The Daily Princetonian: October 7, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday October 7, 2019 vol. CXLIII no. 83

Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

ON CAMPUS

PHOTO CREDIT: JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

By Benjamin Ball Head News Editor

In the midst of asking acclaimed artist and 2019 MacArthur fellow Walter Hood about how he expresses history through his art, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Michele Minter was cut off by a deafening ring, coming from the microphones, which filled the

auditorium for 11 seconds.

When the sound stopped, Minter remarked, “That was mysterious.” An audience member seated in the front row loudly joked, “It was Woodrow Wilson.”

Whether or not Wilson’s ghost made an appearance in lecture hall McCosh 50 on Saturday, his presence was certainly felt. Hood and Minter spoke at “Woodrow See WOODY WOO page 2

ON CAMPUS

U. community members protest at ‘Double Sights’

By Rose Gilbert

Over 200 students, alumni, and faculty members gathered to protest at the dedication of the University’s new installation, “Double Sights,” which is meant to complicate Woodrow Wilson’s legacy as both a prominent figure on campus and an avowed white

supremacist.

The protest on Saturday followed remarks from Woodrow Wilson School Dean Cecilia Rouse and University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83. Previously, Walter Hood, the artist who designed the marker, and Michele Minter, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, had discussed the installa-

tion in McCosh 50.

During Rouse and Eisgruber’s speeches, delivered in front of “Double Sights,” demonstrators stood at the edge of the crowd, many holding signs denouncing Woodrow Wilson’s racism, the “Double Sights” installation, or both.

Afterward, the protestors came closer, gathering at

ON CAMPUS

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

STUDENT LIFE

Senior Writer

Q&A with ‘Double Sights’ architect Walter Hood

By Oliver Effron Assistant News Editor

Below is a lightly edited and condensed transcript of the conversation.

Daily Princetonian (DP): Dean Rouse, thank you so much again for sitting down with us. I wanted to begin with a question about the context for the installation.

Can you walk me through the process for deciding the statue be built, hiring Hood architecture studio, et ce-

Walter Hood is an acclaimed architect and a 2019 MacArthur Fellow. Hood designed “Double Sights,” an installation aimed at recognizing the complicated legacy of Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879. The installation was dedicated on Oct. 5.

Daily Princetonian: I wanted to start by asking a little bit about the design of the installation. In your TED Talk, you lay out your philosophy of design — including “existence in each others worlds,” “two-ness,” and “empathy.” I’m curious as to which parts you focused on more when you were designing “Double Sights.”

Walter Hood: Probably a little bit of all them. I think the piece for me, you know, this notion of remembering … and trying to tie together things that I had even forgotten. I thought I knew [W.E.B] Du Bois, I thought I knew

See ROUSE page 5

See HOOD page 4

PHOTO CREDIT: JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Cecilia Rouse, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School.

Q&A with Dean Cecilia Rouse about the new Woodrow Wilson instal-

By Oiver Effron

Assistant News Editor

On Saturday, October 6, The Daily Princetonian sat down with Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School Cecilia Rouse to discuss the recent Walter Hood installation — “Double Sights” — which grapples with the complex legacy of former University president and President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879.

In Opinion

The Editorial Board condemns Whig Clio’s speaking invitation to Amy Wax, and senior columnist Winnie Brandfield-Harvey reflects on the age-old question “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

PAGE 6

Obama ’85 sends surprise video message to Thrive conference

By Benjamin Ball Head News Editor

On the second day of the Thrive conference honoring the University’s black alumni, conference attendees received words of praise and encouragement in what the University’s Instagram called a “surprise welcome message” from former first lady Michelle Obama ’85.

“Our classmates have spread out all across business, government, academia, and everywhere else,” Obama said. “And we can lean on each other for professional opportunities, for advice, for commiseration, and so much more.”

Obama described the Thrive conference as “a gathering to empower and celebrate the incredible black alumni of Princeton University.”

See OBAMA page 4

Today on Campus 1:30 p.m.: Workshop - Using Tables and Maps together in ArcGIS Pro Lewis Library / Room 225

See PROTEST page 2

USG discusses Wintersession, confirms new senator

By Emily Perez Contributor

At their weekly meeting on Sunday, Oct. 8, the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Senate heard a presentation on Wintersession 2021 and a proposal for a transportation task force, confirmed a new senator for the Class of 2021, and voted on a resolution that established a new USG Senate Ad Hoc committee.

Judy Jarvis, the director of Princeton’s LGBT center, began the evening with a presentation on Wintersession 2021, a two-week period in January that will allow students to pursue academic interests outside of the traditional class schedule and even teach their own classes. The shift to a two-week Wintersession came into being after 81 percent of students said that the current placement of finals in January was taking a serious toll on See USG page 4

WEATHER

U. marks completion of installation on Wilson’s legacy

“Double Sights,” pictured from the Fountain of Freedom in Scudder Plaza.

HIGH

80˚

LOW

54˚

Cloudy chance of rain:

40 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Monday October 7, 2019

Hood: It’s not a monument to Woodrow Wilson, it’s a piece where we wanted to build an anti-monument WOODY WOO Continued from page 1

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

Wilson’s Legacy: Wrestling with History,” a public conversation to mark the completion of “Double Sights,” Hood’s commissioned installation, which explores Wilson’s “complex legacy.”

Wilson, a member of the Class of 1879, served as President of the University before his election as President of the United States in 1912.

After the discussion, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School Cecilia E. Rouse and University President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83 delivered remarks in Scudder Plaza, a few feet in front of “Double Sights.” A reception in the basement of Robertson Hall, where the exhibit “In the Nation’s Service? Woodrow Wilson Revisited” is currently on display, followed.

A protest composed of students, alumni, and other community members coincided with Eisgruber’s remarks and the reception.

“Double Sights” was commissioned after the Trustee Committee on Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy at Princeton released its recommendations in 2015. The University convened the committee after the Black Justice League (BJL) organized a series of protests, which culminated in a 33-hour occupation of Eisgruber’s office, in the fall of 2015.

“I would not be here without the Black Justice League,” Hood said, to applause.

Among other demands, the BJL called for the University to acknowledge Wilson’s “racist legacy” and take “steps” to remove Wilson’s name from campus institutions — namely, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Wilson College. Though Wilson’s name has been retained on both the Wilson School and College, the University removed a mural of Wilson from the Wilson College dining hall in 2016.

University spokesperson Ben Chang contextualized “Double

Sights” as part of the University’s efforts to promote inclusivity. At the beginning of the discussion, Minter detailed how the University has sought to do so, particularly by the renaming of Morrison Hall, Arthur Lewis Auditorium, and Rivers Way, in honor of Toni Morrison, Arthur Lewis, and Robert J. Rivers ’53, respectively.

She also presented examples of new campus portraits, which depict those individuals, among others.

“The University’s expanded commitment to diversity and inclusion — outlined by the Board of Trustees in 2016 — is exemplified by programs aimed at diversifying our student body and higher education more broadly, the diversification of art and iconography on campus, and initiatives to create a more multi-faceted understanding and representation of Princeton’s history, including Woodrow Wilson,” Chang wrote in an email to The Daily Princetonian. “Double Sights is one manifestation of that commitment and sits alongside all the other initiatives underway.

We consider the resources devoted to these efforts to be worthy, long-term investments in furthering dialogue and examination of issues core to our identity as a community.”

Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees Brent Henry ’69, who served as Chair of the Trustee Committee on Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy, introduced the talk. Henry is no stranger to student activism on campus, having taken part in the Association of Black Collegians’ 1969 occupation of New South, in protest of the University’s investments in apartheid in South Africa.

By far the most active dialogue in the McCosh discussion took place during the Q&A period, when audience members could direct questions to either Minter or Hood. During that time, some audience members expressed disagreement with many of the University’s decisions regarding the Wilson legacy.

While he did not strictly ask a question, audience member Larry Adams ’74 used his time during

the Q&A to give an impassioned speech dissenting with a number of the University’s decisions, including keeping the Wilson name on the Woodrow Wilson School.

“The University’s decision to uphold the name is a decision to hold on to its white supremacist heritage,” Adams said. “If you want to make a qualitative step, it’s the step to revisit the decision to maintain the name and take it down.”

While Minter and Hood did not immediately respond to Adams, Henry later made an unscheduled return to the stage, concluding the talk by addressing the Trustee Committee’s decision to keep the Wilson name.

“In my view, the Wilson name is a symbol, and perhaps it’s a hurtful symbol to a lot of people,” Henry said. “But I must tell you, there’s a whole couple generations of us students who survived on this campus with the Wilson name, and we think, based on looking at this group today, the students here may feel some pain, but they’re doing a whole hell of a lot better than we did.”

“Some of you may not be very comfortable with the decision that we made, but it is the decision that we made,” Henry added.

Adams, along with others in the audience, were largely opposed to the marker’s creation in the first place. Among them was Brandon Holt ’15, who helped lead the students who occupied Eisgruber’s office in 2015.

“I want to challenge the premise of the statue,” Holt said. “The idea that we need a monument dedicated to a white supremacist in order for students to have a space to protest is incredibly flawed.”

In response, Minter called the installation “a really small part” of the University’s larger plan, which included the renaming of campus spaces and expansion of iconography. She also rejected the use of the word “monument,” opting instead to refer to the installation as an “interrogation of Woodrow Wilson.”

“I don’t like the word monument. It’s not a monument to Woodrow Wilson,” Minter said.

On the use of the word “monument,” Hood had made a similar point earlier in the talk, saying the installation was “a spatial piece.”

“It’s not a monument,” Hood added. “It’s a piece where we wanted to build an anti-monument.”

Another audience member asked whether there was any mandatory requirement to learn about Wilson’s history as part of the Wilson School’s curriculum.

Minter offered to give the microphone to Rouse, the Wilson School Dean, but she declined to speak. Minter did, however, mention the new Culture and Difference requirement, which will apply to all undergraduates beginning with the Class of 2024.

Eliot Chen ’20 also spoke during the Q&A. He compared the Woodrow Wilson installation, which he referred to as a “monument,” with the campus graffiti pertaining to and preceding the Title IX reform protests last spring. Chen alleged that a student had been fined and put on probation for making the graffiti.

“Why is this monument more just and more okay than hers?”

Chen asked.

Hood responded to Chen by saying he did not think his installation was any “more just,” mentioning that he could have easily refused the University’s call for him to create a Woodrow Wilson marker, adding that his acceptance was part of his own, personal “expression” as an artist.

“I applaud all of the advocacy here,” Hood said.

Hood also acknowledged the installation’s change in name during the talk. Initially, the monument was titled “Double Consciousness,” drawn from W.E.B. Du Bois’ 1903 publication “The Souls of Black Folk.”

“It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity,” Du Bois wrote. “One ever feels his two-ness, an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings.”

Hood said it was black students on campus who encouraged him to change the name.

“They said, ‘Mr. Hood, he can’t have that word. You cannot give double consciousness to Woodrow Wilson,’” Hood said. “I said why, and they were like, ‘he didn’t have a double consciousness,’ and I was like, ‘Oh yeah, you’re right.’”

In addition, Hood had originally wanted the installation to be 70 feet tall, but he was informed that such a height would not be feasible. The installation now stands at 39 feet.

Throughout the talk, Minter and Hood emphasized the incremental nature of the University’s approach to change, repeatedly saying that the University “still has work to do.”

“This is not Princeton’s solution to Woodrow Wilson,” Minter said.

The event coincided with the Thrive conference, which celebrated the University’s black alumni.

Conference attendees were given priority admittance for the event in McCosh, prior to entry for students and the general public.

After the discussion in McCosh, Rouse and Eisgruber spoke at Scudder Plaza, as audience members from the discussion, as well as a number of protestors, gathered around them. Eisgruber called the ceremony, as well as the installation itself, “important steps in Princeton University’s continuing efforts to speak honestly and completely about its history as we work to build a more fully inclusive campus.”

“Walter Hood’s sculpture will be an engaging, vibrant presence on this plaza,” Eisgruber said. “It is a stimulus to reflection and, as is the case today, an invitation to dialogue. It is disruptive by design.”

“Double Sights” is adjacent to the “Fountain of Freedom” on the Washington Road side of Scudder Plaza. It is a vertical sculpture of two columnar elements, one leaning on the other, wrapped with surfaces of black and white stone-like glass and etched with quotations “representing both the positive and negative aspects of Wilson’s legacy,” according to the Office of Communications.

Dugué: Woodrow Wilson never intended for me to be here, he never intended to represent most of us who are here today PROTESTS Continued from page 1

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

the foot of the installation to listen to testimonials, speeches, and poetry from fellow students, faculty, and alumni, many of whom were on campus for Thrive, a three-day conference celebrating black alumni.

“I’m done talking about Woodrow Wilson. He’s a white supremacist,” Erica Dugué ’21 said to the crowd.

“He never intended for me to be here. He never intended to represent most of us who are here today.”

As president of the University, Wilson falsely asserted that no black student had ever attended the institution and actively prevented black applicants from being accepted, writing: “It is altogether inadvisable for a colored man to enter Princeton.”

Eliot Chen ’20, who spoke at the protest, criticized Eisgruber and Hood for leaving before the demonstration to attend a reception in Robertson Hall, where the exhibit “In the Nation’s Service? Woodrow Wilson Revisited” was on display.

University spokesperson Ben Chang explained that the reception was the final event in a day full of scheduled conversations centered on the “Double Sights” installation and Woodrow Wilson’s legacy.

“The officials and others involved, including Walter

Hood, his team, and Trustees, had always planned to go to this preexisting reception,” explained Chang. “It was not at all a spurning of the protest.”

Present at the protest was Esther Maddox ’17, one of the members of the Black Justice League (BJL) who organized the November 2015 Nassau Hall sit-in demanding that the University rename the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Wilson residential college, and “any other building named after him.” Maddox asserted that she believed the University’s efforts to reexamine Wilson’s legacy have overlooked the BJL’s activism.

“The University waits until we graduate and then pretends nothing happened. We projected ‘Birth of a Nation’ on the side of Robertson Hall,” she said, referencing the 1915 silent film that helped revitalize the Klu Klux Klan, and that Wilson famously screened at the White House.

“We put our whole academic careers on the line and now they act like they started the conversation.

I’m just disgusted,” she added.

Larry Adams ’74, who was on campus attending Thrive, said that student graduation and constant turnover presents a unique challenge to student activism.

“It’s important that students move forward and

that they continue to fight for justice,” he said. “We must establish a continuum and pass the baton from the previous generation.”

While speaking to the crowd, Adams denounced Wilson for the racist policies he implemented as President of the United States, saying, “He resegregated the federal government. He turned back the clock on segregation.”

Adams clarified that he was not at the demonstration to protest “Double Sights” itself.

“I’m not here protesting the marker. Some people may disagree, but to me it’s a marker, not a monument,” Adams said, turning and pointing at Robertson Hall, which houses the Woodrow Wilson School.

“That’s the monument.”

Chen also urged attendees to look at elements of Wilson’s legacy commonly regarded as positive, specifically his foreign policy, as an extension of his white supremacy, rather than any kind of redeeming accomplishment.

“He was a racist and a bigot,” Chen said. “It was not self-determination for all people that Woodrow Wilson believed in, but self-determination for white people, democracy for Western nations.”

Other demonstrators noted the number of public safety officers who were present, both during the unveiling ceremony and the

PHOTO CREDIT: JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Protestors gathered as Rouse and Eisgruber spoke.

protest that followed.

“I don’t think Princeton is tolerant at all of angry protest,” said Malachi Byrd ’20, who added that while he understands the need for public safety, the officers at the demonstration made him uncomfortable.

“With issues of identity and race and things that we’re impassioned about, it seems like our protest gets treated as a threat, as opposed to something that should be addressed,” Byrd added. “The power of this space is that there was a time where I was just in the moment, and I was able to just be there with the people in this circle, but then as soon as I snapped out of it I saw them again.”

Chang noted that, while the exact number of officers who were at the demonstration is not available, the space was designed to welcome all who wished to take part.

“There was a great deal of thought, on the part of the University and of public safety, put into making sure this was a space where everyone could participate. Given the physical layout of the space, it may have seemed like there was a larger security presence,” he explained.

The demonstration ended with a moment of silence, followed by a chant of “We’re here; we been here; we ain’t leaving; we are loved.”

Monday October 7, 2019

The Daily Princetonian

page 3

PHOTO CREDIT: JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

Monday October 7, 2019

Hood: This was my first time making a piece that has this kind of subtext to it HOOD

Continued from page 1

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

[Booker T.] Washington, I thought I knew Ida B. Wells … I didn’t know these people had voiced ... their lack of trust and anger towards Wilson during his presidency in very powerful ways trying to hold him accountable. So this idea of memory hopefully works with that …

Making a piece of art, I want it to be multiplicitous in its meaning, and it can’t be that way unless people “do the work,” as some artists say, you know? I want, I’m hoping people “do the work” to experience it so they can actually see the multiplicitous aspect.

DP: You mention re-examining Ida B. Wells and the legacy. I’m wondering, when you were researching the project, what stood out to you most about Woodrow Wilson that you didn’t know before?

WH: Everything! Everything from segregating the government, to his views on, while he’s at Bryn Mawr, on teaching women. I mean all of these kind of more disturbing aspects of a president that I knew very little about. But also, how do you take that and put it in a work? Like I said in my talk, one of my friends was saying, maybe the sculptural aspect was enough, but from the University’s point, they

wanted it to be more pedagogical. I was trying, still, ... to make it pedagogical without making it pedagogical, if that makes sense.

I don’t want it to be about “oh, go up and read it,” but that there is something about it, that it is stirring people, and I think that’s a good thing.

I hope that’s a good thing that it’s stirring people to be more critical and more articulate about what it’s stirring — that’s a hard thing, that’s where the work has to happen.

DP: I want to switch gears a little bit, because I do want to talk about one of the critiques I’ve heard about the project. There’s a line in your TED Talk that I really liked, where you say “there’s an ambiguity between things, because that ambiguity allows us to have a conversation. When things are clear and defined, we forget.” But on the flip-side, I’ve heard some people say about the sculpture that, there’s an op-ed in the ‘Prince,’ for example, that says, “by continuing to ‘complicate’ the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, the University reinforces its own unwillingness to outrightly challenge racism.” Is this a fair characterization? The student says there’s a false equivalence. Is that a fair characterization?

WH: For me, I don’t think it complicates it through its complexity. For me, as an artist, I think

it challenges us to try to understand the complexity, versus, you know, the “guy on the horse,” we get it — he’s the hero. [referring to Kehinde Wiley’s “Rumors of War” in Times Square]. He’s using the same vocabulary in that way. Here, we have the Fountain of Freedom here, this abstract piece in front of the Wilson School. And to me this kind of, again, using this abstraction in a way not to, again, make it abstract, but I’m hoping in a way that brings clarity. To me, as the artist, I think when you step inside and read the quotes of his detractors and see their faces, to me, that should be clear ... [It is] challenging our view of Wilson through the lens of the people of his day, most of whom happened to be African American …

Making the piece, that was kind of the profound moment for me — where it’s like, “I don’t have to have the voice, I just need to figure out the construction for those voices to be heard.” Because, doing the research, to me, those voices weren’t heard in a monumental way. I want those faces to almost claim the piece. And that’s how I see it as a person making it.

When I came last night, I was walking up, and I saw those faces at that scale. To me, that’s what the piece was really about.

DP: When somebody observes the statue, if there is an ideal reaction you would like them to have,

PHOTO CREDIT: JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Artist Walter Hood speaks about his installation, “Double Sights.” what would it be?

WH: [First,] I want them to see it as a piece of sculpture … For me, that act of creating that triangulated space, I want people to be drawn in and be curious about it.

I think that’s what good art does.

It challenges us, but it also hopefully frees us …

This was my first time making a piece that has this kind of subtext to it. You know, other pieces that I’ve made that are about these lost histories, there’s a kind of warmth and fuzziness to it that can happen — you exhume this history we didn’t know about us, whether it’s about slavery, or other kinds of negative aspects of our existence here in the U.S. and our trials and tribulations.

And then when we move to the other side, that’s when it becomes this new position where I’m taking this point of, “I’m critiquing this

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Obama’s brother served as a co-chair for Thrive OBAMA

Continued from page 1

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

She had previously described her time at the University as “scary,” since the campus during her time here was “extremely white and very male.” However, Obama said that she soon found a home at the Third World Center, now the Carl A. Fields Center.

In the Instagram video, Obama expressed that what meant the most in her University experience were the friends she met during her time on campus.

“When I reflect back on my time on campus today, I don’t think about the facts I memorized or the essays I stressed over,” Obama said. “I think about the people. I think about the roommates I laughed with all night long in the dorms, the mentors who got me to explore new ideas and experiences, the friends and acquaintances I met from all around the globe, the folks who helped this workingclass girl from the South Side of Chicago broaden her under-

standing of the world.”

Obama’s brother, Craig Robinson ’83, served as a co-chair for the Thrive conference. He was also featured on a panel on Thursday called “Our Journeys To, Through And Beyond Princeton — More than One Way to Thrive.”

The conference’s first day included a “Startup Showcase” and a discussion with Princeton University Investment Company President Andrew K. Golden.

In the following days, the conference heard from President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83 in Richardson Auditorium, and featured both a discussion on the Princeton and Slavery Project and a luncheon discussing civil service.

The Thrive conference happened concurrently with a discussion about and dedication of the new installation on Woodrow Wilson’s campus legacy, generally and on campus. Attendees of the Thrive conference were prioritized entry to the event, before students and the general public were allowed in.

guy through the art.” And that’s really challenging because we don’t really have many examples in this country to draw from …

To me, to have the opportunity to critique a white man, particularly on Princeton’s campus, is an opportunity to kind of think in a different way …

Now, the critique of the school name and all these other things — that’s the context of the piece. And hopefully, who knows? All I can say is. who knows what that might allow to happen. I’ve seen stranger things happen when there have been these shifts in how we view things collectively in this country.

But there is still that other side where people want these things to be really clear. They want to understand them in very clear ways, and I’ve had people ask me these questions. Well, you have to do the work, to a certain degree.

COURTESY OF BRAD SPICHER ‘2

Judy Jarvis speaks at yesterday’s USG meeting.

USG confirmed new senator Kelton Chastulik ’21 by a unanimous vote USG

Continued from page 1

............. their mental health.

“Wintersession 2021 gives a space for oxygen to be breathed during the semester,” said Jarvis.

According to the working mission statement, Wintersession will be “a two week space to experiment and explore through unusual, active, and exciting non-graded learning opportunities,” and will be open to undergraduate students, graduate students, staff, and faculty. It will run from Monday, Jan. 11, to Sunday, Jan. 24, 2021.

The presentation was followed by an interactive poll where students were able to submit their hopes and fears about the new Wintersession.

Following Jarvis’ presentation was an additional 10-minute presentation on the previous Wintersession from Isabella Faccone ’21.

Elizabeth Bailey ’21 briefly

introduced her transportation task force proposal, which aims to improve three main areas of student transportation: on-campus transportation such as BikeShare; near-campus transportation such as providing students access to grocery stores; and offcampus transportation such as the Thanksgiving break buses.

USG then confirmed a new class of 2021 senator, Kelton Chastulik ’21, by a unanimous vote.

Ben Press ’20, Olivia Ott ’20, and Bozhidar Stankovikj ’20 introduced their resolution to establish a new Ad Hoc Committee of the USG Senate “to provide support to students involved in academic integrity proceedings,” according to the resolution. Although the honor committee Peer Representatives have existed for some time, they had yet to be an ODUS-recognized student organization.

The resolution passed unanimously.

Like sports? Write for the sports section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

The night ended with a presentation from Jonah Hyman ’20, who outlined USG procedures, tracing the history of the USG back to 1927 and listing the documents that outline USG procedures. He also introduced all members of the USG and informed the group about what to expect at meetings.

USG President Zarnab Virk ’20 also gave the “President’s Report,” where she announced that the report from the Title IX joint committees will be released in the following weeks.

She also said that USG office hours will begin in Frist on this Wednesday from 8:30– 9:30 p.m., and named a couple of developing projects, including a first-year advisory program and the idea for an app that would allow students to order food from Nassau Street ahead of time and pay with their prox.

The meeting was open to the public and took place at 8 p.m. in Lewis 138.

Monday October 7, 2019

The Daily Princetonian

page 5

Rouse: I understand that students cannot see all that has changed on this campus; iconography changes represent tip of the iceberg ROUSE

Continued from page 1

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

tera?

Cecilia Rouse (CR): Sure.

If you recall, in the Trustees’ Committee to consider the name of Wilson and how Wilson was recognized on campus, they had a series of recommendations for the University. Among them was that there be a “marker” that highlighted the complex legacy of Wilson, positive and negative. Based on what Brent Henry [’69] explained in [the McCosh 50 conversation], the committee really wrestled with the fact that Wilson had many great positive accomplishments, but also was racist and held many very negative views, which actually got implemented in policy in various places. For example, many people believe he re-segregated the federal government; actually, he segregated the federal government for the first time.

He was a very complicated person.

The Trustees’ Committee decided not to take Wilson’s

name off the Woodrow Wilson School, but they wanted the University to be more honest and reckon with his complexity in a way it never had. President Eisgruber asked me and Ron McCoy, who’s the University architect, to co-chair a committee [that would respond]. The committee was comprised of faculty, students, and alumni. We solicited the views of the current campus community as well as alumni — we had a website where we asked questions about what should be the scope of the marker, should [it] be large or be small, should it have didactic columns — we asked them various questions, and based on that, we put together an RFP [request for proposal] ...

We didn’t just do an RFP where people would write in and say “we want a bid.”

Ron McCoy did some work on various architects and landscape architects who had worked on installations ... which tried to deal with complexity, and ... we invited 10 or 12 people to compete ...

The advantage of that was we weren’t just selecting people based on their resumes and what they had done in the

past — they had to actually submit a bid and a concept of what they would do.

The submission by Walter Hood was just head and shoulders bolder, more compelling than any of the other submissions. We still invited three groups in to present in person, but the committee unanimously recommended Walter Hood. It was ultimately President Eisgruber’s decision ...

But that’s not where it ended: Walter Hood’s process is that he likes to very much work with the community.

He held focus groups on campus with students, faculty, staff, alumni — and he learned a lot, and the piece evolved through that process, including changing the name, as he just explained, from “Double Consciousness” to “Double Sights.”

DP: And how do you feel about the final product?

CR: I think it’s fabulous! I appreciate that there is a protest right now, and that not everybody is happy with the Trustee decision — that was a Trustee decision. It was not my decision, it wasn’t even President Eisgruber’s decision ... [The Trustees of the

University] make the ultimate decisions ...

But what I think really must be recognized is that this is a very bold piece of art for Princeton’s campus.

One cannot encounter that sculpture, that installation, and not be confronted with Wilson’s racist past ... on the outside are Wilson’s actual quotes, some of which are more positive, some of which are more negative, and what I think is interesting about that is since they are his own words, they will be interpreted differently by different people ... Every time you come, you can read a little more, but you’re confronted with this complexity of Wilson.

It’ll be bold, and it will force people to confront [his legacy] for years, decades to come.

DP: That’s interesting that you mention the protests, because I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask about those. I pulled out a quote from a ‘Prince’ op-ed written by a current Woodrow Wilson School graduate student and co-signed by other graduate students. Did you see it?

CR: I did.

DP: It says, “Despite what the report claims about the marker, it seems that this entire years-long exercise — including the decision to keep the name — is about keeping the University as it is, or changing it as little as possible, and then trying to insulate that position from criticism by dressing it up in committees, reports, and campus installations.”

Do you believe this is a fair characterization? That the installation is a band-aid solution to a larger problem?

CR: I understand that students cannot see all that has changed on this campus. The iconography is the tip of the iceberg, in my humble opinion. I have seen, over the last ... six years with the Black Justice League protests, the University, the Woodrow Wilson School — we have all upped our game. We are doing much, much more to help first-generation students, for example, be more acclimated to campus before they get to campus, they have put into place far more student supports, and supported many more student groups, to help See ROUSE page 6

The Daily Princetonian

page 6 ensure that we’re not just admitting a diverse student body, but helping them get through and feel more comfortable on campus — the renovation of the Carl A. Fields Center, I think, is the minimum example of that ...

I see efforts all through this campus to try to make the experience more welcoming ... for a diverse group of students, to make sure they have the supports that they need, and that they feel welcome. Is there more work to be done? Absolutely. I’m not trying to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But the progress I have seen even in

the last three, five, six years is phenomenal, and I think if we continue at this rate, we’re going to be in a good place very soon. Again, this is something that will never change — there will always be new issues and there will always be people that need to be integrated, and the University will always need to evolve. The marker is not meant to suggest that this was the big response ...

One aspect that I know President Eisgruber is proud of, but which I think is very under-appreciated, is the pipeline program to prepare students of color for graduate

school. What I find remarkable about that investment

by Princeton is that, if we’re going to change the faculty, which is the hardest part to change, because in order to have diverse faculty, you have to have diverse graduate students, and the graduate students have to then want to join the academy, which not everybody wants to do.

But many students of color don’t know that they want to go to graduate school when they first arrive to college, or when they go to college, they’re not quite prepared for it — they didn’t have the same opportunities ... What’s

remarkable about it is that it’s not necessarily going to benefit Princeton. [President Eisgruber] is making this investment for the good of higher education writ large.

Really, this commitment to trying to diversify higher education writ large, to diversify Princeton is genuine, but it’s slow going. It doesn’t just happen by waving a magic wand — it takes more than a year. But there has been tremendous progress.

DP: Dean Rouse, thank you so much again for sitting down with us.

CR: You’re very welcome.

Monday October 7, 2019

vol. cxliii

editor-in-chief

Chris Murphy ’20 business manager

Taylor Jean-Jacques’20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90

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

Join the ‘Prince’ web and multimedia team.

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Chris Murphy ’20 Taylor Jean-Jacques’20

143RD MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Aftel ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Jon Ort ’21 head news editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news editors Linh Nguyen ’21 Claire Silberman ’22 Katja Stroke-Adolphe ’20 head opinion editor Cy Watsky ’21 associate opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editors Samantha Shapiro ’21 Jo de la Bruyere ’22 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Sydney Peng ’22 Anna McGee ’22 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

NIGHT STAFF copy Ellie Chang ’23 Andrew Tang ’23

T HE DA ILY

Revealing the truth, one news story at a time. join@dailyprincetonian.com

design Sophie Li ’23 Chelsea Ding ’22

Monday October 7, 2019

Opinion

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

EDITORIAL

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

Free speech, not free pulpits Next weekend, Whig-Clio will host Amy Wax, a disgraced law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, to discuss campus free speech alongside two University professors. Wax, whose racist, pseudo-scientific views have rightly garnered her infamy, does not deserve a pedestal at Princeton. The Editorial Board urges the students and administrators who lead Whig-Clio to immediately disinvite her.

Time and again, Wax has

espoused pernicious white supremacy. Her racist views, which she has expressed at lectures and in op-eds, hold that white culture is superior to other traditions, that immigrants worsen the United States, and that “racism” is nothing more than a pejorative label. Several months ago, she expressed her support for “cultural-distance nationalism,” which means, in her words, “taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites

and fewer nonwhites.”

While the Board affirms Wax’s right to free speech and academic freedom, such a right does not grant Wax the privilege to use the financial and logistical resources of Whig-Clio, which is partially funded and managed by the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students.

Every student, alum, and administrator who plays a role in Whig-Clio is obligated to use the organization’s funds and power to shape

campus conversation judiciously, in the interest and for the benefit of all students.

As such, an invitation to Amy Wax constitutes malpractice.

The decision to invite Wax is as myopic as it is dangerous — and we will not stand for it. We urge the leaders of Whig-Clio to reconsider their invitation. If this appeal should fall upon deaf ears, we encourage readers who share our conviction — that Wax’s racism deserves no podium on our campus — to exercise

A tribute to the ‘passionless’

Winnie Brandfield-Harvey Contributing Columnist

We live in a world now that expects so much of our generation at such a young age.

Fifth graders are designing a hydrogen atom out of paper mâché on board their flights to build houses in underdeveloped countries. High schoolers are updating their CVs while winning gold medals in three varsity sports simultaneously.

Stress starts as early as kindergarten because certain schools promise to position young kids on the “track to success.”

Perhaps the child at the exclusive private school will be using vegan, all-natural crayons instead of store-bought ones when she learns how to color within the lines. Because as we all know, that is what kindergarteners do.

It all starts with “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

A whole lifetime of ups

and downs, twists and turns squeezed tightly into one narrow, simplified box. It’s funny how, over time, this question becomes more and more offputting. When we are kids, the question is a shot in the dark. It’s going down the slide without seeing the bottom. It’s exciting. There are common occupations, such as being a lawyer or veterinarian. There are vague ones, like aspiring to be a scientist or those where you “catch the bad guys.” There are entertainers, like actors or rock stars. There are zookeepers and soldiers and ballerinas.

Some kids want to be their parents. Some want to actually be parents. And for some, well, they just want to be mermaids.

At that age, the question doesn’t mean anything — it’s just a fun activity. If anything, it is an exercise in adorability, so that adults can take pictures of little ones dressed as pilots and sous chefs.

However, as we grow up, it becomes the kind of question that can ostracize someone at a table full of college seniors.

I’m looking at you, Karen. You know what you said.

When people ask us what we want to do in life, it can feel almost paralyzing, even for those of us who are more certain. A freshman who has always had a dream of working at Google might realize they didn’t enjoy their first COS class. A premed student who might have planned to go to medical school right out of college could find that the MCAT has different plans. An athlete who dreams of going pro might have to wait another year because of an unexpected injury. As much as we would like to have the answer, we can’t really know anything, and I think that is what makes that question so infuriating for us. Whether it is the asker’s intention or not, it immediately makes us feel as if we should know the answer.

Then there are those of us who are not sure what we want to do. Many of my friends wonder if they even have a passion at all. It’s a symptom of a much larger problem at Princeton. For some reason, there is an implied expectation that we should be able recite our whole life story, even while we are still in the process of writ-

ing it, ripping out pages and adding new ones (along with our 100-page theses). And even when you step outside Princeton, most employers are still going to ask you where you see yourself in five to 10 years.

Why can’t I just be content with where I am right now? Why can’t our decisions today and the ones we make in the future be mutually exclusive? Also, please hire me.

Once, in her 20s, my mom was weighing the possibility of grad school with my grandfather, and worried that it was going to take up three years of her life. He told her, “Those three years will go by anyway.”

We try to divvy up our lives into these clear-cut sections: four years of college, then two to four years of grad school, then two years in a managerial role, then vice president or medical resident or law clerk, and so on and so on. We try to fit our lives into these narrow and simplified boxes, but we don’t have to. We don’t have to have it all figured out; I guarantee no one does. We can take a leap into the unknown, we can go down the slide headfirst, we

their right to free speech accordingly.

Board Chairs Chris Murphy ’20 Cy Watsky ’21 Board Members Samuel Aftel ’20 Arman Badrei ’22 Ariel Chen ’20 Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 Madeleine Marr ’21 Jonathan Ort ’21

can stretch in the direction of our choosing, without a necessary beginning, middle, or end. Somewhere along the way, we will find our passion, which — contrary to popular belief — probably doesn’t have to be one thing for the rest of our lives.

After kindergarten ended, I remember I walked into my mom’s room crying, telling her I didn’t want to go to first grade. I didn’t want to get married. And I didn’t want to go to college. At five years old, I wanted to be an Italian soccer player. Two years later, I wanted to be a doctor because I claimed I could “stand the blood.” Then a veterinarian. Then an author.

I entered Princeton thinking I wanted to major in neuroscience, which, as I quickly learned, is definitely not where my strengths lie. I still don’t know what I want to do, and that’s okay. If you are anything like me, you have never been one to color within the lines anyway.

Winnie Brandfield-Harvey is a senior Wilson School concentrator from Houston, Texas. She can be reached at wab2@princeton.edu.

CPUC is committed to robust conversations on important issues Provost Deborah Prentice

Guest Contributor chair of the CPUC Executive Committee

According to a recent Daily Princetonian editorial (“No Further Questions,” Sept. 26), “U. administrators have removed any element of dialogue and community input from the [Council of the Princeton University Community’s] meetings.”

This is simply untrue and fundamentally misrepresents both the makeup of the Council and its commitment to robust, in-depth discussion of issues important to the University community.

Since 1970, the Council has served as “a permanent conference of the representatives of all major groups of the University” where, in the words of the committee that proposed its establishment, “they could each raise problems that con-

cern them and … be exposed to each other’s views.”

CPUC’s members include representatives of undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, administrative staff, professional technical and professional specialists, and alumni. They are not faceless bureaucrats. They are your fellow students and colleagues across campus. You can find your representative on the CPUC website.

And it is misleading to sug-

gest that a requirement to submit in advance for the meeting’s Q&A segment represents a decision “to remove all opportunities for conversation.”

All members of the University have a range of ways to have their voices heard at CPUC. First, anyone can bring a concern to the Council member who is their representative.

Second, anyone can suggest a topic to be addressed by the Council by emailing Christine Gage, secretary of the Council,

Like sports? Write for the sports section!

at cgage@princeton.edu.

Third, presenters take questions from attendees following presentations to the Council.

Members of the CPUC take seriously their responsibility to represent and give voice to all in the University community.

Deborah Prentice is the Alexander Stewart 1886 Professor of Psychology & Public Affairs and the University Provost. She serves as the chair of the CPUC Executive Committee.

Sports

Monday October 7, 2019

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } FOOTBALL

Princeton football slugs out tough win over Columbia in Ivy League opener

By Ben Burns Contributor

In a game full of notable firsts, one thing remained constant as Princeton (3–0, 1–0 Ivy) improved to 3–0 in a resilient 21–10 win over Ivy League rival Columbia (1–2, 0–1). The Tigers overcame a slow start, entering the half trailing 10–7 before taking control in the second half, shutting out the visiting Lions the rest of the way.

“I thought our fight was terrific,” head coach Bob Surace ‘90 said after the game, “This really challenged our resilience.”

Senior quarterback Kevin Davidson went 22–35 with a touchdown and an interception to go with junior running back Collin Eaddy’s 114 total yards and two touchdowns) and senior running back Ryan Quigley’s 55 yards and one touchdown in Princeton’s first true test of the season.

Coming in, Columbia boasted one of the top defenses in the FCS, holding opponents to just 38 combined points in its first two games. That vaunted defense made an early impact, intercepting Davidson, his first interception this season, on Princeton’s opening drive to help set up a field for a quick 3–0 lead.

Princeton would respond two drives later, as Davidson found Eaddy over the middle for a 25-

yard touchdown to put Princeton up 7–3. That score would hold until Columbia retook the lead on a drive that took 7:44 off the clock and included a conversion on 4th and 1. The drive was capped off with Columbia quarterback Josh Bean finding receiver Ronald Smith in the end-zone with 1:16 left for a 24-yard touchdown, his first touchdown pass of the year.

The Tigers would make a push down the field, but missed a 51yard field goal try as time expired to go into the half trailing 10–7.

This was unfamiliar territory for the Tigers, as it was the first time they’d trailed at the half so far this season. But that didn’t faze Surace: “They’re used to me yelling at them up 35 points [at halftime], and I was literally excited. This was a resilience game, it was a mental toughness test.”

Clearly the Tigers didn’t need to be yelled at, as they came out in the second half firing on all cylinders. After forcing Columbia to punt, Princeton drove down the field, and Eaddy punched in it from the one-yard line, just four plays after he converted a fourth and 2. The score put Princeton up 14–10, which would hold heading into the fourth quarter.

After stopping a Columbia drive at the Princeton 15, the Princeton special teams unit

JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Kevin Davidson bounced back from an early interception to lead Princeton over Columbia.

blocked Alex Felkins’ field goal attempt, forcing the Lions to walk away empty handed. The Tigers made sure to make the block sting even more by scoring on an eventful ensuing drive. It started when Columbia linebacker Ben Mathiasmeier dropped a surefire pick-six on pass intended for senior receiver Andrew Griffin.

On the very next play, Davidson dropped a pass over the shoulder of sophomore receiver Dylan Classi, who brought down a spectacular one-handed catch for 27

Weekend Review

yards on third and 10. Finally, a few plays later, Quigley broke out on a run, spun away from a defender, and found his way into the end-zone on a 25-yard touchdown run to put Princeton up 21–10.

The defense would do the rest for the Tigers, forcing a punt on Columbia’s next drive before senior defensive back TJ Floyd intercepted Bean’s pass with nine seconds left on the final drive to officially seal the win.

In the first game that they were

truly challenged in this season, Princeton weathered a slow first half and some new challenges, such as Davidson’s first pick and early-season star Andrew Griffin being held without a catch, to get a huge win to open up Ivy League play. In an increasingly competitive Ivy League, resilience and adaptability are crucial, and Princeton showed both this afternoon for its toughest win thus far this season.

Players of the Week

Men’s soccer @ Dartmouth: L 1–0 Despite outshooting Dartmouth 11–7, men’s soccer (5–3, 0–1 Ivy) was unable to land a single goal against the Big Green, and a 72nd minute goal from Dartmouth’s Eric Sachleben was all it took for Princeton to lose. Saturday’s game against Dartmouth was the Tigers’ first Ivy League match of the season and their defeat could mean an early potential end to their championship hopes. Last year, however, the team had one loss and one tie and was still crowned the Ivy League champion. Needless to say, next Saturday’s game against Brown will be critical for postseason hopes. Before that, however, the team will take on the University of Delaware on Tuesday at home.

Women’s soccer @ Dartmouth: W 1–0 Women’s soccer (4–4–2, 1–1–0) kept its playoff hopes alive on Saturday with a much needed win over Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. An intense first and second half saw no goals for either team despite Princeton outshooting the Big Green 19–10. Junior midfielder Olivia Kane scored four minutes into overtime with a header, and the team held out until the final whistle blew. Saturday’s clean sheet against Dartmouth was senior goalie Natalie Grossi’s 30th of her career, officially breaking the Ivy League record for the most career shutouts in both men’s and women’s soccer. The team take on Brown in Providence, R.I. on Saturday for their third Ivy League game of the season.

Field hockey vs. Yale, @ No. 2 Duke: W 4–3 (OT), W 5–4 (OT) No. 12 Princeton field hockey (7–4, 2–0) had a thrilling weekend, with a Friday overtime win over Ivy rival Yale followed by a road overtime upset over No. 2 Duke. Against Yale, Princeton overturned a two-goal Yale lead to pull ahead 3–2 after three quarters. Yale managed to tie the game with just over six minutes remaining, but sophomore striker Ali McCarthy hit the game-winner in overtime on a nifty pass from junior midfielder Julianna Tornetta.

The win over Duke on Sunday was even more dramatic. Princeton fell behind 4–1 but notched three straight goals to tie the game, with junior striker Clara Roth’s game-tying goal coming with less than a minute left in regulation.

Sophomore midfielder Hannah Davey scored the game-winner 5:56 into overtime, giving the Tigers a 2–0 weekend.

Women’s volleyball vs. Columbia, Cornell: W 3–1, L 3–1 Women’s volleyball (6–6, 2–1) split their weekend 1–1, giving them a 2–1 record in Ivy League conference play. The Tigers beat Columbia 3–1 on Friday night but took a tough 3–1 loss to Cornell on Saturday. Columbia pushed ahead in the first set until the Tigers tied the score at 18-all and then took the lead, finishing the set 25–19. The second set was not much different with the score being tied at 16-all, except this time the Lions took the lead and eventually won the set. Set three was also closely scored until kills from senior right side hitter Maggie O’Connell and junior middle blocker Clare Lenihan gave the Tigers an 18–16 advantage. The Tigers fought after a 24-all score to take the victory 26–24. Going into the fourth set, the Tigers outworked the Lions, rolling off eight straight points to secure the match victory. The Cornell Big Red made the Tigers work the entire match. Princeton kept them at bay during the first set until Cornell came back to tie the set 23-all before they won the set. Coming off of a set-two advantage, the Tigers were able to secure the victory. Set three was tight with no team leading by more than two points. The set was tied at 25-all and 26-all before Cornell took the set. The Big Red took a quick lead in the fourth, eventually extending their lead to 19–15. The Tigers got within three points but couldn’t rally the match victory. The Tigers are now 6–6 overall and 2–1 in the Ivy League.

Men’s water polo vs. No. 12 Harvard, Brown, MIT: L 12–9, W 12–9, W 9–8 Men’s water polo (8–9 overall, 2–1 Northeast Water Polo Conference) opened conference play this weekend with a loss, a win, and an overtime nail-biter. The No. 18 Tigers faced off first against No. 12 Harvard (12–0, 3–0). The two squads traded leads for the first half, but the Crimson walked away in the second. The final score was 12–9 Harvard, extending the team’s undefeated season. A Sunday morning match against unranked Brown (9–7, 1–2) offered Princeton a chance to redeem itself. It did exactly that. The Tigers netted four of the game’s first five goals, finished the first half with a 9–7 lead, and earned a 12–9 final decision. Princeton’s squad found itself back in the pool mere hours later, this time to face the MIT Engineers (6–3, 1–2). The strain of a three-game weekend took its toll; it took a three-goal fourth quarter and an overtime period for the Tigers to pull off their 9–8 win.

Terrace IM Soccer vs. MSA Terrace won by default, and is now 1–1–1 on the season. Captain Tom Salotti told us, “we win at all costs, especially when the other team doesn’t show up. See you next week, WWS United.”

Natalie Grossi (2020), women’s soccer Grossi broke the Ivy League record for career clean sheets this Saturday at women’s soccer’s game against Dartmouth.

The Tigers’ 1–0 victory earned Grossi her 30th career shutout, passing Dartmouth alumna Kristin Luckenbill’s previous record of 29. Grossi has the most ever career shutouts in Ivy League history in both men’s and women’s soccer.

Jeremiah Tyler ’21, football Tyler had 10 tackles, three tackles for a loss, and one sack against Columbia, helping hold the Lions to ten points in a 21–10 Princeton win.

Tweet of the Day

Stat of the Day

Follow us

Three one-goal games. Two overtime games. A three-goal comeback against No. 2 Duke. Yeah, this week was fun.

28

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

Princeton FH (@ TigerFH), field hockey

Princeton football has scored in the first quarter of its past 28 games.