The Daily Princetonian: March 24, 2023

After 27 years: DAVID 59, GOLIATH 55

By Wilson Conn

Head Sports Editor

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

The parallels are unavoidable and abundant. A defensive battle. A Pac-12 champion. And most notably of all, Mitch Henderson ’98.

27 years after knocking off defending national champion UCLA in the first round of the NCAA Tournament, the head coach of Princeton men’s basketball — who was a sophomore guard on the 1996 Tigers team — is once again a tournament Cinderella. On Thursday afternoon, his 15thseeded squad (22–8, 10–4 Ivy League) knocked off two-seed Arizona (28–7, 14–6 Pac-12), 59–55, giving the Princeton men their first March Madness victory in a quarter-century.

The Tigers’ last tournament triumph was in 1998, but the 1996 win — the final victory in the three-decade career of legendary Princeton head coach Pete Carril — holds a special significance in connection with Thursday’s upset, and not just because of Henderson’s involvement. Carril passed away last August, and the team has worn his signature bow-tie on their uniform this season in

WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

his memory.

“So much of what I say is [Carril’s],” Henderson said after the team won Ivy Madness last weekend. “A lot of this is honoring him.”

At the same time, though, Henderson seems intent on carving out his own path, both for himself and the teams he coaches.

“There’s gonna be some comparisons from some of you, I’m sure, to coach Carril,” Henderson told the media after the win Thursday. “But I want to be really clear that this group did this, and that was a really long time ago.”

Indeed, in the nearly threedecades since the famous upset over UCLA, Princeton’s offensive style has changed tremendously. Gone are the days of careful cutting, draining the shot clock, and lulling opposing defenses to sleep. More so than during the Carril years, Henderson’s Tigers rely on their scoring and shotmaking, especially from the three-point line, to carry them to victory.

Yet, vestiges of the Carill era still remain. The offense, which was once run through facilitating big men like Kit Mueller ’91 and Steve Goodrich

‘98, now goes through the capable hands of senior forward Tosan Evbuomwan, who led the Ivy League this season in assists per game (5.2).

It must have been a concerning sight for Henderson, then, to see both his team’s shotmaking and Evbuomwan’s play falter early on against Arizona; the Tigers missed their first five threepoint attempts, and the star forward came up empty on his first four field goal attempts, including a three-pointer that sailed past the rim for an airball.

According to Henderson, it was one last remnant of the Carril era which carried the Tigers through their shaky start, and ultimately to victory: their grit.

“That’s the through-line in the program for us, toughness,” Henderson said after the game. “Things that are tough, that are really hard to do … [we take] pride in those things.”

This tenacity was required for the Tigers right from the tip, especially when facing off against Arizona’s big men, Ąžuolas Tubelis (6’11”) and Oumar Ballo (7’0”). This season, the pair had combined

See DAVID page 19

A SHEEP IN WOLF’S CLOTHING: Princeton women’s basketball downs N.C. State, 64–63

By Isabel Rodrigues

Senior Sports Writer

SALT LAKE CITY, Ut.

— Ain’t no mountain high enough — even when you’re Princeton women’s basketball, down by five with less than a minute remaining, and exhausted from the high altitude deep in the Rockies.

In a miraculous final minute of play in Salt Lake City on Friday night, the 10th-seeded Tigers (24–5 overall, 12–2 Ivy League) overcame this deficit to defeat seven-seed N.C. State (20–12, 9–9 Atlantic Coast) in the first round of the NCAA

Tournament, thanks to a lastsecond, ice-cold three from senior guard Grace Stone.

“She’s got ice in her veins,” head coach Carla Berube said of Stone after the game. “She has that look in her eyes and you know she’s gonna make a play, she’s gonna hit a shot.”

The baseline three was just enough for Princeton to scrape by with a 64–63 victory, and a trip to the second round in tow. The win is the Tigers’ second-consecutive victory in the Round of 64, following their victory last year over Kentucky. It’s also their 16thstraight win this season.

“It just feels a little bit like

FEATURES

‘A full-on Bacchanalia’: looking back at the days following the ‘end of the world’

By Paige Cromley | Head Features Editor

On March 11, 2020, the day of the “end of the world,” Camille Reeves ’23 was taking a midterm exam. Apart from the sound of papers rustling and students ferociously scribbling, the room was silent. Then, the pings started. Notification after notification, phones tucked away in backpacks began to sound, echoing through the exam room.

The day prior, many of the University’s peer institutions, including Harvard and Yale had announced that undergraduates would have to vacate campus due to the threat that the surging COVID-19 pandemic posed to students. Against this backdrop, the pings were a harbinger of disaster.

“I knew something COVIDrelated was happening,” Reeves said.

When she turned her phone back on after the exam, the notifications loaded so fast she couldn’t read them.

“I knew it was over,” she said. In response to the pandemic, undergraduate students were being told to leave Princeton’s campus as soon as possible. She packed up her dorm and left that Saturday, March 14, not knowing when she’d return.

What did campus look like between Wednesday, March 11, and her flight home? Reeves described it as “a full-on Bacchanalia.”

The threat of being kicked off campus had loomed over the heads of students in the days leading up to the announcement.

Myles McKnight ’23 noted how even though other colleges had been sending students home

because of the pandemic, “some people had this denialist hope that Princeton would be different.”

On March 8, a few days before the March 11 notification to leave campus, an announcement had accidentally been released on the University website saying that students wouldn’t return to campus for an extra week after Spring Break. It was deleted within a few hours.

On the morning of Monday, March 9, Eisgruber announced that courses would temporarily be virtual after spring break and encouraged students to stay home for longer. In the afternoon, the University published new “social distancing” policies. In the midst of these announcements, life was continuing as always on campus, with students crammed elbowto-elbow in libraries studying for ongoing midterm exams and dining halls full of chatter.

Signs of imminent change were in the air though, with the country rapidly confronted with the threat of the pandemic. Front pages were filled with coronavirus news, from Italy’s recently-initiated lockdown to President Trump’s reaction. Cases were rising across the United States, and nearby New York had over a hundred cases already. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy declared a state of emergency that Monday night.

“Everything had this sort of apocalyptic filter almost to it,” McKnight said.

Then, at 7:46 p.m. on the evening of March 11, the announcement came that undergraduates were to return home and stay there for the

our Ivy League championship win, where we just had to grind it out and just get really gritty,” Berube said. “[We] just made the plays, made the shots and we’re advancing. That’s what it’s about.”

Princeton opened the first quarter on a 6–0 run, though none of the points came easy — it took nearly a full minute for either team to get a shot off, and both teams struggled to get into the paint early on. Although the first half would see freeflowing offense at times, this stretch was indicative of how the game largely played out;

Princeton senior arrested in connection with Jan. 6 Capitol riot

By Julian Hartman-Sigall & Bridget O’Neill Assistant News Editors

On March 14, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Larry Giberson ’23 was arrested in relation to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Giberson, a politics major from Manahawkin, N.J., was charged with civil disorder, a felony, and related misdemeanor offenses, according to a DOJ report.

According to the DOJ, images and video from Jan. 6 show Giberson and a group of rioters coordinating a “‘heave-ho’ pushing effort” in an attempt to weave their way into the Capitol through the Lower West Terrace “tunnel”

entrance. At the tunnel, one Capitol police officer was dragged into the crowd. The DOJ states Giberson started chanting “Drag them out!” and cheered as weapons and pepper spray were used on Capitol police officers in the tunnel.

In an interview with the FBI, conducted in Princeton, Giberson confirmed he was the individual identified in the photographs and will make his first appearance in federal court on March 21, according to the DOJ.

“We cannot comment on the truth or falsity of the specific allegations in the complaint while the case remains pending other than to note

See COVID page 15 See

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

WILSON CONN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Junior guard Matt Allocco walks off of the court following the win.

Graduate School dean talks unionization, cites existing engagement with students

By Olivia Sanchez Staff News Writer

In light of recent unionization efforts from Princeton Graduate Students United (PGSU) and increased pressure on University administration to address them, The Daily Princetonian sat down with dean of the Graduate School Rodney Priestley on Wednesday, March 8 to discuss unionization and the Graduate School’s institutional response.

Priestley has been in the role of dean since June 1, 2022. He continues to serve as the associate director for the Princeton Center for Complex Materials (PCCM) and the Pomeroy and Betty Perry Smith Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering (CBE). He also runs the Priestley Polymer Lab. He previously served as vice dean for innovation in the Office of the Dean for Research and the director of graduate studies for the CBE department.

Priestley clarified that the recent 5 percent raise in graduate student stipends was not in response to unionization efforts, but had actually been proposed in fall of 2022. PGSU initially claimed that the University had offered a $5,000 raise, which the group characterized as “the first of our union wins.”

“The proposal for the 5 percent stipend increase that was announced last week was submitted to the Priorities Committee of the University last fall,” Priestley said. “It was deliberated and debated within the Priorities Committee, which includes graduate students … It was endorsed by the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees in January [2023].”

He added that students found out about the raise earlier this year because the new stipend amount was being put into offer letters sent to admitted graduate students. Additionally, “current students generally find out about that information during the re-enrollment process.”

In response to the recent unionization drive on campus, Priestley emphasized that it is the students’ right to unionize. He explained that the Graduate School is prepared to work with students, but that the School wants them to make an informed decision. He stated that this includes graduate students being “able to make this decision without pressure from any member of the campus community,” including students, staff, faculty, and peers of students.

He noted that the institutional response is summed up in the documents sent out to graduate students last week, which included a memo from Priestley, an FAQ about unionization, and a comparison of what the Graduate School currently offers

students to student demands.

“My position remains unchanged. I’m willing to engage with graduate students on any topic that they find of interest to them,” Priestley said. “Whether or not it’s part of a demand for a union or not, I took on this role to ensure that I can provide the best environment for our students, and that’s what

I will continue to do.”

“There are things that we’re working on that haven’t been made public yet that we will continue to work on, because we think they are great for our graduate students, their experience here, and for the Graduate School overall,” he added.

He stated that one of the things that set the Graduate School apart is the engagement it has with its student body.

According to Priestley, each department has a graduate student committee, and students sit on committees that hire Graduate School staff, including the search committee that hired Priestley.

“I would say our students have a tremendous amount of voice and engagement with the Graduate School, and that has led to a lot of impact and a lot of outcomes,” Priestley said.

PGSU has been touted as a way for graduate students to influence University policy in an organized fashion.

Priestley cited the construction of the Meadows Apartment Complex as one outcome of graduate student feedback, stating, “That’s not something that comes out of just purely engagement within Clio Hall or the Graduate School. That comes out of a taskforce report that included graduate students that were advocating for more housing and responded to that.”

He added that not many other institutions are in the position to house most of their students.

“All first year graduate students live together in a dormitory style setting, which allows us to offer a similar kind of residential experience for graduate students. That is tremendously unique,” Priestley said.

Despite this, the ‘Prince’ found that housing has been a key ask in the unionization effort. PGSU’s website includes proposals for housing that is “better” and “fairer,” including affordable housing — a demand expressed by graduates at a rally in support of unionization earlier this month.

Rooms in the Old Graduate College cost a minimum of $5,917 per year for a walk-through double. At University-sponsored Lakeside Apartments, costs vary more significantly: studio apartments cost $999 per month, one bedrooms cost a minimum of $1,458 per month, and the most expensive multi-room apartments, which

students can rent individual rooms within, cost $3,756 per month in total. Thirty percent of Lakeside Apartment rooms are unfurnished.

For graduate students living off-campus, prices in Princeton are high compared to the national average. Zillow gives an estimate of $3,400 for the median monthly cost to rent an apartment in Princeton.

Regarding the cost of housing in Princeton, Priestley stated, “When we propose the stipend increase for our graduate students, cost of living, including housing, is taken into account. That calculation is above the cost of living estimate in the Princeton area, and in Central Jersey.”

He continued, “We believe that the stipend we provide is one that does allow our students to be able to afford housing within the area. Those calculations have led to our students having either the first or second [highest] average stipend in the country.”

“But again, that’s not something that doesn’t happen without our student voices,” Priestley continued.

The stipend raise that Priestley referenced has been called insufficient by some in PGSU. “The raise received last year barely offset, if at all, the tremendous increase in cost of living, which was seen across the States and globally in the past two years,” Aditi Rao, a graduate student, wrote to the ‘Prince,’ on behalf of PGSU.

There are other issues related to graduate student housing. Students in the Visiting Student Research Collaborators (VSRC) program are not guaranteed housing, as they are not enrolled graduate students at the University. The ‘Prince’ previously found that VSRC students struggle to find affordable housing when visiting.

Priestley stated that students had never brought this issue to his attention, including during his office hours.

“We’d be happy to look into

this issue and to see how we might be able to be of help. In general, it is something in which a faculty advisor who’s hosting the student may offer some assistance, but the Graduate School would be happy to have those conversations with those faculty,” Priestley said.

When asked about complaints from some international graduate students concerning difficulty with finding work in the United States, Priestley discussed the creation of the Grad Futures Professional Development Program, which provides training to students to aid them in finding careers after graduation. He stated, “These efforts are only growing. There’s been a lot of positive feedback about the Grad Futures Program from graduate students as well as alums.”

“We have new experiential programs that we are developing in which the graduate school pays for the internships. We help develop the partnerships and then we pay for the internships ourselves,” he said. “I have talked to some of our international students about some of these challenges”

The Grad Futures Program is separate from the Curricular Practical Training (CPT) courses, which offer certification to international students for pursuing work in their area of study. At a recent PGSU rally, Nancy Tang, an international graduate student, claimed that only 16 departments offer a summer Curricular Practical Training (CPT) course and hoped that the University would create more.

When asked if there were plans to expand CPT, as it is currently up to the individual department to decide whether to provide it or not, Priestly stated that “Departments, by their very nature, decide what they believe is beneficial for their academic program and the training of their students. That is the current policy at Princeton, that the faculty and those departments know best and should be able to make that

decision of whether or not CPT is appropriate.”

He added that the Grad Futures Program’s experiential component is expanding with the goal of all students being able to participate. While he could not recall any students coming to him with concerns about this during his office hours, he emphasized that “there is alignment” between graduate student demands and Graduate School programs. He added, “We would like to work on this, but we recognize that there is a structure at the University that we have to respect; but we think there are potential solutions forward that at least we can make the case.”

Priestley ended the interview by again emphasizing students’ right to make a decision about unionization, but added that the Graduate School believes students currently have a voice in University affairs. He reiterated his willingness to engage with students to create a better Graduate School experience and added that many graduate school programs would not happen without student input.

“I think this is something that our students should be proud of and something they should look to in terms of thinking: what else could we build together? How else can we build a graduate school that is really distinctive and unique?” he said.

“Over the 123-year history of the graduate school, that relationship has been able to come together and develop something that I think is really special … I look forward to supporting our students in the future and making sure they have the best possible experience in graduate school, because that’s what we want to develop,” he added.

Olivia Sanchez is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’

ANGEL KUO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

The sun reflects on the water as it sets on the Graduate College.

Continued from page 1

that even the government agrees Mr. Giberson has been cooperative throughout the investigation,” Giberson wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’

“We ask all interested parties to respect the presumption of innocence and withhold judgment until the Court process is complete,” he continued.

The DOJ Task Force Officer assigned to the case noticed a possible match to a student in “the Princeton University French and Italian Department.” As Princeton’s student directory shows, Giberson is majoring in politics. According to University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss, “Larry F. Giberson Jr. is currently enrolled as an undergraduate at the University.”

Since the riot, the DOJ has charged over one thousand people with crimes related to the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 that disrupted a joint session of Congress which later confirmed Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. About 140 police officers were assaulted during the conflict.

518 of these defendants have pleaded guilty and, according to the DOJ, will likely “face incarceration at sentencing.” Another 53 have been found guilty at trial. Over 200 rioters have already been sentenced to periods of incarceration.

On campus, Giberson sent an email to the Mathey Mail listserv, reaching about one sixth of the student body, opposing the University’s decision to remove the name of former President Woodrow Wilson Class of 1879 from the public policy school and thenWilson College in June 2020. The email was also published the same day as a guest contribution in the Princeton Tory. Giberson wrote, “If our University can be intimidated by the transient impulses of the mob mentality to disregard their own esteemed standards, what guarantee is there that the University will stand firm against those who would seek to undermine the Nation, or indeed, Humanity itself?”

Julian Hartman-Sigall is an assistant News editor for the ‘Prince.’

Bridget O’Neill is an assistant News editor for the ‘Prince.’

U-Store installs security cameras to monitor self-checkout and discourage shoplifting

By Louisa Gheorghita News Contributor

At the University Store, located at 36 University Place, security cameras have been placed at the self-checkout stations to discourage shoplifting and to monitor transactions.

Posters are now displayed at each self-checkout station, calling attention to the security cameras above. Below, video monitors show the overhead perspective of the station’s respective camera.

According to University Store President Jim Sykes, both U-Stores at University Place and on Nassau Street have been equipped with cameras for the past 15 years; the cameras are updated and replaced every five years.

However, video monitors and signs have recently been added to discourage student shoppers from shoplifting, a phenomenon that has increased in the last six months — particularly at self-checkout stations.

“Yes, we have shoplifting; we have cameras to try to deter it, and also to allow us to determine if someone was shoplifting,” Sykes said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.

Sykes commented on how petty theft at the U-Store can take a serious toll on the store.

“Generally, for a company of our size, it’s probably [a loss] of around $40,000 or $50,000 a year,” Sykes said. “So, it’s not an insignificant number.”

According to Sykes, self-checkout, in a way, has resulted in a false sense of security for students, who believe they are not being watched when they purchase some of their items

but leave with one or two unpaid.

“They think that by going through that process … we wouldn’t suspect them,” Sykes said. “But again, that’s just not true.”

The majority of theft at the U-Store occurs with food and beauty products, and sometimes the same items are stolen repeatedly, like one shopper who would consistently steal mango slices. Additionally, sometimes theft occurs when students eat food products in the store without purchasing them.

“There’s even instances where people come into the store and warm something up in the microwave, or if it’s cold, actually open [it] and eat it there, and then they’ll just walk out without paying for it,” Sykes said. “So we do actually track that.”

The current surveillance systems have longer archival periods than their predecessors, enabling U-Store staff to review the footage should they suspect an instance of shoplifting. In real time, staff can utilize a monitor that shows footage from multiple cameras to determine if there is suspicious behavior. After a recording is made, it is turned over to the police or the Department of Public Safety.

“That’s not something we’re involved in,” Sykes said.

Department of Public Safety Assistant Vice President Kenneth Strother Jr. did not reply to a request for comment. University Spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss directed inquiries to University Store leadership as the store operates independently from the University.

Louisa Gheorghita is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’

ON CAMPUS

Transportation options, local expenses pose concerns for independent students

By Jeannie Kim and Rebecca Cho

“If you live near a grocery store but you can’t afford to shop there, then it doesn’t matter that you’re not in a food desert. You’re still hungry,” wrote author and activist Mikki Kendall in her book “Hood Feminism.”

Dr. Philip Geheber from the Princeton Writing Program, an expert on the role of food in communities, cited the passage in reference to Princeton’s Nassau Street dining scene and students who elect to be independent. His writing seminar, WRI 121: The Future of Food, examines the food system infrastructure in Princeton and beyond.

Last year, about 12 percent of upperclassmen pledged to be independent during room draw. Amidst ongoing conversations around potential changes to upperclassmen dining, independent students are already navigating oftencomplex financial factors related to food.

Although eating club dining plans are the most popular among upperclass undergraduates, many juniors and seniors still opt to pledge independent.

University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss reported in an email to The Daily Princetonian that 332 upperclass students chose to be independent during last year’s room draw, with that number rising following room draw.

The plan includes two dining hall swipes per week, with the rest of the week’s meals up to the students’ discretion — primarily cooking, ordering food, or eating out.

The University launched the Dining Pilot, in which a select group of students can have five meals a week at any eating club or co-op regardless of membership, with independent students

in mind. With the Dining Pilot requiring participants to be hosted by a member of the clubs they’re eating at, similarly to the existing meal exchange program, the biggest change is for independent students who previously relied on guest swipes, which may be very limited, to eat with friends at eating clubs.

Many independent students tend to buy products in bulk at nearby stores such as Trader Joe’s, Costco, and Target with fellow independent students. The majority of the students the ‘Prince’ spoke to mentioned that they use TigerTransit’s Weekend Shopper bus most frequently for travel to these stores, aside from rideshare apps like Uber and Lyft.

Students have transportation options such as the aforementioned Weekend Shopper, NJTransit’s 605 bus route, and the Municipality of Princeton’s free bus service. These services provide students with access to stores such as Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Wegmans, Target, and more. Princeton University also offers low-cost hourly car rentals through a partnership with Enterprise Carshare.

Even with these transportation options, however, grocery shopping can be difficult. Geheber stated that people who are not used to using buses to go grocery shopping can find it challenging, noting that riding the bus can limit how much someone buys because they then have to carry the groceries back on the bus and to campus.

Additionally, some students find that there is a lack of affordable grocery options within walking distance of campus. Jasmyn Dobson ’24, an independent student, spoke to the ‘Prince’ regarding the issues with transportation, noting, “For myself I’ve found

some things really hard, particularly when the buses aren’t operating regularly and I can’t get necessary food items.”

Dobson is a News writer for the ‘Prince.’ Students may instead rely on communities of independent students. Joy Cho ’24 noted, “A lot of people I know that are independent live in the same building as me, so we all look out for each other.”

The options for obtaining groceries without leaving campus seem to be limited.

“The U-Store is okay for every once in a while, but like Nassau, it’s unsustainable in the long term if you’re on a strict budget,” Dobson said.

The ‘Prince’ recently investigated how U-Store prices compare to competitors, finding that it is cheaper for those who purchase a membership, than farther grocery stores like Trader Joe’s and Wegmans, which may have more variety than the U-Store.

Geheber commented, “The stores in town trend toward boutique specialty shops, with some attention to students, but students aren’t their primary customer base. Stores like Olsson’s Fine Foods on Palmer Square

are much more like their neighbors on the square Hermès than they are like Wegmans.”

Even with the challenges of being independent, students cite financial reasons for the plan’s appeal. Cho remarked that being independent is “definitely more affordable than any other dining plan,” and more cost-effective compared to the dining hall or eating club plans.

For some students, another advantage of being independent is its flexibility. When on the dining hall plan as an underclassman, some found that they had difficulty finding time in their own schedule to meet the meal hours for dining halls.

One independent student, Gabriel Robare ’24, said, “I’ve often made a 2 a.m. sandwich after coming home from ‘the Street,’ or made dinner at 4:30 p.m. because I had an event to get to, or made breakfast at 11 because I was working late the night before. That’s a very helpful part of independent life.”

Robare is the Strategic Initiative Director for Archives at the ‘Prince.’

Dobson was unsure about whether the stipend provided by the University

met students’ full financial need.

“I don’t think it really takes into account the real cost of living in Mercer County in general,” Dobson said.

In response to these claims, Hotchkiss stated that students’ financial aid budgets cover food costs. For all upperclass students, the standard cost is $10,034, and high-need independent students are provided refunds every semester for food.

Geheber remarked, “I’ve not yet determined what an ideal solution might be in Princeton, but I can say that ideally we’d create a food system that isn’t entirely left to the whims of market competition for supply and that doesn’t assume universal car ownership.”

Jeannie Kim is a first-year from Chicago, Illinois and a Feature and News staff writer for the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at jk5876@princeton. edu.

Rebecca Cho is a first-year from Long Island, New York and a News staff writer for the ‘Prince.’ She can be reached at rc5928@princeton.edu.

KEEREN SETOKUSOMO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Breaking down the 1,890 rooms on the available rooms list

Andrew Bosworth Data Contributor

For rising sophomores, juniors, and seniors, some of the most stressful moments of the academic year do not come during midterms week, finals period, or course registration. They come in the weeks following spring break, when undergraduates must select a room for the following year: a process that involves diligently researching the available rooms, plotting with friends and potential roommates, and selecting rooms within a three-minute window.

There are 1,890 rooms on the available rooms list. The Daily Princetonian broke down room types and occupancies in each residential college and building.

In the weeks leading up to room draw, Princeton Housing and Real Estate Services released a list of all rooms available to rising sophomores, juniors, and seniors to draw for the 2023–2024 academic year. The available rooms list is updated throughout the room draw period as rooms are gradually drawn into. The list spans 1,890 singles, doubles, triples, quads, quints, and six-person suites. Not included in the list are rooms set aside for first-years and residential college advisors, as well as rooms already granted to students with housing accommodations.

Over 200 single rooms have already been granted to students who requested medical accommodations per an email chain unintentionally sent to students in February. These rooms are not on the available rooms list, meaning that the true number of singles in the University’s dorms is likely higher.

The ‘Prince’ analyzed the list of rooms available, calculating the square feet per person by dividing the total square feet of rooms by the number of occupants. The ‘Prince’ then noted the draw each room was in, whether in a residential college or in the upperclass draw. 99 Alexander Street is only open to independent upperclass students, but is part of the Forbes College room draw. For this analysis, it is included as a dorm within Forbes.

The largest room draw count by the number of rooms available is, by far, the upperclass draw, with 902 rooms available for rising juniors and seniors. Among residential colleges, New College West (NCW) offers the most rooms to draw with 174 rooms. Rockefeller and Mathey offer the fewest number of rooms available to current Princeton students, with 110 and 125 rooms eligible to be drawn, respectively.

Last year, the University began allowing juniors and seniors not on the University meal plan to continue to live in their residential colleges. Students could put in applications to both the upperclass draw

and all residential colleges, regardless of their dining plan. This year, however, the University restricted upperclass residential college draw applications to solely the student’s original college.

The majority of rooms in each draw are singles except for Forbes, where a majority of available rooms are doubles. This is due to Forbes’ history as an inn before it was acquired by the University in 1970 for student housing.

There are numerous differences between the older colleges and those constructed more recently. Only about half of the rooms available in Rockefeller and Mathey are singles, while two-thirds or more of the available rooms in the Butler, New College West, Whitman, and Yeh draws are singles.

Among the residential college draws, Forbes has the highest average square footage per person at nearly 154 square feet per person. The square footage per person is comparable across residential colleges, with Rockefeller having the lowest average square feet per person at 144. Rooms in the upperclass draw average 161 square feet per person, the highest of any draw. This average is raised by Spelman Hall, which has the largest per person rooms on campus, averaging 232 square feet per person. Many Spelman dorm rooms include a private kitchen and bathroom.

The largest room on campus is Patton Hall T12, a six-person suite with over 1,278 square feet of space. Five of the ten largest rooms on campus are Whitman quads, with the 52 quads in Spelman sharing the 8th spot at 930 square feet.

The smallest room on campus is Pyne Hall 230, clocking in at just 82 square feet. All of the smallest rooms on the available rooms list are singles. Eight of them are in the upperclass draw, while one is in Mathey and one in Forbes.

Students can search for buildings to draw into and compare options on the Housing and Real Estate Service website, although Yeh and NCW dorms are not listed. The TigerApps website TigerDraw contains data on all dorm rooms, including occupancy, square footage, and room reviews.

Room draw began this week on Monday, March 20, and will continue until Friday, April 7. After a student’s room selection date, they can place their name on the waitlist if they were unable to draw a room or if they did not apply for a room by the deadline. The order of the waitlist is determined by a student’s original room draw rank. If a waitlist application has been filled out before the May 1 deadline, housing is guaranteed and assignments will be released over the summer.

Andrew Bosworth is a Data contributor for the ‘Prince.’

“We’re a basketball school now!!” says beleaguered student entering Firestone Library

By Walker Penfield Humor Writer

The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional.

This past Thursday, Mar. 16, Princetonians everywhere opened Twitter to see a familiar university trending number one. The short glimpse of fame came after the 15-seed Princeton Tigers neutered the two-seed University of Arizona Wildcats in the first round of mens’ NCAA March Madness.

While some students report being unfamiliar with the term “basketball,” the sudden spike in notoriety launched campus into a storm. Following subsequent victories for both the men’s and women’s teams in a show-stopping weekend, The Daily PrintsAnything fielded several reactions from

campus community members.

“It’s official, the glory days of Princeton are here,” Reginald Bartholomew ’25, a Classics concentrator who carried a stack of books as he entered Firestone Library, told the ‘Prints.’ “We’re a basketball school now, and we’re here to stay! Next stop: the Super Bowl!”

Another student, Timothy Montgomery ’26, said “It felt great to finally get texts from all of the cool kids who ignored me in high school. I even got a text from my old crush at Arizona State!”

Along with students, the games were closely followed by administrators. For some, however, these proceedings were no cheerful matter. After the Tigers’ historic victory, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 swiftly moved

to disband the Department of Operations Research & Financial Engineering (ORFE), whose probabilistic modeling erroneously predicted that the Arizona Wildcats would come out on top.

In a statement to the ‘Prints,’ Eisgruber wrote, “I had these guys running my investment accounts, and if I can’t count on their basketball predictions, I sure as heck can’t count on their financial advice.”

The move has left many mathematicians out of jobs, who were once again bested by the darn sporty kids.

Walker Penfield is a Humor writer from Mendon, Mass., a past victim of the ORFE department, and a tangential observer of basketball. He can be reached at wpenfield@princeton.edu.

WILSON CONN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Princeton fans cheer the team to victory against Missouri.

“K illed i t ”

By Bryan Zhang Puzzles Contributor

ACROSS

1 "___ the day!" ("Finding Nemo" quote)

7 Fig. touted at zero percent

10 ___ Bell

14 Its next lunar occurrence will be on March 31st

15 What you might instinctively do when caught cheating

16 Not much at all

17 Dinosaurs' catastrophe

20 Director Lee

21 It may come with green eggs

22 Santa's entrance

23 Where a 22-Across may be found

25 Certain Indigenous group of upstate New York 27 Spotted Lanternflies and Zebra Mussels, for example

33 One type of dream 34 Eggs, scientifically 35 Adversary of a nazar amulet

38 Like Prometheus 42 Titular "Top Gun" fighter pilot, informally

43 You can set them for various timescales

44 Common result of algal blooms

52 Bay windows that are homophones for certain birds

53 "This one's ___"

54 Savagely animalistic

57 ___ Aviv

60 "Wailing" instrument

61 Humans are causing the sixth one ... or what 17-Across, 27-Across, and 44-Across have previously caused

64 Food nicknamed Special Army Meat

65 Actor McKellen 66 "Aha!"

67 Kind of loser, maybe

68 Intelligence-gathering org.

69 Playground retort DOWN

1 Wheatless soy sauce

2 Begin with

3 Ending of official sites

4 May go hand in hand with wisdom

5 Michelle who won Best Actress in 2023

6 Word sung twice after "Que"

7 __ + F4 (keyboard shortcut)

8

Anne Xu

By Anne Xu

49

50

54

56

58 Werewolf in "Wednesday"

62 ___ flash

Princeton and the judicial coup attempt in Israel

Yair Mintzker Guest Contributor

Israel is undergoing a judicial coup these days. Similar to recent developments in Hungary, Poland, and Turkey, the coup aims to subject Israel’s Supreme Court to the executive branch, change the way judges are appointed, and prevent any meaningful review of government actions or Knesset (Israel’s parliament) laws. Leading the coup is the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. Headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently standing trial for fraud and accepting bribes, the current Israeli government includes ministers who call openly for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs, refuse to condemn pogromlike attacks on innocent civilians by Jewish settlers, and express racist and homophobic opinions proudly and on a regular basis. Funding this shocking attempt to consolidate power is, in one case, the Tikvah Fund, a wealthy and far-reaching group that also supports research and teaching at Princeton. Based on these actions, Princeton should cut its ties with the organization.

Describing what is happening in Israel at the moment as a coup attempt might sound extreme or hyperbolic. Alas, it is not. Some of the most important scholars at

our world-renowned university have described it in these terms. In a recent event on campus, sociologist and legal scholar professor Kim Lane Scheppele enumerated the many parallels between the coup attempt in Israel and recent autocratic developments in Poland and especially Hungary; professor Jan-Werner Müller from our politics department called last month for the U.S. government to stop sitting idly by while Israel is turning into an autocracy; and Daniel Kahneman, professor of psychology and public affairs, emeritus, and a Nobel Prize laureate, has recently described the situation in Israel as “the end of democracy.”

One of the main instigators of the ongoing judicial coup in Israel is an organization called the Kohelet Policy Forum. This organization has ties to many prominent figures in the coup attempt, including Religious Zionist Knesset member Simcha Rotman. The Kohelet Forum was and continues to be funded by the Tikvah Fund which has also been running, among many other things, the Tikvah Project on Jewish Thought (which ended in 2014) and the Lobel Teachers Colloquium (starting now), both here at Princeton. Recently I was also astonished to find out that the dean of the Tikvah Fund, Ronen Shoval, is spending the academic

year at Princeton as a lecturer in politics. In the past, Shoval helped publish “black lists” of Israeli scholars and artists whose political opinions he didn’t share, and experts on fascism as well as a decision of an Israeli court have characterized Shoval’s views as having a close resemblance to fascism. Let there be no mistake about it: I have nothing but admiration for the academic work done by the regular faculty and many of the visitors at Princeton, and I’m a strong proponent of free speech. At the same time, it is incumbent upon anyone who enjoys funding from the Tikvah Fund to be informed about its

We should avoid Zoom whenever we can

Christofer Robles Assistant Opinion Editor

Who wouldn’t love to work on a beach? In his recent column, Technology Columnist Christopher Lidard ’25 describes the time he actually did, arguing for work that is virtual, and subsequently more “temporally and geographically flexible”; powered through Zoom; and via the disintegration of the standard workday.

Though I share similar qualms with the current schema of a 40-hour work week and think working on the beach sounds lovely — at least at first — a virtual and amorphous replacement to our current standard of work would be disastrous for personal well-being. Nothing shows this better than the effects of virtual work during and postCOVID-19.

Working 9 a.m.–5 p.m. Monday through Friday or attending class all day every weekday can be grueling. Yet the problem is not that our days have structure, but that the current framework is unnecessarily unaccommodating. Routine provides healthy consistency, whereas undefined work hours can lead to difficulties organizing time and ensuring a good work-life balance.

College students have a lot of experience with this type of unstructured work. At Princeton, students understand undefined work, since there are no fixed schedules and homework, extracurriculars, and personal tasks can expand to fill every moment of the day. When taken to the extreme, however, this expectation can and has manifested in serious mental health struggles, a problem that the Zoom platform exacerbates.

I felt this especially as I completed schoolwork on Zoom during the initial COVID-19 lockdowns. Zoom encouraged asynchronous work as many lectures were pre-recorded. Without the structure of the in-person school day, it was hard to block out time for extracurriculars and other commitments. My school work and personal life temporarily became so physically entwined that I forgot the difference.

Though the blurring of this divide is in some ways integral to the experience of being a college student, it becomes far more damaging in more professional settings.

Working entirely on Zoom may allow a business to overly blur the lines between leisure time and professional

obligations. This lack of a distinction has been shown to especially impact personal obligations and interests — like being a parent or maintaining hobbies — and has had detrimental effects on mental health. Not every job is a passionate project or lends itself to work-life integration. The expectation should be that employees have the choice to leave their work at their workplace and not be forced to carry it home with them. This is especially true because of the benefit that separating personal and work spaces provides. A beach is simply not a good work environment.

More than just highlighting the importance of environment and structure, COVID-19 restrictions have proven that virtual work failed as a permanent solution. Virtual learning has been disastrous for education, and it would be irresponsible to suggest that in-person work and interaction can be substituted for virtual communication — or even no communication at all. The value of physically seeing and interacting with people cannot be understated.

In high school, I had a very difficult time adjusting to Zoom — first technically and then socially. Though I was in constant contact with my teachers and peers, I felt myself drifting away from everyone I had grown used to seeing on a daily basis. I had never experienced such intense feelings of isolation like that before, so I did not know how to dig myself out of the rut I found myself in and found less and less solace in my Zoom interactions. I couldn’t pick up most nonverbal cues, was constantly distracted by everything else that was occuring on my computer screen, and lost the physiological feeling of connectedness I needed.

Years later, I still cringe when I receive a virtual meeting invite. Sure, it can be handy when geography or accessibility present a barrier to interacting with other people in person. But to suggest that most of our interactions, professional or personal, should shift to an asynchronous online format is misguided: it completely ignores the importance of structure and personal contact. Zoom is not the solution — it is a crutch — and one that ought to be avoided when possible.

Christofer Robles is a sophomore from Trenton, N.J. He serves as an assistant Opinion editor and DEIB Board Chair. Christofer can be reached at cdrobles@ princeton.edu or on Instagram @christofer_ robles.

involvement in the coup attempt in Israel and indeed to stop taking money from it. Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), anyone who shows affinity to fascist views shouldn’t be welcome at Princeton.

As I write these lines, hundreds of thousands of Israelis take to the streets, demanding an immediate and complete stop to the judicial coup in their country. Just this past week, demonstrations in New York also singled out the Tikvah Fund as an especially pernicious influence on the deteriorating state of Israeli democracy. Members of the Princeton community should draw inspiration from

such activities. I urge all of us who care about the situation in Israel/ Palestine to inform ourselves about the coup attempt, its causes, and implications; to find out more about how the coup attempt is funded and by whom; to express solidarity with those who fight for democracy, liberty, and human rights both in Israel/ Palestine and around the world; and to stop accepting money from organizations that work actively to undermine liberal democracy.

Yair Mintzker is a Behrman Professor in the Humanities Council and a professor of history. He can be reached at mintzker@princeton.edu.

Zoom may be the future of flexible work

Christopher Lidard Staff Columnist

In July 2021, I took a trip to the vacation paradise of Ocean City, Md. in the middle of the work week. My internship at the time was hybrid, with optional in-person reporting and almost all business conducted online. As I took phone calls from the beach, did research on the boardwalk after lunch, and finished a report while relaxing after dinner, I felt oddly freed — though I was working all day, it also felt like another day on vacation. My experience represents a possible better future for work — one that is enabled by platforms like Zoom, and if achieved, can be a path towards securing better work-life balance for all employees through the flexibility and integration afforded by virtual work. The industrial revolution was what condemned much of our world to the dehumanizing and inflexible notion of the “workday” as a unit of compensable hours, and the COVID-19 pandemic has laid the groundwork for transcending this notion. When tied to a physical workspace such as an office, it makes sense that one would want to make working hours consecutive to cut down on commuting time and make shift scheduling easier. However, being beholden to eight to 10-hour blocks of time to work is unwieldy. In order to accommodate the “workday,” one must center their life around performing the duties of employment during the most active hours of the daytime, relegating those hours deemed “personal” time to tired early mornings and exhausted evenings. In a virtual setting, however, the need for a central block of work hours falls away. Scheduling of meetings can be done on a case-bycase basis, with fewer constraints on socially acceptable business hours, allowing for schedules to adapt as the needs of one’s personal life change. It follows that with a more flexible schedule, where on-site, nine-to-five work is no longer the dominant feature of the day, that flexibility of location is also in play. My experience working from the beach is idealistic, but that location flexibility can just as

easily be used to visit relatives, prioritize personal needs such as medical appointments, or engage in one’s community during daylight hours. Ultimately, the centrality of the workday can be dissolved into a set of responsibilities that must occur in concert with other parts of the day. And just as work is removed as the center of the day, the physical workplace will cease to be a central part of a person’s life. Virtual platforms, in their ability to be used universally, liberate us from sitting in an office for eight hours a day and direct us toward a more holistic approach to life. It is important to note that this is a positive cultural shift that can happen, but not without attentiveness to obvious pitfalls. If nothing else, an eight-hour block workday is restrained. As Assistant Opinion Editor Christofer Robles argues, opening the door to a wider array of work hours could also be an avenue for employers to extract more labor from their workers, cutting into their personal time. Given an expansion of virtual work, this avenue is probable and likely the default unless specific cultural norms evolve to protect against it. In particular, we must emphasize employees’ ability to assert boundaries on their time and normalize accountability measures to ensure these boundaries are respected. Without these crucial steps, a more flexible workday will just become a longer workday. Virtual meeting platforms like Zoom are technologies, and like all technologies, their benefit to society is heavily influenced by the social and economic norms that surround their use. Embracing virtual work as the key to more temporally and geographically flexible work that is integrated with employee lifestyles does not guarantee everyone will get to work on the beach each day. However, there is an optimal future of flexible work out there, and we are equipped to reach it.

Christopher Lidard is a sophomore from outside Baltimore, Md. A computer science concentrator and tech policy enthusiast, his columns focus on technology issues on campus and at large. He can be reached at clidard@princeton.edu.

What does it mean to be present three years after COVID-19 sent us home?

Jill Dolan Dean of College

When Princeton’s administration decided to send students home permanently, on March 13, 2020, instead of temporarily, for spring break, the news engulfed the campus in a wave of shock and sorrow. Students packed their things and clung to one another on Prospect Avenue, saying their goodbyes (and prompting an early wave of COVID-19 among our undergraduate population).

With most students sent home, measures of local seismology trends told us the earth at Princeton was quiet. No one walked across our quads or down residential college halls. The tremors of robust living and learning life had quieted.

Now, at the third anniversary of those painful farewells, we can feel the earth beneath campus vibrating once again, as it has since 1746. Students fly by on electric scooters and skateboards; people walk their dogs on Cannon Green and on the lawn in front of Nassau Hall; and our classrooms are filled with students and faculty pondering various truths and pursuing new knowledge.

The differences between before and “after” the pandemic appear to me in the interstices, or around the edges of an otherwise happy picture. We’re back, but

we seem more tentative. More students than ever report mental health challenges; requests for appointments at Counseling and Psychological Services (CPS) continue to increase. More students than ever request accommodations from the Office of Disability Services (ODS). ODS once fielded requests mostly from students with physical accessibility needs; now, many more accommodations and adjustments concern mental health.

Princeton’s intergenerational community bears its COVID-era losses differently. Students missed years of identity formation and learning. Some faculty retired early, without teaching their valedictory classes or standing in the faculty room in Nassau Hall to hear their careers honored in the emeriti rolls. Staff saw their lives rearranged, settling into remote work. Faculty and staff with young children worked and parented simultaneously, mingling responsibilities typically kept separate.

Now, life and work resume in syncopated, often still bumpy ways. Our residential campus privileges live instruction. But sometimes, post-pandemic, it seems like we’re struggling to regain the basic educational social contract that once felt secure and inviolable.

Some faculty, for instance, report more incidents of “atypical” student behaviors: Students who don’t make

eye contact with faculty or peers, students who won’t participate as actively in class as they might have in 2019. Some students who attended high school during the pandemic came to campus unaccustomed to in-person learning. Some manifest academic or social gaps that make their transition to college more difficult.

Pre-pandemic, we presumed that course attendance and participation were foundational to learning at Princeton. Now, in spring 2023, some accommodation requests come from students for whom attending or speaking in class are a source of stress.

Pre-pandemic, attending class brought (I hope) the anticipated pleasure of curiosity and surprise that should fuel all teaching and learning. Now, in spring 2023, some faculty wonder how to engage students most effectively as they reinvigorate their teaching post-Zoom. We face lingering challenges (and opportunities) as we restructure live engagement.

In addition to serving as dean of the college, I’m a performance studies scholar — a field that theorizes how people’s subjectivities and communities form through live social practices. We study rituals (religious worship, among other things) and more conventional theater-going, where audiences of strangers and friends convene to watch performers create moments we experience together.

During the pandemic, I attended Zoom Shabbat services and Zoom performances where actors performed on individual screens. These events exemplified pandemic-era isolation instead of the usual embodied collisions of the live.

Now that we’re back in space and time together, I’ve returned to the synagogue and the theater, enjoying once again those encounters with friends and strangers in precious moments of present-time exchange.

Other spectators and congregants are returning to live gatherings more gradually. Theaters around the country worry about attendance, concerned that spectators won’t be lured away from the convenience of online streaming and the comfort of their homes.

In fact, when one of our residential colleges recently offered tickets to a Broadway show, students signed up, but an alarming number failed to show up when the time came. Tickets went unused and many bus seats were empty. We seem to have forgotten how to honor the commitments we make to being present.

Attending classes offers a similar concern. Students (and faculty) are used to clicking a link, watching the screen, and commenting in the chat. We register for live-streamed events that we watch distractedly, doing email or shopping online with our Zoom squares dark. These

habits linger. We’re still relearning how to be attentive and fully present in the moment.

I hope this persistent awkwardness and distractedness recedes as we reacclimate to being among one another. I’ve experienced once again the joy of a live audience, at “Between Two Knees” and at “Wuthering Heights” (both at Princeton’s McCarter Theatre Center). I’ve enjoyed events and lectures in Richardson Auditorium. I’m once again moved by the charisma of award-winners (like General Christopher Cavoli, who won this year’s Woodrow Wilson Award for service on Alumni Day) and impressed by the tributes of speakers (as at the dedication for Toni Morrison’s commemorative USPS stamp).

At those moments, I’m grateful that we’re back at Princeton. These are not the “before times”; all of us who lived through COVID-19 embody its anxieties and losses. It’s not, for me, the “new normal”; the pandemic made me rethink what “normal” means and to accept that the bonds and habits I once took for granted are tenuous. But for now, I’m glad to be relearning my commitment to presence, with all its uncertainty and coincidence, joy and hope.

Jill Dolan is Dean of the College at Princeton University, Annan Professor in English, and a professor of theater studies in the Lewis Center for the Arts.

Stick with institutional restraint, not institutional neutrality

Mohan Setty-Charity Senior Columnist

Last Wednesday, the New York Times published an Opinion piece from Adam Hoffman, a senior at the University, who argued that Princeton’s administration and campus community create an environment inhospitable to nuanced discussions. In response to allegations of censorship, some have claimed that institutional “neutrality provides a starting point” to protect and develop free speech on college campuses like Princeton’s. Princeton has adopted the University of Chicago Free Speech Principles, meaning that Princeton’s policies now attempt to “[guarantee] all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.”

However, recently some of my fellow students have argued that Princeton should go further and adopt the Kalven Report, which focuses on maintaining the political neutrality of the University. While “institutional neutrality” is appealing and certainly has its merits, the University needs to speak out to support the inclusion of voices that have traditionally been marginalized.

The Kalven Report was written in 1967 by a committee at the University of Chicago, with the goal of recognizing the mission of the university and coming up with a set of rules to prevent representatives of the University from influencing academic discussions and debates on campus from their place of power. It states that “[t] he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic,” signifying that a university and department administrations should not use their positions to support or oppose a political argument. The concept of the Kalven Report is to create an open forum for discussion and debate, erasing potential concerns of retribution

at the administrative level. These principles were adopted by the University of North CarolinaChapel Hill this past fall, with the hopes of maintaining an environment of free expression. Under Kalven Report policies, University administrators and professors have a right to speak on political issues as individuals, but they cannot do so in their administrative capacity.

If the University adopts the principles of the Kalven Report, the voices of historically marginalized groups may be silenced in the process. This is an important piece of the puzzle: while administrations should not be opining often, much of the current “political” discourse deals with issues that cannot be ignored.

This is particularly the case when there has been an institutional history of preventing certain groups and voices from participating in the conversation. Recently, some students have argued that the English Department’s anti-racism statement is politically charged and should be taken down from the website, suggesting that the statement lacks a desired neutrality. Yet for the vast majority of the University’s existence, Princeton has been a space for white students and scholarship. To ignore the precedent that these longstanding institutions have set over centuries is a grave mistake, and further alienates voices that have historically been excluded from the conversation. Neutrality cannot exist when there has been a history of unequivocally discriminatory policies in the composition of the student body and faculty. Acknowledging racism in the academy need not be a political statement, and if speaking against racism is a political statement, then the University should be willing to stray from neutrality. Furthermore, if a department wants to acknowledge that past policies and instruction have been problematic, they are doing so to try to affirm the place of those who have been historically

excluded, and not at the expense of anyone else.

The most challenging conversations arise when one’s identity becomes politicized, and there is proof that supportive recognition from places of power helps to deal with issues of marginalization.

For example, survey data has shown that schools which recognize the equal rights and safety that LGBTQ+ individuals deserve, such as affirming gender, see lower rates of suicide attempts among LGBTQ+ youth. Sticking to rigid principles of institutional neutrality would mean that institutions would not opine on topics that are politically charged. If someone’s identity is viewed as political, then the University needs to be able to speak and affirm their place on campus.

President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 demonstrated the value of Princeton’s history of institutional restraint, as opposed to institutional neutrality, in a November letter.

Recalling the tradition of former leaders, President Eisgruber has cited how former University President Robert Goheen ’40 “regarded it as essential to speak up for what he called ‘the

basic tenets’ of the University.”

This helped when navigating challenging situations of segregationist politicians speaking, student protests, and, more recently, issues of divestment.

Even UChicago, which has been recognized as one of the best campuses for free speech in the country, doesn’t hold strictly to institutional neutrality, as administrators maintain their right to take positions on issues of “paramount value” to the University.

In the past, I have argued that free speech rules cannot be written without marginalized voices at the table. Some speech can be extremely damaging, beyond what could be justified as part of “lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation,” and the University should not refrain from recognizing this. Arguments in favor of free speech have been used to defend incendiary speech and threats. If the point of institutional neutrality is to protect free and open discourse, then we need to acknowledge that some speech shuts down a discussion by creating an environment where people are uncomfortable speaking rather

than contributing to it.

I agree with the basic premise of recent columns on institutional neutrality from my colleagues Matthew Wilson and Abigail Rabieh. Creating space for students to feel comfortable speaking and learning without fear of retribution is certainly a valid goal. However, total institutional neutrality does not serve the goals of free speech and inquiry. There are many circumstances where reminding students that they are valued members of University discourse will lead to greater discussion and inquiry, even if it means that the University is occasionally on one side of a political discussion. If there is one thing that is of “paramount value” to University functioning, it should be the ability of students to learn and grow in a supportive environment. Institutional neutrality does not always accomplish that goal.

Mohan Setty-Charity is a junior in the economics department. He grew up in Amherst, Massachusetts, and can be reached at ms99@ princeton.edu.

CANDACE DO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Instead of the flexible meal plan, end Bicker

Madeleine Burns & Rakesh Potluri Guest Contributors

The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.

Princeton’s new dining pilot program just took off: 10 percent of upperclassmen students were selected to get five free swipes a week for use at any dining hall, eating club, various University vendors, or co-op. But unlike “Top Gun,” this pilot program is going nowhere fast.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to increase inclusivity in Princeton dining. It’s true that many people find it hard to keep their sophomore friend group together when most people change their dining plan at the start of their junior year. But the structure of the proposed plan doesn’t address the tangible issues of exclusivity that plague Princeton dining — to do that, we need to end Bicker.

Throughout the development of the “five flexible meals” and its pilot program, the University has ignored the best interests of students in favor of Band-Aid solutions. For instance, discussions about a full version of the plan considered a mandatory program that some estimates calculate includes a tuition increase of $1,500 per year. This increase may pose a significant financial burden for upperclassmen students on top of their fees for eating clubs and co-ops. Despite strong pushback from co-ops, club officers, and eating club graduate boards about the “five flexible meals” plan, the University decided to charge on. Administrators constantly reassure students that ‘this is just a pilot, and we’ll take feedback after,’ but their lack of consideration of the potential financial impact of a mandatory meal plan is evidence that student benefit is not their priority.

If the University really wants to make dining more inclusive, student representatives have given administrators concrete ideas that would actually help: make all eating clubs have guest swipes and allow Independents to participate in meal exchanges at eating clubs. But the best thing they can do for the Princeton dining scene is to end Bicker.

To be clear, this article is not anti-eating club. There’s nothing wrong with having smaller communities around dining, whether in eating clubs or co-ops — it’s often easier to make friends in these smaller settings, and shared meals, study spaces, and social events cultivate a sense of community. It’s

likely no coincidence that many Princeton students say that they didn’t find “their people” until they were juniors. And while the eating clubs definitely have other problems that can’t be ignored, such as the extravagant cost and inherent elitism, PUID parties do tend to provide a safer and more inclusive party scene than the Greek life of other schools.

What makes the clubs exclusive is Bicker — the process of social “auditioning” that decides who you get to eat with for the next two years, based on ten minutes of awkward small talk and the impression you made your first time on the Street freshman year. The elitist process brings out the worst of Princeton’s cutthroat social culture. And everyone knows it.

Sophomores endure weeks of stress, dreaming of the heroic achievement of an invitation to Ivy Club or Tiger Inn (TI). We have heard members of Bicker clubs acknowledge that the process is unfair and complain about the long nights of arduous deliberations. Yet they perpetuate this cliquey structure by systematically asserting their dominance over underclassmen vying desperately for their approval. The exclusivity inherent in Bicker has been a problem for years, and each time calls for fundamental change have been fixed with the fresh paint of DEI policies. But no amount of ‘work to make Bicker more inclusive’ can change its fundamental nature: if members think you’re cool based on surfacelevel interactions, you get in.

Making all the clubs sign in would be the single most effective way to make Princeton dining more inclusive. If clubs are sign-in, you get to choose where you eat — not upperclassmen. But, somehow, people find it so hard to imagine a Princeton without Bicker. Because signin clubs aren’t “cool.”

When Charter planned to adopt Bicker (which they backed down from), students flocked to be part of a club that would soon become exclusive. But if all the clubs were sign-in, this wouldn’t be a problem — they’d all be equally “uncool.” And we don’t think everyone’s going to suddenly decide they’re too cool for eating clubs.

Reducing exclusivity doesn’t negate the power of eating clubs to create community; instead, it creates communities in healthy ways that don’t rely on social nepotism. Picture this: Instead of sacrificing your sophomore friends to kiss up to upperclassmen, all clubs could adopt a “block” sign-in model allowing people to join with their friends. Clubs would probably

still have stereotypes, spoken or unspoken — football and basketball players would probably still sign in to Cannon — but there would be far less exclusivity. In other words, your club would still be filled with people you think are cool, just with much less discrimination. And you would still have a group of 100–200 new people to meet.

Some may say that without bicker it would be harder to keep sexual predators out. While an imperfect system, sign-in clubs currently seem to be confident that their blacklists are an effective way to keep sexual predators out of parties. We acknowledge that clubs would need to figure out how to legally deny or remove membership from known sexual predators who haven’t been officially convicted.

While the Interclub Council (ICC) or club officers may not have the power to do this (as clubs are run by their Grad Boards), the University itself could ban Bicker, the same way they banned freshmen from rushing fraternities and sororities by making it against Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities — if they wanted. But we know why they don’t. Princeton’s biggest donors are likely the people who reminisce so much about their alma mater that they still manage their former eating clubs. In our opinion, these men may be terrified of anything that would further sully the good ol’ boys’ clubs of Prospect Avenue. In all, potentially charging all students $1,500 to let us swipe into clubs does nothing to increase inclusivity in dining — it just enables Bicker clubs to continue under some guise of inclusivity. Change doesn’t come from meaningless task forces and pilots. Change doesn’t come from putting alumni interests above what students have been asking for years. If they stop to listen to us, University administrators have the power to revolutionize Princeton dining: mandate guest swipes at all eating clubs, allow Independents to meal exchange, and end Bicker.

Madeleine Burns is a junior from Durango, CO on the track and cross-country team.

Rakesh Potluri is a senior from Princeton, NJ and a local EMT. You can reach them at mcburns@princeton.edu and rpotluri@ princeton.edu or meet them for home-cooked food and backyard volleyball at the 2D co-op.

vol. cxlvii

editor-in-chief

Rohit Narayanan '24

business manager

Shirley Ren ’24

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

president

Thomas E. Weber ’89

vice president

David Baumgarten ’06

secretary Chanakya A. Sethi ’07

treasurer Douglas Widmann ’90

assistant treasurer

Kavita Saini ’09

trustees

Francesca Barber

Craig Bloom ’88

Kathleen Crown

Suzanne Dance ’96

Gabriel Debenedetti ’12

Stephen Fuzesi ’00

Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05

Michael Grabell ’03

John G. Horan ’74

Danielle Ivory 05

Rick Klein ’98

James T. MacGregor ’66

Julianne Escobedo Shepherd

Abigail Williams ’14

Tyler Woulfe ’07

trustees ex officio

Rohit Narayanan ’24

Shirley Ren ’24

147TH MANAGING BOARD

upper management

Kalena Blake ’24

Katherine Dailey ’ 24

Julia Nguyen 24

Angel Kuo ’ 24 Hope Perry ’ 24

Strategic initiative directors

Archivist Gabriel Robare ’24

Education Kareena Bhakta ’ 24

Amy Ciceu 24

Financial Stipend Program

Genrietta Churbanova 24

Mobile Reach Rowen Gesue ’24

DEIB Chair Christofer Robles ’25

Sections listed in alphabetical order.

head audience editor

Rowen Gesue ’24

associate audience editors

Laura Robertson ’24

Paige Walworth ’26

head copy editors

Jason Luo ’25

Nathalie Verlinde ’24

associate head copy editors

Tiffany Cao ’24

Naisha Sylvestre ’25

head data editor

Elaine Huang ’25

Charlie Roth ’25

head features editors

Paige Cromley ’24

Tori Tinsley ’24

associate features editor

Sejal Goud ’25

head graphics editors

Noreen Hosny ’25

Katelyn Ryu ’25

head humor editors

Spencer Bauman ’25

Liana Slomka ’23

associate humor editors

Sam McComb ’25

Sophia Varughese ’26

head news editors

Sandeep Mangat ’24

Isabel Yip ’25

associate news editors

Lia Opperman ’25

Annie Rupertus ’25

Tess Weinreich ’25

head newsletter editors

Olivia Chen ’26

Sidney Singer ’25

associate newsletter editor

Aly Rashid ’26

head opinion editor

Abigail Rabieh ’25

community opinion editor

Lucia Wetherill ’25

associate opinion editors

Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26

Ashley Olenkiewicz ’25

head photo editor

Jean Shin ’26

head podcast editor

Eden Teshome ’25

associate podcast editors

Senna Aldoubosh ’25

Kavya Kamath ’26

head print design editors

Avi Chesler ’25

Malia Gaviola ’26

head prospect editors

Kerrie Liang ’25

Claire Shin ’25

associate prospect editors

Isabella Dail ’26

Joshua Yang ’25

head puzzles editors

Joah Macosko ’25

Simon Marotte ’26

associate puzzles editors

Juliet Corless ’24

Sarah Gemmell ’24

Jaeda Woodruff ’25

head sports editors Nishka Bahl ’26

Wilson Conn ’25

associate sports editors

Cole Keller ’26

Brian Mhando ’26

head web design and development editors

Ananya Grovr ’24

Brett Zeligson ’24

associate web design and development editor

Vasila Mirshamsova ’26

147TH BUSINESS BOARD

assistant business manager

Aidan Phillips ’25

business directors

Benjamin Cai ’24

Juliana Li ’24

Samantha Lee ’24

Gabriel Gullett ’25

Amanda Cai ’25

Jonathan Lee ’24

project managers

Brian Zhou ’26

Sophia Shepherd ’26

Andrew He ’26

Diya Dalia ’24

Tejas Iyer ’26

Laura Zhang ’26

Dauen Kim ’26

Julia Cabri ’24

Jessica Funk ’26

Tony Ye ’23

Anika Agarwal ’25

147TH TECHNOLOGY BOARD

chief technology officer

Joanna Tang ’24

lead software engineer

Roma Bhattacharjee ’25

software engineers

Eugenie Choi ’24

Carter Costic ’26

Dylan Esptein-Gross ’26

Ishaan Javali ’26

Adam Kelch ’26

Tai Sanh Nguyen ’26

John Ramirez ’26

Aidan Phillips ’25

Jessie Wang ’25

Shannon Yeow ’26

Brett Zeligson ’24

THIS PRINT ISSUE WAS DESIGNED BY

Vanessa Auth ’26

Avi Chesler ’25

Cindy Chen ’26

AND COPIED BY

Malia Gaviola ’26

Annabel Green ’26

Austin Guo ’26

Lindsay Pagaduan ’26

Hot girls read Eve Babitz: TikToker Hailey Colborn ’22 blends reading and pop culture

By Valentina Moreno Staff Features Writer

There are four cardinal rules for joining Hot Literati, an online Tik-Tok community of “hot, cool, well-read people,” according to Hailey Colborn ’22:

Rule #1: “You have to have a book with you at all times ... It can be Dostoyevsky, it can be Colleen Hoover.”

Rule #2: “The second someone walks into your room, they should be like, ‘Oh, this person read reads.’ How do you achieve that? It’s all about book placement.”

Rule #3: “Read everywhere.”

Rule #4: “If you’re ever about to take a thirst trap, stop; go get a book ... A thirst trap with a book elevates your photo to a thirst trap for the mind and the soul.”

With over 82,300 followers on Tiktok as of publication, Colborn’s account @hotliterati features content about the intersections of literature, film, and music, and has accumulated over 5 million likes. From analyses of womanhood in “Madame Bovary” to aesthetic youth in the works of Lana Del Rey and Eve Babitz, Colborn approaches literature through the lens of inclusivity and femininity.

According to Colborn, the name of her TikTok account, “hot literati,” draws on the campy, ironic hot girl identity that has defined the online zeitgeist over the last few years. This identity emerges from the morphing aesthetics of popular makeup, fashion, music, and literature. She sees hashtags like #lanadelrey, #coquette, #1960s, #evebabitz, #joandidion — all amassing millions of views on TikTok — as defining a new feminist aesthetic online.

“Eve Babitz’s work is like if you put a Lana Del Rey song into a novel,” said Colborn in one Tiktok, holding a copy of Sex and Rage.

Though Colborn has used this aesthetic to appeal to a wider audience

on her platform, she says she initially struggled with how to make her platform more inclusive.

“I originally had in my bio ‘hot literate girly girl’ or something,” said Colborn. “But I thought [literate] might come across a little elitist, so I was reevaluating a more inclusive way to state the vibe I wanted. I stumbled upon the word literati when I was reading ‘The Gift’ by Nabokov and I kind of took it as a sign. Everyone’s very much into this ‘hot person energy’ since Megan Thee Stallion.”

Colborn’s hot girl brand applies a modern, pop culture lens to classic literature. In another TikTok, Colborn compares Lana Del Rey’s dark, seductive music to “Wuthering Heights.”

Although Colborn takes a playful approach to literature, she also dissects feminist issues in the classics.

“I think it’s interesting to take a contemporary lens in relation to works that are older,” said Colborn. “In the last book I finished, “Absalom[, Absalom!],” Faulkner talks about how manic it is for [women] to wait for their man to come home from war day after day even though they have their own very real, deep lives because they literally can’t do anything else.”

Before TikTok, Colborn’s claim to fame was winning Miss Teen USA in 2018, right before her first year at Princeton.

“When we got to Princeton, everyone kind of knew her because she won Miss Teen USA,” said Colborn’s close friend and fellow Princeton alum Richard Yang ’22.

Colborn is primarily concerned with using literature and media as a vehicle for exploring wider societal and feminine issues with her followers, especially intimate issues such as body image, eating disorders, and the sexualization of girls’ bodies.

In one Tiktok posted on August 4th, 2022, Colborn shares a picture of her competing in a pageant at age 14, dressed in a swim -

suit and high heels, set to Mitski lyrics: “I was so young when I behaved 25, yet now I find I’ve grown into a tall child.”

Colborn has been particularly aware of her own body since she was a young child in both ballet and pageantry, and explained the focus both activities can place on physical appearance.

“I used to read Pointe Magazine and I read this article when I was 11 that said the perfect ballet body is two to one ratio: small head, long neck,” recalled Colborn. “There was always this undertone of skinny that no one would say and everyone knew.” She takes to both TikTok and her writing to unpack these issues, hoping to help other young girls address their own body issues.

“I think eating disorders and body image [are] such a tough thing for women because we’re taught to feel so much shame,” expressed Colborn. “I talk about it openly, even though it’s not always the easiest thing to do, because the positive reaction is always worth any discomfort.”

Colborn recently won Olde Wolf’s writing contest for her poem “To Learn Technique” about her complicated experience with ballet. In the piece, she writes of ballet’s dichotomous nature as an art form that is both destructive and beautiful.

“She terrified me, made me want to be small, to crawl into a jagged crevice to change, to break my feet every night, to go back to the beginning before anything and plead with God to use a different mold,” writes Colborn, referring to her ballet teacher. “But I wanted to make her proud. She helped me do something beautiful. And I loved her for that. I still do.”

While still navigating a difficult relationship with ballet, Colborn appreciates the resurgence of the ballet aesthetic online.

“All my coquette ballerina off-duty girls, this one’s for you,” said Colborn as she showed her

TikTok followers her old wrap skirt, her favorite leotard, and two pairs of worn, pastel pink pointe shoes.

Despite her longtime interest in examining these issues through different types of media, It wasn’t until her senior year at the University that she began posting on social media.

“I posted a video of just me and one of my best friends in my eating club. I was doing my makeup and [my friend] said something so stupid it blew up,” Colborn said. “I didn’t have content about literature really taking off until [around] January of my senior year.”

After a few months of consistently posting about her reads, Colborn created a book club with her followers. Now in their fourth month, the Hot Literati Book Club has read “My Year of Rest and Relaxation” by Ottessa Moshfegh, “The Fire Next Time” by James Baldwin, and “All About Love: New Visions” by Bell Hooks.

“Having time to read is such a luxury nowadays, and if people are choosing to take the time they have to read something with me, it’s so flattering,” Colborn said. “I want to have a conversation anyone feels like they can be a part of.”

A book lover since childhood, Colborn had her nose in a book since the age of three. “It’s one of the purest activities,” she said.

“Right after her older brother went off to kindergarten, Hailey came up to me and asked me why I hadn’t taught her to read yet, so I started taking her to the library after school,” said Denise Colborn, Hailey’s mother.

Hailey’s father, Kevin Colborn, recalls her “voracious” reading habits, even as a young child.

“She would bring a book into the theater with us while we were watching a movie so she could read right up until the movie started,” said Mr. Colborn.

At Princeton, Colborn studied English literature with certificates in Gender & Sexuality Studies, African American Stud -

ies, and Creative Writing with a focus on screenwriting. She credits her creative writing professors like Aleksandar Hemon for permanently transforming her perspective on film.

“He drew a lot of lines between fiction and screenwriting,” noted Colborn. “When I’m looking at a film, I think of it in the same way I think about books — the cultural implications, the plot, and story building.”

Colborn plans to explore this link between fiction and screenwriting in her career. Currently a freelance writer and content creator, she is in the process of writing a novel that she hopes to ultimately adapt into a film.

“I can give it the introspection I want to as a novel, and somewhere down the line, I’ll revisit it as a screenplay,” said Colborn.

The novel in question follows a young girl in the 21st century navigating a tense relationship with her mother. The book draws on Colborn’s own personal experiences with pageantry and girlhood, while also emulating the long narrative style of “Girl, Interrupted” and “Rattlebone.”

“I love these really lengthy works where you kind of grow up with a young female character,” said Colborn. “[The novel] is about the dissociation inherent in girlhood and how you’re raised to see yourself through the lens of someone else.”

Ultimately, Colborn’s cool-girl online persona depends on this ironic aestheticization and awareness of destructive things.

“I’m enjoying it, but I do have a suspicion that it’s bad for my mental health,” says Colborn in a viral TikTok video, referring to Ottessa Moshfegh’s feminist satire and recent Hot Literati book club pick, “My Year of Rest and Relaxation.”

Valentina Moreno is a staff Features writer for the ‘Prince.’

Reeves: “There was an incredible sense of community but it was overwhelmed by sadness”

rest of the semester.

“It was total anarchy,” McKnight said. “People were partying like crazy.” With the future uncertain, students tried to make the most of their last few days of normalcy. They played die, a popular drinking game, in Henry courtyard and packed into dorm suites.

“It looked like lawnparties,” Reeves said. “Except with suitcases, people packing up and leaving.”

Students scrambled to make arrangements, with many storing boxes at the houses of friends and acquaintances.

Reeves had a flight on Saturday morning, which gave her just two days to pack up her entire dorm and figure out storage plans for an undisclosed amount of time.

“What do we do with all our stuff?” was one of the first questions Lizzie Curran ’23 — a native of the United Kingdom — had when the announcement dropped.

We had to pack up all our dorm stuff and get out,” McKnight recalled. His parents were able to drive up from North Carolina and help.

Within a few days, the campus had emptied out. McKnight remembers the days before leaving, calling it surreal, “like a haze.”

For the most part, the virus hadn’t yet reached the Orange Bubble, though there were signs of that changing as well. The day after the announcement, on Thursday, March 12, an undergraduate student tested positive and was placed in isolation at the McCosh Health Center, exhibiting flu-like symptoms. The next day, a staff member tested positive for the virus.

As a result, the University began emphasizing social distancing, which was a new concept to many. The Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students sent an email on Friday, March 13, stating that there could be disciplinary consequences for large gatherings. This marked the beginning of a nearly one-anda-half-year era of the University restricting social gatherings amongst undergraduates. The email said that the Department of Public Safety could document these gatherings and students who refused to disperse could be arrested.

The email referred to “disruptions we have seen on campus in the past two days” and said, “so many students are failing to heed these protective measures and engaging in disruptive behavior.”

Regardless, students continued to gather. Dining halls were still open, and enforcement of social distancing

was lax. Reeves remembers music blasting everywhere and handles of vodka left outside for the taking.

“It was one last chance to be a college kid before everything got completely destroyed,” McKnight said. “A lot of nobody going to class, just people hanging out, almost as though the world were ending tomorrow and there was nothing you could do about it.”

“There was an incredible sense of community but it was overwhelmed by sadness,” Reeves recalled. No one knew when they’d be allowed to return to campus.

The campus remained vacant through the end of the year, with just a few students with permission to live in the dorms in the fall of 2020 for reasons like housing insecurity. The following spring, a larger percentage of students arrived at a changed and stifled campus environment, with strict limitations on social

gatherings, masking policies, and take-out dining hall food. Ultimately, campus life resumed more fully that fall, with most classes meeting once again in-person and almost everyone back in the dorms. It had been a year and a half since Reeves had left, in the middle of her freshman spring; by fall 2021, she was a junior, finally reunited with many classmates she hadn’t seen since that frenzied week in March.

She remembers that first week of her junior year as similar, in a sense, to that final week in March: Everywhere people were hugging and celebrating the joy of being together. Except for this time, it wasn’t a goodbye.

“That fall was like a big reunion,” she said. “It was special.”

Paige Cromley is a junior who serves as head Features editor. She also writes for the News and Prospect sections of the ‘Prince.’

COVID

the PROSPECT.

10 things I love about Princeton

— pizza for breakfast, five coffees, naps on the floor. You just nod, understanding. It’s a comfort, watching others stress with you. Despite the missing words, the lacking memorization, the pages left, we feel alive. We’re together, and the release of Dean’s Date is only hours away. It will get done.

8. Crossing paths between class

It takes about two weeks. You add, you drop, and you start to carve the route you’ll take each Monday and Wednesday. Then you notice the patterns. You pass her down Washington, and cross him outside East Pyne every other day, just before 10 a.m.. You smile, you nod, and they become a part of your routine. Soon you’ll notice if they’re missing: Did I leave too early? Are they skipping class today? Some of these people we’re close with, others are acquaintances. But even if I don’t know their names, I know she’ll be holding a coffee. She likes Small World. He’ll be wearing the same black jacket, and be locking his bike when he waves. Our paths will overlap, until the semester ends. Then patterns reset, and new faces start to smile as we pass. But they stay familiar, even outside of their designated time and place. They multiply; by year four, you have her and him, and him and her, and tens of connections by chance. These habits bring us together.

9. Friends of friends

“How did you two meet?”

By Caroline Kirby Guest Contributor

1. Unassuming significance

That building meant nothing when you first stepped onto campus — now it’s a character in your story. The strongest memories come without warning. They’re spontaneous, inherently attached to their places and people. This place retains these memories, and they flash when you pass by, even years later. The roof of Walker Hall. Bored after dinner, my friends thought of a dare. Each time I pass, I remember our collective disbelief and thrill at the possibility of climbing it. East Pyne recalls freshman Spanish, with laughter and wasted time and growing friendship. Whig and Clio remind me of a spontaneous, liquor-fueled call, prompting a winter night around Cannon Green — a night adorned with conversations on the marble steps, looking at the stars from lawn chairs in McCosh courtyard. This place is special, and remarkable ordinary moments are the proof.

2. Shifting seasons

It’s hot, and you’re not happy to wake up sweating. But the sun beams in through the glass, and the short sleeves and sundresses and shorts and clear sky make it okay. After the trek up Elm you arrive in class damp, but so does everyone else. There are frisbees, ice cream, and warm nights at soccer games. Late summer is perfect.

Then, one morning, you awaken buried under the covers. Overnight, it dropped ten degrees. You dig out your jacket for crisp walks over leaves, and you marvel at how the colors change daily until the trees have forgone their cheery green for deep reds and oranges. Weeks later, they fall. It’s cold now, bare branches tapping the window and the heater banging. The Gothic shadows and stone seem deeper and more mysterious. Overnight, a cover of snow brings light and the sky is richer in blue. There is hot chocolate and scarves, warm coats and close conversations — even out in the sharp air and dark night.

Slowly it melts, greens reviving and flowers cautiously opening. Layers are shed, days grow longer, and outside we stay. Cheers grow at 1952 Stadium, talking and laughter reverberate throughout every courtyard, and we grasp every extra moment, knowing June approaches. Then, it all begins again.

3. Supporting characters She swipes your prox daily with the brightest smile. He always asks how class was, and wonders if you finished that book yet. You wave as they pass by, and they tell you to bring an umbrella — it’s going to rain today. He is at every game, in the bleachers and on the field, cheering them on. They are a comfort,

a spark of positivity, and a familiar face in our scheduled chaos. In dining halls, dorms, outside, inside, everywhere. We appreciate them, and hope they know what they mean to us. They make this a home.

4. McCosh 50

You’re late, and everyone knows it. The wooden floor creaks as you try to quietly shut the door and take a seat. The professor has already begun. He’s talking about Socrates. Or nuclear physics. Sometimes “Harry Potter” or “Game of Thrones.” The material doesn’t sink in as much as the setting — the cavernous room, lit with chandeliers and trimmed in dark wood. How many other minds have wandered here? Hundreds of students file out down the stairs with you, through the heavy doors, underneath the inscription. Maybe you remember nothing from the lecture today, but that room demands you to retain “democracy, and faith, and righteousness, and love of unseen things that will not die.”

5. The crowd after a win

We win a lot. But the pure joy of the people around you never dulls in clarity. When the Tigers take down the Crimson, Bulldogs, and Bears, the people around you yell, scream, and cheer. It binds the bleachers together and blankets the area with a sense of belonging. This is our place. For this crowd, it’s personal. We sit with them in class and they live next door. For months, we watched them wake up early to run, lift, and stretch. We watched them stay up late, practicing and strategizing. And it worked. They come together, celebrating, and then turn to the crowd. With the sacrifices rewarded, everyone revels in the privilege of being the ones in orange and black. We are the winners. Always.

6. The first night back

Every break is both too long and not long enough. You didn’t properly catch up on sleep, nor work ahead on assignments, or unplug enough to fully relax. But you also missed this — the hugs, the knock on your door, the hallway chat, constant noise, the unpacking. Now you’re here again. Lying in bed to the sounds of campus settling down. Watching the light fade outside your window. You feel the anticipation of a new semester tomorrow. Some things known, others to come. The first night back. Our place.

7. Firestone during finals

We are tired, but the air is buzzing. Everyone you know — and those you don’t — surround you and seventy miles of books. The B floor is my pick — I can’t handle the nervous silence one floor below, yet I need to be underground. Darkness through the windows makes me aware of the hour and my need to sleep, but I’m not close to finished. Anything goes during this week

At the beginning, you know the answer — same zee groups, days spent bonding on a hike during Outdoor Action, hours of struggling through Writing Seminar together. A few months in, that changes. When they ask how we know each other, we look at each other, puzzled: Maybe precept, last year? Oh, you weren’t in that class. What about that club? No, we joined together. The exact moment is murky, the timeline even more so. One week you were strangers, the next you ran back, laughing, through the rain to the library after a much-toolong study break. Someone introduced you, and then you had a friend. The full story becomes less important until it fades entirely. After you graduate, it’s simple: we met in college, at Princeton.

10. The moment

It could be during the walk home from the Street in the middle of the night. The shadow of the chapel almost hides him entirely, until your echoing footsteps through the arch outside McCosh 50 sparks the fox into a run, directly across your path. Or maybe it’s during that bleary, exhausting trek up Blair Arch towards your 8:30 a.m. Writing Seminar, when the sunlight hits just right and suddenly you’re awake. Perhaps it’s when you’re laughing so hard you can’t breathe with your friends at drunk meal. Or the time your professor held class on picnic blankets in the spring air. Or maybe it’s that night when the bonfire lit up Cannon Green, illuminating thousands of cheering faces, all packed tight, a sea of orange and black.

Sometimes it’s more obvious — the change in your stride when you pass a tour group, knowing each person wants what you have. They watch you open the heavy stained glass door to Chancellor Green, dreaming of what you might be reading, thinking, studying, speaking about. Who you’re doing it with.

Every one of us has the moment when we realize we’re here. We have arrived. Abreast in our generation at Princeton. We are in love, and our love is returned. And even when it’s over, we are welcomed back for the rest of our lives.

F. Scott Fitzgerald was right to write a book about this place. It deserves many more. And he was right to call it “This Side of Paradise.”

Caroline Kirby is a senior in the Politics Department. She can be reached at ckirby@ princeton.edu.

Self essays at The Prospect give our writers and guest contributors the opportunity to share their perspectives. This essay reflects the views and lived experiences of the author. If you would like to submit a Self essay, contact us at prospect@ dailyprincetonian.com.

PHOTO COURTESY OF CAROLINE KIRBY

Advocating for myself: Navigating allergies at Princeton

By Avery Danae Williams Guest Contributor

Whether it’s jokingly debating the best dining hall or going to one of the restaurants lining Nassau Street, nothing beats eating and socializing with companions after a long day of classes. At Princeton, food truly brings people together. But when you have severe food allergies, this culture can sometimes mean feeling disconnected from your friends.

When I was seven years old, my family discovered I was allergic to peanuts. One Tuesday evening, my dad ate Ritz Crackers dolloped with peanut butter while reading the newspaper. I had never eaten peanut butter before, so my dad spread some of the thick and gloopy concoction on a cracker and handed it to me. A few minutes later, my lips swelled rapidly.

Several appointments and tests later, the list of my lifethreatening allergies grew. Not only did I have to stay away from peanuts, but I also had to let go of tree nuts (goodbye, pistachios), sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, poppy seeds, and coconuts.

Nine times out of ten, I couldn’t eat a birthday cake because my teachers weren’t sure if it contained nuts. I would sit in the cafeteria eating pizza instead, upset that I couldn’t celebrate my classmate’s special day beyond singing a chronically off-key “Happy Birthday to You.” While my allergies were not airborne, I was the only student in my third-grade class who sat at a separate table designated for students with allergies. I made a few friends during this time, so I did feel less alone in navigating this new journey. But oh, how I wished I could deny the existence of the dreaded warning label reading, “This product was manufactured in a facility that produces nuts.” Maybe then, food would not have separated me from my friends.

What kept me hopeful was knowing that my parents have

been, and continue to be, my biggest advocates. Seemingly small actions, like my mom keeping my allergy list in her purse or my dad brushing his teeth before kissing me if he ate peanuts, make a huge difference in keeping me safe. Plus, the fact that my parents were always physically present — especially at social gatherings — made me feel like less of a burden to others. They asked the important questions for me: Did these foods contain nuts, seeds, or coconuts? If so, what could she eat instead? As a child, I was passive; any adult trying to judge my allergies was more likely to take them seriously when the information came from my parents rather than me.

I’ve learned that I need to play a more active role in advocating for my allergies now that I’m a young adult.

In October, following a pickup I attended with a campus group, we went to Thai Village. Besides cakes, I usually need to be careful with Asian foods as they often contain nuts, seeds,

or coconuts. The thought of being unable to eat most of the food didn’t cross my mind; the week before, our president had sent out a Google Form asking us to list food allergies. Yet, my worst nightmare still came true.

As the waiter came upstairs to deliver the group platters, the smells of peanutsprinkled Pad Thai and green coconut curry dominated the room. Many of our club members had never been to Thai Village. They wanted to make the most of their first (and hopefully not their last) visit, hungrily scooping more than two spoonfuls of colorful food onto their plates. I could only watch from a distance, my plate still a blank canvas waiting to be covered with food I could actually eat. Despite this unpleasant surprise, I did not want my fellow club members to think I was rude for leaving early, so I stayed at the pickup despite desperately wanting to return to Forbes.

Two board members, remembering my allergies, went with me to order a

separate dish: duck stir fry. While its description didn’t explicitly contain any of my allergens, I still asked the important questions to the waiter: Did this food contain nuts, seeds, or coconuts? If so, what could I eat instead? The waiter grew irritated; I guess he thought I was joking. Instead of taking his reaction personally, I — along with the two board members — reiterated how severe my allergies were until he took me seriously.

I’m proud of the courage I showed at that moment. Advocating for my allergies allowed me to enjoy my food more (which was absolutely delicious, by the way), and stay laughing and smiling during the pickup. It didn’t matter that I wasn’t eating the same pad thai platter or coconut curry as the rest of the group. The important thing was that I left the event feeling like a valued member of the group, which was reaffirmed by the board members sticking up for me.

Admittedly, I still worry about whether or not telling

someone about my allergies at social gatherings burdens them. But if I shortchange myself to make people comfortable, only to eat a dish containing an allergen I never named, I would not be alive today. Nonetheless, I will keep advocating for my allergies even if it makes some people feel uncomfortable. Life’s too short for nuts, seeds, and coconuts to separate me from my friends.

Avery Danae Williams is a staff writer for The Prospect at the ‘Prince’ and a prospective African American Studies major, with certificates in Creative Writing (Poetry) and Gender & Sexuality Studies. She can be reached at aw4174@princeton.edu or on Instagram @averydanaewrites.

Self essays at The Prospect give our writers and guest contributors the opportunity to share their perspectives. This essay reflects the views and lived experiences of the author. If you would like to submit a Self essay, contact us at prospect@ dailyprincetonian.com.

Toni Morrison’s literary archaeology in public view at ‘Sites of Memory’ exhibition

Toni Morrison was the Robert F. Goheen Professor in the Humanities at Princeton University for 17 years. Today, her legacy continues to sustain and reconfigure the philosophy of storytelling. At Firestone Library’s Milberg Gallery, the new exhibition “Toni Morrison: Sites of Memory” reveals the author’s creative process through rare manuscripts, letters, and other archival materials.

The exhibition displays 75 objects, including original manuscripts of her works; messages, outlines, and pitches exchanged with editors; the first edition of Morrison’s debut novel, “The Bluest Eye”; and handwritten diagrams that map the physical and psychological movements of her characters in “Beloved.” “Sites of Memory” welcomes literary critics, aspiring writers, historians, and anyone interested in learning more about the origins of Morrison’s revolutionary writing.

On the back wall, there is a two-hour long video interview in which Morrison discusses her personal and literary past as part of a project hosted by Boston University. The space is imbued with quiet, intimate history; Morrison’s documents show authentic age and use with their weathered texture and water stains, her brisk handwriting in pen or pencil, and burnt spots leftover from a house fire that destroyed a portion of her original manuscripts. These archives illuminate Morrison’s private authorial experiences and showcase the source materials, techniques, and ideas that serve as the basis of her stories.

In Morrison’s own words, her writing process was “a kind of literary archaeology” — she reconstructed stories from the remnants of worlds that have been neglected by history and literature. There is a constant tension between Black individuals and the worlds that they exist in and move between. Morrison’s writing process addresses this tension by transcending the boundaries of time and space. When forming and revising stories, Morrison referred to “thereness-ness,” a concept that describes her imagination of internal and external movement through locations. Based on “thereness-ness,” Morrison thought in terms of topography and distance, using actual maps and outlines to organize her characters’ narrative paths and the structure of settings.

For example, the exhibition features yellow notebook pages covered in loose sketches and lively scribbles, which frame the physical movement of the characters in “Beloved” as they pass through places like the bedroom, restaurant, and kitchen. Another document focuses on psychological trajectories, or points in the novel where a character’s conception of their world is renewed or challenged. The exhibition also features photographs of Oklahoma that Morrison used to visualize the setting of her novel “Paradise.” Morrison designed time and place, not only for the characters in her stories, but also for her writing schedule. As a full-time mother and editor, the act of writing occurred in “interstitial spaces and unconventional locations.” “If it arrives you know,” Morrison said, describing the

coming and going of words and inspiration. “If you know it really has come, then you have to put it down.”

Aside from her literary work and interviews, “Sites of Memory” spotlights Morrison’s personal narrative as a Black woman. A section of the exhibition titled “Genealogies of Black Feminism” depicts Morrison’s exploration of the complex relationship between Blackness and femininity in the late 20th-century women’s liberation movement — specifically, the question of how the category of a Black woman can exist without ignoring the differences between women in general. The exhibition contains a sampling of letters addressed to Morrison from Nina Simone, Toni Cade Bambara, and Hortense Spillers that reflect on their experiences as Black women. These documents capture the conversations and collaborative introspection that drive Morrison’s writing.

“A very large part of my own literary heritage is the autobiography,” Morrison explained in a letter shown at the end of the exhibition. Her writing represents Black histories and the stories of Black slaves as a whole, but is also deeply personal and intrinsic to her own life. Morrison’s stories go far beyond the limits of fiction — they continue to illuminate real-life experiences and reinforce the connection between an individual and their community.

“Toni Morrison: Sites of Memory” is open until June 4, 2023.

Annie Cao is a contributing writer for The Prospect. She can be reached at annie.cao@princeton.edu.

By Annie Cao | Staff Prospect Writer

JULIAN GOTTFRIED / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Thai Village, located on Nassau Street.

A triumphant tribute: Glee Club’s Walter L. Nollner concert

By Conner Kim Contributing writer

A baroque orchestra occupied center stage between vacant chairs and a vacant podium. Richardson Auditorium buzzed with the tuning of instruments, the chatter of the audience, and the anticipation of the Glee Club’s annual Walter L. Nollner concert. This concert, named after the late Glee conductor from 1958 to 1993, has also become a celebration of the ensemble’s graduating seniors. As the clock hit 7:30 p.m., the choir filed in from the wings, filling the rows of empty chairs. Then, Gabriel Crouch, Princeton’s Director of Choral Activities, stepped onto the podium and raised his baton.

The first piece performed was “The Listeners” by Caroline Shaw, who at 30, became the youngest winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Music while she was still a graduate student at Princeton. Seasoned contralto Robin Bier, a professional soloist, stood dignified from the very beginning of the piece. As Crouch began to conduct, Bier introduced the audience to “The Listeners” with soaring vocalization. Her voice was complex, with enough resonance to swim through every row in the hall, but enough depth and darkness to assert its presence as a counterpart to the choir. From the balcony, Camilla Tassi, an Italian video designer, projected a series of evocative astronomical images onto the back wall of the stage. Backed by these projections, the choir filled Richardson with a new atmosphere — one of stardust and moonlight.

A highlight of the concert came early in the fifth movement of “The Listeners.” Crouch put down his baton and turned to face the audience. The strings began without him,

plucking out hushed quarter notes as Crouch’s voice creeped into the remaining space. The professional baritone, Charles Wesley Evans, had fallen ill, and Crouch — a practiced baritone himself — had stepped in. The choir watched with awe and amusement, the kind you might feel when reading a book written by your beloved professor. In this two-minute movement, Crouch’s voice reverberated through Richardson, building momentum with the orchestra before disappearing beneath the timpani and a flurry of plucked strings.

Throughout their performance, I was struck by how expressive Glee was. It was clear that the choir sought to give the audience a clear sense of the composer’s intention. When I spoke with Crouch before the concert, he reasoned that this is exactly what a choir aims to do.

“We know we are just one component in the whole. The choir serves the music, and the music serves the composer,” he explained. And Glee did just that. With crisp cutoffs and an expressive sound, Glee presented the audience with Shaw’s wonderment for space and time. When the last movement built to its dramatic end, tension filled the lingering silence. Then, an uproar of applause.

“The Listeners” was soon followed by a celebration of Bach. Crouch brought up Shruti Venkat ’23 to take his place and conduct “Nun ist das Heil und die Kraft.” The transition from Shaw to Bach — from 2019 to 1723 — was surprisingly seamless. Venkat commanded the choir and orchestra extremely well, teasing out the fullest potential of each section in a triumphant display of the group’s technical facility, but also in a display of exuberance. Following the constant tension and release of

the Shaw, the Bach felt like a release — a joyous one at that.

At halftime, Crouch picked up the mic to thank all deserving parties, particularly the 21 seniors in the choir. Crouch then turned to the choir.

“Thanks to you all for the hours and hours of love and care you’ve brought to this group, for the encouragement and friendship that you’ve given each other, and for every single time you’ve shown up for rehearsal even when you’re overburdened with work and undernourished with sleep,” he said.

And it was clear that he meant it. When we had talked in his office, Crouch had gestured to the wall behind me at a slew of pictures of past seniors, some of whom still come to rehearsal from time to time. The collage is situated right in Crouch’s sightline — all he needs to do is look up to see it.

After the break was Bach’s “Magnificat in D,” which featured professional soprano Sonya Headlam, professional tenor David Kellett, and, once again, contralto Bier. The three soloists commanded the auditorium each time they stepped up to sing and drive

Bach forward. Even in the context of a different century, Bier’s voice continued to be uniquely beautiful. By the end of the piece, however, the spotlight returned to the seniors — in the movement “Suscepit Israel”, soprano Allyssa Noone ’23, and altos Katelyn Rodrigues ’23 and Corinna Brueckner

’23 stepped forward to offer a wonderful interpretation of the contrapuntal trio. Although the three voices were distinct, they intertwined extremely well, and the choir supported them gently with its warm sound. When applause for the “Magnificat” ended, Katie Chou

‘23 took the podium to conduct the final piece. I talked to Chou after the concert about the role of Glee in her four years at Princeton.

“Glee has been a home for me at Princeton. It is where I’ve met some of my closest friends on campus and made lifelong memories,” she said. “Glee is a part of my day that energizes me, just as anyone would feel doing something they love with people who also love doing it.”

Though the goodbyes were bittersweet for her and the other 20 seniors, Chou was also optimistic. “The Nollner

is a time to celebrate all of the seniors, but it is also a time for self-reflection, for seniors to be proud of the personal growth that has inevitably happened over the four years we’ve been in the ensemble,” she explained. The choir, the orchestra, the soloists, the conductors — all were present on stage for a reprise of “Nun ist das Heil und die Kraft.” Chou led the charge in an even more triumphant and lively performance, a final celebration of the seniors who have devoted countless hours to their art, their ensemble, and to each other. As Chou cut off the end of the piece, the audience erupted into thunderous applause. Crouch delighted in directing that applause to the choir, and especially to the seniors.

Back in his office, Crouch was pensive. “It’s possible that [the seniors] don’t yet know how grateful I am to them for what they’ve done,” he said. “But I do hope they feel welcome here forever.”

Conner Kim is a contributing writer for The Prospect and Podcast at the ‘Prince’. He can be reached at connerk@princeton.edu.

To visit or not to visit: A vocabulary to better care for the sick

By Hasan Hameed Guest Contributor

It was a warm summer afternoon in Karachi. Our school bell had just signaled the beginning of the last period. By the time our Islamic Studies teacher walked into the classroom, my fourth-grade self was yawning and ready to go home. But a few minutes later, I was wide awake, absorbing a lesson that I have never forgotten:

Dear children, the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, warned us that on the Day of Judgment, God Almighty will address us and ask: “I was sick. Why did you not visit me?”

“Oh Allah,” we will respond, “How can you, who are bereft of all impurities, ever be sick?”

“But my so-and-so servant was sick. Had you gone to visit them, you would have found Me with them.” So, dear children, we must try to visit friends when they are sick.

As it was for millions of children in Pakistan, the importance of visiting the sick was ingrained in me from a young age. The Urdu language, in fact, has a designated word for going to meet a sick person — ‘iyādat. Urdu is not the only language to signal a special emphasis on the care of the sick, just as Islam is also only one of numerous religions and ethical traditions across the world that have emphasized the importance of caring for the sick by visiting them.

Over my four years at Princeton, however, I have experienced something of a rude shock: students often do not visit you when you’re ill. Although I am a Ph.D. student, I have also been heavily involved with undergraduate life for over a year: I was an RGS at a residential college, and for many years, my

wife and I (and lately our baby daughter) have been integral parts of the Muslim community at Princeton. Invariably, there have been times when one of us is feeling unwell, just as there have been many times when we have checked in on our friends only to find out that they are sick.

Through my experiences, I have come to the following realization: at Princeton, when you tell someone you’re sick, the default assumption is that you are probably infectious — and even if you’re not, you certainly do not want company.

These assumptions are understandable, especially with the memory of one of the worst pandemics in recent human history still looming in our minds. COVID-19 was a difficult time. You could not visit your loved ones who were sick and needed you. Often, unwell relatives would forbid you from coming, or even make you promise that you would not touch them when giving them the ritual bath should the virus claim their lives. The last two years have therefore cemented the lesson in our minds: when it comes to visiting the sick, a lack of caution can be deadly.

But the fact remains: so many of us who fall sick on campus are not infectious. My wife, for instance, suffers from psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. These autoimmune conditions affect her everyday functionality — she can no longer run or play basketball — but she can otherwise tolerate them. That is until she gets a flareup. These flareups are at times expected, sometimes unexpected, and always painful. During these times, she needs people close by to support her. To listen to her pain. To make her laugh. Bring her sushi, ice cream, or freshly cut fruit. And she’s not alone in wanting company when ill.

So many of our friends on campus express how lonely they have felt when they have been physically weak. A “Feel better!” text simply feels insincere when it is not followed up, at the very least, by messages enquiring about the nature of the sickness, texts that indicate a genuine attempt at knowing what the other person is feeling — and, therefore, what you can do to help. Perhaps they don’t want a text. Perhaps they want a hot meal. Perhaps they want to be hugged. Perhaps they just want someone close by.

The question is, how do you know if a sick friend wants to be visited? People respond differently to illness, and the same person suffering from the same condition at one point might respond differently at another point. The easiest way, therefore, would be to simply ask them. Yet given the emphasisverging-on-obsession in this campus on “intruding on private space,” some feel that even asking, “Do you mind if I come over?” might put more pressure on an already-suffering student because they may be too polite to say no (as if the alternative of not asking the question and not visiting a sick friend who wants company is any better!).

I propose, then, that we normalize a vocabulary whereby we can better communicate about illness, so we can give friends who are feeling unwell the care they need without intruding on them. We can categorize illnesses into two types. Type 1 illnesses would be those where you would appreciate the company. Type 2 illnesses would be those where you would not appreciate the company.

In practice, this means that next time someone tells us that they’re sick, we can ask them: is it Type 1 or Type 2? Even if they

say Type 2, they would appreciate that they are cared about enough that someone is willing to take time out and visit them when they’re down. In fact, I believe that by adopting this vocabulary, the sick will feel empowered to better express their wishes. That is, next time I’m unwell, I could simply reply to the banal “How are you doing?” with “Just been having some stomach trouble lately. Type 1 tbh.” By making communication more meaningful, this vocabulary would help remove some of the veils that prevent us from connecting. This is especially important in a culture where human relationships are increasingly understood via metaphors of the market, where “friendships” are increasingly euphemisms for networking and socializing, and where being a good friend is rebranded as performing emotional “labor.” In such times, the emptiness of a “How’s it going?” texted or spoken at a chance encounter is not lost on those for whom it is not going so well. But what can you reply other than the meaningless “Good!” before feeling compelled to return the hollow gesture of care by remarking, in turn, “How about yourself?”

And, finally, if you do make the visit, what can you do? I find that we may benefit from the advice offered by a delightful book that my daughter was gifted recently, “How Do You Care for a Very Sick Bear?”

“You can call her, or visit, and tell her the news.

You can bring her cards, and books, and things to do.

Games are fun.

Snacks are fun, too.

Your friend Bear might look different; she might have less hair.

She might be too tired to play.

And that might feel scary.

Your friend Bear might feel scared, too.

But seeing you and having you near helps her feel better.

And it helps you, too.”

Hasan Hameed is a Ph.D. candidate in the History Department. He can be reached at hhameed@ princeton.edu.

Self essays at The Prospect give our writers and guest contributors the opportunity to share their perspectives. This essay reflects the views and lived experiences of the author. If you would like to submit a Self essay, contact us at prospect @ dailyprincetonian.com.

MARCIA BROWN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Richardson Auditorium.

NATALIA MAIDIQUE / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Students walk past McCosh Hall, home of the English department.

MEN’S BASKETBALL DAVID

Continued from page 1

for 34 points and 17.8 rebounds per game, on a team that, like Princeton, led its conference in rebounding. The Tigers’ game plan seemed to be to double-team the pair as often as possible to force them into turnovers or tough shots.

While both Tubelis and Ballo started off hot — scoring Arizona’s first 11 points, and 17 of their first 20 — it was the defensive effort of Evbuomwan, senior forward Keeshawn Kellman, and junior forward Zach Martini, among others, that kept the game from getting out of hand. Despite their massive size disadvantage — Kellman is the Tigers’ tallest player in the rotation at six feet, nine inches — the Tigers managed to emerge from the first half winning the rebounding battle, 21–17.

Martini led the Tigers in rebounding in the first half with five, finishing with seven boards and two steals.

“Zach Martini was unbelievable,” Henderson said. “He was all over the place.”

Martini came through on the offensive end, too, scoring a three-point shot to cut the early Arizona lead before scoring on a classic Princeton backdoor cut that sent the basketball historians (and the older alumni in attendance) into a frenzy.

The Pac-12 champions were no pushovers, though, and bounced back from Martini’s run to take a 31–22 lead. The upstart Tigers matched them, going on an 8–0 run to end the half within one point of the Wildcats.

Junior guard Matt Allocco and senior guard Ryan Langborg each had opportunities to give the Tigers the lead heading into the half, but Allocco’s buzzerbeating layup rimmed out. Even though the Tigers weren’t able to break into the lead before halftime, the mood in the locker room was extremely optimistic.

“‘You’re okay, we’re down one, get the crowd on your side, [and] have some fun,’” Henderson recalls saying to his team at the break. “It wasn’t anything earth-shattering.”

“It was loud in there; everybody had something to say, you know,” Allocco told members of the media after the game. “‘We’ve got this, stay in the moment; we’re gonna make shots; we’re gonna make big plays.’”

The numbers backed up the Tigers’ confidence, too. As mentioned, they were winning the rebounding battle, and had also managed to record just four first-half turnovers. The Tigers also allowed Arizona to shoot just 30 percent from three and under 45 percent from the field in the first half, while only giving up eight points to players not named Ballo or Tubelis.

“We want to win six games just like Arizona does,” Henderson said, referencing the number of victories required to capture a national championship. “And in order to do that, you’ve got to be tough defensively, because we did not shoot the ball very well tonight.”

“They didn’t get transition baskets, for the most part,” he added. “We weren’t perfect, but they weren’t getting what they’re really good at.”

However, as the second half began, the Tigers’ advantages began to wane. In the first seven minutes of the period, the Tigers turned the ball over six times. Arizona began to speed the pace of the game offensively and built a lead, which was once as large as 12 points.

Trailing and desperately needing a spark offensively, Princeton turned to sophomore

guard Blake Peters. Peters, who has shot 37.6 percent from three this season while averaging just over 13 minutes per game, suddenly played a massive role for the Tigers, knocking down two key threes down the stretch to keep Princeton within striking distance.

Outside of Peters — who shot three-for-five from deep — the Tigers continued to struggle to get their shotmaking on track as the half progressed. They would finish having shot just four-for-25 from deep, and just 40.6 percent from the floor overall.

Once again, though, it was the Tigers’ defense that came through. Kellman, Evbuomwan, and first-year forward Caden Pierce worked hard to defend the Wildcat bigs, coming up with key blocks and rebound after rebound. In the final eight minutes of play, the Tigers gave up just four points — and zero in the last 4:45 — a nearly unfathomable result against a team that averaged over 80 points per game entering Thursday’s contest.

“It’s such a tough group,” Henderson said. “We’re imperfect, but we’re a very tough group.”

As the defense held, the Tigers continued to search for a shot that would put them in the lead. As was the case at the end of the first half, the Tigers struggled to find a way through, with both Langborg and Pierce missing open threepointers.

“We talk confidently,” Henderson said. “We felt we could win, [and] with four minutes left, [we said] ‘we’re gonna win this game.’”

Langborg finally found the bottom of the net on a foul-line jumper to cut the Arizona lead to one at 55–54, before scoring a layup to give the Tigers their first lead of the game with just over two minutes remaining. The Californian was a hero on the defensive end, too, blocking Arizona guard Courtney Ramey with just 50 seconds remaining.

After Caden Pierce hit a pair of free throws, Arizona had one last chance to tie the game, now trailing by three. At that point, it seemed the Tigers were ready to cash in on a bit of March Madness underdog luck.

“They had three shots at the basket from 21 seconds [left],” Henderson said. “Those usually go in in a game like this ... We got lucky.”

With the win, the Tigers became just the 11th 15-seed to win an NCAA Tournament game, and the third in the last three seasons, following in the footsteps of fellow NewJerseyans Saint Peter’s, who made it all the way to the Elite Eight as a 15-seed last season. They are the lowest-seeded Ivy League team to ever win a March Madness game.

“To beat a great team like that on this stage is a pretty special feeling, but also, I can’t say I’m surprised,” Allocco said. “This team has been so good all year.”

“On paper, it’s going to look like a big upset,” he continued. “But we believe in each other and we think we’re a really good team. When we’re at our best, I think we can beat anybody in the country.”

The Tigers continued their tournament journey against seventh-seeded Missouri (25–9, 11–7 Southeastern) on March 18. Even with the short turnaround, Henderson was confident that the Tigers could keep their run going.

“We played the majority of our games in our league on back-to-backs,” he said. “So the [extra] day of preparation is quite nice.”

“Missouri is really good, [and] we’re playing great,” he added. “It’ll be a fun challenge.”

Wilson Conn is a head editor for the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’

WILSON CONN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

The Tigers beat Arizona in the rebounding battle, 38–37.

WILSON CONN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Sophomore guard Blake Peters shot 60 percent from deep. The rest of the team shot 5 percent.

WRESTLING

Senior Patrick Glory becomes first Princeton NCAA wrestling champion in 72 years

By Nishka Bahl Head Sports Editor

On Saturday, Mar. 18, senior wrestler Patrick Glory won the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 125-pound men’s wrestling championship, becoming the first NCAA wrestling champion for Princeton in 72 years with a 4–1 victory over Purdue’s Matt Ramos.

Throughout his Princeton career, the four-time All-American compiled a number of awards, beginning by placing sixth as a first-year in his NCAA Championship debut. With the event being cancelled in 2020 and 2021, Glory arrived at the 2022 NCAA Championship ready to perform. However, in Detroit, Mi. that year, Glory just missed earning the national champion title, placing second after losing to Michigan’s Nick Suriano 5–3.

“Walking off this stage taking second is the worst feeling in the world,”

Glory said in his postwin interview with ESPN. “I just wanted to come out here and prove to everybody I could do it and that Pat Glory is a national champion.”

This year, in Tulsa, Okla., the second-seeded Glory proved himself as a national champion against fourth-seeded Ramos, joining Bradley Glass ’53 as a Princeton wrestling national champion.

In 1951, Glass won the unlimited-weight NCAA championship, but no other Tiger, until Glory, had earned a national title in any weight class.

“I’ve seen that picture (of Glass) since before I was a freshman going to ROTC practices,” Glory said. “I always wanted to move him over a little bit and make some room for me.

I’m just so glad we could

do it.”

In the NCAA finals, Glory demonstrated his dominance over Ramos, scoring off an escape in the second period and a takedown early in the third. Ramos’s only score came from a penalty point occurring with just a second left in the third period.

Among those congratulating Glory after his victory was former President Donald Trump, who shook hands with him, as well as with Glory’s mother, father, and brother.

Heading into NCAA Championships, Glory had recorded a 20–0 record in his senior year and contributed 23 points to the Tigers’ overall 13thplace team finish.

“To win a national championship for Princeton and be the first one to do it since 1951 is something everyone

that’s associated with our program has dreamed of,“ Glory told The Daily Princetonian.

“It’s still surreal, and I am so grateful to have been a part of a class and a program that supports

A look back at Princeton men’s basketball’s most memorable March Madness efforts

By Diego Uribe & Harrison Blank Assistant Sports Editor & Sports Contributor

Just one year after losing in the first round of the National Invitation Tournament (NIT), the men’s basketball team (22–8 overall, 10–4 Ivy League) finds themselves in the second round of the NCAA Tournament, having sent the Pac-12 champions packing in the opening round.

The 15-seed Tigers pulled off an upset for the ages yesterday against the two-seed Arizona Wildcats, winning 59–55. The two-seed versus 15-seed matchup is normally just a warmup game for the favorites: Entering Thursday’s game, the 15-seed was just 10–130 all-time in the matchup. The Tigers, therefore, became just the 11th 15-seed to ever win a March Madness game.

The usually-safe first round, however, has become more treacherous for two-seeds in recent years. Princeton’s win

on Thursday marks the third consecutive year in which at least one 15-seed has won their first-round matchup. In 2021, Oral Roberts shocked the nation by beating Ohio State, and last year, Saint. Peter’s, located just 45 miles away from Princeton, overcame Kentucky 85–79 before making a run to the Elite-Eight.

Princeton will go into Saturday’s matchup against Missouri (25–9, 11–7 Southeastern) looking to become the fourth-ever 15-seed to move forward into the second weekend of the tournament, following Saint Peter’s, Oral Roberts, and Florida Gulf Coast, who became the first to do so in 2013.

Before yesterday’s win over the Arizona Wildcats, the Tigers hadn’t won an NCAA tournament game since 1998, when they beat University of Nevada - Las Vegas before losing to Michigan State in the second round. Since then, the Tigers

have only qualified for the tournament four times, losing all four matchups.

While bracket analysts typically project the Tigers as a first-round exit when they do make the tournament, the program has proven that when given the chance, they keep things interesting. This year’s squad is no different from past teams in their ability to give a major-conference school all they can handle.

In their previous two tournament appearances in 2017 and 2011, the Tigers lost by a combined total of 4 points to Notre Dame and Kentucky, two storied programs with histories of tournament success.

Their biggest upset before yesterday came in 1996, with a win over the then-defending champion UCLA Bruins as a 13seed. The win was the final in the storied coaching career of Pete Carril and was Princeton’s first NCAA Tournament win

since the field was expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

“The celebration was immediate, and dramatic,” an article written shortly after the game in The Daily Princetonian read. “When a Ryder truck drove through Prospect Avenue, ecstatic Tiger fans grabbed hold of the still-moving vehicle.”

“I’ve never seen so much joy on campus as the result of a sporting event,” Sean Gregory ‘98, a member of the 1996 squad, told the ‘Prince’ in 2021.

While the Tigers certainly shocked the world by knocking off the Bruins, perhaps their most significant tournament game came just seven years earlier and ended in defeat.

In 1989, four years after the tournament field increased to 64 teams, the Tigers found themselves matched up with perennial contender and NBA talent factory Georgetown Hoyas, who were led by wouldbe NBA Hall of Famer Alonzo

Mourning.

Ahead of the 1989 tournament, NCAA representatives had discussed limiting the amount of automatic bids given out to smaller schools in smaller conferences. The initiative was spearheaded by the major conferences, who typically won most — if not all — of the tournament’s at-large bids. For them, more automatic bids meant less of their teams in the tournament, and a smaller share of the tournament’s profits.

“As you prepare for it, you treat it like any other game,” Carril wrote in his 1997 book, “The Smart Take From the Strong.” “We took the psychology out of it, the idea that every team was superior … We just played the game.”

College basketball fans expected a blowout, especially given that the three previous teams that the Ivy League had sent to the tournament had lost by an average of 40 points. Ahead of the game, Pete Carril recognized just how tall the task was.

“I think we’re a billion-to-one to win the whole tournament,” he said. “To beat Georgetown, we’re only 450 million to one.”

But against all odds, the game came down to the wire. Princeton took the final shot with a chance to win, but fell just short and lost, 50–49. The game, however, proved to the NCAA and its fans that automatic bids can compete, and people love to watch them do so. The game drew huge TV ratings, which helped prompt CBS executives to sign a seven-year deal with the NCAA to broadcast the tournament in its entirety.

“[The game] changed the way people watched the NCAA tournament,” famed sports journalist John Saunders told Sports Illustrated. “They weren’t just watching their team. They were looking for the upset.”

34 years later, the slipper still fits, and the Tigers are once again the talk of the ball.

wrestling in the way Princeton does.”

Nishka Bahl is a head editor for the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’

Diego Uribe is an assistant editor for the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’ Harrison Blank is a contributor to the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’

COURTESY

PHOTO COURTESY OF BEN HART ’96

The Tigers celebrate after beating UCLA 43–41 in the 1996 NCAA Tournament. On the left is current men’s basketball head coach Mitch Henderson ‘98 (21).

MEN’S BASKETBALL

WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

SHEEP

Continued from page 1

two offenses struggling to make shots, and two defenses making everything difficult.

Despite trailing by six at the half, the Tigers threw the first punch in the third quarter, opening on a 10–0 run to take a four point lead. The two teams traded baskets, but N.C. State’s size inside once again got the better of Princeton, as they dropped the lead in the final minutes, and ended up down four after a couple of key Wolfpack free throws.

Halfway through the fourth quarter, the Wolfpack kicked into gear in transition and snagged two key fastbreak layups, pushing the lead to 63–55 with 5:41 remaining to play. Junior forward Ellie Mitchell hauled in multiple key offensive boards, but the Tigers struggled to convert them, as layups, jumpshots, and three-pointers, rattled out.

With Mitchell primarily assigned to defending NC State’s forwards, most of whom had an inch or two on her, Berube says their defensive success came down to leaning on Mitchell’s strengths and getting others involved:

“It was just [about] using

BASKETBALL

her quickness getting around because that’s what she has,” Berube said of Mitchell.

“Their posts are so strong and so good inside … but she had some help from her teammates, digging in and doubling.

“And she’s really scrappy, getting jump balls, blocks and steals — it’s just Ellie being Ellie.”

Even as Grace Stone finally sank a searing three-pointer to end the scoring drought, and the Tigers grabbed quite literally every rebound, they continued to trail by five heading into the final two minutes. At long last, a shot finally snapped through — junior guard Kaitlyn Chen hit a searing three-pointer, cutting the lead to just two with less than a minute to go, at 63–61.

On the next possession, first-year guard Madison St. Rose grabbed a clutch steal, sending the ball back Princeton’s way. But senior guard Julia Cunningham’s layup attempt went just sideways, and the Tigers were back on the defensive, where this time, Stone was the one to grab a quick steal off of the Wolfpack’s inbound pass.

The Tigers had one last chance, and as precious seconds ticked away, Stone came free off of a screen on the right wing, and drained a three-pointer to give the

Tigers a one-point lead with 4.7 seconds left. One last defense effort from the Tigers found them scrambling on the floor for the loose ball as the final buzzer sounded.

“We’ve kind of been in tight games all year,” Stone said after the game. “I think my teammates just have all the confidence in the world in me and I knew that if I missed that shot, they were getting good offensive rebounds.”

“So it’s really hard not to shoot with confidence when you have teammates like

mine,” she added.

Despite going nearly nine minutes without a made field goal at one point during the second half, the Tigers walked away with a win, thanks in large part to their stifling defense; indeed, the Tigers did not give up a single basket to the Wolfpack — who had made four straight Sweet 16 appearances entering this season — after the 5:44 mark of the final quarter.

With the men making this year’s NCAA Tournament and winning their opening game

against Arizona, Princeton is now the first Ivy League school to win a game in both the women’s and men’s Tournaments in the same season.

The win is also the third March Madness victory in program history. The Tigers looked to make their first-ever Sweet 16 by defeating secondseeded Utah (26–4, 15–3 Pac-12) on March 19.

Isabel Rodrigues is a senior writer for the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’

Women’s basketball closes season with NCAA second round loss to Utah, 63–56

By Isabel Rodrigues Senior Sports Writer

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah

— The final curtain has been drawn on the 2022–23 Princeton women’s basketball season.

On Sunday, March 19, after being just two points shy of the lead with seven minutes to play, the Tigers (24–6 overall, 12–2 Ivy League) dropped a heartbreaking Round of 32 loss to the Utah Utes (27–4, 15–3 Pac12) in the NCAA Tournament. It’s the second-consecutive loss for the Tigers in the second round of March Madness, with both losses coming by singledigit deficits.

“We feel like we came up short of our goal, but I think we battled from minute one to minute 40,” head coach Carla Berube told The Daily Princetonian after the game. “I couldn’t be prouder of my team and how hard we played.”

“This game doesn’t define our season. We had an awesome, awesome ride and our five seniors have been just incredible,” she added.

The Tigers opened strong, matching every bucket Utah put up, and even taking the lead off of a coast-to-coast layup from first-year guard Madison St. Rose. However, after a couple of unsavory turnovers in the fast-break and back-to-back defensive breakdowns inside, the door opened for the Utes to take a five-point lead with a third of the first quarter left to play.

Even as the Tigers forced five Utah turnovers, they continued to struggle inside on both ends of the court. A dagger three-pointer from Utah’s Alissa Pili put the Utes up by 10, before junior guard Kaitlyn Chen took Pili to the rim on the final play of the first quarter, cutting the lead to single digits as time expired.

As the Tigers continued to experiment with methods for overwhelming Utah’s forwards, the Utes continued to get points in the paint. A combination of Pili’s passing and forward Jenna Johnson finding cuts to the basket

kept the momentum going for Utah, who were also forcing the Tigers to play at their breakneck pace.

With 5:45 left in the second quarter, senior guard Maggie Connolly entered the game and hit a deep three, pulling the Tigers back within 10, just as Princeton’s defense began to tighten. Berube’s squad went on to force five Utah turnovers in the last five minutes of the half, and by halftime, they had pulled within six points of the Utes.

“I think we finally clicked a little bit better defensively toward the end of the second quarter,” Berube said after the game. “[We] started really helping each other out, helping inside, [and] doing a better job of containing.”

Utah’s head coach Lynne Roberts says they felt the impact straight away.

“That was hard. They are tough and you can see why they are such a good program,” she said. “It’s not just a good team this year. They are just a great program, well-coached, disciplined, physical, [and] fearless. We just couldn’t pull away.”

The second half was even more physical than the first, as players from both teams crowded the paint, grabbed steals, and laid down blocks. But despite Princeton’s efforts, their shots were not hitting pay dirt. It wasn’t until deep in the third quarter that the net started to snap in favor of Princeton.

Utah’s defense was scrambled, as Chen dumped in a couple floaters and senior guard Grace Stone hit a key three-pointer, cutting the lead to as few as two. As if to foreshadow the end of the game, a fifth team foul with just seconds remaining would allow the Utes to stay ahead by four as the third quarter buzzer sounded.

“You know, they just have so many threats out there,” Berube said. “There’s some fouling that we did [that] put them on the line [and] they got a lot of points that way. It’s just tough because we play

aggressive defense, and I think at times we were a second late on things.”

The fourth quarter began similarly: Utah went on a run, but the Tigers responded, bringing the deficit back down to two. But with just over three minutes left in the quarter, Princeton hit five team fouls, sending the Utes in the bonus and to the free throw line with every foul that followed, enough for six trips to the free throw line, nine points, and an insurmountable lead.

Even as Stone hit a deep three-pointer and Connolly was fouled on a three-point shot with eight seconds to play, it wasn’t enough to overcome the deficit.

As the final buzzer sounded, the final score was set in favor of the Utes, 63–56. The sea of red-and-white clad Utah fans exploded in cheers, just as they had throughout the game. Princeton’s own fans, which had gathered behind the team’s bench, somberly looked on as the team walked off the court, players arm in arm, for the final time this year. “You want to leave it all out

on the floor and you don’t want to have any regrets,” Stone reflected. “I think that when you play with all of your heart, it’s hard to have those.”

Junior forward Ellie Mitchell was indispensable to the Tigers’ defense, as well as their offense. She hauled in 18 rebounds (including 10 offensive boards) on the night, along with nine points and three assists, while also being the primary defender on Pili. But beyond the numbers, it was Mitchell’s energy and unending effort that seemed to keep the Princeton engine running — even as they hit just three shots in the final quarter.

“That girl puts her body on the line every single day, every single practice, every game,” Stone said of Mitchell after the game. “It’s something that [we’ve] always preached, that toughness wins basketball games. I think that this team is really good because we do the dirty work, we do the work nobody else wants to do.”

Stone and Chen, despite making just 11 shots between them, combined for 35 of

the Tigers’ 56 points. For Stone, who had a career-high 22 points in the Tigers’ first round win over NC State and 16 points against Utah, it was just the second time in her career posting back-to-back games with 15 or more points scored. The loss marks an end of an era in Princeton women’s basketball — five Tigers will graduate this spring, including two starters in Stone and Cunningham, and all remaining and incoming players will have only known Berube’s program. Despite this, after back-to-back appearances in the NCAA tournament, and the meteoric rise of two stars in Chen and Mitchell, there may still be plenty of magic left for years to come.

But, if there’s one thing this program has shown its community, and the nation at large, it’s that a defensiveminded team will always be in the fight until the very end — even when the shots just don’t fall.

COURTESY OF @PRINCETONWBB/TWITTER.

Senior guard Grace Stone hit a three-pointer with 4.7 seconds left to give Princeton a one-point lead.

Isabel Rodrigues is a senior writer for the Sports section

COURTESY OF @PRINCETON/TWITTER.

Junior forward Ellie Mitchell led the Tigers with 18 rebounds.

WOMEN’S

‘DAVID’ KEEPS DANCING: men’s basketball defeats Missouri, 78–63, to advance to Sweet 16

By Wilson Conn Head Sports Editor

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — One month ago, the men’s basketball team was reeling.

After leading by as many as 19 points against Yale on Feb. 18, they coughed up the advantage, losing a game that would eventually cost them the top seed in Ivy Madness and force them to share the regularseason crown with the Bulldogs.

“This one hurts a lot, but it’s not over,” head coach Mitch Henderson ’98 said after the loss. “It’s not as bad as it’ll hurt if you don’t get where you want to get in a couple weeks. We’re going to come back fighting.”

Fast-forward four weeks, and it’s safe to say the team is exactly where they want to be. Since the Yale loss, they have won six straight games, the most recent of which being a 78–63 win over seventh-seeded Missouri that gives the program its first Sweet 16 appearance in the 64-team tournament era.

“The Yale loss specifically was a massive turning point for us, I think,” senior forward Tosan Evbuomwan told the media after the win over Missouri.

“The end of our season, [the] last five, six games, they were all huge games for us. They all felt like championship games,” he added. “All those games were big games. That kind of gives us confidence going into each game here.”

On Saturday, the Orange and Black (23–8 overall, 10–4 Ivy League) extended their winning streak — and their season — by riding lock-down defense and clutch three-point shooting to a dominant victory over Missouri (25–10, 11–7 Southeastern). Their 15-point margin is the largest ever attained in the NCAA Tournament by a 15-seed, and they are the first Ivy League team to make the Sweet 16 since Cornell in 2010.

“We are so thrilled to be going to the Sweet 16,” Henderson said. “It is an absolute pleasure being around these guys. They just grit their teeth and they do it.”

As was the case in Princeton’s

first-round upset against Arizona, the biggest keys to victory were their rebounding and defense. Princeton — who ranked 14th nationally in rebounding margin entering the game — out-rebounded Missouri 44–30, while blocking four shots and holding their opponent to just 41 percent shooting from the field for the game. First-year forward Caden Pierce led Princeton in rebounding with 16, a careerhigh mark that was also the second-highest total by any player in this year’s NCAA Tournament at the time of the game’s conclusion.

“[We’re] a really tough group. We can switch. [They] know exactly what they’re supposed to do,” Henderson said, emphasizing his team’s mastery of man defense principles. “They keep their body in front of their guys. Good old-fashioned, tough-nosed defense.”

The repeated stellar defensive and rebounding efforts in both the Arizona and Missouri games did not mean there wasn’t room for improvements to be made between the two, though. Absent from the otherwise exemplary display against Arizona was a complete performance on the offensive end; although Princeton scraped together enough baskets for the win, they shot just 40.6 percent from the field and 16 percent from three-point range. Not one starter for Princeton notched a three-point basket.

“[Senior guard] Ryan Langborg, Cade Pierce, [junior forward] Zach Martini, they’re going to make some threes,” Henderson told the media before the Missouri matchup. “[They’ve] got to keep shooting it.”

By the end of the game, all three of these players would have a three-point make. Against Missouri, Princeton hit 12 long balls as a team, tripling their total from the Arizona game.

First up was Langborg, who hit three triples within the game’s first six minutes, and scored 11 of the team’s first 13 points. He would finish with 22,

the second-highest total of his career and a team-leading mark.

“Shots weren’t going in for any of us really the last game,” Langborg said. “To see the ball go through the net is always a great start to the game.”

“This guy on my right was not named to any all-league teams at all … and he was the best player on the floor [today],” Henderson said in the press conference, gesturing towards Langborg. “If you want to argue, I’m happy to argue with anybody.” After two dunks from senior forward Keeshawn Kellman, Martini was next up in the shooting showcase, knocking down a three-pointer that gave Princeton a 24–14 lead with just over seven minutes left in the first half.

As the team began to heat up from outside, the crowd — both neutral and Princeton supporters — began to roar with each attempt.

“We really drew on the strength of our fans this weekend,” Henderson said. “I don’t think anybody does it quite like Princeton … We are so proud to be representing our school and playing great basketball in front of what I thought was just a terrific crowd.”

While the three-pointers rained in, the Princeton defense dominated. Despite seven early points from forward Noah Carter, the Missouri offense stagnated in the first half, even enduring one seven-minute stretch during which they only managed three points.

Carter, who scored nearly half of his team’s first-half points, fought to keep Missouri in the game, though. While Princeton led by as many as 14 in the first half, they entered the locker room up by just seven points, thanks to a buzzer-beating layup by Missouri guard Sean East II.

“‘We’re going to get on that flight, [and] no matter what, when we get on that flight, we’re going to be us,’” Henderson recalls telling his team at half, referencing their planned redeye out of Sacramento Saturday

night. “We felt like the best version of us could beat the best version of them.”

In the first half, the Orange and Black were looking pretty close to the ideal unit Henderson described. Despite being pressed by Missouri for much of the half, they had just four turnovers, and only one through the first 10 minutes, warding off a defense that was second nationally this season in steals per game (10.2). They were also out-rebounding Missouri 21–14, out-scoring them in the paint (18–8) and shooting 10 percentage points better from the floor (46.7 percent compared to 36.7 percent).

Lastly, in the first half, Princeton held Missouri’s two leading scorers — forward Kobe Brown and guard D’Moi Hodge — to just four points. The pair were each averaging over 15 points per game entering Saturday’s contest, and combined for 42 points and eight three-pointers in Missouri’s first-round win over Utah State.

Despite the lack of production from their stars, Missouri fought hard to open the second half. Although three-pointers from junior guard Matt Allocco and Pierce built another doubledigit lead for Princeton, the Show-Me State squad bounced back with a vengeance, cutting the lead to 43–37 with 11 minutes remaining.

Enter sophomore guard Blake Peters.

Although he was late to the three-point hoedown, having only played two minutes with zero shot attempts in the first half, he would soon become the life of the party. In the game’s final 11 minutes, Peters made five three-pointers and tallied 17 points while leading his team on a 16–4 run that put the game away for good. He was shooting 57.1 percent from deep in the NCAA Tournament.

“All year I’ve been working on reading Tosan [Evbuomwan] and other guys,” he said. “I think I do a good job finding open space when he drives. Missouri kept coming off [of me], so I just

tried to find open space.”

“At the end of the day we’ve all put in a lot of work shooting the ball,” he said. “Our slogan is ‘Make Shots.’ Today I made shots.”

“[Peters is] very calm under pressure,” Henderson added. “That’s how he is. That’s how he goes about his business.”

Impressing alongside Peters and Langborg in the stat-sheet was Evbuomwan, who was key as a ball-handler in breaking the Missouri press, and finished with nine points, nine rebounds, and five assists.

“You won’t see that again at Princeton for 50 years,” Henderson said, referencing Evbuomwan’s court vision and unorthodox skill set. “I mean, he’s really a very unique passer.”

Evbuomwan and his teammates are delighted to be moving on, but don’t plan on their tournament run ending here.

“I can’t really put the feeling into words right now, to be honest. It’s just an unreal feeling to do this with my guys,” Evbuomwan said. “We just have such a close group. We love to work with each other. We love to push each other. It’s showing.”

“Obviously being here is pretty surreal,” Langborg added. “Coming into this tournament, this is what we all wanted.”

“We’re not done yet. We’ve got a bunch of games left … we’re all so excited and ready to get after the next one.”

Princeton will play against sixth-seeded Creighton (23–12, 14–6 Big East) in Louisville, Ky. on Friday in the Sweet 16.

In the meantime, spring break is over, and the team — especially the seniors — will have plenty of academic challenges to tackle this week, amid the eruption of their national celebrity.

“I’ve got five seniors and they’re all writing a thesis right now,” Henderson said. “It’s due in two weeks. There’s no extensions. They’ve got to get to work.”

Wilson Conn is a head editor for the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’

The matchup is the first-ever between a six-seed and a 15-seed in the NCAA Tournament

By Wilson Conn & Diego Uribe

Head Sports Editor & Assistant

Sports Editor

The men’s basketball team is in uncharted territory.

For the first time in the modern NCAA Tournament history — the period since the tournament field was expanded to 64 teams in 1985 — the Tigers (23–8, 10–4) are in the Sweet 16, thanks to two upset wins over Arizona and Missouri last weekend in the tournament’s first two rounds.

“Eight days ago we had just clinched our bid to the tournament,” head coach Mitch Henderson ’98 told members of the media on Monday. “It’s gone by so fast … we’re pinching ourselves.”

The program has not been one of the final 16 teams since 1967, when the NCAA Tournament was contested between just 23 teams and Princeton won just one game, their first-round matchup against West Virginia.

Yet the upcoming matchup evokes another game of yore. It was 1961, and exactly one month after former men’s basketball coach Franklin “Cappy” Cappon — the third-winningest coach in program history — died of a heart attack during a post-practice shower in Dillon Gymnasium. The

Tigers traveled to Omaha, Neb. for a late December basketball contest with a local squad. Despite 21 points from Al Kaemmerlen ’62, the Tigers lost 63–54, and never returned to face the team again. That Nebraskan foe was the now sixth-seeded Creighton Bluejays (23–12, 14–6 Big East), whom the 15thseeded Tigers will play for the first time in 62 years in Friday night’s Sweet 16 matchup in Louisville, Ky. And although the sting of the previous loss has likely faded away — after all, Henderson wasn’t even born until nearly 14 years after the game — onlookers can expect a game as competitive as one between bitter rivals.

“We’re still learning about them,” Henderson said last Monday. “They were predicted to win the Big East by a mile going into the season and have been very good.”

Contributing to the intensity of the matchup — the first in NCAA history between a six-seed and a 15seed — are undoubtedly the stakes: namely, a spot in the Sunday’s South Regional Final and the Elite Eight. However, the teams’ similar styles of play should also make for a physical, gritty battle of wills.

For one, both teams rely on a rebounding advantage to defeat their opponents. While Princeton

ranks 11th nationally in rebound margin (picking up 6.6 more boards than their opponents on average), Creighton ranks 62nd (3.7 more on average). Both the Tigers and the Bluejays count on their rebounding to cancel out their typically dismal turnover margin; both teams turn the ball over nearly two times more per game than their opponents on average, and rank in the bottom 20 percent of Division I teams in the category.

After being out-rebounded in their first-round win over N.C. State, the Bluejays got back to their glass-cleaning ways in the second round against third-seeded Baylor, out-rebounding the Bears by five. However, while their rebounding improved, they continued to struggle with turnovers, having two more than N.C. State and four more than Baylor. The Tigers, meanwhile, have out-rebounded each of their first two NCAA Tournament opponents and have had a net-zero turnover margin in March Madness thus far.

Another key for the Bluejays is their excellent free-throw shooting. They rank 10th in the country in free-throw shooting as a team (78.02 percent), and went 22-for-22 in the win over Baylor. They shot 17-for-19 against N.C. State. Against Baylor, Creighton guard

Ryan Nembhard was key from the charity stripe, knocking in all 10 of his attempts en-route to a team-high 30 points. He was the second player to score 30 points in the tournament for Creighton this year, after Creighton forward Ryan Kalkbrenner put up 31 against N.C. State.

“He’s just an unbelievably talented big man inside,” Henderson said of Kalkbrenner. “We have to guard him as a team. We were able to do that against Arizona [forward Ąžuolas Tubelis] but it’ll be a big challenge. He’s just so unusual and so big. We haven’t seen anything like that.” Nembhard and Kalkbrenner lead a Bluejays offense that spreads the ball around the starting lineup well, with all five starters averaging between 11.8 and 15.7 points; it makes sense, then, that Creighton is 20th nationally in assists per game (15.8). However, the Bluejays are also not a very deep team, meaning if one of their starters gets in foul trouble, they can struggle to score — they are ninth-to-last nationally in bench points per game with just 11.06 per contest.

And while Creighton has had a 30-point scorer in each of their tournament games so far, they have also been susceptible to impressive individual offensive performances, giving up 32 points to N.C. State

guard Terquavion Smith before conceding 30 to Baylor guard LJ Cryer. The team has been able to weather these performances in large part to their three-point defense; so far in the tournament, they are allowing teams to shoot just 22.2 percent from beyond the arc.

With the combination of their star scorers, lights-out free-throw shooting, and hot three-point defense, the Bluejays certainly pose a threat to Princeton’s continued run in March Madness. But Henderson isn’t fazed in the slightest.

“When we beat Arizona, when we beat Yale, when we beat Penn, I said ‘we still haven’t played well,’” he said. “Those games were hard, and we’re winning, and I think that’s the sign of a good group. We pushed through it.”

Should the Tigers win, they would be just the second-ever 15-seed to make the Elite Eight, joining last year’s Saint Peter’s squad. They would then face the winner of the contest between number one overall seed Alabama (31–5, 16–2 Southeastern) and fifth-seeded San Diego State (29–6, 15–3 Mountain West).

Wilson Conn is a head editor for the ‘Sports’ section at the ‘Prince.’ Diego Uribe is an assistant editor for the ‘Sports’ section at the ‘Prince.’