March 12, 2018

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday March 12, 2018 vol. CXLII no. 26

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

SPORTS

Women’s basketball heading to NCAA tournament

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The Tigers dominated Yale and Penn to win the Ivy League title and a bid to the NCAA.

By Chris Murphy Head Sports Editor

Heading into this game, the final words head coach Courtney Banghart told her players in the locker room were “You’re champions. Now go out there and play like it.”

Boy, did they ever.

The Princeton Tigers matched up against a Penn team known for its physical front court and historic excellence. Winners of the inaugural Ivy Tournament, the Quakers were hoping to win the Ivy Tournament for the second straight year against the Tigers, snatching away an NCAA berth from the No. 1 seed in the Ivy League. On their home court, the Quakers survived a thrilling game against Harvard last night and came into today hoping their momentum and

physicality would win the day.

Then the Tigers stepped on the court.

Winning 63-34 and sweeping the season series against their rivals from the city of brotherly love, Princeton dominated the Ivy League Tournament final from start to finish. The game gave Tiger fans flashbacks of the epic 2014 team that went 30-0 in the regular season. Princeton made sure no one stole away their NCAA Tournament bid, and when the final horn sounded, began to celebrate something that they have been working towards for the last 364 days.

“We said at the beginning of the year that we were going to take care of business,” said sophomore Bella Alarie, who was named MVP of the Ivy League Tournament. “That was

are team motto and we certainly did it. We did it this year”.

Right out of the gate, the Tigers challenged the Penn defense with open looks from the perimeter. Hallmarked by their physicality in the paint and ability to dominate the glass, the Quakers were simply out-worked on the boards for the entire game, as Princeton continued to win offensive rebounds, generate second chance opportunities and find open looks from beyond the arc. The Tigers finished with 48 total rebounds and 12 offensive ones, in contrast the Quakers only had 31.

“That’s always our first goal, to have our defensive play come before our offensive play,” explained Alarie. “We just had such great defense today we were blocking shots we were

communicating…and our defense led to our offense”.

The beneficiary of this defensive performance was freshman guard Abby Meyers, who earned All Ivy Tournament Team Honors after her dominant performance today. She finished with a game high 18 points on nearly 50 percent shooting and down the stretch of the first quarter scored 11 in a row for the Tigers as they opened a 24-3 lead early in the second.

“I got to give it to my teammates for getting me those open looks,” said Meyers after the game. “I want to win for the seniors and I want to make every shot I attempt and to win it for them is just amazing.”

Perhaps the only time Penn threatened in the game came midway through the second quarter when the Quakers scored 7 in a row to cut the lead to 24-10.

But then freshman Carlie Littlefield – the three point specialist in the Tigers’ semifinal victory over Yale – hit a three pointer to stop the Penn run. By halftime the Tigers were back up by nineteen points.

The second half proved to be much of the same. As the Tigers continued to contest every Quaker shot, Penn simply could not make enough baskets to climb back into the game. The Quakers improved upon their dismal 7.1 shooting percentage from the first quarter minimally for the rest of the game, ending with a shooting clip of 22.2 percent. As the game got closer to its finish, the Orange and Black faithful who made the trip continued to get louder until they finally had their opportunity to storm the court with their champion Tigers.

“I’m so proud to be a Tiger today,” continued Alarie, beaming after the game, “and I am so excited to play in the NCAA Tournament.”

The Ivy League win and the ensuing NCAA Tournament birth nearly completes the legacy of this senior class. As freshman on that 2014 dream team, the seniors will be returning to the big dance after winning the Ivy Tournament for the Tigers and capping off a year’s worth of work to get back to this position.

“I’ll remember this team for different reasons,“ said Banghart. “I’ll never forget this one for the senior leadership and the power of how your team plays to the personality of your seniors”.

The Tigers are grabbing their dancing shoes and heading back to the NCAAs later this month.

As for who their opponent will be, that has yet to be determined; as of the latest updates in ESPN’s Bracketology, the Tigers are projected as a 12 seed and will play the fifth seeded Maryland Terrapins in Athens Georgia. The official bracket will come out Monday night at 7 p.m.

“There are some matchups I like better than others” continued Banghart, “but the matchup I like the best is Bella being aggressive, Abby shooting the ball well, and Leslie at the high post”.

Banghart alluded to the power of the Ivy League Tournament in preparing her team for potential NCAA matchups.

“At this [the Ivy League Tournament] there are only good teams left,“ explained Banghart.

“Playing Yale and then playing Penn on their home floor and beating both, I think it has given us some good preparation moving forward.”

In a few days, the Tigers will be looking ahead, attempting to cement their legacy in a NCAA Tournament run.

“It’s a dream come true,” said Meyers after the game. “I’m so excited for the NCAA Tournament and I’m just going to take in every second of it.”

U . A F FA I R S

LOCAL NEWS

U. housed workers during storm

By Isabel Ting staff writer

IVY TRUONG :: PRINCETONIAN STAFF WRITER

The original Hoagie Haven at 242 Nassau Street, near the second location at 244 Nassau Street.

After a major snow storm struck on Wednesday, March 7, the University provided overnight housing accommodations for several dining staff members in both on- and off-campus locations.

According to acting University spokesperson Mi-

COURTESY OF KAMILA RADJABOVA

Fallen branches across a bike-stand in lower campus.

See STORM page 3

Duplicate Hoagie Haven New monologues address USG discusses opens, seats customers students’ struggles with mental health, Lawnparties eating disorders STUDENT LIFE

By Ivy Truong staff writer

Princeton now has two Hoagie Havens — two doors down from each other.

At the original Hoagie Haven on 242 Nassau St., customers can walk in and order food. The second location, 244 Nassau St., is

designated for customers picking up orders made on the phone or online. This location also has tables where customers can sit and eat, no matter which storefront provided their food.

The new storefront opened on March 3. It replaced George’s Roasters See HOAGIE page 2

By Benjamin Ball staff writer

A new series of monologues is soon to be presented on campus about students’ struggles with eating disorders.

“I’m always a proponent

STUDENT LIFE

of when you can talk, you should talk,” said Zach Feig ’18, the organizer of the monologues. “When we talk, we find we’re a lot more similar, and we can solve a lot more problems than we thought we could.”

See MONOLOGUE page 5

By Jacob Gerrish staff writer

As the first month of the administration of Undergraduate Student Government President Rachel Yee ’19 draws to a close, USG discussed the Ivy League Mental Health ConferSee USG page 4

In Opinion

Contributing Columnist Hunter Campbell argues that P-Safe must be armed for campus safety, and Senior Columnist Ryan Born asserts that to solve America’s gun problem we need more radical reforms than “common sense” gun laws. PAGE 6

Today on Campus 7:30 p.m.: An Evening with Darren Aronofsky Alexander Hall

WEATHER

Looking for the Street? See events on campus in This Week with the Street, PAGE 2 HIGH

43˚

LOW

32˚

Clear chance of rain:

0 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Monday March 12, 2018

(if(equal? web love) (join the ‘Prince’ now) (join anyway))

Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Seating in new shop will prevent previous crowding HOAGIE

Continued from page 1

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

and Ribs, another restaurant owned by Costa, Niko, and Mike Maltabes. The three brothers also own Slice Between, a pizza restaurant between the two Hoagie Havens.

Matt Hetrick ’20 reacted positively when he heard that Hoagie Haven was about to get a second storefront.

“I mean, you have a place where people can go sit down and chill,” said Hetrick. “It will eliminate a lot of clustering that is there — or was there — in the smaller one.”

Costa Maltabes echoed that sentiment in a quote in The Trentonian, citing crowd control as a major factor in converting George’s Roasters and Ribs into a second Hoagie Haven.

“The lines are a mess.

Always have been,” said Maltabes. “People come in and order and there’s also people who call in ahead of time. It gets crowded.”

The original storefront has little seating. Refrigerators line one wall, but much of the space is left for customers to form an awkward cluster as they wait to order and pay.

Alex Caldwell ’20 said that, while most people expect Hoagie Haven to be crowded, the additional

indoor seating is a convenient alternative to the benches outside.

Caldwell also noted that employees no longer have to sort customers who preordered from the walk-in customers.

“It’ll make it a little more efficient now,” he said.

Vishan Nigam ’18 has frequented the restaurant since he was 12 years old.

In high school, he visited Hoagie Haven multiple times a week. Even though he now visits the restaurant less frequently, he remains less than enthusiastic about the decision to open a second location.

From a practical standpoint, however, he understands the need for the restaurant to control the crowds that enter Hoagie Haven every day.

Nigam’s concern is that the new storefront may affect the Hoagie Haven experience.

“You always kinda go late at night, wait in a long line, and talk to people and all of that,” continued Nigam. “It’s strange to see a more formal location [to dine in].”

Nevertheless, Nigam says it is useful that people who order beforehand can now pick up their food more easily than they could previously.

Both Hoagie Havens are also now taking credit cards, with a $10 minimum.

Correction: In the March 7 article, “Students issued fines for jaywalking on Washington Road,” the Princeton Police Department’s actions were misstated. According to a voicemail from PPD Lieutenant Chris Morgan, summons have been issued for “failing to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk.” According to Morgan, no summons have been issued to pedestrians, only drivers. Instead, warnings issued to pedestrians are part of a campaign to increase pedestrian safety while crossing roads. The ‘Prince’ regrets the error.

Monday March 12, 2018

Dining workers slept in local hotels during storm STORM

Continued from page 1

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

chael Hotchkiss, approximately 60 Campus Dining workers who chose to stay overnight were accommodated at local hotels, such as Nassau Inn and Palmer House, as well as the Graduate College. However, Hotchkiss also emphasized in a email statement that several University employees “worked during the night to clear campus roads and walks to ensure the safety of students, faculty, and staff.”

Accommodation arrangements for Campus Dining workers were finalized by Tuesday night, Hotchkiss added.

Although Rockefeller and Mathey dining staff member Valeria Sykes has worked at the University for the past forty years, she has only been housed by the University twice in response to blizzards. She normally opts for the 20 to 30-minute drive back to her home in Ewing, New Jersey. However, on Wednesday night after she had finished a triple shift, she explained that her typical drive home could easily have become a two-and-ahalf hour to three-hour drive due to the heavy snow and the late hour.

Last year was the first time that Sykes stayed on campus, when she was offered an individual room in the Graduate School. Last March, other workers slept in the multipurpose room of Frist Campus Center on cots brought over from Dillon Gymnasium. While Sykes “was good with [the] accommodations” offered last year, her accommodations this year in Palmer House were even better.

Sykes was “quite surprised and pleased” with the accommodations. Her “very comfortable, large room” included a “nice bathroom and office,” as well as a small desk area. While breakfast at 7:30 a.m. was included with her stay, Sykes had to be at work by 6:30 a.m. She was satisfied nevertheless.

Another Rockefeller and Mathey dining staff member, Maritere Bolanos, who lives 25 minutes away in Trenton, echoed similar sentiments about the room that she shared with co-worker Reyna Yildiz in Peacock Inn. Yildiz lives 30 minutes away in East Windsor, New Jersey.

Although there was only one large bed and a pull-out bed in Bolanos and Yildiz’s room, Bolanos described the accommodations as a “nice hotel” with “very good housing.” Breakfast was also included with their stay.

Yildiz continued to explain that in previous years, university personnel have stayed in Dillon Gym or the Graduate School.

Oxene Gehrard, a Butler and Wilson College dining hall staff member, stayed in Nassau Inn on Wednesday night, while Forbes College dining hall staff member Stanley Johnson explained that only two dining hall staff members from Forbes College stayed overnight.

“The University is always working to identify the best ways to meet the unique challenges presented by each storm and accommodated our hard-working employees,” Hotchkiss wrote in an email statement.

Staff Writers Ivy Truong and Hannah Wang contributed reporting.

0101110110100010010100101001001 0100100101110001010100101110110 1000100101001010010010100100101 1100010101001011101101000100101 0010100100101001001011100010101 0010111011010001001010010100100 1010010010111000101010010111011 0100010010100101001001010010010 1110001010100101110110100010010 1001010010010100100101110001010 1001011101101000100101001010010 0101001001011100010101001011101 1010001001010010100100101001001 0111000101010010111011010001001 0100101001001010010010111000101 for (;;) 0100101110110100010010100101001 { 0010100100101110001010100101110 System.out.print(“Join ”); 1101000100101001010010010100100 System.out.println(“Web!”); 1011100010101001011101101000100 } 1010010100100101001001011100010 1010010111011010001001010010100 1001010010010111000101010010111 0110100010010100101001001010010 0101110001010100101110110100010 Dream in code?

0101001011101101000100101001010 0100101001001011100010101001011 Join the ‘Prince’ web staff 1011010001001010010100100101001 0010111000101010010111011010001 001010010100100101001001011100 0101010010111011010001001010010 1001001010010010111000101010010 1110110100010010100101001001010 join@dailyprincetonian.com 0100101110001010100101110110100 0100101001010010010100100101110 0010101001011101101000100101001 0100100101001001011100010101001 0111011010001001010010100100101 0010010111000101010010111011010 0010010100101001001010010010111 0001010100101110110100010010100 1010010010100100101110001010100 1011101101000100101001010010010 1001001011100010101001011101101 0001001010010100100101001001011

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

Monday March 12, 2018

Senate unanimously passes increased funding for Lawnparties USG

Continued from page 1

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

ence, budget proposals, committee appointments, and elections resolutions during its weekly meeting.

First, Taylor Pearson ’18, Danielle Herman ’18, and Isaac Treves ’18 gave a presentation on the state of mental health care at the University. Current policy proposals include holding a “Me Too Monologues” event during freshman orientation — which would feature anonymous accounts of students’ struggles with mental health — and appointing a USG liaison to the Board of Trustees on mental health.

“It’s a sad thing about mental health that you don’t really realize how important it is until you lose it,” Treves said.

Social Committee Chair Liam Glass ’19 proposed that USG increase funding for Lawnparties from $73,000 to $108,000, due to reductions in the Alcohol Initiative Committee’s financing of the event.

“Yes, it is a large, significant increase in USG spending, though I think it is a worthwhile one that is more honest,” Glass said.

The Senate passed the request unanimously.

Parliamentarian Jonah Hyman ’20 and Chief Elections Manager Laura Zecca ’20 proposed two resolutions to amend the Referenda Handbook.

The first would include a procedure for handling referenda proposals that could not be simultaneously implemented, by not allowing people to vote on both referenda if they are contradictory. A student could vote on one referenda and not the other during a single voting period. The resolution included a section accounting for compromise between the two referenda if they are similar in aim.

The second resolution would require that referenda statements by the referendum sponsor and the opposition party appear in all voting-related emails and on the USG website, rather than on the ballot.

Want pizza?

Join the news section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

Like sports? Write for the sports section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

The Senate ratified both resolutions.

Student Groups Recognition Committee Co-Chair Emily Chen ’18 sought Senate approval of the following student organizations: Princeton GenUN, Decem, Tiger Anchor Society, and Kardashian Lifestyle Klub.

However, Deputy Dean of Undergraduate Students Thomas Dunne raised concerns about Tiger Anchor Society establishing an independent Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.

“We need to have a conversation with the students and the navy officers for them to fully understand what this means,” Dunne said.

The Senate decided to approve all student organizations, with the exception of Tiger Anchor Society.

Projects Board Co-Chair Eliot Chen ’20 requested that Projects Board allocate $1,500 to the African Students Association’s Sankofa Fashion Show on April 7 at the Carl A. Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding. The funding request passed unanimously.

The Senate also confirmed the following members: Patrycja Pajdak ’21 and Linh Nguyen ’21 to the Communications Committee; Elizabeth Wright ’19, Mahishan Gnanaseharan ’20, Annie Sullivan-Crowley ’21, Sarah Deneher ’20, Jenna Shaw ’20, and Christine Jeong ’19 to the Campus and Community Affairs Committee; Aydan Celik ’21, Franklin Aririguzoh ’19, and Ans Nawaz ’21 to the Social Committee; Kavya Chaturvedi ’21, and Kezia Otinkorang ’20 to the Projects Board; Angelica Tai ’20 to the Alumni Affairs Committee; and Jaclyn Hovsmith ’20 as Graphic Designer.

Nguyen is a staff writer for The Daily Princetonian. Nawaz is a videographer for the ‘Prince.’

Lastly, Director of Communications Tori Gorton ’21 presented on making USG more accessible and on improving the reach of USG. Alongside Yee, she introduced an initiative to develop and release videos on such topics as loneliness at the University or room draw.

The next USG meeting will take place following the spring recess.

The Daily Princetonian

Monday March 12, 2018

page 5

Fleming: “If you say ‘eating disorder’ it sounds clinical” MONOLOGUE Continued from page 1

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

Feig is curating a series of monologues, submitted anonymously by students and performed by other students, on the topic of struggling with eating disorders and, more broadly, having a healthy relationship with food.

“I believe that everybody could take advantage of going to a therapist, I think everybody could take advantage of going to a nutritionist, and I think everyone has, to some extent, an unhealthy relationship with food,” said Feig. “I think that the more we talk about that, the more we realize that, the more we provide support for each other and provide spaces that are safe to express those anxieties.”

Feig expressed that the monologues could be of tremendous help to all students on campus in some capacity, believing that raising awareness could help students live and eat in a healthy way.

“Because we’re all in a space where we’re growing and developing, it’s important to develop healthy attitudes towards food and eating,” said Feig. “That’s something the University doesn’t talk about much.”

From his perspective, Feig said he believed there was a desire among many students for the subject to be discussed.

“The first night I sent out a request for submissions, I probably sent it out around midnight. By the time I woke up, there were six submissions,” said Feig. “Clearly this is something people on campus are thinking about and want to talk about.”

Samantha Shapiro ’21 joined the project as soon as she saw the email Feig sent out.

“I saw Zach’s email about the monologues, and a smile instantly came to my face,” Shapiro wrote in an email.

“I was so excited by the project and the dialogue that the monologue project could potentially raise.”

Shapiro is a sports writer for The Daily Princetonian.

When asked about the overarching goals for the monologues, Feig said that the top priority is to start a conversation among students and allow voices that are not usually given a platform to be heard.

“The biggest goal is to raise awareness and start dialogue,” Feig said. “What I’ve been really trying to do is get voices out there, get people to hear about it, and get people to talk about it.”

Katherine Fleming ’19 organized an event for Mental Health Week in February through Princeton Students for Gender Equality called Eating Mindfully: A Conversation about Gender and Food. Looking back on her experience of the event and the dialogue it created, she emphasized the importance of creating a platform broad enough to include all people’s perspectives, no matter how they personally relate to the issue.

“There’s definitely a lot there that people want to talk about and need to talk about,” Fleming said. “I think that it’s a discourse that’s still pretty stigmatized; if you say ‘eating disorder’ it sounds clinical and scary … but we try to frame it as a broader conversation.”

Fleming reiterated Feig’s goal of creating a dialogue and letting others be heard, emphasizing the importance of open conversation on the issue.

“I think that it’s definitely a conversation that should happen more on campus that I don’t see happening,” said Fleming. “It’s a

really fruitful conversation because it lets people learn how to help themselves and help others.”

Feig compared his current plans for the eating disorder monologues to his time spent working with the Sex and Religion Monologues, which focused on students experiences with the intersections of their sexualities and religions. Feig noted that despite the sensitivity of both of those subjects, the monologues were very successful in creating honest discussion.

“The conversations afterwards were very open, surprisingly so; people said a lot more than I expected them to say and were a lot more comfortable than I expected them to be and were very frank,” said Feig. “I was hoping to cultivate the same kind of dialogue around this issue, and that’s why I embraced this medium.”

Those monologues took place in April 2017. Feig said that, even though some monologues were challenging to hear, they also expressed student voices and helped others to understand their perspectives.

Feig said that he would instruct readers to listen to themselves as they read the monologue, so that they could be a model of “real, authentic listening.”

Shapiro and Feig shared an enthusiasm for the medium of monologue in particular, believing by verbalizing internal thoughts one can fight the disorientation within oneself that eating disorders so often make people feel. “[Eating disorders] make you … become wrapped up in your own head,” wrote Shapiro. “This is why I think the concept of a monologue is so genius: it allows individuals to project the inner dialogue of their eating disorder outside of themselves.

I feel like this action is almost fighting the disorder itself.”

According to Shapiro, the action of creating the monologues could be helpful for their respective writers, offering an emotional outlet.

“I think the process of writing can be tremendously therapeutic,” wrote Shapiro.

“Being able to have a sense of ownership over your story with eating and your body is one of the most empowering feelings in the world.”

Feig also emphasized that creating dialogue around an issue like eating disorders was a team effort among a number of groups on campus. Feig had been working with the Mathey College Office, the Program in Theater, and professors who studied or taught classes on body issues.

He hopes that another positive change from the monologues will be an increase in resources allocated by the administration to help students who struggle with their relationship with food.

“A little bit of money could go a long way towards providing support for this problem,” Feig said. “When students get upset, the administration responds. I really do believe that dialogue can cause change.”

Beyond administrative action, however, Feig believed the biggest responsibility lies with the students. He said that while Counseling and Psychological Services and the administration can help, student awareness must be raised to address the issue.

“People just really want to be heard,” said Feig. “This is a way to be heard and a way to generate more hearing.”

The process of collecting submissions is still ongoing.

The submission deadline is Friday, March 23.

Yo, Taylor, I’m really happy for you ... Imma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time! One of the best videos of all time!

- Kanye West Buy an ad. Say what you want.

For more information, contact ‘Prince’ business.

Call (609)258-8110 or

Email business@dailyprincetonian.com

(if(equal? web love) (join the ‘Prince’ now) (join anyway)) Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Monday March 12, 2018

Opinion

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Stop ranting about politics on Facebook Liam O’Connor

Senior Columnist

S

tudents across the country are planning to walk out of class for 17 minutes this Wednesday to honor the victims of last month’s Parkland, Florida school shooting. Princeton students are holding the “We Call BS: Princeton Rally for Gun Reform.” Each night when I look at my Facebook newsfeed, it is saturated with political posts, rants, and cartoons about people’s opinions on guns or the walkouts. Many of them make incendiary statements, which then devolve into flame wars in the posts’ comments. Inevitably, feelings get hurt, friendships are broken, and the issue doesn’t get any closer to being resolved.

We should stop making and responding to political posts on social media because most people dislike or don’t care about them.

A poll conducted by Pew in 2016 found that Americans generally don’t like seeing political content on social media.

Over one-third of respondents said that they, “are worn out by how many political posts and discussions they see.” Fifty-nine percent think that de-

bating about politics on social media is stressful and frustrating. A 2013 study from Beihang University showed that anger was more likely to spread across social media than any other emotion.

Political posters may argue that social media forces people to think critically about their positions and reevaluate them.

In reality, they rarely cause people to change their opinions. Another Pew poll found that only 20 percent of social media users modify their views on issues because of something they saw on social media. But that statistic was dragged up by liberal Democrats who were more likely to change. When focusing only on conservative Republicans and centrists in both parties — which constitutes the majority of the population — the number drops below 15 percent.

Instead of changing opinions, online political rants actually reinforce views via echo chambers. When Facebook friends or Twitter followers of differing ideologies see posts with which they disagree, they block or stop following the people who posted. Almost one-third of social media users have unfriended someone because of content related to politics. By ideology, liberals are more likely to unfriend people due to politics, and conservatives are more likely to hear opinions similar to their own.

Consequently, society becomes polarized as people increasingly interact only with people who share their political beliefs. At Princeton’s Alumni Day James Madison Medal lecture, Professor Daniel Mendelsohn said social media allows us, “to screen out every element of society (and culture and politics) that doesn’t suit or flatter or soothe us, thereby removing the necessity for civility.”

On the rare occasion that the echo chamber is broken and one does see content contrary to their ideology, the impersonality of social media means that the political posts only manage to make people angry. It’s easier to write an offensive comment to online pictures of people than to say the same words to their face.

The platforms are designed to create instant gratification or outrage by generating hyperbolic content that immediately grabs users’ attention.

This isn’t conducive to constructive political dialogue. A study from Cornell University showed that people are more likely to alter their political opinions when met with calm language, original arguments, and strong examples backed by evidence. By contrast, the arguments that I see on Facebook invariably follow Godwin’s Law — the principle that someone will make an unnecessary comparison to Hitler or

the Nazis the longer an online discussion lasts. Posts’ formats — whether in the form of a character limit, focus on pictures, or visually shortening longer texts — aren’t favorable for nuanced, well-researched arguments.

If people want to change others’ political opinions, then they should seek a variety of alternatives. Write to a local newspaper. Letters to the editor are an excellent way to introduce new arguments, evidence, or lived experiences to the sphere of public debate.

Promote events by putting up posters or launching a doorto-door campaign. For those seeking a harder — but more impactful way to influence opinions — talk about politics with friends who hold different beliefs. A person won’t be as rude in a face to face conversation as in an online argument.

Gun reform and other current events conjure strong feelings that compel people to post their political opinions on social media. But the benefits of doing so are marginal and the consequences significant.

This walkout is supposed to be about protecting ourselves and our friends from gun violence.

Let’s not permit social media to break our friendships first.

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

Born, again

T

Is “common sense” gun reform enough?

here has been a recent uptick in gun control advocacy on campus, including a recent spate of opinion pieces, in The Daily Princetonian, such as my own. These articles make it clear that there is significant support for “common sense” gun control on campus. Despite their merits, I am concerned that these pieces stop short of advocating for what is needed to combat gun violence. Specifically, Aaron Tobert GS argues that “it’s time to end the gun insanity.” But his traditional “common sense gun reform” goals are inadequate — more must be done to get politicians in office to stand up to the NRA and support comprehensive (i.e. total) gun control. Common sense gun control is not enough to end or substantially reduce gun violence; gun violence is endemic and multifaceted, and, therefore, the issue cannot be solely combated with the superficial, common-sense reforms.

While there are other definitions for “common sense” reform, this article focuses primarily on Tobert’s definition of “common sense” — background checks, higher age limits, and assault rifle bans. Such a definition is well in-line with historical reforms under this heading. It should go without saying that I support these reforms, and it’s clear that most Americans already do support “common sense” gun control. Newsweek reports that support for background checks, higher age limits, and assault-rifle bans have reached 96 percent, 78 percent, and 62 percent, respectively.

This should come as little shock. For example, many people can get behind the ideas that the mentally ill or criminals ought not to get their hands on guns. Consider a 2017 Pew Research Center Report putting support for background checks

at gun shows and preventing the mentally ill from having guns at 84 percent and 89 percent, respectively. Moreover, it seems reasonable to suggest that minors shouldn’t have access to firearms. Even the most rabid Second Amendment toting hunt-master and the most liberal sunflower peace child can get together and agree on these issues.

The problem with “common sense” gun reform as presented has nothing to do with values or beliefs and everything to do with the pure mechanisms of politics — the NRA has money and votes and will defend gun ownership to the last. That’s its job. If you want “common sense” gun control, you need to donate and vote. That’s it. There’s no arguments to be made, simply opposition to overcome.

The focus on “common sense” gun control misses the mark in regards to the nature of gun violence. It’s about more than school shootings.

It’s also about homicide, racism, suicide, and trafficking.

As I argued in my article two weeks ago on repealing the Second Amendment, the goal of gun control reform should be nothing less than zero gun deaths. The total death toll in the United States from gun violence between 1968 and 2011 reaches 1.4 million — 200,000 more American deaths than in all wars the United states has fought in its entire history. This number takes into account the casualties of the Civil War, which consisted solely of Americans killing other Americans.

Guns take far more lives than in just mass shootings.

Homicides drive a significant share of deaths from gun violence. The CDC reports that in 2015 alone, 13,000 Americans were killed in gun related homicides. Compare this to total deaths in mass shootings from 2013 to the present, as reported by the Guardian: 1,875. Hence, while we lose an average of 375 people a year to

mass shootings, we lost 3,466 percent more in 2015. While school shootings are undeniably tragic and pathos-inducing, reason compels us to understand that such shootings are a tiny fraction of an otherwise massive phenomenon.

More than that, we ought to acknowledge gun deaths before we are confronted by the presence of dead school children. Why were we waiting for this to be our wake up call?

Common sense gun reform isn’t enough to stop the many deaths from day-to-day homicide. Just think: can we reasonably expect that assault rifle bans will prevent pistol shootings? Will raising the gun owning age to 21 prevent a 40-year-old man from losing control and shooting up a church? Doubtful.

There are so many horrors beyond school shootings that call for more than common sense reform.

First, gun violence and homicides have a disproportionate effect on minorities and the African-American population. As an article in The Conversation notes, “There’s justified, universal outrage at a shooting in a largely white, affluent area, but not so much at the frequent shooting deaths of black Americans.” America tends to treat the school shooting problem as distinct from general violence, which tends to ignore the more general and diffuse effects of guns on African Americans in particular. Moreover, common sense gun control is mostly targeted towards alleviating the problem of shootings, not the problem of such general gun violence. As an article in the Washington Post demonstrates, African Americans are far more supportive of gun control measures and especially gun control beyond “common sense,” showing the acute fear and reaction of these communities against gun violence.

Furthermore, our gun violence problem spurs greater gun violence abroad as well, most pressingly in Mexico. As Sarah Kinosian and Eugenio Weigend write in the LA Times, Mexican gun laws are very strict, yet cartels have no trouble obtaining cheap and effective American firearms from across the border, leading to increased cartel violence and the destabilization of Mexico. Mere moderate and superficial restrictions in the United States still leaves open the possibilities of American weapons making it into the hands of Mexican gangs and militia. Again, the focus on school shootings seems woefully insufficient compared to the broader effects of guns on our international neighbors.

Finally, there is the seldommentioned issue of suicide.

According to the 2016 Brady Center & Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Report on Gun Suicide, 20,000 people commit suicide in the United States per year using a gun.

The CDC reports 22,000 such suicides in 2015. More than even depression, the mere presence of a gun at home increases chance of suicide threefold. Note the implications of this: any purchase of a gun is a suicide risk. No matter how safe we think that person is, no matter the background checks we provide, the waiting times we install, the assault rifle bans and so on, a gun in the house is a severe suicide risk. Accordingly, in suicide prevention, “common sense” is hardly sensical or sufficient.

If I have not yet painted a picture of the drastic steps needed to deal with gun violence, please note that I have not even covered various other costs of gun violence, such as psychological trauma to survivors, the many people who are shot and injured but survive, and the economic cost of gun violence.

Some argue that we should

vol. cxlii

editor-in-chief

Marcia Brown ’19 business manager

Ryan Gizzie ’19

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

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

NIGHT STAFF

copy Hannah Freid ’20 Armani Aguiar ’21 Douglas Corzine ’20 Paige Allen ’21 design Charlotte Adamo ’21

simply strive for reduction.

But why? And for what purpose? What do guns give us to justify so much death, so many injuries, so much damage? As I argued before, gun control policy must be comprehensive — strict regulation, mandatory buybacks, prominent oversight — for gun violence to ever begin to approach the acceptable level: none. And by this metric, “common sense” gun reform is not enough.

Ryan Born is a philosophy concentrator from Washington Twp., Mich. He can be reached at rcborn@princeton.edu.

This is part of a recurring weekly column on politics and pedagogy at Princeton and abroad. For hyperlinks, please see the online article.

Monday March 12, 2018

Opinion

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Is our campus really safe?

Hunter Campbell

Contributing Columnist

R

efusing to arm the Department of Public Safety’s Sworn University Police Officers with handguns puts all students, faculty members, campus visitors, and Princeton residents at risk of becoming victims of a mass shooting like that in the recent Parkland, Fla. tragedy. Arming the University police officers with handguns is the only way to ensure that help could arrive in time during an active shooter incident, because every second counts.

In 2015 the University’s sworn police officers were given access to rifles in two theoretical situations: an active shooter incident and a hypothetical brandishing of a firearm on campus. However, these rifles are secured within sworn officers’ patrol cars.

Sworn officers have the same powers as all other police officers in New Jersey, such as the power to arrest. The University employed 32 sworn officers as of late 2015, compared to its 65 non-sworn security officers.

This leads to several key issues. Namely, not all of those officers are guaranteed to have access to a patrol car — and therefore

a rifle — during a shooting. Those who do have access to a car must spend precious time retrieving a secured rifle instead of engaging the assailant immediately with a holstered handgun.

Not all sworn police officers are patrolling campus with vehicles; some are using bicycles or are walking on foot. As stated on the Department of Public Safety website, officers on bicycles “have the speed and ability to respond to locations on campus, sometimes more efficiently and faster than a vehicle” and “it is also easier for a cyclist to ride into the courtyards on paths and areas that cars cannot access.” Those officers who do not have immediate access to a rifle could be the ones most capable of responding to a threat with speed. Without a handgun, those who could be our best defense against an armed intruder may have to stay out of the fight. However, even if an officer is assigned a patrol car, their weapon will not always be directly available in the event of a shooting. They would have to return to their vehicle to retrieve a secured rifle.

This means the only officers who could immediately respond to a crisis are those driving their cars as the attack began.

Even then, they will have to spend several seconds unsecuring the rifle instead of facing the gun-

man. Any time delay in an active shooter incident can be deadly. While seconds may seem negligible, it is imperative that we recognize the devastating rate of fire for the AR-15, the weapon used in the Sandy Hook, Aurora, Parkland, and Pulse Nightclub shootings. The Pulse shooter managed to fire 24 rounds in 9 seconds. The danger is drastically heightened when the shooter uses a bump stock, a legal modification which effectively turns an AR-15 style rifle from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Using this modification, the Las Vegas shooter fired 90 rounds in 10 seconds. Each second it takes for University law enforcement to engage a shooter comes at the price of nine bullets hurtling toward those we care about. We cannot take such a risk with students’ lives.

There are legitimate concerns to be raised regarding giving our sworn officers’ handguns. One is the fear of police brutality, especially in light of recent high profile police killings of unarmed Black and Hispanic men.

Several graduate students in the Woodrow Wilson School raised this concern in an op-ed in the Prince last February. But it is important to realize if one argues that a small, moderate or even overwhelmingly large percentage of police in America engage in misconduct, this prem-

ise does not guarantee the conclusion that Public Safety therefore engages or will engage in misconduct. The Department of Public Safety should be judged by its own conduct, not by that of police departments outside the control of the University.

In fact, our high achieving department was awarded a CALEA Law Enforcement Accreditation in 2015.

Conversely, those who worry about becoming victims of police misconduct should actually want the Public Safety sworn officers to be armed with handguns. Under current procedures, the Princeton Police Department (PPD) will need to be called in to deal with an incident where a violent crime is being committed without a gun. The University has no control over PPD training but does have control over how Public Safety officers are trained. However, we can require many hours of cultural sensitivity and de-escalation training for our officers. We can give them additional training on how to deal with a suspect with a mental illness, or with one who is disabled. The University can go above and beyond the base training required

by New Jersey law, but we cannot mandate the same for non-University law enforcement.

We should not have to worry when entering dining halls, classrooms, and larger auditoriums that

our University is not prepared for the worst. Legislation is needed to stop the epidemic of gun violence in our country, but we cannot rely on Trenton and Washington, D.C., to take action in the future which we need in the present. We must protect our campus today. Leaving our community without proper security while we wait for help from a government that has historically been inefficient on the issue of gun violence is not a wise course of action.

After the Parkland shooting, several arrests were made of attempted copycat shooters. We must let those who might wish to do our campus harm know that we are not a soft target where an untold number of lives could be taken before police intervention.

Harvard, Yale, Penn, Brown, and Cornell — the other schools in the Ivy League that possess their own campus police — have already made the choice to give their sworn officers handguns and effectively defend their campuses. To prevent an act of evil from happening at our University, we must give the brave men and women who risk their lives for us every day and night the tools they need to keep us and themselves safe.

Hunter Campbell is a sophomore from East Arlington, Ver. He can be reached at hunterc@princeton.edu.

Falling tree victor guan ’21

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

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

Monday March 12, 2018

Opinion { www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Secret word rachel brill ’20

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

Have opinions?

Join the opinion section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 8

Monday March 12, 2018

Opinion

page 9

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

The day of judgement (and shoes) Leora Eisenberg Columnist

I

t’s a fight for me to not judge people on their shoes. I’ve even created a sort of rubric for them: leather men’s wingtips indicate intelligence; tennis shoes (especially in less casual settings) show a lack of social awareness; women’s heels generally suggest elegance; boat shoes make me think you’re preppy. I’ve joked before that I refuse to go on second dates with guys because of their shoe choice. I was only half kidding.

Shoes, in this case, represent something larger — the natural human tendency to judge the external. We see clothing, we hear accents, we notice physical interaction, and we make conclusions about someone simply based on their physical attributes. The external pieces

of someone’s personality help form our internal judgment. In my case, I look to footwear to provide me with a quick personality assessment.

How many people have you judged today?

I’ve probably judged six or seven — maybe more. A quick look at their clothing (specifically, shoes), a glance at their handwriting, and some attention paid to their accent tells me everything I think I need to know. Within a minute or two, I’ve formed an opinion of someone that, frankly, is fairly unlikely to change over the course of my knowing them, regardless of how much they prove me wrong. Studies conducted by organizations like the Society for Personality and Social Psychology have shown that first impressions are notoriously prone to inertia.

At the beginning of the year, I judged so many people unfavorably that my resulting attitude has poisoned my relationships with many of these individu-

als. Someone’s Vans suggested to me that he was a “frat boy,” so I did my best to keep away. A stiletto-wearing girl seemed pretty “touchy-feely” around boys, so naturally I decided she would be no friend of mine. Some wore too much makeup; others said the word “like” too much. Some didn’t wear any makeup at all; others just wore terrible shoes.

I’ve probably judged everyone at this point. But I wish that I hadn’t, because my impressions of them last year colored our later interactions, as I had already more or less decided that we wouldn’t be friends.

What I’ve since discovered is that people’s shoes are not representative of their personalities or their personal struggles.

Shoes, believe it or not, don’t reveal everything there is to know about a person. The “frat boy” has absent parents who bought him his Vans as a late birthday present. The girl I deemed “touchy-feely” struggles with body image and craves approval. The boy with ugly shoes wore

them because he couldn’t afford nicer ones. I’m not friends with these people now in large part because I never considered them beyond my externally-based judgments — and I regret this deeply. I can only imagine how many meaningful relationships I’ve missed out on because of my fixation on shoes, instead of the story behind them.

I wonder what people think when they see me. My best friend once commented how she didn’t think I liked her when we first met — I came across as standoffish. My clothing choices, love of Soviet history, and Midwestern accent might tag me as undesirable in certain circles. I wish that people wouldn’t pay attention to those things during our interactions; I wish they would see me as a product of my personality, struggles, and achievements, rather than just my accent or clothing. But, by the same token, I realize that I myself judge people on the external — and, consequently, treat them the way I resent be-

LETTER TO THE EDITOR To the Editor: Speaking of jaywalking and pedestrian safety (“Students fined for jaywalking on Washington Road”, March 8, 2018): The crossing of Washington Road at Prospect Avenue is an accident, and possibly a death, waiting to happen.

Many pedestrians don’t realize they will not be favored with a ‘walk’ signal to cross Washington if they don’t press the button. They then cross anyway, technically jaywalking, while cars are turning. The cars, meanwhile, see a ‘don’t

walk’ signal and assume they have the right-of-way.

We have all seen the confusion and near-misses this causes. Please join me in imploring the university and the town to make the walk signal automatic before, rather than right after, the inevitable tragedy.

Brian Zack, M.D. is an alumnus of the Class of 1972. He can be reached at bgzack@gmail. com.

The dreams of Princeton students ellie shapiro ’20 ..................................................

ing treated.

Sure, quick, superficial judgments save us a lot of time.

Rather than getting to know someone on a deeper level, making decisions based on the features we can see means that we don’t have to invest time, energy, or effort towards friendship.

But friendship is ultimately far more valuable (and thus, worth the investment) than a rejection based on something as trivial as footwear.

I’ll admit that I still look at people’s shoes when I talk to them — it’s a habit. But every interaction on this campus has proven that people are more than their leather and laces.

Friendships are hard enough to find as is, and I’m trying (and often failing) not to complicate them with judgments. Over time, I’ve started to learn that relationships are so much more meaningful that way.

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

Sports

Monday March 12, 2018

page 10

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } W O M E N ’ S W AT E R P O L O

Women’s water polo sees two losses, one win in weekend tournament

By Paige Thompson contributor

This past weekend, the No. 17 Princeton women’s water polo team (7–6) traveled to Hartwick College in Oneonta, New York, for their fourth tournament of the season.

They played three teams, suffering two hard-fought losses to No. 13 Hartwick College (16–4) and No. 9 Michigan University (18–7) and coming away with a win against Brown University (5–9).

The Tigers first faced Hartwick Saturday morning. With a home-court advantage in their shallow-deep pool and a rowdy crowd, the Hawks defensively outplayed the Tigers in the first quarter. Playing high in the lanes, they were able to take advantage of many steals and turnovers to convert on the counterattack, going up 3–0 within the first few minutes of play.

With the addition of a successful 5-meter penalty shot, they were up 5–1 by the end of the first quarter.

Princeton slowed down their offense in the second quarter and outscored their opponent 3–2 to make it 7–4 by halftime. Nearing the end of the third quarter, the Tigers tied the Hawks 8–8 with goals from junior attacker Eliza Britt and senior utility Haley Wan, but the Hawks

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

The Tigers will travel to California this coming weekend for the Loyola Marymount Invitational.

converted a 6-on-5 play in the last few seconds before the buzzer to enter the fourth quarter 9–8.

Battling back and forth the entire last quarter, the two teams were tied 12–12 with a minute left to play. The Tigers stole a pass into set and attempted to pass it back to the goalie. However, the Hawks were able to steal the ball and push it to the back of the cage, making it 13–12.

On their last possession, the

Tigers earned an ejection for a 6-on-5 opportunity but unfortunately failed to convert to tie the game. This was only Princeton’s second loss to Hartwick in their past 43 encounters.

Later that afternoon, the Orange and Black took on Michigan, a longtime rival, whom they lost to last year in the Eastern Championships 5–4. Wan put the Tigers on the board with 4:13 to go in the first quarter. The Wolver-

Weekend review Women’s Basketball @ Penn: W 63–34 The Tigers defeated Yale and Penn in the Ivy League Tournament to claim a spot in the NCAA Championships. Princeton was the No. 1 seed and the favorite to advance. The Orange and Black more than showed that they deserved the top rank with two emphatic victories over tough Ivy League foes. The Tigers’ next matchup in the NCAA will be announced today.

Women’s Water Polo vs Brown: W 13–7 The women’s water polo team had a mixed weekend, with losses against No. 13 Hartwick College and No. 9 University of Michigan and a win against Brown. The No. 17 Tigers, now 7–6 overall, will look to improve their record in their annual trip to California. The Princeton team will face off against No. 24 California Baptist University and Marist College this Friday to start the Loyola Marymount Invitational.

Men’s Tennis vs. Monmouth: W 4–0 Princeton swept the weekend doubleheader against Temple and Monmouth University with a 7–0 victory over Temple and a 4–0 victory against Monmouth. The two wins wrap up a five-game home stand for the Tigers and extends their winning streak to seven games. The Tigers look to be in excellent form as Princeton heads into a tough match-up against Penn State this weekend.

Men’s Lacrosse vs Rutgers: W 15–14 OT The men’s lacrosse team has not lost to Rutgers at home since 1989 — a record that still stands after a thrilling comeback by the Tigers. Down 14–10 with nine minutes left, Princeton managed to claw its way back into contention. Senior Austin Sims tied the game with under a minute left in the match then scored the goal to give Princeton the win as the Tigers remain perfect against New Jersey teams.

Women’s Lacrosse @ Loyola University Maryland: L 7–13 The women’s lacrosse team fell to Loyola University Maryland despite an early lead. The Tigers jumped out a 3–1 head start, but a second-half rally from Loyola saw the Greyhounds take a 7–4 lead before winning the game. Loyola’s Kady Glynn made nine saves.

Princeton will return to the field Monday, March 19 as they face off against Penn State.

Men’s Volleyball @ NJIT: W 3–1 After a rocky start to the season and then a 0–4 start in the EIVA, the Tigers seemed on track for a disappointing season. However, Princeton has managed to turn its fortunes around in the EIVA with a string of five straight wins. The Tigers weekend sweep of NJIT moves the Tigers to 5–4 in conference play, putting them in the fourth spot.

Men’s Hockey @ Union: W 3–2 The men’s hockey team defeated Union College in a best-of-three series to advance to the ECAC Championship semifinal. The Tigers defeated Union 5–3 in the first game of the series. Before the match, Princeton had not defeated Union since March 15, 2009. The Orange and Black beat Union twice this weekend, coming away with a narrow 3–2 win in their second meeting. Princeton will face Cornell in the ECAC semifinals.

Tweet of the Day Tigers, thank you for sharing your enthusiasm, camaraderie, and excellence with me and all of Tiger nation. You make a coach really proud.

Courtney Banghart (@ CoachBanghart)

ines quickly responded with three goals to end the first quarter 3–1.

The Tigers were held scoreless for the next two quarters as the Wolverines went on a scoring rampage, holding an aggressive press and utilizing their speed for many counterattack finishes. The Wolverines entered the fourth quarter up 12–1. Wan scored again in the first two minutes of the fourth quarter, and junior utility Lindsey Kelleher

scored two more goals by the buzzer to end the game 13–4 in favor of the opponent.

Sunday, Princeton took down fellow Ivy League team Brown, 13–7. Wan again put away the first goal of the game on a counter-attack within the first two minutes. The Bears responded by converting a 6-on-5 the next possession, but the Tigers would dominate the first quarter 6–2 with another goal

by Wan, a near-side skip shot from Britt, a rollout doughnut shot from freshman defender Kailie McGeoy, and two tallies from sophomore attacker Amy Castellano. By halftime, the Tigers held a 9–3 lead and kept up their strong momentum for the rest of the game for the win.

Castellano finished with a career-high five goals.

“I think that this weekend was okay. We lost a really tough game that we could have won against the Hawks, but it’s still early in the season. We have a lot of tough games coming up in California that I’m looking forward to playing,” said senior center Chelsea Johnson.

In California for the next several games, the Tigers open with No. 24 California Baptist University (12–9) at 1:00 p.m. PST and Marist College (9–10) at 4:45 p.m. PST on Friday, March 16.

Performances of the week Bella Alarie: 8 points, 17 rebounds, 6 blocks Narrowly missing a double-double in the final match against Penn, sophomore Bella Alarie was honored as the Ivy League Tournament Most Outstanding Player. Alarie, whose 277 career rebounds are the fifth-most in program history, played a crucial role as the Tigers defeated Penn for an NCAA bid.

Austin Sims: 5 goals Senior Austin Sims scored five goals in the Tigers’ 15–14 victory over Rutgers. Sims scored the crucial goal to tie the game at 14 and force an overtime. He then scored the lone goal in overtime for Princeton to edge out its local rivals.

David Hallisey: 1 goal Senior forward David Hallisey scored with 9.5 seconds left in the game to give Princeton a 3–2 lead over Union in the second match of the series. The goal put Princeton past Union and into the ECAC semifinals.

Stat of the Day

7th NCAA Tournament

With their victory over Penn, the Tigers will head to their seventh NCAA tournament in the last nine years. The last time they qualified was 2016.

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