MAY 15, 2018
THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO SINCE 1892
Kalven Report: A Discussion, Not a Law
VOL. 129, ISSUE 48
BY CAROLINE KUBZANSKY SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
“ The University has used the Kalven Report as a kind of shield and hasn’t really engaged as much as it might in these things. To invoke it as this absolute principle is not, I think, what they had in mind. It’s important that these be real conversations, and that the University not just reflexively hold up the Kalven Report as the Holy Grail,” he said. That’s Jamie Kalven, the son of 1967 Kalven Committee Chairman Harry Kalven. He believes that the University is using the Kalven Report in a less flexible way than its writers had intended, and that this application is to its detriment as an institution. As protests against the Vietnam War reached their peak, Harry Kalven, the Harry A. Bigelow Professor of Law at the time, and several colleagues sat down to articulate what they believed the University of Chicago’s role should be in conversations about moral and political controversies. In the half-century since 1967, the resulting statement— known as the Kalven Report— has guided the University’s response to a host of societal issues. Kalven and his colleagues determined that while the University is the home and sponsor of critics from every side of a debate, the institution itself should not take a position on any controversy not of “paramount value” to the University as an institution. Jamie Kalven pointed out how situations at the edges of acceptable free speech tend to bring the Kalven Report into the discussion, necessitating an ongoing conversation about its scope. After his father died, Jamie Kalven spent 10 years finishing Continued on page 3
Scav teams participate in the pickle pop event at Scav Olympics on Saturday.
SG Passes Resolutions for Slate Pay, UCPD Transparency
BY DEEPTI SAILAPPAN NEWS EDITOR
Student Government (SG) voted Monday to pay its president $4,500 per year and the two vice presidents $2,250 per year starting in the fall. The incoming Executive Slate released a statement opposing the proposal after the vote. The resolution stipulates that stipends will be sourced from the SG Administrative budget, which is currently $21,000. The Com-
mittee on Recognized Student Organizations (CORSO), which also awards yearly grants to RSO leaders through the Student Leadership Recognition and Access Program (SLRA), will administer the payments to Executive Slate. The resolution passed 15–4, with six abstentions. Among the abstentions were College Council members Sat Gupta, a second-year and the incoming SG president, and first-year Malay Trivedi, the incoming vice president of student affairs.
In a short speech preceding the vote, Gupta urged voters to consider the implications of SG choosing to pay some of its own members. “People are entrusting us with their Student Life fees,” he said. “It’s not a good look for SG.” After the meeting, the 2018– 2019 Unite Executive Slate—which also includes second-year Natalie Jusko, incoming vice president of administration, who is not currently on College Council—released a statement opposing several aspects
of the payment proposal. “We understand the concerns of the student body regarding this issue, and want you to know that we have concerns of our own,” reads the statement, posted on the Unite slate’s Facebook page. The statement advocates for payments to be restricted to students on financial aid or work study, and calls the stipend amounts “arbitrary,” adding that there should have been more time for student Continued on page 2
Institute of Translational Medicine Opens in UChicago BY DAKSH CHAUHAN SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
The University and University of Chicago Medicine were recently awarded a $35 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to support the Institute for Translational Medicine (ITM), which aims to further clinical and translational research. Translational research is the science of applying findings from lab settings into medical practice to improve patient health. The ITM is a partnership between UChicago, Rush University Medical Center, and the Illinois
Institute of Technology. Other major collaborators include Advocate Health Care, Illinois Institute of Technology, Loyola University Chicago, and NorthShore University HealthSystem. Kenneth Polonsky, dean of the Pritzker School of Medicine, told UChicago News that the ITM will provide “new opportunities, technologies, and a robust network of resources” to advance patient care. Researchers, faculty, and staff from any University department can apply for funding from the ITM to support projects intended to improve human health. In addition, the ITM also offers free training
Betiyaan Captures South AsianAmerican Identity in Snapshots
and educational opportunities, like grant writing classes and basic research essentials, to students and junior researchers. “Our hope is that our efforts will make it easier for the faculty of the University of Chicago to accomplish their research and generate new discoveries that ultimately will improve our neighborhood’s, our city’s and our nation’s health,” Gerald Stacy, ITM’s administrative director, wrote in an e-mail to The Maroon. The ITM also offers nonprofit organizations and neighborhoods across the Chicagoland area the opportunity to partner with research-
FOTA’s SpringFest: A Week of Artistry Page 6
FOTA funded over 45 artists this quarter, many of whom now have work on display across campus.
The exhibition explores what it means to be a South Asian woman, daughter, and artist.
Maroon Men Advance to Quarterfinals Page 8
ers from the six ITM institutions to make new discoveries that will revolutionize patient care. Students can get involved in the ITM in numerous ways, Stacy said. He explained that students can participate in clinical and translational research on campus by reaching out to faculty through UChicago Profiles, a UChicago faculty database. “From time to time, the ITM may have additional specific opportunities, and we will publicize those as they arise. Our educational programs are also ways to explore clinical and translational research,” Stacy wrote.
Advertising in The Maroon If you want to place an ad in T he M a roon , please email email@example.com or visit chicagomaroon.com/ pages/advertise.
Excerpts from articles and comments published in T he Chicago Maroon may be duplicated and redistributed in other media and non-commercial publications without the prior consent of The Chicago Maroon so long as the redistributed article is not altered from the original without the consent of the Editorial Team. Commercial republication of material in The Chicago Maroon is prohibited without the consent of the Editorial Team or, in the case of reader comments, the author.
THE CHICAGO MAROON - MAY 15, 2018
Events 5/15 – 5/18 This Week Library Book Sale Regenstein Library, Room A-10, May 14 –21, 9:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m. The Reg will sell excess books, maps, and other material from the collection. Hardbacks are $20, paperbacks and CDs at $10, and other items are $5. Items will decrease in price each day, until the final day (5/21) when they will be free. Tomorrow Christopher Grobe - The Art of Confession Seminary Co-Op, 6–7:30 p.m. Author Christopher Grobe will discuss the history of public in confession in America, from poetry in the 1950s to reality TV stars on today’s social media. Wednesday The Case for a Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies Department The University of Chicago Center for Identity & Inclusion, 5:30–6:30 p.m. Representatives from UChicago United will advocate for new classes to more broadly include the perspectives of people of color, as well as a department for race and ethnic studies. Audience members will be invited to speak about their experience in the College and courses they wish could be included. Dinner will be served. Michael Albertus - “Authoritarianism and the Elite Origins of Democracy” Seminary Co-Op, 6–7 p.m. Professor Albertus will discuss his new book in which he analyzes the ways that authoritarian governments designs democratic institutions to continue to favor the elites. Eat with a Purpose: Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and the Future of Food Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6–8 p.m. How are companies managing food production and waste? How can Chicago consume food in a more healthy and sustainable way? A panel of experts from local and national companies will discuss the steps they’ve taken to make their enterprises more eco-friendly.
In our podcast, T he M a roon Weekly: M a roon reporters Oren Oppenheim and Alex Ward update us on new developments regarding the Obama Presidential Center. And T he M a roon Weekly listens in on the sounds of the Scav list release. Visit https://soundcloud.com/chicagomaroonpodcast to tune in.
If you want to place an ad in The M aroon, please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org or visit chicagomaroon.com/pages/advertise.
Subscribe to the M aroon newsletter for e-mails every Tuesday and Friday
Courtesy of Knight Foundation
Jamie Kalven now works for the Invisible Institute, a journalistic institution meant to hold public institutions accountable.
Incoming Executive Slate Voices Concerns About SG Pay Continued from front
feedback on the proposal’s details before voting on the resolution. Gupta, Jusko, and Trivedi also take issue with the disparity between SG and RSO leaders, who are not paid, and volunteered to offer up their executive pay in the case of an SG budget deficit. A similar resolution to pay Executive Slate failed in May 2016, with the General Assembly voting instead to allocate funds proposed for the payments to the SLRA. Funding for the SLRA and RSOs were major points of contention in the days before voting on Monday’s resolution. Class of 2020 proxy voting member Alisha Harris—who later abstained from voting— brought up the General Assembly’s vote in April to decrease funding for the SLRA from $12,500 to $4,500, adding that the funds were likely underutilized because of a lack of student awareness about the SLRA program. The program gave only 15 of its 26 budgeted awards last cycle. Some members argued that Executive Slate does not necessarily deserve more compensation than RSO leaders. “If I go and make a poster for a film screening to promote the Anime Society, I don’t expect to be paid,” said Class of 2021 Representative Tony Ma, a member of SG’s Finance and Annual Allocations Committees. “I think the work that Executive Slate does is completely different from what an RSO
leader does,” countered fourth-year and current SG president Calvin Cottrell. “This is not to diminish the work that RSO leaders do.” Other SG members discussed the need to make SG participation accessible to students of diverse financial backgrounds. “Personally, to attend this University, I need to work three jobs,” said Class of 2020 Representative and incoming Community and Government Liaison Marlin Figgins. “I would have personally run for Executive Slate if I knew I could work one less job.” At the meeting, Class of 2018 Representative Cosmo Albrecht brought up the fact that Cottrell, who repeatedly voiced support for the proposal on Monday, previously opposed the 2016 proposal as a second-year Class of 2018 representative. At the voting on the 2016 resolution in May of that year, Cottrell was the one to propose allocating funds for Executive Slate pay for the SLRA instead. During Monday’s meeting, SG also voted to approve a resolution focusing on the University of Chicago Police Department (UCPD) and mental health; it was drafted following the shooting of Charles Thomas on April 3. The resolution, which passed 17–4 with four abstentions, calls for increased UCPD transparency, with a public release of all protocols and an Independent Review Committee that is more reflective of non-University affiliates living in the area. Cottrell said that he met recently with
Associate Vice President of Safety & Security Eric Heath, for “a pretty wide-ranging…conversation” on the feasibility of SG’s proposals regarding UCPD. During the meeting, Graduate Council Representative Hannah Burnett from the Division of the Social Sciences proposed an amendment to disarm UCPD entirely. The amendment sparked debate but ultimately failed, with six ayes, 18 nays, and one abstention. The resolution also lists several suggested University measures to improve mental health on campus. These include more transparency in the referral rates, return rates, and usage rates by demographic of Student Counseling Services and Student Health Services. Another proposal is a working group composed of University students, faculty, and staff, who would research the state of mental health on campus and recommend policy changes. At the meeting, SG also unanimously approved bylaw revisions, a resolution declaring support for gun violence research at the University, and funding allocations for the Community Service Fund and the Program Coordinating Council. Cottrell closed the meeting by recapping the past year, which he called “a banner year for Student Government,” and announced a reiteration of the Monumental Women Project next year.
Grad Students Push for Gun Violence Research BY JIHYEON YEO NEWS REPORTER
A gun violence research resolution presented by The Committee on Free Inquiry (CoFI) was unanimously passed during the Student Government (SG) assembly on Monday. CoFI—a group of 15 to 20 graduate students—has worked on gun violence prevention advocacy since this past fall quarter. According to Kaitlin Ellis, a Pritzker student in CoFI, the group developed interest in doing research on gun violence around the time the new trauma center opened on campus on May 1. While conducting their research, CoFI learned of the Dickey and Tiahrt Amendments, which impose restrictions on funding and sharing data that trace a gun’s origin. “[These amendments] created a culture in which [gun violence research] is looked down upon and is really hard to do,” Ellis said. “If you look at how much research has been done, there is not a lot compared to
how much gun violence occurs in the United States every year.” Ellis added that, in her view, the amount of research currently conducted by the University and CoFI is minor compared to the amount of research dedicated to other public health issues. Their resolution on gun violence research was first introduced during an SG assembly on April 23. Jason Castaneda, another Pritzker student in CoFI, commented that SG displayed a general consensus concerning their research, but it originally questioned the possibility of political backlash. Castaneda discussed the issue of political backlash on Monday, saying that CoFI recently met with a UChicago Medicine expert on research funding who said that the risk of any federal funding cuts is low, because grants are typically awarded in rigorous, peer-reviewed processes. He added that CoFI also discussed their proposal last week with Valerie Jarrett, a former senior adviser to former President Barack Obama and a current distinguished
senior fellow at the Law School. “We also met with Valerie Jarrett last week, to have her read this resolution and get advice on our advocacy campaign,” Castaneda said. “She was really supportive, and thinks the University would actually consider what we’re trying to do, as long as we have support from students and faculty.” CoFI plans to meet with Michele Rasmussen, dean of students in the University, in the future to discuss involving University administration and faculty in order to gain the University’s support on gun violence research. “We’re hoping to [include more faculty] perspectives, since we talked to students and Student Government,” said Kavia Khosla, a Pritzker student in CoFI. Ellis hopes to reach out to many faculty members for support, such as those who previously showed interest in gun violence research by signing a letter in 2013 following the shooting in Newtown, CT.
THE CHICAGO MAROON - MAY 15, 2018
“What falls within that exception of paramount values?” Continued from front
situation, the same way you couldn’t sue someone for libel if you had an abortion and they called you a baby-killer.” Stone, a First Amendment scholar, clarified that Horowitz’s actions cannot qualify as hate speech, because the concept of “hate speech” does not exist in United States’s legal terminology. “The very concept of hate speech is so vague and ill-defined that nobody knows what it is. Neither the First Amendment nor University policy recognizes a category of hate speech that is not protected by the First Amendment or by the University’s principles on free speech,” Stone said. Stone also chaired a committee to investigate the current state of free speech and students and faculty member’s right to it in July 2014, which culminated in the release of the Stone Report. The Stone Report is the most recent in a series of University-commissioned reports which reaffirm the core principle of the Kalven Report, which has dictated the University’s response to the Horowitz issue, as well as many other political controversies on this campus—namely, an unerring commitment to maximum freedom of speech. Today’s Stone Report raises a 1932 incident in which communist presidential candidate William Foster spoke to students at the request of a campus communist group. This invitation elicited alarm from onlookers and locals who viewed the University as a hotbed of left-wing radicalism. However, University President Robert Hutchins reaffirmed that the University’s students had the right to discuss any controversy they pleased, which included their right to hear from
Foster. Third-year anthropology Ph.D. candidate Alex Shams, a target of the Horowitz posters, found the University’s response to the posters confusing in the context of its free speech policy. Instead of prioritizing the free speech of all community members, he sees the University as prioritizing the rights of outside speakers over those of students. He thinks that the University fears that condemning Horowitz by name would be construed as a pro-Palestinian political statement in favor of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “I don’t think anyone has asked them to take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I’m afraid that…a big reason for the inaction around the targeting of SJP is that people consider our political views to be controversial,” Shams said. To Shams, the free speech principles of the Kalven Report do not factor into the University’s possible response to Horowitz. “I think the Kalven Report is [not] relevant to this situation unless we believe that anti-Muslim hate speech is normal politics. The only way the Kalven Report is related to the situation is if the University thinks an outside hate group is a normal political opinion to have,” he said. Dean Boyer said that the Kalven and Stone Reports only derive their power from a community that holds them up and stands by them. “The reports are only as good as the community behind them—they’re pieces of paper! What do your students believe in? What are your principles?” Boyer said.
Autumn 2018 Courses in the Big Problems Capstone Curriculum for juniors and seniors
CENSORSHIP, INFO CONTROL, & REVOLUTIONS IN INFO TECHNOLOGY FROM THE PRINTING PRESS TO THE INTERNET Adrian Johns (History), Ada Palmer (History) BPRO 25425, HIST 25425, HIPS 25425, KNOW 25425, SIGN 26035
ENERGY & ENERGY POLICY
Stephen Berry (Chemistry), George Tolley (Economics) BPRO 29000, PBPL 29000, ENST 29000, ECON 26800 For more information, please see:
The Big Problems curriculum addresses matters of global or universal concern that intersect with several disciplines and aﬀect a variety of interest groups.
p r o b l e m s
such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace, or other student campaigns surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The posters, Dean of Students Michele Rasmussen wrote in an e-mail to students, violated University guidelines on appropriate posting. “The university’s policies and public statements have made it clear that unauthorized postings are not permitted on campus. We have not contacted outside groups,” Rasmussen said. The University reached out to targeted students afterwards to offer them emotional support, though it has not taken any further action. The University had condemned a similar set of Horowitz postings from last academic year, and sent out an e-mail discussing the most recent set, though some activists and targeted students did not feel it was specific enough, as the note did not name Horowitz or the action. Horowitz took responsibility for the posters on one of his websites, which is part of his far-right network of organizations, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC), which has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Horowitz frequently targets the University, which has seen a wave of pro-Palestinian activism in recent years. W. J. T. Mitchell, a professor of art history and English, was one of two faculty members targeted on the posters, which called Mitchell and the other targets “supporters of terrorism.” Mitchell did not take this lightly. “To claim…that I am a supporter of terrorism is more than just hyperbole. It’s really defamatory. If someone said that in 1975, terrorism didn’t mean then what it does now,” Mitchell said. “To be called a terrorist is very much equal to being called a Nazi, an anti-Semite…. It’s a very serious accusation.” Mitchell noted that the DHFC likely collaborated with another far-right, pro-Israeli organization called Canary Mission. Canary profiles students and faculty nationwide whom it believes to be threatening to campus attitudes toward Jews, the United States, Israel, or Jewish presence in higher education. However, Mitchell also noted that he is a tenured professor and therefore much safer than those most adversely affected by Canary Mission postings, which have targeted University students as well. “I have a long public record. If someone wants to attack me, bring it on,” he said. “But for students to be labeled this way can be a killer to [their] career prospects, and this is more true today than it was then, because of social media.” Mitchell and other targets have demanded that the University release a cease and desist letter telling Horowitz to stop coming to campus, that the University assist students in their reputation management, and that it collaborate with the other universities on the “Top 10 Worst Schools that Support Terrorists” list to coordinate a response to the DHFC as a group. Law professor and former Provost of the University Geoffrey Stone said that the content of the posters—which Mitchell had classified as defamation—gave no grounds for legal action. “[Defamation] entails a factually false statement about an individual that defames their reputation, but it has to be factually false. The use of the word ‘terrorist,’ which I gather is part of the problematic issue, is hyperbole. It is not a factual statement, and it is understood obviously in that context,” he said. “You could not sue someone for libel in this
b i g
the book about the First Amendment his father was working on when he died. As such, he has a unique insight into Harry Kalven’s views on the limits of free speech and how these could factor into a document like the Kalven Report. “My father’s position was that the First Amendment is almost an absolute, but everything hinges on that ‘almost.’ We have to be prepared to have that argument again and again in those types of situations, and that’s a good thing,” Jamie Kalven said. “If it’s an absolute, people just sort of apply it reflexively, thoughtlessly, and don’t really grapple generation to generation with the nature of the principle.” The question, then, is what constitutes an issue “of paramount value” for the University. “What falls within that exception of paramount values? Does the Vietnam War, does South Africa, does climate change? Didn’t the University express formally and publicly as the University against the Muslim ban? The way the University handled the Muslim ban was an example, and an honorable one, of how the University might respond in such circumstances,” Kalven said. Is it of paramount value to the University if a far-right organization uses posters to name students and faculty members as anti-Israeli terrorists? Dean of the College John Boyer referenced his own children and grandchildren, one of whom is about to start college, in response to the question. “If I were a parent, I would want the University to help, and to not have it be seen as a geopolitical thing,” he said. “Universities need to do what they think is the right thing.” The University has taken a position on some of the current presidential administration’s decisions, including the rollback of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the travel ban that limited entry to the U.S. for citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. However, the University addresses these issues on an as-needed basis in determining what is of “paramount value,” which Kalven believes appropriate. A good university, according to the Kalven Report, is a controversial one. The mission of any institution of higher education, the report says, is to discover and disseminate new knowledge. The report stipulates that the University must remain open to the whole of society, not closing itself off to any one viewpoint or criticizing one cultural norm while praising another. If the University took a position on the prominent social conversations of the day—be it Vietnam, the South African Apartheid system, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—the conditions for maximum academic freedom might be jeopardized. The report writers also concluded that students and faculty members’ right to protest complemented this principle, and that limiting the speech of the University as an institution would safeguard the speech of every member of its community. Some people on UChicago’s campus feel that some community members’ speech is more accepted than others’, however. Shortly after the start of this past fall quarter, unauthorized posters accusing students and faculty of terrorism appeared around UChicago’s campus. Facilities Services immediately removed the posters, which listed 25 student names and the images of two faculty members. The people listed on the posters were associated with Recognized Student Organizations supporting Palestinian rights,
THE CHICAGO MAROON - MAY 15, 2018
VIEWPOINTS To Donate, or Not To Donate? Donating to the Senior Class Gift Hurts, Not Helps, Odyssey Scholars on Campus Every year, UChicago launches a campaign to solicit donations from fourth-years towards the Senior Class Gift. The linchpin of the campaign is the Odyssey Scholarship program, designed to support diverse, low-income undergraduate students, many of whom are the first in their families to attend college. The relationship between the University and Odyssey Scholars may appear to be a benevolent one: The administration has graciously accepted us onto campus and we should be unconditionally grateful for its generosity. We, the undersigned graduating Odyssey Scholars, would like to challenge this narrative. We believe that the University often exploits Odyssey Scholars for two purposes. The first is to capitalize on our talents and labors as scholars and advocates while providing us with little support. We are regularly paraded out by University administrators as evidence of a diverse and inclusive environment—one that we have had to work hard to create and maintain for ourselves. The second purpose is to boost donations and increase the University’s overall prestige and ranking. In the eyes of the institution, Odyssey Scholars check several boxes in the rubric of diversity. Low-income? Yes. Students of color? Often. First-generation? Mostly. The Odyssey Scholarship provides marginalized students greater access to education, but this serves a double purpose. By accepting non-traditional students, the University lays claim to its twin values of diversity and inclusion. With the rollout of the No Barriers program, the University gar-
nered national support and acclaim for its “pioneering” commitment to removing educational barriers. Admitting and funding low-income students becomes a pathway for prestige and honor for the University. Marg inalized students are only worthwhile to the University insofar as they can produce value and innovation in their respective fields. Acceptance of non-traditional students is a calculated move in enhancing the University’s image and reputation. On many occasions, top administrators have argued that the University’s “rigorous inquiry” and “intellectual culture” rely on the diversity of its students and scholars. We saw the dangerous implications of this after the Trump administration threatened to terminate DACA. In a public letter to Trump, President Robert J. Zimmer condemned this move on the basis that it would starve the University of the “talent and energy that [immigrants] bring to this country.” In the same way that the University believes that immigrants are only important for their contributions, the University denies the humanity of many low-income students and students of color on this campus. As Odyssey Scholars, we are deeply familiar with the burden of producing value for the University. Marginalized students and multicultural organizations are responsible for making the University a welcoming environment for diverse students. By inviting speakers, holding workshops, and planning events, Odyssey Scholars put in the labor of fostering community because the University will not. Marginalized
students have to conduct research, organize students, and advocate for resources from administration. But time after time, the University has refused to allocate more time and attention to the needs of marginalized students. For years, students have been asking for greater food security, a welcoming housing culture, reliable and adequate financial aid, and enhanced bias reporting mechanisms with little substantive support or acknowledgment from the University. Only after years of advocacy were low-income students granted the Center for College Student Success. But at what cost? Students struggle with these extra responsibilities while attempting to maintain grades, part-time jobs, social lives, and their well-being. We advocate for ourselves because no one else will. With this burden, our mental health suffers and the University fails to sufficiently provide the resources we need. And all the while, the University administration pats itself on the back and calls this campus welcoming and inclusive. At the end of every school year, the University asks fourth-years to donate to the Senior Class Gift, where one of the programs to which you can donate is the Odyssey Scholarship program. Students guilt other seniors into donating by lambasting those who refuse to give, referring to those unfortunate Odyssey Scholars. Wealthy donors inform students that they will only donate to the Odyssey Scholarship if enough students give to the Senior Class Gift. This is all misleading. The University’s No Barriers program guarantees
full financial support and a need-blind admissions policy. According to the program, students will not be turned away for their inability to pay tuition. The University needs to make good on its commitment to low-income students, regardless of donations. Donating to the Odyssey Scholarship program just removes part of the burden from the University to support low-income students. Don’t fall for this trap. While the donations the University solicits from both us and alumni are not insignificant, they do serve another purpose—to boost the prestige of the University. However, when the University has continued to exploit us while denying us necessary resources like mental health care for years, we refuse to let the University do so in our name. The University must stop manipulating our image to guilt more donation dollars from students. If UChicago is serious about its commitment to marginalized students, it needs to support us not just in the admissions process, but after we arrive on campus too. To fourth-years, other students, and alumni: Until the University actualizes this commitment to fully support low-income students and students of color, we ask you to refuse to donate. Signed, Alyssa Rodriguez, Julie Xu, Soreti Teshome, Tunisia Tai, Diego Cardenas, Ada Alozie, Kenya Senecharles, Eric Holmberg, Ben Glover, Claire Moore, Larissa Santana, José Heredia, Shayla Harris, and Sara Zubi
Freedom of (Gun) Research Limitations on Gun Research Stand in the Way of the University’s Efforts to Curtail Gun Violence “From the University’s first days, its leaders viewed urban engagement as a priority and the City of Chicago as a partner in developing innovative solutions to society’s most pressing needs…. It is our insistence on understanding underlying causes, our persistence in pursuing the data that creates new knowledge and better solutions, and our productive civic collaborations that make us a leader in addressing urban issues.” —University of Chicago Communications, Mission and Values
On November 19, 2007, a University of Chicago Ph.D. student was mugged, shot and killed at 61st Street and Ellis Avenue. The shooting of Amadou Cisse shook the campus to its core. A year later, the University of Chicago opened the Crime Lab to find solutions to urban violent crime. However, since then, the Crime Lab has struggled against constant impediments to pursue gun research. Most of the Lab’s funding comes from private foundations because of the limited federal
Grace Hauck, editor BUSINESS
Antonia Salisbury, chief financial officer
Euirim Choi, Editor-in-Chief Pete Grieve, Editor-in-Chief Katie Akin, Managing Editor Kay Yang, Managing Editor
Deepti Sailappan, editor Tyrone Lomax, editor Lee Harris, editor Alex Ward, editor VIEWPOINTS
Cole Martin, editor Urvi Kumbhat, editor ARTS
Brooke Nagler, editor May Huang, editor SPORTS
Michael Perry, editor Audrey Mason, editor DESIGN
Peng-Peng Liu, head designer
Morganne Ramsey, copy chief Michelle Zhao, copy chief Katrina Lee, copy chief Patrick Lou, copy chief GREY CITY
Wendy Lee, editor Greg Ross, associate editor Emily Feigenbaum, associate editor SOCIAL MEDIA
Hunter Morgan, editor ONLINE
Vishal Talasani, editor Hari Pingali, deputy editor PHOTO
Feng Ye, editor Zoe Kaiser, editor Brooke Nagler, editor
Alex Chung, director of development Micahel Vetter, Xavier Worsley, directors of marketing James Kon, director of operations Brian Dong, director of strategy Regina Filomeno, business manager Harry Backlund, distributor THIS ISSUE
Design Associates: Editor-in-Chief: Editor@ChicagoMaroon.com Newsroom Phone: (312) 918-8023 Business Phone: (408) 806-8381 For advertising inquiries, please contact Ads@ChicagoMaroon.com or (408) 8068381. Circulation: 2,000. © 2018 The Chicago Maroon Ida Noyes Hall / 1212 East 59th Street Chicago, IL 60637
dollars set aside for gun research. Additionally, because U.S. law prohibits the use of gun trace data for research purposes, the Crime Lab has been unable to adequately address the pertinent question of where illegal guns come from. The University of Chicago is revered as one of the greatest research institutions in the world, and that reputation is well-earned. The University includes, “developing innovative solutions to society’s most pressing needs” as a core part of its mission—something that students and faculty are called upon to pursue. The question then arises: What should the University do when its ability to derive solutions to a pressing societal need, especially one that hits incredibly close to home, is thwarted? Gun violence research has had a target on its back for decades. Most people have not heard of the Dickey Amendment, and those who have may not understand why it caused such a national freeze on gun research. The amendment was passed in response to a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that found that simply keeping a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide. Seeing this project as an effort to advocate for gun control, the National Rifle Association campaigned to eliminate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the organization which had funded the study. In response, Congress passed the
Dickey Amendment in 1996, which declared that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” To many, this statement may seem obvious. As scholars and researchers, we know that good research must be unbiased. It should convey objective findings, not “advocate or promote” certain points of view, especially when these perspectives necessarily influence the nature of the research itself. So why did gun research need its own declaration of objectivity? Following passage of the bill, Congress stripped and reallocated the meager $2.6 million dedicated to firearm research in the CDC—but funding wasn’t the only problem generated by the Dickey Amendment. By making it clear that those in power would be monitoring gun research closely, the Dickey Amendment effectively silenced individuals seeking to engage in the study of firearms. The words “gun” or “firearm” had to be removed in order to secure government funding, a publication, or even an advertisement. The implications of this piece of legislation are significant. The Dickey Amendment represents a condoned use of fear tactics against those who want to study guns. A recent study from the Journal of the American Medical Association comparing the top 30 causes of death in the U.S. showed that from 2004 to 2015, CDC funding for Continued on page 5
THE CHICAGO MAROON - MAY 15, 2018
“Most of the Lab’s funding comes from private foundations because of the limited federal dollars set aside for gun research.” Continued from page 4
gun violence research received 1.6 percent of the funding predicted based on its associated rate of mortality. The following year, Chicago set a record for homicides, reaching 762 deaths. As a University that recently opened a new Level I trauma center, we would hope efforts to find evidence-based solutions for gun violence would grow exponentially. But will young academics—like ourselves—be discouraged from making a career of this
work? Will the lack of grants available for this kind of research deter them from the field, into a more lucrative and supported one? The University is notoriously cautious when it comes to taking public stances on social issues. The Kalven Report of 1967 explains the University’s reasons for this silence, including protecting the free expression of all viewpoints on campus. However, the Kalven Report also states, “From time
to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” “In such a crisis,” the Report explains, “it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.” The University has finally fulfilled a commitment to the City of Chicago by opening a new trauma center, and should consider it mission-central to study
the causes of trauma. The significant barriers to gun violence research impede the University’s ability to do so. At what point must the University ask itself what it must do to defend its freedom to inquire? Kavia Khosla, Gena Lenti, and Katie Ellis, are first-years at the Pritzker School of Medicine.
Vote No on the ELRA Passing the Executive Leadership Remuneration Act and Paying SG Undermines the Integrity of the Organization Note: This piece was written before the ELRA was passed on Monday evening. For further coverage, refer to the front page. I write to The M aroon in strong opposition to the Executive Leadership Remuneration Act (ELRA), a proposed Student Government (SG) resolution that would, according to The M aroon, pay the SG president $4,500 per year and the vice presidents $2,250 per year—in total, a figure over 40 percent of the current SG administrative budget. Monetary concerns aside, I oppose this act on the basis of the principles of PIE: Priority, Integrity, and Equity. I first want to question its priority: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t seem to recall anyone campaigning to implement this reform, despite elections being so recent in memory. I find it extremely concerning that one of the first pieces of legislation introduced would be the ELRA. Why is SG, with many of its members having only just
won reelection, not first doing what it has been promising? What does this say about its priorities? Even worse, what would be the consequences of paying SG be for the integrity of SG as a whole? Do we as a student body want to view our SG as a salaried job? In principle, at the very least, those who serve on SG should be doing so out of a sincere passion for this school and their work, and are rewarded with the satisfaction of service. In practice, I’m going to call a spade and note that members of SG have a very, very prestigious line on their resumes. If we were to alter the incentives behind the position to include monetary compensation, the very integrity and motivations of the SG would be compromised. More importantly, compensating members isn’t going to attract more qualified applicants to SG. These students, in principle, at least, would have already been motivated to apply. Finally, I raise the point of equity, the
belief that a government—or a student government—shouldn’t give preferential treatment under its rules. The basis of ELRA is presumably that Slate deserves a salary because of their hours of hard work. However, under this reasoning, RSOs should be allowed to pay their leadership as well. On campus, I am primarily involved in two activities: Model UN and The Blue Chips. The president of Model UN spends a bare minimum of three hours a week at scheduled, team-wide meetings. Last week, he provided an additional four hours of supplementary training sessions, in addition to making nearly his entire week available for individual training sessions, adding another eight-and-a-half hours to his schedule given the number of people who signed up. And this doesn’t even begin to get at the time he spends on the internal skills training group he leads and the countless hours spent at team leadership meetings he attends as well.
Both the Investment Committee Chair and the President of The Blue Chips, who conduct in-depth research and work to thoroughly understand a new company pitch every week, demonstrate a similar unpaid dedication to their RSO. If SG Executives deserve a University salary that comes out of our pockets, there is no good reason that leaders of RSOs don’t. After all, to use the language of the resolution itself, the ELRA is a salary that masquerades as “a leadership award.” As The M aroon notes, a resolution that aimed to institute a salary for SG leadership failed to pass two years ago. We made the right choice then; let’s make it again. This Monday, let’s stay vigilant and call the ELRA what it ought to be—a PIE in the sky. Let’s note how our representatives vote, and let our representatives note that we will be taking names. David Liu is a first-year in the College.
A staged reading by the Shakespeare Project of Chicago By Rowan Williams Directed by Peter Garino Presented by the Shakespeare Project of Chicago Sponsored by the Lumen Christi Institute and the International House Global Voices Program
“Shakeshafte” is a “fantasia” on the possible relationship between William Shakespeare and Edmund Campion. May 3 | 3pm | International House, University of Chicago
For more information and to register visit www.lumenchristi.org
THE CHICAGO MAROON - MAY 15, 2018
ARTS FOTA: A Week of Fresh, Original, Talented Artistry BY ZOE BEAN ASSOCIATE ARTS EDITOR
“This is a huge, radical expansion from what we had last year,” explained fourthyear Kaesha Freyaldenhoven, executive director of Festival of the Arts (FOTA). The arts RSO just finished SpringFest, its series of arts exhibits and shows. Unlike past years, in which the group has only put on two or three events a year, this year they have expanded to several events a quarter. This spring they hosted a picnic on Bartlett quad, a gallery night, a performance night, and two seminars in collaboration with other campus arts organizations. “I’ve been thinking a lot about the way art influences individuals in a public space and what sort of narratives art can intentionally or subversively perpetuate,” Freyaldenhoven said. FOTA’s SpringFest was clearly modeled after this inquiry. Their gallery and performance nights featured a wide array of UChicago artists, with works on display in Hallowed Grounds, Reynolds Club, Sanctuary Cafe, and Cobb Coffee Shop. FOTA is certainly visible: Four mannequins wearing glittering designs by Aleksandra Majka loomed large at the top of the stairs in Reynolds, and collages, paintings, and posters brightened the walls of the aforementioned cafes. Work by visual arts (DOVA) majors and minors was on display alongside pieces by non-majors. While one might assume that such an exhibition would come across as a “Student art show” with a capital “S,” SpringFest produced some genuinely masterful pieces, and it’s safe to say that UChicago’s spring art scene is now in full bloom. FOTA is not just for visual artists: During the performance night, UChicago’s own Blue Maroon performed the eclectic mashup of genres for which they are quickly gaining campus fame. As part of SpringFest, Conor Bulkeley-Krane and Simeon Dafere de both showcased EDM creations and rapper Black Sam (aka fourth-year Ben Glover) performed at Alpha Delta Phi on Saturday night. As with past FOTA events, the true strength of these shows was their ability to bring together artists of all experience levels who are interested in all sorts of genres,
illustrating the wide array of artistic endeavors at UChicago. “In the nebulous sense, we aim to unite the life of the mind with the life of the arts,” Freyaldenhoven stated. “Artists are really bound as cultural producers, and so there are limited financial opportunities, and these limited financial opportunities constrain creativity, forcing artists to compromise and propose works that perpetuate the dominant values, [...] simply in an effort to receive funds. So the beauty of FOTA is that we fund artists without asking anything in return.” FOTA, like many organizations, receives RSO funding, allowing them the freedom to support as many artists as possible each quarter. The FOTA board asks interested artists to submit an application detailing their vision, plan, timeline and budget. However, the content of these applications is not so much the focus of the review process as their intention: Freyaldenhoven stressed that they aim to accept any plan that they believe is feasible. This spring they funded over 45 artists. “Having a liberal arts curriculum brings a really interesting lens to artistic practice, because you’re able to consider social theories. I think it fosters an interdisciplinary approach to the arts that may not be about the materiality and practice itself, but you’re drawing from different ideas from different disciplines. [...] There’s this cross-pollination of ideas that is really unique to being at UChicago,” Freyaldenhoven described enthusiastically. UChicago is not synonymous with art, especially considering its proximity to arts-specific schools like the School of the Art Institute of Chicago or Columbia College. However, as Freyaldenhoven posits, UChicago prepares students to create art with its interdisciplinary approach, one which examines a broad range of subject matter. FOTA’s resistance to evaluating prospective artists and performers based on content helps it succeed in its promise to support art exploration and experimentation. “We’re living in an age where the arts are really undervalued, in my opinion. I mean, Trump cut funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. It’s absolutely infuriating, and people are having to sac-
Designs by fourth-year Aleksandra Majka.
Photos by Sophia Corning
Artwork by first-year Anshika Bajpai. rifice their creative pursuits and hopes,” Freyaldenhoven lamented. “I hope with FOTA that we are able to continue to fund the creative, inspiring artists we have on campus, so that they can continue to brighten the world that we live in with their amazing ideas.” FOTA certainly seems to be achieving
this goal. In an age when art funding is increasingly limited and further threatened by the government, the importance of FOTA cannot be more obvious. Following in the footsteps of larger arts incubators and fellowship programs, FOTA gives artists the financial security and platform to create and display their work.
Betiyann Captures South Asian-American Identity in Snapshots BY JAD DAHSHAN ARTS STAFF
Fatima Khan (right) and Shreya Sood (left) are the artistic minds behind Betiyaan.
Entering Sanctuary Cafe, one is immediately greeted by the artwork on its walls: Hindi, Urdu, and English text clustered around a series of black and white photographs. The title of fourthyears Fatima Khan and Shreya Sood’s installation is scrawled above in big letters: Betiyaan. Translated as “Daughters” from both Hindi and Urdu, the word is rife with cultural connotations that complicate the primarily filial denotation of the word. The photographs, taken by Khan, capture other fourthyears of various desi identities. They explore South Asian pluralism, the toxic vestiges of historical rivalries, racism directed towards brown identities, and the importance of dialogue in fostering minority solidarity. “For the majority of my life, I found myself repressing my cultural identity or…[not knowing how] to be around really racist people,” said Khan, who grew up in a predominantly white suburb near Chicago. “Coming here, I experienced the inverse of that, where it was
almost fetishized.” Khan and Sood drew several of the phrases scrawled on the wall from experiences with American racism, such as “ You smell like cumin” or the especially derogatory “You’re pretty for a brown girl.” However, the South Asian-American experience goes beyond white microaggressions. “I’ve spent a lot of time ref lecting on certain backwards mentalities that come out of our own cultures as well,” Sood explained. “I’ve always struggled with how to embrace my culture, to represent and advocate for it, [despite the] things about my culture that I’m not proud of…. And those things aren’t static: they evolve through conversation.” With other work by artists of color on display, Sanctuary Cafe seemed like an appropriate platform for the artists to propel the kind of dialogues they hope to foster. Betiyaan was also born out of numerous conversations between Khan, Sood, and others who contributed to the exhibit. For example, third-year Megha Bhattacharya illustrated the design on Betiyaan’s Facebook page and the postContinued on page 7
THE CHICAGO MAROON - MAY 15, 2018 Continued from page 6
ers around campus. “[We] wanted to represent the diversity within the South Asian identity in a way that subverts notions of alienation between groups within it,” Sood stated. “We also wanted to convey the American side as well: baseball cap, big hoop earrings. We don’t have to be one or the other, and we don’t have to have barriers between each other.” Khan further emphasized this goal for solidarity between South Asian ethnic groups. “Another thing we wanted to address with this project is this animosity that exists, specifically between Pakistan and India, but more generally between different ethnic groups within South Asia. We really wanted to showcase both Urdu and Hindi on the walls because although they’re practically the same language, they don’t ever appear together because they’re so tied to nationality.… Regardless of whether you’re Hindu or Muslim, regardless of
whether you’re Pakistani or Indian, we hear the same phrases, like ‘What will people say?’ or ‘Shame on you.’ ... Why are we at odds with each other when our experiences, cultures, values are so similar?” With regards to the title, Sood underscored the term’s nuances: “Betiyaan is used as a term of endearment but also to deindividualize a group of girls, and this is our way of reclaiming that. It’s kind of an invisibilizing term. Something that I’ve always taken issue with—and which is why I think it lends itself so well a movement like this—is that there are so many notions of Indian and Pakistani values associated with what good daughter is. It’s very limited in its definition. You have to be subdued and obedient and quiet and reserved and industrious and domestic…. That’s why the word “beti” is so loaded. We’re reclaiming the fact that we can be good daughters, adhering to and keeping our culture alive—sticking to our tradition
to an extent but carving our own path. But taking risks. Conventionally, that would define us as bad betiyaan. Playing with that trope has been fun.” The project had started with photography, as Khan’s interest in the medium had “evolved from a hobby to a side hustle to an exhibition the past year,” during which she refined her editing and framing skills, did on-campus assignments, and created an impressive online portfolio. For Betiyaan, she drew inspiration from activist photography, a lot of which is black-and-white, with high contrast and striking use of shadows. “I also tried to play with grain,” explained Khan. “I think a certain graininess in photos imparts them with a sense of nostalgia and familiarity, so while they’re striking, there’s something about them that makes you want to pull in further.” The photographs’ appeal also lies in their narrative quality. Sood pointed
out how the four central portraits “are meant to convey the some of those constraints that we are often faced with, whether it’s colorism—which is very strong in South Asia—certain career choices, marriage pressures, or just silencing and invisibility. The other, surrounding portraits are meant to convey means of escaping those boxes and finding personal empowerment.” Ultimately, Betiyaan intends to foster an ongoing conversation about the issues facing the people who fit under the label “South Asian American,” and explore the ways in which those conflicts can be ameliorated—particularly by the younger generation, who have the power to renegotiate historical relations. “There’s a lot of work that needs to be done,” Sood admitted, “we’re just trying to get started.” An official gallery reception for B etiyaan will be held on May 17 and will feature live performances by sundry South Asian artists.
From Small Screen to Silver Screen: An Interview With Searching Directors BY ERIC GUZMAN ARTS STAFF
If, according to doughnut man David Lynch, watching a film on your cell phone is a sad excuse for a cinematic experience, then watching a film told almost entirely through a computer screen should be equally disappointing. After spending all day looking at both my phone and laptop, I find it hard to imagine going to the movies just to see these same small screens blown up onto the silver screen. And yet, Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian utilize these screens from our everyday life to craft a film that is not only an entertaining modern twist on the murder mystery thriller, but also a compelling reflexive take on Internet interconnectedness and family. Debuting at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival, Searching revolves around David Kim (played by John Cho of the Harold & Kumar series and Star Trek), looking for his missing 16-year-old daughter. After 37 hours with no lead and no help from the local investigator (Debra Messing of Will & Grace fame), David decides to take the investigation into his own hands by looking through his daughter’s laptop to digitally retrace her last steps. At the festival, the film was the recipient of the Sundance 2018 NEXT Audience Award and the Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize—which recognizes an outstanding film focusing on science or technology. Described by director/coscreenwriter
Chaganty as a “classic thriller told in an unconventional way,” Searching is indeed an unconventional film masked in the familiar lens of everyday electronic devices. However, more than just another film with a gimmick, Searching manages to utilize its hypermodern point of view to produce a stirring defamiliarization of modern technology and the role it plays in modern-day parenting, grief and self-expression. Rather than making me want to check Facebook, it makes me want to check up on my mom. Two weeks after showcasing their film at the Music Box Theatre for the Chicago Critics Film Festival, Chaganty and coscreenwriter/producer Ohanian sat down with The M aroon to discuss the creative process behind Searching and their future projects together. Chicago Maroon [CM]: What was the creative process like during the screenwriting stage of the film? Aneesh Chaganty [AC]: It took a long time before we finally figured out the story we were going to write. Our early drafts were nothing like what ended up on screen. We had an early version of the film that was more like Taken and another version that had a sex cult going on. Sev Ohanian [SO]: Because of our busy work schedules, a lot of our writing was done at night, sometimes while we were in different cities. I’ve worked with people before who have a very clear outline of what they wanted to make but with Aneesh it was just many late nights of constant pitch-
ing of ideas and trying to chisel those ideas into a cohesive story. In fact, Aneesh would do this thing where he would rewrite the same information over and over. I would write something on a whiteboard and then he’d go and type what I had written onto a Google Drive file and then take that and transfer it onto an Excel spreadsheet. And it was the same thing written each time, just through all these different filters. AC: What? I don’t remember that. [laughs] CM: At the heart of this film is a very strong detective drama in which the father David uses social media to become a sort of hard-boiled detective searching for his missing daughter. What sort of films or detective stories did you rely on to make this film? AC: We looked at a lot of missing child/ ransom stories, studying their various story beats to see what worked and what didn’t work. We didn’t just look at films either, we also looked at video games and podcasts, too. The Serial podcast was actually a huge influence for us. CM: There seems to be this warring conflict between the interconnectedness of social media and the interconnectedness of family. The lead investigator asks David to tell her the only thing a parent would know: who his daughter’s friends are. And yet, David is completely at a loss, relying on social media to find out who his daughter talks to. In this instance, the film seems to portray social media as a big brother archetypal figure that knows more about a child than
a parent does. How did you come up with this idea and how did it structure your film? AC: Wow. Yeah, not going to lie, that is not something we thought about when making the film. But it definitely works. Thinking back on it, I totally see how you could come up with that conclusion of social media as a big brother but it’s not something we initially tried to set out to do. When we were writing the film, our biggest guiding principle was this idea where in a world where everything is so connected, a father and a daughter are disconnected. CM: This film is going to draw a lot of comparisons to Unfriended due its similar use of single screen suspense. Were you inspired by Unfriended at all and if so, how did you want to differentiate your film so as to not replicate or remake it? SO: We actually hadn’t seen Unfriended before we started making Searching. We initially pitched Searching as a short film and then our production company [Baselevs Company], which also produced Unfriended, liked it so much they asked for a feature…. In many ways, our film is nothing like Unfriended. That film is a horror/found footage film that all takes place on one computer screen. What we pitched, and what we were envisioning for our film, was something much more cinematic. We wanted to make a sprawling, crime detective drama that took place over 12 years and over several screens. Full interview online.
Where Fun Comes to Scav: 2018 Edition
Full photo essay online
Photos by Alexandra Nisenoff
THE CHICAGO MAROON - MAY 15, 2018
SPORTS Maroon Men Advance to NCAA DIII Quarterfinals TENNIS
BY ANDREW BEYTAGH SPORTS STAFF
The University of Chicago men’s tennis team dominated as hosts of this weekend’s regional round of the NCA A tournament. Coming into the tournament, the Maroons were rolling, having won all three of their matches at the UA A Championship including an upset of No. 2 Emory University. The NCA A championship was supposed to be played outdoors, but the fickle Chicago weather drove the tennis indoors to the XS Tennis Village. During Saturday’s play, the Maroons drew Augustana College, which defeated John Carroll College 5 –2 on Friday. The Maroons made swift work of the Vikings, only dropping one doubles match in a 5 –1 victory. Chicago went up 2–1 after doubles play by taking No. 2 and No. 3 doubles. Then, during singles play, third-year Charlie Pei made quick work of his opponent 6 – 0, 6 –1. Pei was quickly followed by fourthyear David Liu at No. 5 singles who won 6 – 0, 6 –3. Then, fourth-year Luke Tsai closed out the match with a 6 – 0, 6 –3 win at No. 3 singles. UChicago welcomed back Liu, who had been sidelined from an injury since February of 2017. Liu is a three-time ITA All-American. Second-year player Ninan Kumar commented on getting Liu back in the lineup by saying, “It was great to have David back on court. He’s been suffering with injuries for two years and he’s worked extremely
hard to get back to the level that he is at right now. He brings a lot of energy and has made a name for himself for four years so I’m lucky that I get to play alongside him.” On Sunday, the clouds parted and the rains stopped as the Maroons shifted outside to the Stagg tennis court to take on UAA foe Carnegie Mellon. This was the third time this season that Chicago squared off against the Tartans. Going into the match, UChicago knew this would be one of its toughest thus far. The No. 9 Tartans were looking to ruin a historic season for the Maroons and came out firing. Carnegie quickly controlled No. 2 doubles, but fourthyears Nicolas Chua and Liu dominated at No. 3 doubles 8 –3. That left a hotly contested No. 1 doubles match. Coming off of a loss on Saturday against Augustana, the team of second-years Erik Kerrigan and Kumar quickly fell down 2– 0 but came roaring back. The team of Kumar and Kerrigan went on to break Carnegie’s serve twice after being down 6 –4 to rally for a massive 8 – 6 win. “Being down 4 – 6 was obviously not ideal for us, so we really were shocked when we went down early,” Kumar said. “Carnegie came out firing and we did our best to stay close. Having a lead going into singles is huge so I’m really happy we were able to win this match. The crowd really brought a lot of energy and it was great to have their support.” The crowd of students, fans, and other members of the tennis team echoed around Stagg courts as
University of Chicago
Fourth-year Luke Tsai powerfully hits a forehand towards his opponent. breaks of serves were happening left and right. UChicago fed on this home court advantage and carried the momentum from doubles play into singles. The singles matches all began very tight initially, including David Liu’s. However, the fou r th-yea r stead ied himself en route to a 6 –4, 6 –2 victory. Following Liu came Pei. Pei shook off a tough second set to win the third set handily 6 –3, 1–6, 6 –1. Finally, to close out the match again, Tsai won a grueling two sets 6 –4, 6 –1 to give Chicago the team victory. Kumar commented Tsai’s clutch performances over the weekend. He
said, “ Luke just mentally and physically collapses his opponents and he does it over and over again. He’s a guy that we can always rely on to clinch big matches and he will continue to do so as we go forward in the NCA A Championship.” T he Maroons will pa ck their bags and head for Claremont, Californi a to tak e on th e h ost Clarem o n t- M u d d- S c r i pp s in t h e q u a rterf in als of th e NCA A DI I I Team Championship.
Women Conquer Beginning of NCAA Tournament TENNIS
BY TRENT CARSON SPORTS STAFF
The University of Chicago women’s tennis team breezed its way to two easy victories in the second and third rounds of the NCA A DIII Championship tournament. The Maroons started the postseason off with a bang, quickly dispatching both opponents without dropping a match on their way to secure a spot in the NCAA DIII quarterfinals for the eighth time in school history. After a bye in the first round, the Maroons took on the unranked Pioneers from Grinnell College. The women dominated doubles, sweeping all three matches for the eighth time this season. First-year Claire Handa and second-year Marjorie Antohi made quick work of their competition, dropping only one game en route to an 8–1 victory in number one doubles. The first-year combo of Catherine Xu and Daryn Ellison continued the Maroon domination, easily taking their match 8–2. Second-years Estefania Navarro and Alyssa Rudin brought the team score to 3 – 0 with a
swift 8–1 win in number three doubles. UChicago continued to control the competition, winning two singles to bring the score to 5 – 0 and end the match. Antohi did not drop a single game in her number two singles match, crushing her opponent 6 – 0, 6 – 0. Navarro then clinched the match with the final team point, defeating Grinnell’s number four singles player 6–1, 6–0. At the decision, a quick 90 minutes into the match, the Maroons were winning on the other four courts, putting on a stellar display that showcased their talent. Following the second round, the Maroons brought their energy and their A-game to demolish the host school UW–Whitewater. Doubles started the day off with another sweep to bring the total to nine on the season, with Handa and Antohi winning 8 –4, Xu and Ellison winning 8–4, and Navarro and Rudin winning 8–3. The Maroons showed their dominance in doubles, setting the team up 3 – 0 going into singles. Rudin took care of her competition with a strong 6 –2, 6 –2 victory, followed by
UPCOMING GAMES SPORT DAY Opponent Men’s T&F Women’s T&F
North Central North Central
Handa with the clutch win of 6 –3, 6 –3 to send her team on to the next round. Looking back on the team’s two big victories, Handa said, “I think the key this weekend for us was our energy. We were able to come in with high energy from the start, and we’re playing great tennis from the first point. Our tennis thus far had been a great combination of aggression and patience in big points. I think we have a great mindset going into the Elite Eight.” Up next for the Maroons is a rematch of the 2018 UAA Championship against Emory University. The No. 1 Eagles dispatched Sewanee in a 5 –0 sweep of their own to advance to the Elite Eight. In the UAA Championship, the overall No. 10 Maroons fell to Emory 7–2, with the two wins coming from the number three doubles duo of Rudin and Navarro and number two singles Marjorie Antohi. Rudin and Navarro defeated their competition 8 – 6, followed by Antohi taking care of her opponent 6 –4, 6 –3. Ref lecting on her victory against Emory in the UAA Championships, Navarro says, “I think what made me and
my doubles partner successful is that we really never lost focus after a slow start. Usually in some matches you can drift off and lose some points, but after we were down 0–3 we told ourselves to just take it one point at a time, and we managed to win eight of the next 11 games. We really focused on being aggressive and just playing our game without worrying about the result.” In order to defeat Emory and bring home a team win this time, Navarro believes that “the team has to go into the match with the mentality that we have the ability and the talent to really put up a fight against Emory. I think we lost some belief in our last match, and by the time we tried to get it back it was too late. We also have to make sure we maintain high energy throughout the match, because that’s when we all play our best, knowing every single member of the team is there for each other.” On Monday, May 21, the No. 10 Maroons will look to keep their hot streak alive as they take on the No. 1 Eagles in the NCAA quarterfinals at Claremont, California.
TIME 11:45 a.m. 11:45 a.m.
SPORT Men’s Tennis Baseball Women’s Tennis
SCORE BOARD W/L Opponent
W L W
Carnegie Mellon Case Western UW-Whitewater
Score 5–2 4–11 5–0