in the study, noted, “once the red wolves went extinct, the coyotes took over the entire eastern half of North America. They’ve been able to adapt to human interference with habitat.” After the initial findings of vonHoldt’s team, researchers have continued to study the hybrid coyotes, analyzing more samples and widening their focus to outside Galveston Island. For instance, Barnes went to Galveston multiple times to systematically collect more DNA samples.
COURTESY OF TANNER BARNES.
“We collected fecal samples, tissue with the help of Animal Control, samples from roadkill,” he said. Some of the samples he collected from the mainland displayed nearly 50 percent red wolf ancestry. “We’re trying to learn everything we can,” vonHoldt said. “We’ve looked at canids from a wider geographic range, but found that this was very isolated. It’s a hot spot in eastern Texas that floods into Louisiana, that’s it.” Continued research is now aided by the establishment of the Gulf Coast Canine Project, a collaboration between vonHoldt and researchers at Michigan Tech as well as other institutions to support the wild canine population in the region. The project is motivated by more than just curiosity. VonHoldt pointed out two ways that this research could prove critical to the conservation of the remaining members of the red wolf species in North Carolina, who suffer from a lack of genetic diversity. “We could try to breed genetic diversity back into the species,”
she said, by bringing a Galveston or Louisiana coyote into a captive breeding program with red wolves, though she noted the ethical concerns of cross-species breeding. “There’s also been discussion on biobanking sperm or stem cells from coyotes that have red wolf ancestry. Is there a way for us to edit genes, to cut out some red wolf genes and put them into a surrogate to eventually get a reconstructed red wolf?” The answer to that remains uncertain. What is clear, according to vonHoldt, is that the red wolf is “not doing well and very close to a possible extinction.” “Biotechnology might be used to help rescue a highly endangered species,” she said. “Which could be amazing.” Paige Cromley is an Assistant Features Editor and a writer for the News and Prospect sections of the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at pcromley@princeton. edu.
the PROSPECT. The Daily Princetonian
page 14
Friday April 1, 2022
ARTS & CULTURE
Breaking up with STEM
By Kerrie Liang | Assistant Prospect Editor
I don’t like math. Sitting in my high school calculus class, I came to the not-so-shocking conclusion that, quite frankly, math was boring. Don’t get me wrong, my distaste for the subject has nothing to do with the teaching style or its difficulty — that’s right, even the great work of Sal Khan can’t get me to enjoy linear algebra. Instead, the reason why I don’t like math is simple: I just don’t. And yet, even though it’s been two years since I came to that conclusion, I still can’t seem to stop taking math courses. Going into 7th grade, I was the poster child for STEM. Having found math and science easier than English in primary school, it seemed like a no-brainer to enroll in my school’s advanced STEM classes. Despite having no concept of engineering at all, I had also opted into the extension engineering program, because how bad could it possibly be, right? One month into the semester — and at least two breakdowns over not understanding how to use Autodesk Inventor — I realized that bad was an understatement. In retrospect, I should’ve dropped engineering when given the opportunity to do so, but 12-year-old me refused to look like a quitter. And while it seems ridiculous to say, even after being presented with multiple chances to switch into something more enjoyable, I had said no every time, convinced that I would feel great satisfaction in knowing that I persevered. In fact, I had stuck with that class until I stopped being eligible for it. And when I emerged from the other side after three long years of crying over failed code and stressing over robotics, I did not feel fulfilled. Instead, I was left with the regret that I had wasted so much time over something I didn’t even like. However, my tumultuous journey with STEM subjects did not end there. In Australia, students graduate high school with an Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR), a percentile that ranks them among other students in the state — this score is the sole determinant of what university degree you can study. This rank is an
amalgamation of various factors, with arguably one of the more important ones being which subjects you choose to study. It is common knowledge that while you could choose to never take science again and opt to fulfill the math requirement with the general-level math course, it is nearly impossible to achieve the top ranking without some combination of chemistry, physics, and advanced math. In fact, with inter-subject scaling, you could score in the top 1 percent of students taking Ancient History and still have it curved to be lower than someone scoring in the top 50 percent of students taking Specialist Mathematics. In the 10th grade, students are given this life-altering task to choose six subjects to pursue further studies in until graduation. While students are told that subject selection is an opportunity to study topics that they enjoy, it is this idea that STEM is inherently more intellectual — that no matter how high you excel in a class like history, you will never even be valued as much as an average student in math — that drives students to sacrifice their interests to get into a good university program. For me, this meant clawing through three years of physics despite knowing that once I graduated, I would never touch that subject again. It meant sharing my interest in music with my career advisor, only to be told in front of my mother that I needed to start separating my hobbies from my potential career paths. And sure, I could have switched out of physics to take music, but every time I brought up the idea at school, I was told to “think about the subject scaling.” Nobody ever questioned whether graduating with a top rank was worth depriving themselves of an enjoyable learning experience. When ATAR Day came, many of my friends who took a humanities-heavy course load opened their student portal to see rankings that did not reflect their near-perfect scores. They chose to learn for the sake of learning, and instead of being rewarded for it, they were deemed numerically less than STEM students with lower test scores, facing difficulties when competing with them for programs and scholarships. However, the consequences of this “STEM superiority” don’t just disappear after high school. For my friends, it
means having to pay twice as much to get a Bachelor of Arts instead of a Bachelor of Science. For educators and scholars, it means having your work be underfunded and undervalued. And for students like me, it means treating education like a game to be played rather than actually learning. At Princeton, I still find myself holding onto the last threads of my STEM persona. As a prospective philosophy major who has already satisfied their Quantitative and Computational Reasoning requirement, there is literally no reason for me to be taking math. Yet this semester, I find myself in MAT 202: Linear Algebra with Applications, struggling to find any shred of interest towards the content that is being presented. It’s not that I think the class is impossibly hard, I just simply do not care for it. Still, I refuse to stop putting myself through these courses because saying goodbye to my STEM persona is hard. It’s hard to let go of the qualities that have defined my intellectual identity for so long. And even though most Princeton students celebrate the humanities and social sciences, hearing people joke about me not being able to get a job or diminishing my achievements by saying “yeah, but she’s a philosophy major” can be difficult to swallow. Throughout the struggles of high school, I found my philosophy class to be my personal safe haven. Like many humanities or social science disciplines, philosophy invited me to approach the unsolvable and the undetermined. It invited me to continue pondering, even after we feel like we’ve found an answer, because a question doesn’t end at the last line of a proof or when the calculator generates a number. And this invitation stands to this day. Now at Princeton, I feel liberated. I am afforded the privilege to be discerning in what I choose to do and I am allowed to drop things that I don’t enjoy. And although some days I wonder whether the grass is greener on the other side, for the first time I am learning for the sake of learning — and that should be enough. Kerrie Liang is an Assistant Editor for The Prospect and Podcasts at the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at kerrie.liang@princeton.edu, or on Instagram at @kerrie.liang.
‘tick, tick… BOOM!’: chase your dreams, but at what cost? By Auhjanae McGee | Head Prospect Editor Emerita
Push the vaccination roll out, Olivia Rodrigo’s world domination, and celebrity NFTs aside. 2021 was definitively the Year of Andrew Garfield. The two-time Oscar nominated actor saw a surge in popularity last year, most notably from his — spoiler, I guess? — much anticipated, though much debated (read: he straight up lied about it) appearance as Peter Parker in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” Audiences were impressed by the balance of playful, boyish charm and heart-gripping emotion that he maintained from his own Spider-Man duology, seven years prior. While Garfield played a central role in “No Way Home,” it was not his movie. He was rivaled by the star-power of his co-stars and the pop culture megaforce that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If you want to see Garfield in his element, with less webslinging and more piano playing, definitely watch his Academy Award nominated performance in “tick, tick… BOOM!” “tick, tick… BOOM,” (the directorial debut of LinManuel Miranda — who also had an eventful 2021) tells the story of famed musical theater writer Jonathan Larson. Garfield portrays Larson, and we are introduced to him in the weeks leading up to his 30th birthday and all the existential dread that comes with grappling with the loss of one’s youth. Yet another film of an aging, white man going through an identity crisis is not by any means a novelty. But, rest assured, Miranda’s whimsical directorial style, Garfield’s incredible portrayal, and the surreal musical numbers work to capture the complexity of concepts like attaining fulfillment and a sense of accomplishment that will resonate with audiences of all ages, not just those on the cusp of 30. The film opens with a clip of Garfield arriving on a stage and introducing himself as Larson. The clip, with its 4:3 aspect ratio and fuzzy, shaky, shot-on-apotato cinematography, makes it look like it’s pulled right out of a ’90s VHS tape. Audiences familiar with the works of Larson in real-life will recognize this as a riff off his one-act production of the same name, a semi-autobiographical narrative in which a man wonders if he made the right career choice by pursuing performing arts, which Miranda heavily draws inspiration from. Immediately you’re drawn into Garfield’s theatrical performance. The messy hair, flitting eyes, expressive hand gestures, and breathy, impassioned voice
as he describes the ticking sound he’s been hearing for weeks scream “musical theater kid.” As we move through snapshots of Larson’s life, a woman’s voice begins to narrate: “This is Jonathan Larson’s story.” If this really is Larson’s story, then audiences will learn that Larson was a brilliant songwriter, an undying patron of the arts, and a man grappling with feelings of inadequacy and unachievable dreams. Garfield is relentlessly emotional — from watching the love of his life slip away from him to pitching musicals and facing rejection after rejection. The sheer dedication that he has for his craft will resonate with people who have loved something so much, for so long, that they feel that they will die without it, but wonder, perhaps, if that very thing is what is killing them in the first place. The pain in his voice when he suggests that he is no longer “a writer who waits tables,” but a “waiter with a hobby” is palpable. And that attention to emotion rings true in his musical performances, as well, for which he prepared by taking singing lessons for a year. Garfield’s performance is well complemented by Miranda’s directing. As musical theater and film are different media, translating stories from the stage to the screen — and vice versa — is always a balancing act. Miranda expertly makes this transition by portraying Larson as a man who eats, sleeps, and breathes music. In Miranda’s imagination, music is Larson’s escape from reality, and it gives him moments of respite when the stress of writing a rock musical and the bustling diner rush become too overwhelming. In the film’s rendition of “Sunday,” for example, Larson hones in on the little details, the green stools and the cups of cinnamon coffee, and transforms the place into a composer’s dream. Everyone sings in perfect harmony, everyone knows their cues, and at the song’s climax, the claustrophobic walls of the diner come down. Larson is able to stretch his wings and perform in the SoHo sun. But even though Miranda brings audiences into the fantastical musicals that play in Larson’s mind, he also reminds them of their limitations. The film’s plot centers around Larson’s struggle to finish a musical in advance of his 30th birthday and a writer’s workshop that he believes will be his big break. Due to the immense pressure he places on himself to succeed, in finishing the musical, he withdraws from his family and friends and experiences intense anxiety. Throughout the week and a half leading up to the
workshop, the film asks a lot of questions of its audience: Is pursuing your dream no matter what worth it when it’s at the expense of the people you love? How long and how hard should you work until you accept that it’s time to give up? How do you measure success? Is being able to pursue your dreams selfishly, relentlessly a privilege in and of itself? These questions really come to light when Larson is confronted by his girlfriend Susan Wilson (Alexandra Shipp). Wilson, while supportive of Larson’s dreams, is understandably frustrated by the sacrifices she’s had to make to support him. She wants to settle down, maybe even start a family, and that can’t happen in a tiny, cluttered New York City apartment. And even as Wilson is pouring her heart out to him, Larson’s mind is still caught up in the music, tapping out a melody on her shoulder as she cries. It’s a sobering moment as Wilson comes to the revelation that she will always come second to Larson’s dream. All of these themes coalesce into a message that will resonate with young dreamers in America. Larson is so caught up with comparing himself to the accomplishments of other talented writers that he pushes himself to extreme limits to be successful. But the film suggests that success may not be a Tony-award winning musical on Broadway. Success could have been a smaller-scale life with Wilson or the transference of his incredible abilities to a more lucrative field. The real-life Larson, as is noted in the film’s introduction, passed away only five short years after the events of the film. He eventually received widespread recognition and critical acclaim for his musical “Rent” and will go down in Broadway history. But “tick, tick… BOOM!” urges audiences to recognize that that is not the only path to take. It asks them to consider what path they would take if they knew their days were numbered like Larson’s, and does not privilege the glamour of Broadway over more domestic routes. “tick, tick… BOOM!” is a delightful watch for all the art lovers of the world, the 20-somethings having a quarter-life crisis, and everyone in between. With an Oscar-worthy performance by Garfield, amazing theatrical directing from Miranda, and themes around success that hit just a little too close to home, audiences tuning in are definitely in for a treat. Auhjanae McGee is a junior in the English department and a senior writer for The Prospect. McGee previously served as Head Prospect Editor at the ‘Prince’. She can be reached at ajmcgee@princeton.edu, on Twitter at @auhj_marie, or on Instagram at @marionettes_jubalee.
Friday April 1, 2022
Sports
page 15
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }
Princeton takes 4th place at NCAA fencing championship By Akshay Swani
Sports Contributor
Princeton’s fencing team held their place at the top all year — and they definitely ended the season with a bang. “[We] ended the season with an undefeated Ivy Championship winning women’s team, three Regional champions, seven All-Americans and four Final Four finishers!” junior foil and captain Mohamed Hamza told The Daily Princetonian. “That’s amazing and it makes me so excited for the future of this team.” Hamza’s comments reflect the incredible success of both the men’s and women’s fencing teams during the 2022 season. Princeton qualified a total of 19 athletes to compete in the NCAA Championships. Despite this impressive feat, each school is only allowed to bring in a maximum of 12 competitors. Of those 12, seven fencers — firstyears Maia Weintraub, Nicholas Lawson, and Jessica Lin; junior Lola Constantino and Hamza; seniors Maia Chamberlain and Galen Cadley — earned All-American honors. Weintraub’s individual national title in the foil event may have been the best Princeton highlight of the weekend. Dominating in pool play, she won 18 bouts to earn the top seed in the final four-fencer competition. In the final round, Weintraub defeated Notre Dame’s Amita Berthier 15–9 with ease after starting the match with a fast-paced 14–4 lead.
She is the first female Princeton fencer to win an individual NCAA foil title since 2000. Chamberlain advanced to the final four of the women’s saber event. Chamberlain, like Weintraub, received the top seed after winning 20 bouts in pool play. Unfortunately, she lost a close 15–13 match to Harvard’s Elizabeth Tartakovsky in the semi-final round. This loss ended an incredible collegiate career for Chamberlain. Her final resume includes both a 2018 NCAA individual saber championship title and multiple All-American awards. Cadley, Lin, and Constantino all placed in the top nine out of 24 of their respective competitions. Cadley earned seventh place in the saber with 15 total wins, while Lin and Constantino placed fifth and ninth with 15 and 13 wins, respectively. On the men’s side, 6’9” phenom Lawson advanced to the championship round of the Epée after defeating Penn’s Emon Daroian. Lawson lost a close 15–11 matchup against Ohio State’s Gabriel Feinberg, putting him in second place. “I’m very happy to have come in second and have earned All-American honors, especially as a freshman. It feels like the work I put in this season has paid off, and that’s very gratifying,” Lawson told the ‘Prince.’ “We’re thrilled with our fourth place finish, especially with such a young team and the majority of us having never competed in an NCAA championship before,”
@TIGERFENCING/TWITTER.
First-year Maia Weintraub takes home the championship title in the foil event.
he said. Lawson also credited his teammates for both his individual and the overall team performance at the National Championships. “The team is very close-knit and the support shown to every member of the team throughout the four days of competition was great,” he said. Hamza also had a great run at NCAAs. He crushed his pool competition in the men’s foil championship, winning a total of 21 matches to earn the top seed in the final-four playoff. Unfortunately, he lost a nail-biting 15–14 semi-final match to Columbia’s Ashton Daniel. Hamza also expressed that he felt as if the officiators in this match cost him his trip to the championship round. “I was disappointed with how my semi-final match ended, particularly because of the out-ofcontrol factors that ultimately led to my loss,” he
reflected. “I’m not one to make excuses and know that I can always work harder and improve on things, but I felt the officiating could have been a little better, but it’s a part of the sport,” Hamza continued. “Upsetting things like this are only fuel for us athletes and it helps us want to dedicate more time and energy into our sport.” Hamza’s frustrations stem from the “right-ofway” officiating rules in the foil event. The goal for foils is to use only the tip of their sword to touch either the groin or torso area of their opponent. Landing a strike on this area earns a foil one point. When both foils strike each other simultaneously in a one-vsone match, the official grants the point only to the foil who moved forward towards their opponent first. Many foils dislike this specific rule because
it enables officials to make subjective rulings that can ultimately decide close matches. According to Hamza, this proved to be the case in his final match, where he trailed by just one point. Despite his disappointing personal finish, Hamza was very proud and impressed with the final results. “I am very proud of all the fencers in the squad,” he said. “If I remember correctly, the last time we finished in the top four in the nation as a school was 2017, so returning back to the Final Four is an important achievement for us. We feel that this is a fantastic step forward towards our aims of reclaiming the top spot that Notre Dame currently has.” Akshay Swani is a contributor to the Sports and News sections at the ‘Prince.’ He can be reached at ns9735@princeton.edu.
CREW
Openweight and heavyweight rowing programs dominate in home opener
By Lizzie Evanko
Associate Sports Editor
The Shea Center was the site of a proud showing for the Tigers this Saturday, as the men’s heavyweight and women’s openweight crews
swept their competitors in their first regattas of the season. For the heavyweight program, No. 8 Princeton faced off against No. 16 Drexel, No. 21 Georgetown, and No. 18 Temple. As expected, Princ-
eton ended up ahead of the competition, winning the first, second, and third varsity races. The first varsity eight, stroked by junior James Quinlan and coxed by senior Julia Campell, finished the 2,000m
COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM
The women’s openweight crew poses with the Class of 1987 Trophy.
race in 5:47.0. This placed them in first, 4.5 seconds ahead of Drexel. The second and third varsity eights also won their races, with times of 5:47.9 and 5:54.3, respectively. The successful weekend marks a strong start to their spring season, and the heavyweight men’s crew will be contending for the Navy-Princeton Cup this weekend, April 2 on the Severn River at Navy. In a similarly impressive display, the No. 11 Princeton openweight program overtook the higher-ranked No. 8 Brown and No. 7 Ohio State squads. The first varsity eight finished the 2,000m race in 6:21.3, a full 3.0 seconds ahead of the Bears and 6.3 seconds ahead of the Buckeyes. The second and third varsity eight made for a full three-boat sweep, as they too won their races, with 2.1 and 6.9-second margins, respectively. The first varsity boat featured senior coxswain Isabelle Grosgogeat and junior Lydia Rosen in the stroke seat. “It was an incredible first start to our season,
and it really felt like we came together as a boat after all the challenges we’ve faced in pre-season with covid and injuries,” Rosen said. This victory signified the openweight crew’s 13th consecutive win over Brown, allowing Princeton to keep the Class of 1987 Trophy. “It was a very exciting weekend for us; for most members of the team, it was their first race for Princeton,” junior Camille Vandermeer told the ‘Prince.’ “We are happy to have come away with a win, especially against such strong competition. We are looking forward to finding more speed throughout the season and seeing where our training will take us.” The Tigers will be back Saturday, April 9 to compete for the Class of 1975 Cup against Harvard and Cornell, in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. Lizzie Evanko is an Associate Sports Editor at the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at eevanko@princeton. edu.
Friday April 1, 2022
Sports
page 16
{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S LACROSSE
No. 11 women’s lacrosse routed by No. 5 Stony Brook for second straight loss By Eric Fenno
Sports Contributor
Last night, Stony Brook struck first. And then again. And again. And the run did not stop until the Seawolves had taken a 7–0 lead, burying the Tigers’ hopes of a comeback in the back of the net. Coming off of a flu-ridden weekend with a few missed practices, the No. 11 Princeton women’s lacrosse team (6–2 overall, 1–0 Ivy League) hosted the No. 5 Stony Brook Seawolves (7–2, 1–0 America East) at Sherrerd Field last night, losing in a 16–8 blowout. The Princeton defense started out strong, not allowing a goal for the first six minutes of play and continually halting Stony Brook’s explosive offense, but eventually the Seawolves’ firepower became too much for the Tigers. Stony Brook scored four goals in the first quarter of play and seven to start the second half. The Seawolves dashed by the Tigers in one-on-one matchups and worked the ball around to get open shots right in front of the goal. 11 of their shots were stopped by senior goalie Sam Fish, but the Seawolves’ 27 shots on goal were simply overwhelming. Offensively, the Tigers came out of the gate looking just as cold as the freezing weather. They were unable to score in the first quarter, struggling to hold possession and take shots on goal. Stony Brook brought heavy pressure right from the get-go, quickly stifling the minimal offensive momentum Princeton managed to gather in the first quarter. “We had some trouble winning the draws early
on; they had a lot of pressure on us in transition early on,“ Head Coach Chris Sailer, in the 36th and final year of her illustrious career, told The Daily Princetonian. “There were just too many errors to win a game like that.” With three minutes left in the first half, senior attacker Kyla Sears weaved through defenders and fought through contact, finally scoring the first goal for Princeton and her 25th of the season. Hope for a change in the game’s momentum hung in the air, but everyone knew a miracle would be needed to overcome Stony Brook’s 7–1 lead at the break. That miracle did not come. In fact, everything seemed to be going Stony Brook’s way no matter how hard Princeton fought. Loose balls seemed to bounce to the Seawolves and, much to the chagrin of the very vocal Tigers’ fans, every call seemed to favor Stony Brook. At one point, senior defender and team captain Marge Donovan was taken to the ground, but yet Stony Brook was awarded possession, a decision that provoked the ire of those in attendance. Donovan, however, did not let the game’s physicality stop her. She fought through some heavy contact to take over the draw controls in the second half, often taking the ball down the field herself before dishing it off to an attacker to start the offense. As the third quarter wound down, Donovan scooped the ball and carried it coast to coast between Seawolves defenders to score her second goal of the season. Aside from Donovan’s goal, sophomore attacker
Grace Tauckus gave life to the Tigers’ offense in the second half with a hat trick. Scores from Princeton midfielders in sophomore Kari Buonanno, first-year McKenzie Blake, and first-year Nina Montes complemented the second half offense and landed the Tigers with seven goals in the second half after only scoring one in the first. Such a tough loss at home certainly hurts, but the Tigers are still a top level team. They were able to keep up with Stony Brook in the second half, which is no small feat against the nation’s fifth best team. They have the potential and the skill to hang with some of the nation’s best teams, with their only two losses coming from teams in the top ten. After the game, Donovan commented on the loss and the team’s goals for the next game: “We can get a little bit too hyper-focused on trying to make things happen, but we’ve just got to take a deep breath and focus and play our game — do the things we know we can do right,” she said. The Tigers take on the Brown Bears (5–3, 2–0) in their next game on Saturday in Providence, hoping to come home with a win after suffering their first two losses this week. Though no more top ten teams, there are a lot of Ivy League rivals who remain on their schedule, so the Tigers have the chance to finish out the season with a few conference wins before the NCAA playoffs start in May. Eric Fenno is a contributor to the Sports and Prospect sections at the ‘Prince.’ He can be reached at ef4960@princeton.edu.
THE WEEK IN NUMBERS: TIGERS STANDINGS AND RESULTS MEN’S LACROSSE: IVY LEAGUE STANDINGS CONFERENCE RECORD OVERALL RECORD 1. NO. 10 HARVARD 2 –0 6 –1 2. CORNELL 1 –1 7 –1 3. NO. 6 PRINCETON 1 –1 5 –2 4. NO. 4 PENN 1 –1 4 –2 5. NO. 8 YALE 6. BROWN 7. DARTMOUTH
1 –1 0 –1 0 –1
4 –2 5 –3 4–3
RESULTS FROM THE LAST WEEK: SATURDAY, MARCH 26: NO. 11 YALE 14, NO. 2 PRINCETON 12 UPCOMING GAMES: SATURDAY, APRIL 2: NO. 6 PRINCETON AT BROWN, 12 P.M. TUE., APRIL 5: MARIST AT NO. 6 PRINCETON, 7 P.M.
WOMEN’S LACROSSE: IVY LEAGUE STANDINGS CONFERENCE RECORD OVERALL RECORD 1. YALE 2– 0 5 –2 2. BROWN 2–0 5 –3 3. NO. 11 PRINCETON 1–0 6 –2 4. CORNELL 2–1 6 –3 5. 6. 7. 8.
HARVARD PENN COLUMBIA DARTMOUTH
1 –1 0 –2 0 –2 0 –2
3 –4 3 –6 2 –6 2 –6
RESULTS FROM THE LAST WEEK: TUE., MARCH 29: STONY BROOK 16, NO. 11 PRINCETON 8 UPCOMING GAMES: NO GAMES THIS WEEK
OTHER SPORTS NEWS: ONE DIVER NAMED ALL-AMERICANS AT THE NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS, JUNIOR SWIMMER RAUNAK KHOSLA WAS NAMED AN ALL-AMERICAN HONORABLE MENTION FOR THE THIRD TIME IN HIS CAREER, FINISHING 11TH OVERALL IN THE 200 BUTTERFLY WITH AN IVY LEAGUE-RECORD TIME OF 1:41.07. A FELLOW HONORABLE MENTION, FIRST-YEAR DIVER JOE VICTOR, FINISHED IN 16TH PLACE IN THE PLATFORM DIVING COMPETITION WITH A SCORE OF 277.70 POINTS.
MEN’S TRACK AND FIELD RANKED SIXTH NATIONALLY IN FIRST POLL OF OUTDOOR SEASON THE FIRST THREE WEEKS OF THE SEASON HAVE SEEN THREE PROGRAM RECORDS FOR THE MEN’S TRACK AND FIELD TEAM, AND THEIR SUCCESS EARNED THEM THE NO. 6 SPOT IN THE USTFCCCA NATIONAL POLL. THE TIGERS ARE COMING OFF OF A RED-HOT INDOOR SEASON, WHERE THEY HAD EIGHT ALL-AMERICANS AND A NATIONAL CHAMPION, JUNIOR POLE VAULTER SONDRE GUTTORMSEN.
COURTESY OF @PRINCETONWLAX/TWITTER.
The Tigers fought hard in the second half, scoring seven of their eight goals after the intermission.