The Daily Princetonian - September 11, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Wednesday September 11, 2019 vol. CXLIII no.1

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

ON CAMPUS

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } ON CAMPUS

Q&A with James Williams, author of the Class of 2023 Pre-read Sarah Hirschfield head video editor

The Daily Princetonian talked to James Williams, author of the Class of 2023 Pre-Read, “Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy,” about his book.

Williams worked as a technology and business strategist at Google for 10 years and recently received his Ph.D. from the University of Oxford. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Daily Princetonian (DP): Many of us have long suspected that Twitter and Instagram have taken a toll on our functional attentional capacities, but you argue that our devices have taken more than that. You argue that digital technology not only undermines our abilities to do what we want, but also to be who we want to be and to engage in reflection and reasoning to define our values.

This has serious implications for our political lives. What worries you the most?

James Williams (JW): What worries me the most is that we don’t yet have the prerequisites in place for the right kind of conversation, and my worry is that the situation might devolve under our feet faster than we can describe the problem. So that’s one thing I was trying to do with the book is figure out how to put a bound on the problem, because it’s described in very disparate ways in societal discourse,

from the problems of big tech to social media to distractions. What I was trying to do is just figure out the essential elements and how can we move forward with a shared language for this. I don’t claim to have figured that out, but hopefully the book is a step in the right direction.

DP: Let’s talk solutions.

You argue that policymakers, among others, can catalyze corrective action. What are some examples of good and bad digital technology policy?

JW: One example of where regulation can enhance people’s freedom by regulating technology is in the area of net neutrality, where an internet-service provider shouldn’t be able to partner with a content provider to create fast lanes and slow lanes. That’s an example in which regulation can play a great role. In the [United States], some of that has been undone. Hopefully it will be redone before too long.

Where you see negative types of regulation is where the problem is insufficiently defined or where solutions are hastily undertaken. In the [European Union], there’s a law that requires website owners to obtain consent from each user whose browsing behavior they wish to measure with tracking “cookies.” That’s a good idea in principle, but what it means in practice is that every user See Q&A page 2

ZACK SHEVIN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

The Class of 2023 enters en masse through FitzRandolph gates.

Class of 2023 kicks off the year with opening exercises, Pre-Rade

By Benjamin Ball head news editor

First-year students experienced the full array of first-year traditions on Sunday, as they participated in opening exercises, the Pre-Rade, a barbecue, and the annual “step sing” to kick off their first year at the University.

Opening exercises, an annual event, marks the beginning of first-years’ academic careers. The ceremony is held in the University chapel on the Sunday prior to the first day of classes. Every year, the University president delivers an address to the incoming class, community

members share hymns and prayers, and undergraduate prizes are awarded to students for their academic achievement.

President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 began the ceremony by reflecting on the history of the openingexercises tradition, which dates back to 1802. Eisgruber mentioned that while the original ceremony was strictly Christian, it has since come to represent and include members of many faiths and “ethical traditions.”

“I ask you to join me in reflecting on how fortunate we are to be on a campus of this kind, a campus that values the fearless

pursuit of truth, cherishes the importance of service, and celebrates the dazzling diversity of identities, cultures, faiths, and backgrounds that forge the rich tapestry of our community,” Eisgruber said.

In his speech, Eisgruber suggested that those present regard the ceremony as an occasion to reflect upon the “mission” of the University. He referenced the life and work of renowned author Toni Morrison, the Robert F. Goheen Professor in the Humanities, Emerita, who recently passed away.

Eisgruber focused speSee PRE-RADE page 3

STUDENT LIFE

STUDENT LIFE

USG announces CupcakKe, 3OH!3, Rich Homie Quan as co-headliners for lawnparties

Fresh out of frosh: Interclub Coun- Boettcher ends Holzhauer’s 32cil to enforce eating club ban on game winning first-years through frosh week streak

head news editor and assistant news editor

The University Student Government (USG) social chair Heavyn Jennings ’20 announced that Lawnparties this year would feature an unprecedented three co-headliners.

In an announcement on Sunday on both Instagram and the Lawnparties website, Jennings confirmed that electronic music duo 3OH!3 and rapper Rich Homie Quan will join Chicago rapper CupcakKe to perform at Lawnparties. CupcakKe’s appearance had been confirmed

by Jennings previously in an email to The Daily Princetonian.

“Aint tryna FLEX, but y’all goin be STARSTRUCK with these throwback jams,” Jennings wrote in her post. “We got Cupcakke too and I ain’t talking bout food.”

“I hope everybody enjoys at least one of the artists. I went with multiple smaller headliners due to many complaints about the homogeneity of artists in previous years,” Jennings added in a statement to

In Opinion

The Daily Princetonian.

“It’s always awesome when people come up to me telling me they’re excited, but I also enjoy those who ask questions around my choices.”

3OH!3’s Spotify artist page introduces them as “a duo from Boulder, Colorado (i.e., area code 303), whose style of music includes jokey raps, indie electronica beats, and lots of tomfoolery.“ The duo comprises Sean Foreman and Nathaniel Motte, who met while attending the University of Colorado. Their self-titled debut album was released in 2007.

3OH!3 is best known for their single “Don’t Trust Me” from the album “Want,” released in 2008.

“Don’t Trust Me” has over 40 million views on YouTube, and reached number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2009.

Dequantes Devontay Lamar, known professionally as “Rich Homie Quan,” is also well known for his 2013 hip-hop hit “Type of Way,” which has over 221 million views on YouTube.

See LAWNPARTIES page 3

Managing Editor Samuel Aftel honors Toni Morrison’s incisive writing on white privilege, while guest Contributor Álvaro Zapatel argues that the ethical failures of the former President of Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski GS ‘61, shows the need for stronger education on ethics in public office.

PAGE 4

By Linh Nguyen and Zack Shevin associate news editor and assistant news editor

Each year, following small-group orientation trips, the eating clubs on Prospect Avenue — or “the Street” — open their doors to the incoming first-year class who join the first parties of the academic year.

This year’s “frosh week,” however, will noticeably be absent of “frosh,” who have been preemptively banned by the Interclub Council (ICC) due to safety concerns.

“In response to increasing efforts to support and promote student safety, the Interclub Council, in support of the programmatic goals of Orientation, have formally decided to close the Eating Clubs to first-year students through the end of the formal Orientation program,” the ICC wrote in a statement.

“The ICC has asked for support from Orientation leaders to reinforce this message should questions arise during the small-group experience.”

Associate dean for student programs Amanda Zeltner presented this statement to orientation leaders on Wednesday, Aug. 28, during

preliminary training sessions for the small-group trips.

This restriction represents an escalation of last year’s temporary frosh ban, which prohibited first-year students from entering eating club parties on the final night of frosh week. In the days prior to the 2018 ban, University Public Safety had evacuated 28 students to either Princeton Medical Center (PMC) or McCosh Health Center for alcohol-related emergencies.

Although the ICC only began enforcing bans on firstyear students last year, ICC chair Meghan Slattery ’20 noted that ICC policies have always “officially” restricted first-year students.

“For many years, the clubs have been officially closed to first year students during the orientation period in accordance with GICC [Graduate Interclub Council] and ICC policies,” wrote Slattery in a statement to The Daily Princetonian. “In an effort to improve first year safety and avoid confusion, the ICC wanted to be sure this policy is clearly stated at the start of Orientation program-

Jeopardy! champion and professional sports gambler James Holzhauer, a University of Illinois alumnus, once noted that “most people think [he] went to Princeton or something.” Yet, on an episode that aired on June 3, a University alumna broke his 32-game winning streak.

After winning $2,462,216 over 33 games of Jeopardy!, James Holzhauer has been defeated. Emma Boettcher ’14, who currently works as a User Experience Library Resident at the University of Chicago, has been referred to by Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek as “the giant killer,” after she beat the 32-time champion. She has won $97,002 in her first three days on the show.

Boettcher first auditioned for the show as a high school senior and tried again in 2013 while she was a student at the University.

Though not a member of the Princeton Quiz Bowl team, Boettcher competed regularly in “quiz nights” hosted at Mathey college with her

See BAN page 3

See BOETTCHER page 2

Today on Campus 12:00 p.m.: Interfaith 9/11 Service of Remembrance Princeton University 9/11 Memorial Garden (located between Nassau Hall and Chancellor Green)

By Zack Shevin assistant news editor

WEATHER

By Benjamin Ball and Zack Shevin

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

HIGH

90˚

LOW

69˚

Partly Cloudy chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Wednesday September 11, 2019

Williams: I see people in academia that are becoming more like Tweeters

PHOTO COURTESY OF JAMES WILLIAMS TWITTER PROFILE (@WILLIAMSJAMES_)

James Williams, author of the Class of 2023 Pre-Read

Q&A

Continued from page 1

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

has to click a button, creating 15 more decisions you have to make each day as a user. There’s a cognitive load cost that isn’t really taken into account. Furthermore, the consent-gathering exercise becomes an exercise in persuasion. Sites will make a dialogue box look like a popup ad or use the advertising methods to optimize for whichever type of consent dialogue results in the most consent, so it’s just manufactured consent.

DP: I wonder how employers and employees should understand your book. Some demands on our attention come from around-the-clock work emails. Do emails constitute a similar threat to our attentional freedom, and if so, whose job is it to limit

those effects?

JW: The sheer quantity of information that’s out there and the fact that it’s available 24/7 means that we need to figure out where those boundaries are drawn. In France, they passed a law limiting the hours in which employers can require workers to respond to emails.

There’s also a question of organizational culture. The question of responsibility will vary from situation to situation. It’s partly a technical and partly a cultural issue, because it’s not only email but things like Slack and other kinds of workplace software.

Email is not a platform like Facebook or Twitter.

It’s a protocol, which means there is a decision to distribute it. It’s good in a way, because there may be a case to be made for responding to email, for doctors, for ex-

ample. So it will depend.

DP: Have you received any feedback from your former colleagues in the Silicon Valley?

JW: I keep in touch with my friends and colleagues in the industry a lot. The reaction has been uniformly positive.

One thing they’ve expressed that they appreciate about the book is how there’s criticism but not a kind of moralized blame, like you see in media coverage, and the “fight the monster” mentality you see in news articles because it get clicks and sells ads. They appreciate the nuance and that the book recognizes the systemic issues and does not blame individuals. It’s a solution-oriented book.

One of my aims was to make it be tech criticism in the sense of literary or art criticism. If someone is doing literary or art criticism, you wouldn’t think they don’t like literature or art. They want to tease out the nuances and fundamentally make it better, so that was my aim and I’ve been heartened that that’s been the response from people I know in the industry.

DP: How have your views changed since you wrote the book?

JW: There are certainly ways my view has evolved since I wrote the book two years ago, in the same way the tech landscape and the societal response to it has evolved.

When I wrote the book, these questions of tech and persuasion weren’t really part of the day-to-day consciousness of people. They certainly are now, in part because of the various political earthquakes

in the past two years, but also because people are thinking more seriously and more critically about the role in these technologies in their lives.

There are so many levels to the problem and so many levels to the solution. But there are a lot more people thinking about it today than there were a few years ago.

DP: Out of personal curiosity, what do you do to limit screen time and cognitive load?

JW: Part of the reason I started looking at this stuff is that I felt it in my own life.

There are ways to rearrange technologies in our own lives, but [at] the end of the day it’s a systemic problem. There are minor, simple things I do, but I don’t consider myself an exemplar. I think people should do what works for them. I’m reluctant to be too prescriptive in this regard.

DP: Anything else you’d like to add?

JW: One important thing is to protect and value these enclaves where there’s resistance against this competition for our attention. Two of the institutions I’m most concerned about are journalism and academia.

Journalism seems to me to have already capitulated to the Twitter style of thought and communication, and I think academia is getting there pretty quickly. The more we can see these institutions as essential for democracy and ensure that there are countervailing dynamics against the comp for attention as the core goal — that’s an essential thing for us to be doing more now.

DP: Can you say more about the “Twitter style?”

JW: Twitter is the newswire now. Journalists say they are on Twitter all day every day; it’s where breaking news happens. I see people in academia that are becoming more like Twitter: angstier, less nuanced, and prone to use outrage in a way they weren’t before. It’s something I feel and see. I think this is becoming the main cognitive style in our culture, as epitomized by Trump’s success and presidency. It’s the infrastructure of journalism now.

I asked one of my friends who’s a journalist what he thought journalistic courage looks like today. He said it is writing a piece that won’t go viral, won’t get clicks, but that you think is really important. I thought it was a telling answer.

DP: In academia, too?

JW: Academia is one of the best examples of a self-contained metric economy. The metrics of success have to do with citations, which are academic retweets. There was an article in “The Chronicle of Higher Education” saying that we will soon see a number of viral articles being formalized as inputs in tenure decisions. Practically speaking, we’re probably already there. Academia has always been this enclave where depth of thought is unconstrained by immediate workplace demands. The more it adopts this style of the attention economy and social media, we stand to lose something that is precious.

Boettcher regularly competed in quiz nights at Mathey College BOETTCHER Continued from page 1

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

friends during her time at the University. After graduation, Boettcher auditioned twice more, in 2015 and 2017.

Ultimately, the fourth time was the charm, and she was brought to Los Angeles to compete.

Boettcher had not heard of Holzhauer until just before taping her game against him on March 12, nearly a month before Holzhauer’s first game aired.

“I got to the studio that day and along with all the other contestants found out, ‘there’s a 32-time champion here to play a couple of us,’” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first.”

Not only was Holzhauer on a 32-game winning streak, but he held the top ten spots for highest singlegame winnings. Before his run, the most money won in a single game was $77,000, but Holzhauer has passed that marker ten times and averaged over $70,000 per game.

“I knew academically how good of a player he must have been, but I had no direct experience of it,” Boettcher noted. “I just knew, ‘here’s this very smart guy who wants to win,’ but that’s true of every contestant.”

The game itself was very fast-paced, with few pauses.

Out of the 60 total clues, the contestants answered 59 correctly, only stumped once by a $400 Double Jeopardy! clue about cigarette taxes. In Single Jeopardy!, Boettcher dominated the “Jukebox Musicals” category, where she correctly responded to four of the five clues, earning $2,600.

“When I saw ‘Jukebox Musicals,’ I wasn’t necessarily super thrilled with the jukebox aspect of it, but musicals I know for sure. I felt really confident and optimistic about that category,” she said.

Altogether, Boettcher answered 11 of the 30 Single Jeopardy! clues correctly,

earning her $6,400 and placing her $2,600 behind Holzhauer going into Double Jeopardy!. After a strong opening to Double Jeopardy!, Holzhauer pulled $6,200 ahead of Boettcher, but with a correct answer followed by a true Daily Double! in the “Capital ‘A’” category, Boettcher surpassed Holzhauer.

“I had a lot of ground to make up. For me, it was kind of a slam dunk in terms of what to do,” she said. “I needed to gain a lot of money very quickly, and it was a category that I felt pretty comfortable in. It was a clue that was lower value, so I thought I’d have a good chance of getting it correct.”

Though she changed leads with Holzhauer twice more, Boettcher’s 10 correct answers in the Double Jeopardy! round gave her a $3,200 lead over Holzhauer heading into Final Jeopardy!.

In Final Jeopardy!, Boettcher’s education at the University came in handy.

The category was “Shakespeare’s Time,” something Boettcher was very familiar with. At the University, Boettcher majored in English with a certificate in Theater. She wrote her senior thesis on “ghosts and magic” in plays, mostly Shakespeare’s. Additionally, her thesis incorporated the works of playwright Christopher Marlowe, who was the correct response to the Final Jeopardy! clue. Confident about the category, Boettcher wagered $20,201 of her $26,000.

“I’ve read a lot of [Shakespeare’s] plays, and I’ve seen a lot of his plays performed,” she said. “It felt like this category was tailor-made for me.”

All three contestants answered correctly in Final Jeopardy! Boettcher’s large wager brought her up to $46,801. Holzhauer ended with $24,799 on the day, giving him a 33-day total of $2,462,216 and the secondlongest winning streak in the show’s history. Though

42 games short of Ken Jennings’ 74-game streak, Holzhauer came within $60,000 of Jennings’ total regular season earnings record, a gap smaller than the $70,000 Holzhauer was averaging per game.

Boettcher noted that many of her friends who had never been huge Jeopardy! fans, but who promised to watch the June 3 show, became interested in Holzhauer’s winning streak.

“They were telling me, ‘Have you heard of this guy?

He’s amazing. Look at this,’” she said. “I’ve loved the show for years, of course, but now it seems like everyone else is finding out how fun it can be as well.”

In her second game, which aired on June 4, Boettcher noted that there were “a lot more pauses.” Unlike in her game against Holzhauer, in which only one question went unanswered, the contestants failed to come up with the correct answer nine times in her second game.

With 19 correct answers, including a correct $4,600 Daily Double!, Boettcher dominated Single Jeopardy!, going into the Double Jeopardy! round with a $11,000 lead.

With nine correct answers and two incorrect answers in Double Jeopardy!, Boettcher was able to maintain a commanding lead. Her closest competitor, Ph.D. student Matthew Swanson, missed a $6,000 Daily Double! late in the game, allowing Boettcher to lock things up before Final Jeopardy!, where she wagered $0 knowing it would guarantee her the win.

“It ended up being a lock game, a runaway game as Alex would say, but it didn’t necessarily feel like that playing it,” Boettcher said, noting that she was more comfortable with the categories in the game against Holzhauer. Though she was able to come up with three correct responses in the “Parasitic Plants” category, she said the category was “a

COURTESY OF EMMA BOETTCHER

tricky one” for her.

“Jeopardy!’s all random knowledge all the time, and sometimes that really works in your favor if the final category is something like ‘Shakespeare,’ and sometimes it really doesn’t with something like ‘Time Zones,’” Boettcher said, referring to the Final Jeopardy! clue that she answered incorrectly in the second game.

In her third game, which aired on June 5, Boettcher got off to a hot start, sweeping the first category and amassing $7,000 before either of her opponents answered a single correct question. She went into the first commercial break with $7,200 after 12 correct answers, with her opponents both in the negatives with -$600 and -$800 respectively. Boettcher slowed down somewhat after the break, answering three more questions correctly and ending with $7,800, still holding a $6,600 lead despite both of her opponents moving into the positives.

Boettcher answered 12 questions correctly in Double Jeopardy!, including a $3,000 Daily Double! about the Chrysler Building. She ended with $24,400, but things were not yet out of reach. Though high school social studies teacher Jona-

than Greenstein fell back into the negatives and was unable to compete in Final Jeopardy!, education policy analyst Erin Garratt pulled her score up to $12,800 at the end of Double Jeopardy!, keeping the game in reach.

The Final Jeopardy! category was “The NATO Phonetic Alphabet.” Garratt answered incorrectly and lost all of her earnings, but Boettcher was able to come up with the correct response, “X-ray.” With a modest wager of $1,201, she ended the game with $25,601, bringing her three-day total to $97,002.

Boettcher plans to use a portion of her earnings to pay off loans. Additionally, she said that she plans to donate to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she received a Master’s Degree in Information Science after graduating from the University.

Boettcher wrote her Master’s paper on Jeopardy!.

“I’ve kind of been planning on making an alumni donation, at least there, maybe Princeton as well, but certainly to bring that full circle,” she said, adding that she also plans to donate some of her winnings to her church.

The Daily Princetonian

Wednesday September 11, 2019

page 3

Eisgruber urged students to ‘interrogate Wilson ’20: Frosh week ‘dangerous to first-years’ and challenge our own orthodoxies’ BAN

PRE-RADE Continued from page 1

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

cifically on Morrison’s call for dissent, interpreting Morrison’s words as a call to interact with many different and contradictory viewpoints and to “interrogate and challenge our own orthodoxies.”

“If we genuinely prize conscience over orthodoxy, we must not only tolerate but welcome reasoned arguments that challenge our own cherished opinions and viewpoints,” Eisgruber said.

“We must have the courage to state opinions even when they are unpopular in our own community.

We must have the integrity to respect those who offer opinions that are unpopular with us.”

The ceremony included songs, readings, and prayers from a variety of faiths.

The ceremony also featured the presentation of several academic awards.

Dean of the College Jill Dolan awarded the Freshman First Honor Prize to Kiril Bangachev ’22, the George B. Wood Legacy Sophomore Prize to Mary

Continued from page 1

Devellis ’21 and Yechen Hu ’21, the George B. Wood Legacy Junior Prize to Audrey Cheng ’20 and Eitan Levin ’20, and the Class of 1939 Princeton Scholar Award to Nicholas Johnson ’20 and Grace Sommers ’20.

Opening exercises were followed by the Pre-Rade, in which the incoming class paraded through FitzRandolph Gate.

First-years indicated that although they enjoyed many of the day’s festivities, the rush of going from one event to another fatigued them.

“It was long and I’m tired,” said Lance Yoder ’23.

“But I’m excited, and ready to start my Princeton journey.”

Other first-years interviewed by The Daily Princetonian felt excited, if not overwhelmed by the scale of the day’s festivities.

“I mean, everybody kind of jokes that Princeton is like a cult, and you fully see that there. They’re all decked out, fully welcoming you,” said Ben Burns ’23. “It just shows how much everybody loves this place. It makes you feel really good.”

This year features an unprecedented three co-headliners LAWNPARTIES Continued from page 1

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

“He first considered a career in professional baseball, but in 2008, the Atlanta native dropped the single ‘Stay Down’ featuring the Stack Money Boyz,” reads his Spotify “About” page. “Things came to a halt when he landed in jail for a year on burglary charges, but upon his release in 2011, Quan began to make up for lost time.”

According to his Spotify artist page, Quan released his debut album “Rich as in Spirit” in March 2018.

CupcakKe began her music career by writing “religious-themed poetry” when she was 14, “performing in local churches,” and eventually posting rap versions of her poems on YouTube, according to her Spotify Artist page. After hearing Khia’s viral hit “My Neck, My Back,” CupcakKe was

inspired to write “sexually explicit material,” something she is now famous for doing. Since 2015, she has released six fulllength albums and a number of singles.

“Deepthroat,” the most popular song on her debut mixtape “Cum Cake,” has over 33 million views on YouTube.

“Her work explores sexuality in graphic detail, and while many of her songs are humorous and playful, she has more serious, introspective material that deals with sexual abuse (‘Pedophile’), racial issues (‘Picking Cotton’), and LGBTQ empowerment (‘Crayons’),” per her Spotify “About” page.

CupcakKe’s most recent albums, “Ephorize” and “Eden,” debuted in 2018.

Thus far in 2019, she has released four singles, the most recent of which, “Whoregasm,” came out on Aug. 8. CupcakKe is also featured on two Charli XCX songs: “Lipgloss” and “I Got It.”

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

ming.”

Slattery emphasized that this restriction was a joint decision between “eating club officers and the Office of Campus Life.”

“There will be plenty of time for incoming students to be welcomed to the clubs at an appropriate time, and they are invited and encouraged to come for Lawnparties on September 15,” Slattery added in her statement.

Wilson College Resident College Adviser (RCA) Alex Wilson ’20 agreed with these measures, explaining that “inexperience with party culture” leaves many firstyear students vulnerable to danger. Though she said first-year students shouldn’t be shielded from the University’s party scene, Wilson noted that an “anything goes attitude about frosh week that is unique” persists among eating club events.

“I think it’s really good that first years are barred from frosh week this year,” Wilson told the ‘Prince.’ “I think that frosh week, because of the tone set by upperclassmen, is an event that is actually dangerous to first years.”

Wilson is a former copy editor for the ‘Prince.’

The ‘Prince’ reached out to incoming first-year students, who were dissatisfied with the preemptive ban and considered it a loss of a University tradition.

“I’m definitely disappointed because I was excited to scope out the eating clubs and have fun with friends,” Lauren Fromkin ’23 said. “I understand where the eating

JON ORT / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

clubs made that decision, but it’s still disappointing.”

The question was also raised if the University would be able to enforce the restriction as a safety measure.

“I’m not interested in just diving into that scene or anything, but I think it’s important to explore those different options and experiences in college,” Larry Giberson ’23 said. “If the University is trying to shut down these things, they’re just going to experience more pushback from the people who are trying to find them.”

A rising sophomore who wished to remain anonymous recounted his own experiences during 2018’s frosh ban, which failed to prevent him from being sent to PMC on the final night of frosh week.

“I had gone to a pregame that was planned in advance before we’d heard about the ban — it was with my CA group, actually,” he told the ‘Prince.’ “We decided to have the pregame anyway, even though no one would go out

afterwards.”

The sophomore explained that he became heavily intoxicated and began to vomit at Hoagie Haven later that night, prompting thenseniors at the scene to call Public Safety, who then called an ambulance due to overcrowding in McCosh.

Despite his own experiences with frosh week, the sophomore admitted that a weekend-long frosh ban would likely be successful in keeping first-year students safe.

“I think my circumstances were pretty special because the only reason why I went out at all was because of that pregame,” he said.

“None of my other friends had planned that kind of thing that night.”

“I think it should be pretty effective for most kids who aren’t intent on going out that exact weekend,” he added.

The class of 2023 will officially move in on Saturday, Aug. 31, before their smallgroup trips, which will take place Sept. 2–6.

Wednesday September 11, 2019

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

How Toni Morrison challenged the cruel fragility of whiteness

Sam Aftel

managing editor

Shortly after the election of Donald Trump, the late Toni Morrison, the canonical novelist, Nobel laureate, Pulitzer winner, and the Robert F. Goheen Professor in the Humanities, Emerita, theorized in The New Yorker, “So scary are the consequences of a collapse of white privilege that many Americans have flocked to a political platform that supports and translates violence against the defenseless as strength. These people are not so much angry as terrified, with the kind of terror that makes knees tremble.”

The line is as piercing as it is empathetically conscious of the psychosocial dynamics driving American racial terror. Morrison realized, more than anyone, that racist structural violence, which has dictated much of this country’s dark history, is a product of “cowardice,” not innate sociobiological strength. Morrison recognized white privilege as a sign of existential weakness, a damning reflection of our country’s paranoid reluctance to render fully human individuals whose political empowerment would undercut, not further solidify, the institutionalization of white supremacy.

As Morrison keenly put it in her New Yorker piece, “The sad plight of grown white men, crouching beneath their (better) selves, to slaughter the innocent during traffic stops, to push black women’s faces into the dirt, to handcuff black children. Only the frightened would do that. Right?”

It’s hard reading these sublime, penetrating lines knowing full well their brilliant scribe is no longer with

us. In the same way, the loss of Morrison is tragic, in part because we need her perhaps now more than ever.

Given the man who bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy” and entered American politics by questioning the birthplace of his black predecessor is now the most powerful human being in the world; given the ubiquity of white-supremacist terrorism and the systematization of unhinged Trumpian sadism; given the normalization of insidious go-back-to-where-you-camefrom rhetoric and the demonization of those who live in the farthest proximity to institutional power; and given our increasing desensitization to the brutalization of toddlers at the Southern border and the broad-based social decay eating away at the elemental fabric of American life, we urgently need the type of political reasoning, emotively nurturing literature, intimate tough love, and incisive moral education that Morrison long spoiled us with.

As burdensome as it is to project singular moral responsibility onto a cultural icon like Morrison, it also seems logical, in this time of chaos and exhaustion, to cling to the words and wisdom of the people who articulate our pain more authentically than we could ever do ourselves.

Sometimes, in fact, I feel it’s only right and intellectually respectful to defer to the instruction and expressed convictions of people like Morrison. As Roxane Gay noted in The New York Times, “For the most vulnerable among us, there is a great deal at stake [in this political moment], and silence in the face of all this injustice is not acceptable.

Then I read Toni Morrison and think, ‘Until I can write like that, I should say nothing.’”

Morrison was distinctly

aware of the type of “madness” plaguing our national landscape well before the election of Trump and the racialized atrocities that have followed. She knew racism – and misogyny and classism – was woven into American DNA. She knew that our white-supremacist history would be incessantly recycled, because Americans, even if they knew better, just couldn’t free themselves of their self-protective racist fanaticism.

Morrison also knew how to challenge the reflexive violence of white fragility and sociopolitical narcissism.

Though her work examined the malignancy of racism, she refused, boldly, to narratively centralize white people and whiteness. Rather than appeal to a white readership interested in positioning themselves in the social worlds of her novels, Morrison looked inward and, despite the commercial risks, prioritized black interior experiences, experiences that were not disentangled from white hegemony but also not consumed by it.

It is now quite the understatement to say that countless black – and nonblack – writers have found inspiration in Morrison. In fact, two days after Morrison’s death, writer and TV-news host Rebecca Carroll stated, in a moving essay in The Atlantic, that she’s writing her memoir, “Surviving the White Gaze,” for Morrison, as the late author compelled her to seek a form of meaning that transcends the literary strictures of white-centric perception.

Given the contagion of her transgressive centralization of black interiority, impacting Caroll and other black intellectuals, Morrison’s ultimate achievement is her subversion of conventional literary sensibilities – the subversion of the idea that black people’s lives are only worthy of documentation

and narrativization when their proximity to whiteness is of primary focus.

Of course, Morrison’s deconstruction of the white gaze stretched beyond literature, reinforcing her commitment to dismantling political mechanisms that discursively privileged the powerful and silenced the marginalized: By applying Morrison’s white-gaze dismantlement in a sociopolitical context – by emphasizing the interior experiences, ideas, longings, and needs of those outside the paradigms of systematic power – we can discern, authentically, the suffering of those who have been violently othered by the American system.

As a white male who goes to Princeton, an institution that employed Morrison and housed her papers while harboring a history of white supremacy, I, and many others who look like me, do not live in neighborly proximity to the characters and narratives Morrison brought to life.

Nonetheless, white Americans like me are just as morally and intellectually indebted to Morrison as any other American demographic: She generously supplied this country with an unprecedently intimate body of literature that can educate all Americans – perhaps especially upper-class white Americans – about the brutality and ironic beauty of American life experienced by those denied access to the levers of power and capital.

Undoubtedly, then, Toni Morrison’s absence will be felt in this moment of craven moral complacency, political turmoil, and subjugating authoritarianism. She’s the savior we need the most, and the savior we least deserve.

Samuel Aftel is a senior from East Northport, N.Y. He can be reached at saftel@princeton. edu.

Kuczynski and the revolving door curse Álvaro Zapatel

guest contributor

In March of 2018, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, the former President of Peru and a 1961 graduate of the Woodrow Wilson School’s Masters in Public Affairs (MPA) program, resigned from office a day before the Peruvian Congress would have held an impeachment vote against him. He was accused of laundering money while in public office to benefit the Brazilian contractor Odebrecht with multi-million dollar infrastructure projects.

Last April, Kuczynski, was arrested by the Peruvian National Police following orders from the Judiciary’s National Anti-Corruption Office. The judge determined that due to health concerns, he could be placed under house arrest, rather than prison, for three years while facing trial. The judge who issued the order of arrest concluded that Kuczynski could try to obstruct justice by hiding documents that might have complicated his situation in court.

Over 15 years, Odebrecht bribed public servants throughout Latin America to acquire lucrative contracts. It has now been implicated in one of the largest corruption scandals in history, known as Lava Jato, “Operation Car Wash” in Portuguese. (Netflix has a show, named “The Mechanism,” that does a good job of explaining this complex money laundering case. Go watch it!)

Although Kuczynski is the fourth president of Peru to face prison time for illegal conduct, his case is particularly shocking, given that just 13 months ago, he was still running the country. There is significant criticism related to the nuances of his arrest, as well as those of other former presidents — the Judiciary had frozen his bank accounts and had impeded him from leaving the country while he kept collaborating with justice. However, his case is essential to analyze the problematic situation that public servants face when they start going through revolving doors which they hardly know when to stop.

The Odebrecht scandal has unveiled the evident ethical contradictions that can result in criminal behavior if public servants use their power and influence to ease or facilitate private interests. Since 2001, Kuczynski went back and forth from holding high government offices, such as President of the Council of Ministers or Minister of Economy Finance, to his private practice, and vice versa. Throughout the process, his companies provided professional services to clients that would eventually negotiate contracts with the Peruvian government he would later serve.

Kuczynski persistently claimed that he did not pay attention to either his companies’ contracts or his business partners’ whereabouts, which have now put him in big trouble. His fundamental error, which may have criminal implications, was in failing to effectively draw the line between private and public interests. As a consequence, today he could face prison time if Peruvian prosecutors effectively prove that he was deliberately

involved in a money laundering scheme.

I recently graduated from the MPA program at the Woodrow Wilson School, where Kuczynski studied in the early 1960s and who, in 2017, was awarded the James Madison Medal. As a graduate MPA, I hope that the school will undertake even greater efforts to educate its students on the fundamental ethical responsibilities that come with exercising public office. The ability to identify the thin line between public and private interests may be the only factor that determines whether we truly commit to Princeton’s motto of serving our nation and the humanity, or not. Integrity in public service is at peril everywhere.

Let’s start figuring out how to defend it here, at home. Álvaro Zapatel graduated from the MPA Program at the Woodrow Wilson School last spring.

In his hometown, Lima, Peru, he served as campaign manager for the Party “Acción Popular,” which competed against Kuczynski’s political party “Peruanos por el Kambio” in 2016.

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 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 editor Samantha Shapiro ’21 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 cartoon editors Zaza Asatiani ’21 Jonathan Zhi ’21 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

NIGHT STAFF Design Austin Lau ’22 Kenny Peng ’22

Keep yourself informed on the go!

Follow us on Twitter:

@Princetonian

Recycle your ‘Prince’!

Wednesday September 11, 2019

Sports

page 5

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

WALK-ON Continued from page 6

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

perienced walk-ons” join each roster — these athletes learned to row in high school but decided to join the college team after receiving admission.

Depending on the number and skillset of these “experienced walk-ons,” they may or may not join the recruited athletes during practices in the fall. For example, senior William Hess, who walked onto men’s lightweight with experience, immediately joined the recruited athletes, while first-year Artemis Veizi stayed with the other novices on women’s lightweight.

During this time, training the coxswains as quickly as possible is crucial: a coxswain is required to be an immediate leader, helping ensure that practices run smoothly.

What’s more, the learning curve for coxing is known to be steeper than rowing, often requiring years of familiarity and mastery.

“Arguably, it’s a lot harder to learn how to cox than to row,” noted Veizi.

During the fall, depending on the year’s numbers, walk-ons may compete in their own boat at the fall regattas: the Head of the Charles, followed by the Princeton Chase.

But after two months, the separation of walkons and recruits starts to become nonexistent.

As Lake Carnegie freezes over, practices on the water will transition to brutal winter training on the ergometers.

The process of integration commences as walkons are challenged to com-

plete the same workouts as recruits.

“We treat every athlete as an individual, but we don’t water down our team for those who merely wish to participate. This is not intramurals. We cater to competitors,” noted Manning.

At this point in the season, severe walk-on dropoff begins. In the 2018 season, by the end of the winter, Dubinsky was one of two novice rowers on women’s lightweight who had not quit.

“I just kept showing up,” laughed Dubinsky.

None of the teams cut walk-ons. If there are enough athletes to seat a boat of eight, that boat of eight will race.

Nonetheless, walk-on attrition is extremely high.

Walk-ons who quit during the winter often cite the brutal workouts — ergometer workouts with supplemental training — as the primary factor.

“It’s fairly self-selective.

People can figure out if they like working that hard,” said Coach Morss.

“Winter training pushes your physical capacity,” said sophomore Isabelle Chandler, who was the only other women’s lightweight novice walk-on in 2018. “You know there’s the spring season coming, but it can be very hard to go down to the boathouse.”

The time commitment is an issue, too. “There is certainly the Princeton mentality of ‘If I’m not at the top, I should do something else with my time,’” noted senior Emily Erdos, a coxswain for women’s open weight.

Erdos is the former Head Opinion Editor for the Daily Princetonian.

Over Intersession, walk-

ons travel to Tampa, Florida and begin fully integrating in practices with the recruited athletes in boats on the water. Come spring, practices resume on Lake Carnegie.

At this point, walk-ons become full team members, no longer part of a separate novice squad.

They get their lockers.

They get their singlets.

“Once they’re here, we don’t care how they got here or what they did previously, only how much they help the team,” said Coach Manning.

Additionally, they begin infusing healthy competition into the team dynamic, as they start to compete for spots in top boats.

Novices No More: WalkOn Integration Leads to Contribution In her freshman fall, Dubinsky did not anticipate her own hefty contribution to the varsity lightweight rowing program.

But Dubinsky had been keeping up with her teammates, posting stellar pieces in ergometer workouts. Her coach decided to “seat-race” her against another athlete, to see if she was prepared for a more competitive boat. Seat-racing aims to compare two rowers by switching just one person out in a boat and comparing overall boat times.

“When I started seat-racing to be in more competitive boats, I felt like I was fast enough to compete,” said Dubinsky.

Over a year and a half later, Dubinsky is racing in the varsity four boat.

Walk-on success comes with three main variables: technique, rowing-specific fitness, and work ethic.

First, regardless of natural athleticism, devel-

oping solid rowing technique is essential. In this respect, experienced walkons often have technical advantages over complete novices.

“It [normally] takes at least a year and a half to get to the technical level of a recruit, from someone who has never touched a blade,” noted Hess.

Next, rowing requires strength and cardio endurance. Developing a cardiovascular base for rowing can take several years; walk-ons with experience in swimming or running may have an easier transition.

Last is a certain intangible quality that nearly every coach, recruit and walk-on interviewed referenced. The ability to push yourself to your physical limits underlies rowing success. Technique and athleticism may take time to develop, but work ethic is expected from the beginning.

Regardless of 2k splits, a singular “work hard” mindset unifies the boathouse.

Ensuring Walk-On Success: Fostering a Unified Team With 13 walk-ons joining the women’s lightweight program, this year has surpassed all other years in walk-on retention rate.

Artemis Veizi attributes this largely to team dynamics: an immediate bond forged with the other walk-ons and a respect for the veteran rowers.

Additionally, as one of three experienced walkons, Veizi was able to help bridge the gap between recruits and walk-ons.

“We knew how to do the workouts, and we knew what we were getting ourselves into. I was con-

fident in my decision to walk on, which could have lent itself to making other walk-ons comfortable in their decision and could have contributed to the retention rate,” commented Veizi.

In practices, this year’s walk-ons received the ergometer scores of Chandler and Dubinsky from the previous year, so that they could track their progress against Chandler and Dubinsky.

“I was pretty conscious of being a walk-on, until this year,” noted Dubinsky. “But we’ve really wanted to integrate the walk-ons earlier — it’s been a huge focus.”

Men’s lightweight is working to foster this culture, too. This year, captains began assigning each committed freshman to an upperclassmen “point person” as an athletic and academic mentor. Meal exchanges and team meals became a priority.

All efforts for retention aside, each walk-on interviewed never considered quitting.

All genuinely love the experience of collegiate rowing, including its challenges — the structure and routine it imposes, the deep friendships and sense of rowing community, the shared struggle yet a simultaneous enjoyment of the physical workout.

In fact, Coach Morss, who currently oversees all the women’s lightweight walk-ons — was a novice rower herself.

“Coming down to the boathouse means a lot.

Now, it’s really fun to watch the walk-ons grow into that. The cycle will continue.”

Work for the most respected news source on campus.

join@dailyprincetonian.com

Sports

Wednesday September 11, 2019

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } F E AT U R E

The Walk-On Contribution

By Sam Shapiro Features Editor

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on April 4, 2019.

All statistics in the piece ref lect information present at that date.

Princeton rowing’s four varsity rosters operate under a necessity that differs from all other varsity programs: a reliance on walk-on contributions.

Walk-on statistics for Princeton’s four rowing teams are complete outliers. Recruits dominate the rosters of the other 33 varsity Princeton teams, which typically include one to two walk-ons. For rowing, walk-ons are necessary to field a complete roster.

Between men’s heavyweight, men’s lightweight, women’s open weight and women’s lightweight, walk-ons make up 28 percent, 45 percent, 33 percent and 69 percent of the 2019 rosters respectively. In total, men’s heavyweight, men’s lightweight, women’s open weight, and women’s lightweight have 15, 20, 18 and 19 walk-ons.

This may stem from rowing’s uniqueness as a walk-onfriendly sport. Compared to other sports, rowing’s learning curve is not as steep. Furthermore, many high schools do not have developed rowing programs, so many talented athletes have never had opportunities for exposure.

Walk-ons comprise a high percentage of rosters for other top rowing programs, such as Columbia and Georgetown.

Georgetown, able to provide athletic scholarships to its athletes, has even more walkons than Princeton across all four teams. Financially, adding walk-ons does not place a significant burden on pro-

grams.

“The most we lose is some long sleeve t-shirts,” said women’s lightweight assistant coach Alex Morss ’13. “Considering what some of them contribute in the end, it’s totally worth it.”

The statistical discrepancy in walk-on numbers between Princeton’s rowing teams is due to the number of recruiting spots given — women’s lightweight rowing is only allotted an average of three recruiting spots per year, while men’s heavyweight has eight to nine.

But the difference in numbers for yearly recruits does not necessarily factor into team performance, given the high national finishes across each Princeton rowing team.

In 2018, men’s heavyweight, men’s lightweight, and women’s lightweight ended their seasons with fifth, second and third place finishes at Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championships in the 1v boat, respectively. Women’s open weight rowing (the only rowing team which is an NCAA sport and does not compete in IRAs) finished in fifth at the 2018 NCAA Championships.

In Princeton’s most recent lineup of the 1v boat, between all four varsity rosters, each spot was held by a recruited athlete. The reputation of a varsity rowing program typically lies with the finish of its top boat — the 1v eight boat. Arguably, this is a credit to the outstanding caliber of Princeton recruits. Recruited athletes have won races at European Junior Championships, Canadian Henleys, Junior World Championships and more.

After Princeton, top rowers frequently continue to compete at the highest level. In the

2016 Rio Olympics, Princeton rowing flaunted six alumni — come 2018, nine Princeton alumni competed in the World Championships.

This adds a whole new dimension to the walk-on story: in Princeton’s boathouse, future Olympians practice alongside novice rowers.

But walk-ons do not diminish the status of Princeton’s top-notch, nationally-ranked program. With hard work, athleticism and dedication, walk-ons can make their way to the top of the roster, and maybe even the world rowing stage, too.

“Walk-ons consistently contribute to top boats,” said men’s lightweight assistant coach William Manning.

In recent years, Emily Schneider ’18 was an experienced lightweight women’s walk-on, who became team captain by her senior season.

Kanoe Shizuru ’17 was a novice walk-on on the cusp of lightweight and open weight, who worked her way onto the NCAA lineup for women’s open weight.

And certain names are boathouse legends, such as Heidi Robbins ’13, originally a novice, who rowed in the US women’s eight that claimed the gold at the 2014 World Rowing Championships.

This season, in the 2v boats for men’s lightweight and women’s lightweight, and in the 1v four for women’s lightweight, a few walk-ons are in the line-up. There are also walk-ons in the 3v for women’s open weight and men’s heavyweight.

Walk-on coxswains play an integral role on every team and frequently are in top boats.

Recruiting spots are limited for multiple coxswains, yet solid coxswains are essential

to rowing — they steer the boats, motivate rowers, provide technical feedback and keep track of statistics.

Additionally, the performance of all boats, outside the 1v, is not to be discounted.

Come Eastern Sprints on May 5, Princeton has its eyes set on team cup, which factors in multiple varsity boats.

Perhaps the most important walk-on contribution of all: walk-ons help to maintain a competitive environment that makes every boat better.

They advance and augment team depth.

“Walk-on contributions are massive. They push the people above them to get faster, they push the 3v, which pushes the 2v, which pushes the 1v,” said sophomore men’s heavyweight rower Tassilo von Mueller.

“They do more than you think they do.”

Recruiting the Walk-Ons: The Walk-On Process Rowing coaches and teammates alike see the necessity for walk-ons. But they also recognize that being a walkon is far from a cakewalk; and, likewise, walk-ons have a high attrition rate. Consequently, there is a need for high numbers from the get-go.

Perhaps oxymoronically, Princeton rowing coaches recruit their walk-ons. They stake out freshman orientation events, like the Pre-rade barbecue and activities fair.

Team members take initiatives to encourage walking on, too. Current walk-ons were inspired to try crew at the urgings of Princeton Preview host, a fellow student who attended the same high school, and even a roommate.

Take sophomore Kailey Dubinsky, who had never lifted an oar coming into Princ-

eton. She had not foreseen her Princeton experience being shaped by a fierce dedication to an unfamiliar sport: 6 a.m. practices followed by afternoon lifts, weekends dedicated to all-day regattas, the grueling practice of weight-cutting leading up to a race. But now, with upwards of three hours of rowing per day, Dubinsky’s collegiate life revolves around crew.

During freshman orientation, Dubinsky was approached by Coach Manning, who asked her if she was an athlete.

Dubinsky replied with a quick no, though she had been a competitive runner and hoped to pursue athletics as seriously as possible at Princeton.

Coach Manning handed a flier to Dubinsky, encouraging her to attend an information session about walking onto the women’s rowing roster.

Dubinsky attended a jampacked session with nearly 70 women considering crew. The following day, she attended a 6 a.m. practice alongside approximately 45 women who had never rowed before.

For the next two weeks, Dubinsky learned basic rowing and ergometer techniques with all novice women. After these two weeks, lightweight novices were separated from open weight novices, but they continued to practice rowing on the water, separated from the recruited athletes.

This weight-separation procedure is standard across the men’s rosters as well.

However, the four teams differ slightly regarding how they handle “experienced walk-ons.” Every year, a few See WALK-ON page 6

Tweet of the Day

Stat of the Day

Follow us

“Congrats to @codykessel, @huhmann6 and Coach Shweisky on helping @usavolleyball earn silver at the NORCECA Championships!”

5

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

Princeton Volleyball (@PrincetonVolley)

Princeton Field Hockey remained at No. 5 in the National Coaches’ Poll