Teach-In Marathon

Day of Action draws large turnout for sessions on social, political issues

Day of Action organizers talk with attendees at the March 6 event.

Mary Hui ’17

By Nikita Dutta GS, Anna Mazarakis ’16, and Allie Wenner

Published April 12, 2017

7 min read

More than 1,000 people took a break from their usual activities March 6 to attend a Day of Action organized by students in Frist Campus Center. The 12-hour event offered more than 60 teach-ins and talks by Princeton faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates about a wide range of social and political issues. 

“We wanted to provide an open platform to pull together ideas and commitments about what we can do going forward, both individually and collectively,” said Sebastien Philippe, a fifth-year Ph.D. student in mechanical and aerospace engineering and president of Princeton Citizen Scientists, a graduate-student group.

Phillippe said attendance for the event far exceeded the group’s expectations: Many rooms were filled to capacity, with people lining up in the halls outside to learn more about topics including environmental justice, Islamophobia and racism, gender inequality, right-to-life issues, and health care under the Trump administration.

In a session on science communication, Daniel Steinberg, director of education outreach at the Princeton Center for Complex Materials, challenged a group of students and scientists to explain their research drawing only from a list of commonly used words. Neuroscientist Sam Wang — perhaps better known for his website on polling and elections data — spoke on the politics and statistics behind gerrymandering, with redistricting scheduled to take place after the U.S. census in 2020. His session was so popular that it had to be moved to a larger room. 

Some talks were structured to be strictly informative, while others — such as a session on community organizing — had an activist bent, Philippe said. More than a dozen University and local organizations set up tables to share information and recruit members; 28 people registered to vote. 

Students said they came to the event to learn and to connect with others with a passion for similar issues.

“I’m a huge immigrant-rights advocate, but I realize that there are so many other topics on campus that people are passionate about. Being able to give them the space to teach me about something I may not know as much about is probably the most important thing that we can do for each other,” said Soraya Morales Nunez ’18. “Especially at a place like Princeton, because coming out of here you’ll have the resources to change the world.”

At a concluding session, organizers urged attendees to find a way to get involved — whether it be through contacting local officials, volunteering in the community, or some other action.

“Pick something and do it,” said Stevie Bergman, a physics Ph.D. student and member of Princeton Citizen Scientists. “Even if you try it and it takes up too much of your time and you realize it’s the wrong thing to do, you’ve learned something and someone else has gained something from your presence.”

The event was co-sponsored by the Citizen Scientists group and Princeton Advocates for Justice, a coalition of more than 25 student groups. Organizers said they hoped similar events would take place on other campuses. MIT plans a Day of Action April 18.  By A.W.


A Teach-In Sampler

Closing the Gender Gap in Science, Medicine 

Lack of space was no deterrent for Day of Action participants interested in “Closing the Gap: Gender and Prestige in Science and Medicine.” More than 30 attendees packed the floor to listen to Krupa Jani, a third-year graduate student in molecular biology, and Andrea Graham, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.

Jani and Graham centered the teach-in on three gender gaps in science: the representation gap, the wage gap, and the leadership gap. They began as scientists do — with numbers. Jani explained that not only do female scientists make less than male colleagues, but salaries for both men and women decrease as more women enter a profession. Even in a female-dominated field like nursing, men make about $5,000 more than women each year, they said.

For some attendees, these numbers were familiar. “Twenty years ago it was said that this is going to be a transient phenomenon,” said Jeanne Altmann, professor emerita of ecology and evolutionary biology. “But the numbers haven’t changed all that much.”

The presenters agreed, especially about leadership, where they cited a plateau across disciplines. From science to politics, women rarely occupy more than 20 percent of leadership positions, according to Jani. This is often in spite of a higher proportion of women receiving the required degrees. For Graham, this harms the whole community.

“Let’s have science represent the trainees of science,” she said.

The audience found this problematic as well. Jennifer Guyton, a fourth-year Ph.D. student in ecology and evolutionary biology, highlighted the need to “face those hard truths and recognize where our own biases lie.” 

“We need to be actively thinking about women scientists and actively showing young children, particularly young girls, that they can be scientists,” said Jim Wu, a first-year Ph.D. student in physics.  By Nikita S. Dutta GS


Debating the Rights of Mother and Fetus

With the Day of Action focusing on issues more commonly associated with liberal ideologies, a teach-in about protecting the rights of unborn fetuses stood out. “If we’re not taking care of the unborn and preserving their rights, we really can’t say we’re preserving anyone’s rights,” said Matthew Igoe ’20, who began the conversation.

The session, “Promoting a Consistent Life Ethic Across the Political Spectrum,” featured Wilson School professor John Londregan, Ana Samuel ’00 *02, Allie Burton ’17, and Igoe. The audience consisted largely of graduate students, many of whom questioned the panelists on their views regarding the rights and health of the mother, birth control, the relationship between abortion and euthanasia, and the viability of the fetus at varying points of the pregnancy. 

“The question is,” Londregan said, “should we go the lengths of being willing to kill someone in order to affirm the autonomy of another individual, given that the pregnancy process isn’t a permanent one and given that it is a part of our natural life cycle?” 

Samuel advised listeners to support pregnancy shelters and equip women with an “abortion safety checklist” that includes information about greater risks for conditions such as placenta previa, future premature births, and mental distress. She also suggested forming a network of alumnae who have chosen not to terminate their pregnancies. 

“I would love to see a group of alums come out and show why they are so happy they kept the child — that would be very inspiring, I think,” Samuel said. 

Not surprisingly, the panelists and audience did not come to an agreement on abortion rights by the end of the short teach-in, and conversations continued as participants left the room.  By Anna Mazarakis ’16


Community Organizing: Sharing Experiences 

Professor emeritus Cornel West *80 listens to Christine Philippe-Blumauer GS at a teach-in on community organizing.

Ethan Sterenfeld ’20

“If we don’t get it, shut it down!”
“If we don’t get it, shut it down!”

Nyle Fort, a second-year Ph.D. student studying religion and African American studies, asked the 100-plus audience members at a Day of Action panel on community organizing to chant these words along with him, and they did. The chant was a rallying cry in Ferguson, Mo., Fort said, when he traveled there in 2014 to protest the killing of Michael Brown. Fort described how he and other protesters made it their mission to embrace the chant and “shut everything down” — from the streets, to the malls, to a St. Louis Rams football game.

“But in the midst of all of this,” he said, “we began to think, ‘OK, we’re shutting stuff down, but what do we want to build up?’”

That led to his work with other activists to create Books and Breakfast, a program to provide children in Ferguson with a meal and a book before school and to foster a sense of community in a divided city. Fort was so inspired that he decided to bring the idea back to his hometown of Newark, N.J.

“There were a lot of people who were jobless or in jail, and a lot of young people who were poor,” he said. “Although those aren’t the kind of issues that would be covered by [major news networks], they are the things that affect people in our community every day, and we have to respond to those things.”

Two other graduate students shared their organizing experiences, one working to abolish security checkpoints targeting undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles, the other in efforts to expand affordable housing in Arlington, Va. 

Cornel West *80, professor emeritus of African American studies, urged those in the audience to make their voices heard. Hatred and discrimination “bring out the best of the country,” West said, referring to protests and demonstrations against actions taken by the Trump administration. “The problem simply is, we’re not winning — and that’s why organizing is important.”  By A.W.

4 Responses

Jenni Levy ’82, M.D.

7 Years Ago

Debating, With Facts

The following is a longer version of a letter from the May 17, 2017, print issue.

I have always said that the most important part of my Princeton education was not what I learned, but how I learned. I learned how to think critically, articulate my thoughts clearly, and to assess the quality of information presented to me. The Day of Action panel discussion on reproductive rights (On the Campus, April 12) did an injustice to this Princeton tradition. According to this account, the panelists presented information that was at best misleading and at worst flat-out wrong. To start with, there’s this paragraph:

“[Ana] Samuel [’00 *02] advised listeners to support pregnancy shelters and equip women with an ‘abortion safety checklist’ that includes information about greater risks for conditions such as placenta previa, future premature births, and mental distress.”

Those “greater risks” do not exist. The myth that women who choose to terminate early in pregnancy suffer “abortion trauma syndrome” is, as I said, myth. A study from 2009 found serious methodologic errors in the supporting “evidence” for this syndrome. Women who have a previous history of depression are at risk for recurrence, as they would be if they carried to term. There is no evidence that the risk of post-abortion depression is greater than the risk of postpartum depression.

I have searched Google Scholar as well as PubMed and cannot find any evidence that elective first-trimester abortion increases the risk of placenta previa or future premature births. Low socioeconomic status and poor access to prenatal care both increase the risk of prematurity. Women in those circumstances are also more likely to terminate, if they have access to services. Correlation does not equal cause and effect.

Then there’s Professor John Londregan’s question: “[S]hould we go the lengths of being willing to kill someone in order to affirm the autonomy of another individual, given that the pregnancy process isn’t a permanent one and given that it is a part of our natural life cycle?” Pregnancy may be a part of our natural life cycle (most likely not his life cycle, though). It is also a major cause of death and disability in the developing world. Even in industrialized countries with better maternal-health outcomes than the United States, pregnancy still carries a much greater risk of death and disability than any elective termination procedure. It is absurd to suggest that because something is “natural,” we should force people to experience it.

Professor Londregan is apparently willing to kill women to affirm the rights of fetuses. Again, the evidence is clear: When abortion is illegal or difficult to access, more women die. They die from pregnancy complications, like eclampsia, that can't be treated without terminating the pregnancy. They die from infections and other illnesses that can't be treated effectively without risk of injury to the fetus. They will die from illegal abortions, because women have sought abortions throughout recorded history and will continue to do so.

We also have evidence of effective approaches to reduce the number of abortions: increase access to birth control, improve sex education for teenagers, and provide medical care, social, and financial support for women who wish to carry to term. Most women who seek elective termination in the United States already have children. They understand that pregnancy is “temporary” and that it is “part of the natural life cycle.” They seek termination most often because they can’t afford another child. If Professor Londregan and his colleagues would like to reduce the number of abortions, I urge them to stop promulgating falsehoods and work to improve contraception access and support for prenatal care, infant nutrition, and early-childhood education.

There is a vigorous debate to have about the role of government in regulating the private lives of citizens. That’s a discussion worth having – as long as we are honest about the facts.

Walter Weber ’81

7 Years Ago

Taking Issue With Abortion Views

Published online July 6, 2017

There is so much wrong with Dr. Jenni Levy ’82’s letter (Inbox, May 17), it is hard to know where to begin.

1. Irrelevancy: Killing one’s own children is wrong, period. It would not matter if studies found that killing and eating one’s children was good for one’s health; or that neither parents nor other siblings would suffer adverse effects from the slaying of a child; or that sometimes parents die because of their children; or that some parents would kill their children even if it were illegal; or that some children are conceived in rape or incest; or that some children have disabilities.

Notice I did not say “unborn” children. Because that is the real issue: Do unborn human beings, like newborns, merit inclusion in the circle of humanity entitled to the most fundamental of human rights, namely, not to be slain deliberately? If the unborn do not count (contrary to the experience of mothers who grieve children lost to miscarriage or abortion; contrary to established science identifying the preborn as Homo sapiens; contrary to the undeniable continuity of a human being from conception to death, through all stages in between), then the myriad reasons offered to justify their termination are just so many red herrings.

2. Inaccuracy: Virtually every assertion Dr. Levy makes is factually, demonstrably false. Contrary to her claims,
a. Abortion is associated with an increased risk of subsequent preterm birth. http://media.wix.com/ugd/52...
b. Abortion is associated with an increased risk of adverse mental health. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cont...
c. The claim that abortion is safer than childbirth is a canard. http://media.aclj.org/pdf/W...
d. Increasing access to birth control, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, does not reduce the incidence of abortion. https://www.lifesitenews.co... (article by former Planned Parenthood clinic director); www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...
(listing various studies).

3. Illogic: Dr. Levy says being against abortion means being “willing to kill women.” Why? Because some women will die from pregnancy complications. But many more women will die from car accidents. Does that mean allowing automobile use means being “willing to kill women”? Moreover, plenty of women die from abortions. www.safeandlegal.com/the-pr... (listing individual cases). So by her own logic Dr. Levy is also “willing to kill women” ... not to mention the millions of unborn women killed by abortion.

I understand that Dr. Levy considers herself “progressive and open-minded” (www.christianitytoday.com/a...) and is publicly “pro-choice”  (www.huffingtonpost.com/jenn...). That does not mean she should swallow uncritically the talking points of abortion apologists.

Robert E. “Bob” Buntrock *67

7 Years Ago

I disagree with many to all...

I disagree with many to all of the points made in this letter. The original did not indicate "swallowing uncritically" pro-choice views. However, I could say that this letter writer has.

Karen Griffiths ’92

7 Years Ago

This letter is so well written...

This letter is so well written, and so absolutely correct. I'm disappointed in both Princeton as well as the PAW for letting this misinformation be spread by people who should know better, and for not checking it. We have so many examples today of facts being devalued or dismissed in the effort to further one's argument; I'm so glad that Dr. Levy pointed out some of the facts that counter the assertions and questions that were made during the panel (and presented in the article). I hope we can all agree that we all need to start from a base of factual information when we're going to debate such important issues, and I hope that PAW can do its part in taking a stand against misinformation.

Join the conversation

Plain text

Full name and Princeton affiliation (if applicable) are required for all published comments. For more information, view our commenting policy. Responses are limited to 500 words for online and 250 words for print consideration.

Related News

Newsletters.
Get More From PAW In Your Inbox.

Learn More

Title complimentary graphics