The Daily Princetonian: April 14, 2023

Choosing between a months-long investigation and informal resolution, sexual assault survivors face a dilemma

By Paige Cromley

Head Features Editor

Content warning: The following article contains graphic descriptions of sexual assault.

If you or a friend have experienced sexual misconduct and are in need of assistance, Princeton has a number of resources that may be of use. You can also reach SHARE, Princeton’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education service at 609-258-3310. All student names in this piece have been changed to protect their privacy.

In the fall of 2021, Beth, an undergraduate, woke up in her dorm room, knowing something was deeply wrong. “I woke up with this feeling of complete worthlessness,” Beth recalled. She went to the bathroom, where she discovered she was bleeding.

“I knew then that I had engaged in sexual activity the

ON CAMPUS

night before,” she said. She stood shaking in the shower for over half an hour.

There had been multiple parties, a night of dancing and drinking before everyone went home for fall break. Beth had blacked out, and the next morning, she couldn’t remember significant parts of what had happened.

Some memories came back throughout the day. She remembers the man she went home with taking off a condom without her permission, and later on beginning to engage in a form of sex she didn’t consent to. Most of the night remained obscure to her. She felt physical discomfort, “a ripping feeling,” over the next few days.

It wasn’t until talking to a close friend that Beth was able to identify what had happened to her as sexual assault. A rep-

See TITLE IX page 12

Prospective ’27s express enthusiasm during Princeton Preview

By Rebecca Cunningham Assistant News Editor

A sunny day was perfect setting for what prospective new members of the Class of 2027 called the “warm and vibrant” environment created by University administrators, faculty, and current students as they got what was, for some of them, their first look at campus.

On Tuesday, April 11, the University hosted the first of two Princeton Previews, a day

that encourages admitted students to enroll and introduces the prospective class to campus for the first time. This year’s preview included speeches from admissions officers, campus tours led by Orange Key, Q&A student panels, an academic expo, activities fair, and student performances.

The ‘Prince’ spoke to prospective first-years as they transitioned between scheduled events and wandered about campus. Prospective students

Giberson ’23 indicted by grand jury, arraignment set for Tuesday

expressed excitement about the programming and the University, speaking to the effectiveness of the event as a way of encouraging commitments to Princeton and enthusiasm among the incoming class.

“It’s intimidating knowing I will need to settle in with these residential halls and buildings, but it’s really exciting to think about,” Lauren Pak said. “I can’t imagine myself in these HarryPotter-looking buildings.”

Five artifacts linked to alum under investigation for art smuggling will remain at University Art Museum

By Sandeep Mangat & Miriam Waldvogel Head & Assistant News Editors

Five pieces of art linked to Edoardo Almagià ’73, who is currently being investigated for smuggling art into the United States, remain in the Princeton University Art Museum (PUAM).

On March 22, a search warrant filed by the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney (DA) authorized the seizure of eleven items from the Museum,

Which are the most coveted upperclass dorms? We looked at the numbers.

by Assistant Data Editor Ryan Konarska

cumulatively worth $200,000.

The document alleged that these artifacts were stolen before the University acquired them. Six of these objects were on loan to the University from Almagià, constituting $150,000 of the seized items’ total value.

The five objects remaining in the museum include a Greek jar from the Early Hellenistic period, a Roman doll made of bone, and an Etruscan terracotta amphora, as well as two bowl fragments from the early

HUMOR Young Alumni Trustee candidates storm Nassau Hall, claim election was stolen by Humor Contributors Frida Ruiz & Caroline Rasmussen

first century. The amphora was donated by art dealer Peter Glidewell through Almagià, while the rest were loaned from Almagià directly. The value of the remaining items in PUAM is unknown.

All items were loaned to the University between 1984 and 1993. In an interview with The Daily Princetonian, Almagià described the University’s process for acquiring his art as “pretty straightforward.”

By Eden Teshome Senior News Contributor

On April 5, Larry Giberson ’23 was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia on six counts of violations against U.S. code for his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots. Giberson is reported to have attempted to forcefully enter the Capitol through its Lower West Terrace “tunnel” entrance. His arraignment is set for April 18, where he will enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Giberson was arrested on March 14 by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Giberson’s case went before a grand jury on March 16, just two days after Giberson’s arrest on March 14. According to court documents obtained by The Daily Princetonian, the initial arrest warrant for Giberson’s arrest was issued on March 10, 2023 by Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey.

The arrest warrant was attached to a criminal complaint that cited five U.S. code violations, all of which Giberson was charged with in the indictment, including civil disorder and engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds. The grand jury indictment added an additional charge, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted build-

ing or grounds, bringing the total to six.

According to the case docket, Giberson was present in the courtroom for proceedings held by Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui of the District Court of the District of Columbia on March 14. During that appearance, Giberson opted to waive his right to a preliminary hearing. Consequently, his follow-up “status hearing” was set for April 11 at 1 p.m. by telephone/video conference before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya. Giberson was released from his arrest following the proceedings on March 14. According to the Conditions of Release, Giberson was required to submit to supervision by the “Pretrial Service Agency (PSA) as directed for the District of New Jersey/Tinton Falls.” The United States Probation Office of the District of New Jersey has a location in Tinton Falls, NJ. The office is an hour’s drive from campus.

Over the past month, as a condition of his release, Giberson has been required to “notify the PSA in the District of New Jersey in advance of all travel outside of that district” and needed the Court’s approval for any travel outside the continental United States.

Additionally, the condi -

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

LOUISA GHEORGHITA / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

201 Nassau St. houses the Office of Gender Equity and Title IX Administration.

‘Both serious and kind of whimsical’:

Prospective student: “When current students talk about their major, their eyes really light up”

PREVIEW

Continued from page 1

“I did hear how the courses are hard, and meeting some of the faculty members is intimidating,” she continued. “Through Princeton Preview, I saw the supportive staff members and students.”

A number of prospective students cited academic rigor and a strong sense of campus community as key factors that drew them to Princeton over other institutions.

“Princeton Preview gave me an idea of the people around campus; that was the part that stood out to me,” Coco Gong said. “When current students talk about their majors, their eyes really light up. Everyone gets so cute and nerdy about these things.”

Barimah Adomakoh, originally from Ghana and now attending school in the United Kingdom, traveled across the Atlantic to attend Princeton Preview. He said he made the trip because he felt that visiting would reveal the true “sense of the culture, identity, and beauty on campus.”

“Actually being inside the environment confirms what I previously thought,” he said. “I think you can clearly tell that person is someone with passion and a lot of resilience.”

Chloe Hartwel got inspiration from the Q&A panel with students in the morning.

“The VP of the junior class talked about how she struggled a lot, but by her junior year, she had a really good teacher, and it really helped her get out of her shell,” she said. “That was encouraging to hear. Even if it is difficult at the beginning,

later on you can be really happy here.”

Prospective students also commented on the many dimensions of student interests on campus.

“Princeton embraces different quirks, and people who are into many things at once,” Alistair Wright said. “Today they obviously wanted to highlight the different dance groups and activities that were both serious and kind of whimsical.”

“It has really shined a light on the element of balance at Princeton,” Daniel Tu added. “Students talk about how they are able to participate in all their interests while spending time

studying and enjoying their social life. Professors talk about how they are always engaging with students, and I admire that dimension.”

Four months before orientation, some prospective students spoke about activities they might participate in on campus. “I’m looking forward to things I haven’t done in high school,” Pak said. “For example, I’m interested in joining an a cappella group, because I have always liked singing.”

Kevin Jeon chose Princeton because he hopes to pursue math as a major and loves the math department. However,

through Princeton Preview, he enjoyed learning about musical groups and artistic opportunities.

“Yesterday during dinner, I was talking to a previous student, and she was talking about the ceramic studio. Next year, I think I might stop by and make a plate or something,” he said.

According to students, some stand-out experiences from the evening include basketball team member sightings and hearing about real experiences from students.

“This is going to be a little corny, but when we went to Whitman, I saw Blake Peters and Caden Pierce eating lunch

and as a big basketball guy, I was fan-girling a little bit,” Wright said. “I texted my dad immediately.”

The basketball team wasn’t the only celebrity on campus Tuesday. Throughout the day, both current and prospective students swarmed Academy Award-nominated director Christopher Nolan, who was escorting his son to Princeton Preview events. There were also reported sightings of Jeff Bezos ’86.

The second day of Princeton Preview will occur on April 18.

Rebecca Cunningham is an assistant News editor for the ‘Prince.’

RRR: Violating the law “may trigger University disciplinary action”

INDICTMENT

Continued from page 1

tions of his release outlined a number of restrictions on Giberson, including that he could not obtain a passport; make contact, directly or indirectly, with any person who is or may be a victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution; and possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapons.

Giberson’s next appearance was originally scheduled for April 11. Upon notice of his indictment, his arraignment and status conference were rescheduled to 10 a.m. on April 14 with Judge Carl Nichols. It was again rescheduled to April 18 at 1 p.m.

Since his arrest, Giberson has continued to attend classes on campus. It is unclear whether Giberson’s indictment constitutes a violation of the University’s Rights, Rules and Responsibilities.

In Section 1.4.2 (Off-Campus Misconduct), the rules state “While the University does not impose disciplinary penalties for misconduct off campus beyond the local vicinity or unassociated with a University-sponsored program or activity there are exceptions.”

Additionally, Section 1.4.3 (Violations of Local, State, Federal, or International Law), stipulates that violating the law “may trigger University disciplinary action regardless of where such violations occur, particularly if they are of a serious nature and clearly violate University standards of conduct.”

When asked about the potential for disciplinary action from the University against Giberson, University Spokesperson Michael

Hotchkiss told the ‘Prince,’ “we don’t comment on student disciplinary matters.” Giberson has retained D.C.-based defense Attorney Charles Burnham. On March 21, Burnham entered an appearance of counsel on behalf of Giberson to the court. Burnham is a partner and founding member of the law firm Burnham & Gorokhov PLLC, which specializes in criminal defense.

Notably, Burnham has served as an attorney for John Eastman, the lawyer who formulated the plot to block the certification of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Burnham advised Eastman in an appearance before a Fulton County Special Grand Jury, in connection to his involvement in efforts to overturn former President Donald Trump’s election loss in Georgia. In a public statement, the firm stated that they advised Eastman to “assert attorney client privilege and the constitutional right to remain silent where appropriate.” He has also represented Eastman against requests for documents from the Jan. 6 Committee and a seizure of Eastman’s cell phone by federal agents.

Liz Dye, a writer for Above the Law, characterized Burnham as someone “used to getting his ass handed to him in privilege disputes,” in reference to his representation of Eastman.

Giberson declined to comment on his indictment. Burnham did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.

Eden Teshome is head Podcast editor and senior News contributor for the ‘Prince.’

LOUISA GHEORGHITA / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

“They would see the object, and if they thought it was interesting for the museum, they would buy it, and that’s it,” he said.

When asked how he gained possession of the artifacts he later loaned, Almagià said that many of the objects had been in his family for years, including a fragment of a red cup that he donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art — an artifact he claims to have found as a teenager while “walking in the countryside.”

“I was exploring right and left, and I found this little fragment and I picked it up because I liked it,” he said. He added that he gave these fragments to Dietrich von Bothmer, a prominent GermanAmerican art historian. After von Bothmer passed away in 2009, 16,000 vase fragments from his collection were donated to the Met.

According to David Gill, an Honorary Professor at Kent Law School and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts who writes for the Journal of Art Crime, 40 of these 16,000 fragments were returned to Italy in order to, according to a spokesperson for the Met, “serve as evidence in the investigation and possible trial of Edoardo Almagià.”

Almagià is currently under investigation for illegally moving art from Italy to the United States for more than 30 years, as well as for falsifying customs documents. He has had various brushes with the law over the past 20 years, including being stopped at John F. Kennedy Airport in 2000 for carrying two stolen Roman frescoes and having his Upper East Side Apartment raided by federal agents in 2006.

Almagià graduated from the University in 1973 with a degree in history, completing a 251-page thesis titled “Tiberius in Capri.”

In December, the DA’s office seized more than 150 items linked to Almagià from a number of institutions, including the Getty Museum and Fordham University, and returned them to the Italian consulate.

In an interview with the ‘Prince,’ Almagià said that he was “shocked to hear that the [Princeton University Art] Mu-

Eisgruber again highlights risks of social media in choosing Ressa’s autobiography

By Miriam Waldvogel Assistant News Editor

seum allowed these objects to be seized,” saying that most of them belonged to his family. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

“The Americans are so happy confiscating [objects], not even knowing what they are,“ said Almagià. “Do you think they will go on exhibit in [a] museum? No. They will end up in a box in the storeroom, and nobody will ever see them.”

When asked about the PUAM’s process to determine whether the five Almagià items were originally stolen, given his history of being investigated, University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss referred the ‘Prince’ to a previous statement from the Art Museum, which links to PUAM’s policy on provenance research.

The webpage says that “the Museum actively conducts and carries out research on new acquisitions, whether prospectively coming into the collections by purchase or by gift, as well as doing so retrospectively on works already within its care.”

It further warns that it can be “difficult to determine the complete provenance of many works” and acknowledges that “gaps in provenance are common.”

“Objects are often bought and sold anonymously before arriving at a museum; past owners may die without disclosing where they obtained the works in their collections; dealers do not always make known the sources of their holdings; and the records of dealers and auction houses are often incomplete,” the website continues.

The page also cites the Museum’s adherence to the UNESCO Accord of 1970, which introduced provisions to prevent the “illicit trafficking of cultural property.”

“The Princeton University Art Museum is cooperating fully with authorities in an ongoing investigation,” PUAM Associate Director for Communication and Information Stephen Kim wrote. “We are always grateful for new information that allows us to fulfill our stewardship responsibilities relative to our collections, in keeping with our commitment to ethical collecting.”

Miriam Waldvogel is an assistant News editor at the ‘Prince.’

By Bryan Boyd

In “How to Stand Up to a Dictator” by Maria Ressa ’86, Ressa writes that she was originally optimistic about the potential of social media, saying she hoped Rappler, the digital news platform that she co-founded, “would harness the social media platforms to build communities of action for better governance and stronger democracies.” But, as she learned over the course of her reporting, “the Philippines is ground zero for the terrible effects that social media can have on a nation’s institutions, its culture, and the minds of its populace.”

“How to Stand Up to a Dictator” will be the annual preread, assigned in the summer before their matriculation, for the Class of 2027. In a video announcing the pre-read, University President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83 called Ressa’s book “an urgent invitation to join what [she] calls ‘the fight for our future,’ the quest to protect truth, democracy and humane understanding from the corrosive effects of online media platforms and the algorithms that drive them.”

Eisgruber chose to highlight the deleterious effects of social media in his State of the University letter earlier this year, writing that the media landscape is “flooded with the intellectual equivalent of irresistible junk food.”

Ressa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021 for her work investigating human rights abuses, corruption, and authoritarianism in the regime of Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines.

“Every development that happens in my country eventually happens in the rest of the world — if not tomorrow, then a year or two later,“ she writes in the book.

The book, published in September 2022, documents Ressa’s work as the co-founder of the online news site Rappler, one of the few media organizations in the Philippines to be openly critical of Duterte’s policies, including a drug war that has led to the deaths of over 12,000 people, according to Human Rights Watch.

The book also discusses how social media and disinformation have chipped away at democracy, both in the Philippines and around the world. Some of Ressa’s own reporting for Rappler

focuses on the spread of government propaganda online.

Ressa herself has faced attacks from Duterte’s government, been repeatedly faced with arrest, and was recently acquitted of tax evasion charges in what the BBC called “a win for press freedom.”

The Manila-born journalist studied English at Princeton after attending high school in Toms River, N.J., before moving back to the Philippines on a Fulbright scholarship. She then worked as a correspondent for CNN, heading the network’s bureaus in Manila and Jakarta, Indonesia and covering topics such as the growth of terrorism in Southeast Asia.

Ressa has been a prominent face at Princeton in recent years. She spoke at the virtual commencement ceremony in 2020, and was honored in February 2022 with the Woodrow Wilson Award, the highest award the University can bestow on an undergraduate alumni.

Her visit to campus last year underscored the legal prosecution she faced, and is still facing, back home. Only a few hours before she was scheduled to board a flight for New York, she was blocked by a court order preventing her from leaving the Philippines. At the time, she was facing charges of cyber libel, characterized by many as retaliation for her reporting on the Duterte regime. She was cleared for travel after filing for a motion to reconsider.

Ressa, who plans to join class discussion of the book during orientation week — which will take place from Aug. 25 to Sept. 4 — will also be required to obtain court approvals from each court where she is still facing any open charge in order to travel outside of the Philippines.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the University’s pre-read tradition. Previous titles, chosen by Eisgruber each year, include “Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech” by Keith Whittington in 2018, “Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy” by James Williams in 2019, “This America: The Case for the National” by Jill Lepore in 2020, and “Moving Up Without Losing Your Way: The Ethical Costs of Upward Mobility” by Jennifer Morton ’02 in 2021. Most recently, in 2022, the pre-read was “Every Day the River Changes:

Four Weeks Down the Magdalena,” by Jordan Salama ’19. The books often speak to the previous year’s events or Eisgruber’s personal interests.

Williams’s book was chosen amid a rising footprint for technology on campus and across the nation. The book “launche[d] a plea to society and to the tech industry to help ensure that the technology we all carry with us everyday does not distract us from pursuing our true goals in life,” and explained how as information is becoming more abundant, our attention is becoming more scarce.

Whittington’s book reflected ongoing debate about free speech on campus. He argued that universities must protect and encourage free speech, and follow their mission to promote freedom of thought as well as ideological diversity.

According to Eisgruber, Lepore’s book addressed the question, “How can Americans, and the people of other nations, see themselves as united in a shared quest for the common good despite differences and disagreements that might pull them apart?” The book came after the George Floyd protests in 2020.

Morton’s book focused on her students’ experiences, as well as her own memories of coming to Princeton, including the challenges that she faced. It discusses the ethical and emotional tolls that “disadvantaged college students face” when seeking upward mobility, and how they can flourish.

Eisgruber said that in Salama’s book, he “engages energetically and imaginatively with the places that he visits. He is fully present to the people he meets and he lets them be fully present to him.” This book was announced as the choice after many University COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.

During orientation, members of the incoming class gather to discuss the preread with the author in a large auditorium on campus. Last year, the event was held in Jadwin Gym. After the discussion, zee groups further talk about the pre-read in a small group setting.

Miriam Waldvogel is an assistant News editor for the ‘Prince.’

scan to read

Sandeep Mangat is a head News editor at the ‘Prince.’

was exploring right and left, and I found this little fragment and I picked it up because I liked it”

Minor shake-up in USG as Luch moves to lead Mental Health Committee, Bradley resigns

By Nandini Krishnan Staff News Writer

Sunday, April 9 saw a minor shake-up in Undergraduate Student Government (USG), as the long-planned shift to establish a mental health core committee led to Class of 2024 Senator Noah Luch ’24 resigning from his role as a senator to lead the committee. Sustainability Committee

Chair Sean Bradley ’24 also resigned on Sunday, leaving two vacancies in the Senate.

The USG Senate met for a second vote on the mental health core committee and to hear committee updates, including a report on this semester’s Lawnparties and changes to academics programs.

The meeting began as the Senate took a second vote on creating a Mental Health Core Committee, which passed unanimously. The mental health committee has been an ad hoc committee, which means that it does not have an elected chair. Instead, the USG President ap-

points a chair and members. With increasing campus discussion about mental health, there has been a strong push to make it a core committee, with a chair elected by the student body.

“It’s honestly startling that we don’t have a mental health committee institutionalized in USG already,” USG Treasurer Walker Penfield ’25 said in February.

USG President Stephen Daniels ’24 appointed Luch as chair of the committee. Luch worked extensively with the Mental Health Initiative (MHI) before being elected Class of 2024 Senator in the winter election. Luch resigned from his position as senator to serve as a committee chair, as the USG constitution stipulates that one person cannot hold two voting positions.

All core committee chairs provided mid-semester updates on their progress. Bradley was not present during the meeting and no updates from the sustainability committee were presented.

Daniels later told The Daily

Princetonian that Bradley had resigned from his role. USG Vice President Madison Linton ’24 said in a comment to the ‘Prince’ that “there was no drama” and understood that Bradley “had a lot on his plate.”

Bradley served as Class of 2024 Senator between January 2021 and January 2023. As a senator, Bradley co-led the Housing and Facilities Task Force with Mariam Latif ’24, and organized box fans for some students without air conditioning in August 2022. Bradley defeated Greg Arevalo ’25 by 28 percentage points in the December election, the only member of the Further Together slate that won a contested election.

Bradley left open the possibility of returning to his former position. “I’m aware of a possible opening for ’24 Senator, and I am considering it just as much as I am considering any other possibility,” he wrote in a statement with the ‘Prince.’

Bradley’s departure leaves an opening for Sustainability

Chair.

Social Chair Avi Attar ’25 provided updates on Lawnparties describing a general approach of investing “resources across the span of the entire day,” promising “more robust photography related capacities,” and multiple DJs around the SPIA fountain.

Other updates included progress on the Campus Pub from University Student Life Committee Chair Caitlin McNally ’24 and the Farmers’ Market and Tigers in Town from Campus and Community Affairs Chair Isabella Sibaja ’26. Academics Chair Srista Tripathi ’25 updated that the committee had created a first-year working group, was working on the minors program, revamping the academic expo, and institutionalizing efforts to help first-generation low-income (FLI) students given that the Scholars Institute Fellows Program (SIFP) may not be able to support the expanding class size. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Chair Uma Fox ’26 focused on an upcoming housing event

and better access to gender-neutral housing and bathrooms.

The Projects Board requested an additional $5,000 in funding, with $6,500 in their current balance “in anticipation of a lot of year-end events.” Penfield stated that the USG had $25,000 in its reserves and said he was “not hoping to spend more major amounts of money,” but thought it was a “very apt reason to dedicate more funding to projects board for the rest of the semester.” The request was approved in a unanimous vote.

In a follow-up from the previous week’s security discussion, the USG discussed how to include more student input for policy decisions that deeply impact undergraduate student life. The group then moved into an executive session.

The USG meets on Sundays 4–5 p.m. at Robertson 016 and meetings are open for all students to attend.

Nandini Krishnan is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’

Many mental health report goals on track, CPS wait times decreasing

By Rebecca Cho &

In September 2022, a blockbuster report on mental health on campus was published by a mental health working group formed in collaboration between the Undergraduate Student Government (USG), the Office of Campus Life, and University Health Services (UHS).

The report detailed a series of proposals to increase support and resources for mental health on campus. Over six months since the initial release, a number of the action items introduced in the report have progressed, including

funding for a counselor outreach program and the establishment of the Counseling and Psychological Services (CPS) CaresLine.

“Mental health is part of the work that we are doing and will continue to work on,” said USG President Stephen Daniels ’24, who served as a co-chair of the Mental Health Resources Task Force at the time of the report’s initial release.

USG and the Office of Campus Life have committed to publishing quarterly updates on the recommendations. The next update, set to be released next week, will provide more specific information about Lyft services for transport to

off-campus mental health providers to be offered by the Office of Campus Life.

By extending these services, the initiative aims to encourage students to seek off-campus mental health care and potentially meet counselors who are more equipped to work with specific identities or communities, as opposed to utilizing on-campus University counselors.

Daniels told The Daily Princetonian that this particular proposal presented “some more complexities since it deals with an existing partnership that Princeton already has [with Lyft].” He also

emphasized the value of the initiative, saying that it is “important that transportation is affordable and available to all students.”

The original report listed several initiatives to be completed by this semester. One of the stated goals was to re-establish the UHS Student Health Advisory Board, which has been successfully implemented, according to Daniels. The student board meets regularly with upper-level staff from UHS and CPS to discuss plans for student engagement with mental health.

Another proposal scheduled for implementation by this semester dealt with the extension of Tiger-

Well, an initiative that includes an outreach counselor program specifically for students with particular identities. TigerWell has secured funding through the fiscal year 2028. Daniels explained that the initiative “funds and expands counselors for international students, student-athletes, LGBTQ students,” and more. Similarly to the Lyft proposal, he said the objective of the outreach counselor program is to “[encourage] people to seek care that affirms identity for different students.”

In an interview with the ‘Prince,’ Vice President for Campus Life W. Rochelle Calhoun acknowledged that one of the main obstacles in implementing the report’s initiatives is that “some of these proposals require grants or gifts which can take time. There are also sometimes administrative hurdles, like the requirements of our financial processes that impact how we can distribute emergency funding.”

Despite these challenges, the mental health working group has also secured the funding necessary for the continuation of various initiatives that are planned to be implemented by this summer. The report’s proposal for on-demand counseling services by Fall 2023 was actually implemented ahead of schedule when the CPS CaresLine, a 24/7 hotline, was established in November 2022.

The report also aimed to establish a residential college response system. One initial idea that involved checking on students’ wellbeing by tracking their dining hall meal swipes is still undergoing review. However, the Residential Life Coordinators (RLC) have now been trained to respond to various wellness check situations where there is no risk of serious harm to an individual or to another member of the community.

Furthermore, decreasing wait times at CPS and expanding dropin counseling hours were other important recommendations in the report. According to Calhoun, “the average wait time for an initial consultation this past semester has been 3 days, and the average wait time for an intake after the initial consultation has been a week.”

This is a decrease from the initial report, which found that the average wait time for an initial CPS consultation was 5.22 days, with the average wait between initial consultation and intake being 14.75 days. In addition, Yeh College now offers drop-in counseling hours. All drop-in times can be found in this event calendar.

Jeannie Kim is a Features and News contributor for the ‘Prince.’ Rebecca Cho is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’

Jeannie Kim News Contributors

USG

Which are the most coveted upperclass dorms? We looked at the numbers.

By Ryan Konarska Assistant Data Editor

With 1,915 registered rising seniors and juniors and 902 available rooms, the upperclass room draw is by far the largest of the ten room draws that Princeton students participate in when selecting housing. Taking place from Friday, March 31 to Friday, April 7, the upperclass room draw saw rising juniors and seniors draw into 761 rooms that now house a total of 1,309 students. The remaining rooms will be used to place students on the waitlist in rooms over the summer.

The Daily Princetonian analyzed the upperclass room draw by periodically downloading the Available Rooms List provided by the Department of Housing and Residential Life. The ‘Prince’ downloaded 23 available rooms lists to analyze trends in how different types of rooms were drawn and in what residential halls. The trends show that students have a strong preference for smaller rooms.

Singles were by far the most popular room size in the upperclass draw. By the time rising juniors began drawing on April 5, nearly three-quarters of singles had already been drawn. There was virtually no difference in popularity between quads and triples as rising seniors drew.

“I anticipated about a 50-50 chance of getting a single, maybe slightly less,” said Max Hines ‘25. “I was on page 35 of 41, but was hopeful since upperclass housing has a lot of singles. I was surprised to see them go as early as they did, almost a full day before my draw time.”

By 11:20 a.m. on April 6, singles had run out. The ‘Prince’ verified that the last single drawn was Pyne 230, the smallest dorm room on campus at just 82 square feet. All other room sizes were available until the end of upperclass draw.

When asked about how the University plans to accommodate the high demand for singles, which outpaces supply, University spokesperson Ahmad Rizvi said that “the administration of the Room Draw policies helps to ensure that the process for students to select from a limited number of various room types is fair and equitable.”

Students tended to draw the largest rooms available at their draw time. The ‘Prince’ averaged the square feet of the remaining rooms of each type for each available rooms list saved.

At the start of the upperclass draw, the average quad size was 591 square feet, the average triple 442 square feet, and the average double 329 square feet. At the end of room draw, the average size of the remaining quads was 517 square feet, triples was 410 square feet, and doubles just 186 square feet. Those who drew for doubles at the end of room draw had access to rooms just 56 percent of the size on average of doubles available the beginning of the upperclass draw.

For singles, the average room size was 161 square feet at the beginning of draw. The last rooms list the ‘Prince’ found where singles were available was 10:25 a.m. on April 6, with only one single – Pyne 230 – being available. In the last batch where multiple singles were available, the average size was 97 square feet–nearly 40 percent smaller than the singles available at the beginning

of the upperclass draw. Only Dod Hall, Scully Hall, and Wright Hall had all of their rooms drawn in the upperclass room draw. They were followed by Patton Hall, Pyne Hall, 1903 Hall, and Walker Hall, which all saw over 90 percent of their rooms drawn. Laughlin Hall, Cuyler Hall, and Brown Hall were the least popular halls, with each having fewer than 80 percent of their rooms drawn.

The ‘Prince’ then analyzed the pace at which rooms drew across the University’s residential halls and campus areas. For this analysis, the ‘Prince’ categorized campus into three areas: “West Campus,” which consists of 1901, Foulke, Henry, Lockhart, Laughlin, and Pyne Halls; the “Elm Drive Area,” which consists of 1903, Brown, Cuyler, Dod, Feinberg, Little, Patton, Walker, and Wright Halls; and Scully Hall, as its own separate category.

Buildings in West Campus are far from many academic buildings and are often considered less desirable by many students.

The Elm Drive Area had slightly more rooms available to draw into than West Campus at the beginning of the upperclass room draw. The pace at which rooms were drawn between these two areas was roughly the same, with the Elm Drive Area consistently having slightly more available rooms than West Campus throughout the entire draw. Scully, however, consisting mostly of singles and doubles, drew at a faster rate, running out of rooms by 11:20 a.m. on April 6. Scully Hall is air-conditioned.

Across the 1,309 rising upperclassmen that drew in the upperclass room draw, approximately onethird will live in singles and slightly less than a quarter in doubles. About 20 percent will live in triples or quads, with smaller amounts in quints or sixperson suites.

Princeton students showed a clear preference for drawing into smaller room types during the room draw process. When asked whether future housing, such as Hobson College, will take into account this preference in determining the quantities of each room, Rizvi stated that “Hobson College’s room type mix and amenities have been designed to support the four-year residential college program including room types that are suitable for building community for firstyear advisee groups and strengthening community for sophomores, juniors and seniors.”

Rizvi also confirmed that the University has no plans to build additional housing dedicated to upperclass students in the future, instead favoring strengthening the presence of upperclass students in the residential colleges.

“This year’s draw saw continued strong interest by juniors and seniors to live in the residential colleges as all available junior/ senior residential college beds were selected.”

Students who did not participate in room draw may fill out a waitlist application by May 1 to seek housing for the coming year.

Ryan Konarska is a News contributor and an assistant Data editor for the ‘Prince.’

Young Alumni Trustee candidates storm Nassau Hall, claim election was stolen

By Frida Ruiz & Caroline Rasmussen Humor Contributors

The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional.

After the release of the top three candidates from the first round of the Young Alumni Trustee (YAT) election, a sea of twenty orange and black protestors — former YAT candidates who were eliminated from the election — stormed Nassau Hall.

Some protesters headed for Eisgruber’s office to take a selfie with their hero. Disappointed he wasn’t there, they rushed to snap a point-five selfie with the nearest painted frame of him.

Most stayed outside and climbed up the ivy while others pushed aside children taking pictures on top of the bronze tigers, chanting “We demand a recount!”

When asked why they were protesting, a student wearing full orange face paint and a tiger onesie said, “That damn secretive process makes me roar, and not from Princeton spirit!” Another student wearing tiger ears said, with tears in his eyes, “We just care about Princeton so much!”

A protester with a mega -

phone and a tiger tail said, “We, the YAT candidates, stand together in solidarity to show that no one loves Princeton as much as we do! Literally no one. Like not one single person in the whole world. Probably.”

“Wait, this is an election about the Young Alumni Trustees? I thought this was a Divest Princeton event,” said one person. “Not that I could take a position on Divest either way.”

Frida Ruiz is a sophomore Humor contributor and only recently found out the Young Alumni Trustees have an election.

Caroline Rasmussen is a Humor contributor and member of the Class of 2026.

Student groups resort to stairwells as dance groups dominate performance spaces

By Lauren Owens Humor Contributor

The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional.

Every weekend, Princeton’s lively performing arts scene offers many opportunities to see student productions. From improv comedy to rock concerts to musicals to slam poetry to ballet, Princeton creatives seem to be up to a little bit of everything.

However, the limitations imposed by the University’s inadequate number of performance venues are a constant topic of contention, and the burdens are not equally shared between student groups.

Major dance groups on campus such as Slizikrac, ASSertion, and The Red Army call the shots, forcing other performing arts groups to the sidelines — literally. Last semester Talk Straight slam poetry held an open mic night at the tennis courts on the E-Level of Jadwin Gymnasium. Without the equitable access to theaters and other performance venues that these dance groups have enjoyed in years past, nondance groups have begun to hold shows in some unorthodox locations, most notably bathrooms, science laboratories, the site of the demolition of 1937 Hall, and Wawa.

“We were scheduled to have our show in Frist, but Slizikrac kicked us out to hold their biweekly caviar-tasting event,“ said Soph Unny ’23, president of Soft Balls improv comedy. “We couldn’t find another venue and ended up just walking down the hall in Whitman doing little performances for people as they walked to the bathroom to brush their teeth or whatever. It wasn’t

as successful as we had hoped.”

Similarly, Thea Terkid ’24, the treasurer of PUBE (Princeton University Broadway Ensemble) said, “Last week our production of The Lion King went up in the EEB building, but it was hard to fit many chairs in the stairway we were performing in. It’s not all bad, though. Our final show of the semester is going to be Urinetown, which we’re putting on in the second-floor Laughlin men’s bathroom. We chose this space because we thought it would allow us to put an origi-

nal spin on the classic story, not just because it was the only place still available on Event Management System.”

Students say they don’t expect any changes in the near future. ODUS has declined to comment on whether they are taking any initiatives to make performance space access more equitable and keep the dance groups in check.

In the past, the only way student organizations have been able to guarantee themselves a venue is when alumni have donated spaces specifically for

them.

“It’s not like we have many ORFE or COS concentrators wanting to be in ‘Mamma Mia!’ or ‘Shrek The Musical,’” Terkid said. “Our alums tend more toward History and that kind of thing, so we don’t exactly have money pouring in.”

Lauren Owens is a sophomore Humor writer and a proud member of PUP, the constant rival of the more professional organization PUBE.

CANDACE DO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

COURTESY OF LAUREN OWENS

A student group performs on one of the coveted campus stages.

“The e leven T h h our ”

By Sarah Gemmell Associate Puzzles Editor

ACROSS

1 Explodes

5 Cue to pull over

10 One of four in Whitman College's logo

14 Typical Love Island contestant's nationality, informally

15 "___ Holmes" (2020 Netflix film)

16 2016 Rihanna album

17 (5) "She Looks so Perfect" band

20 Brown, Scully, and 2D, e.g.

21 "Among Us" setting

22 (2) Standard procedure for a formal resignation

27 Maple syrup source

28 Nova ___

29 "Gnarly!"

30 Go downhill fast?

31 "___ and the Pussycats"

32 Like many texts from bots

34 Bug repellent ingredient

35 Period of peak TV viewership ... or a hint to 17-, 22-, 50-, and 56-Across and their parenthetical numbers

38 Judo levels

41 Catch some z's

42 Adoption org.

46 2011 film starring a domesticated Spix's macaw

47 Startled shriek

48 Coca-Cola's old alternative to Dr Pepper

49 "Uhhh..."

50 (3) Extended breaks in the school year

53 "I was at the gym at the time of the crime," e.g.

55 Norse pantheon

56 (7) Party game where two people go into a closet

62 1 1 1

63 Flick

64 Prima donna

65 Dogs, in slang

66 Coarse wool fabric

67 Broken mirror or black cat, to some

DOWN

1 "Arthur" airer

2 Catan resource

3 Snap

4 Advice from r/ WallStreetBets

5 Arizona city known as "Red Rock Country"

6 Creative influence, informally

7 Bird perch

8 Seasonal helper

9 Lil ___ X

10 It might light up your night

11 All together

12 Went to Witherspoon's Cafe on a Wednesday, perhaps

13 Place to toast marshmallows

18 More prone to pry

19 Like most clothes from senior sales

22 Newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch: Abbr.

23 Princeton major that frequents the JRRB

24 Egg-shaped lip balm brand

25 Furious

26 Sleeveless undergarment, for short

32 Like the flavor of

54

57

60

61

SPEAR: We should advocate for campus safety beyond surveillance and policing

Guest Contributors

Recent events at Princeton and beyond have contributed to growing concern regarding public safety on campus. In particular, the initial ambiguity surrounding the tragic death of Misrach Ewunetie ’24 and the record number of school shootings in 2022, among other tragedies, have worried students and community members.

The recent expansion of security cameras on campus aims to address these concerns. While this policy is wellintentioned, security cameras do not always deter crime, are susceptible to abuse, and contribute to larger carceral systems that perpetuate inequality.

We, Students for Prison Education, Abolition, and Reform (SPEAR), are asking the University community to consider alternative strategies to promote everyone’s safety.

Overview The expansion of cameras seems to go against at least some of the results of the November 2022 USG report “Undergraduate Student Perspectives: Security Cameras on Campus,” which reported that only 28 percent of students would feel safer or more comfortable with security cameras, while 58 percent said they would be negatively affected.

In light of this statistic, SPEAR is encouraging the University community to imagine what safety and security can look like beyond policing. Expanding lighting, for instance, is a policy that is broadly supported and uncontroversial. But instead of prioritizing expanding lighting across and around campus, the University has moved ahead with unpopular policies like increased surveillance at a rapid pace, ignoring student and stakeholder concerns.

Although Vice President for Campus Life W. Rochelle Calhoun noted during the March 27 meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) that the Environmental, Safety, and Risk Management Committee (ESRM) is convening a working group on increasing lighting, we believe that this bureaucratic approach will yield little or slow progress. It is also worth noting that avenues for engagement with campus stakeholders were not

prioritized in the context of the expansion of cameras. The University could have made a committee like they have done with lighting or included undergraduate (and even faculty) representatives on the ESRM. But they chose not to.

The case against security cameras

There is little evidence that security cameras are particularly effective. One study found that security cameras in countries like South Korea and Britain didn’t have an impact on violent crime. Additionally, as the ‘Prince’ has reported, crime on campus remains very low. Nevertheless, the University, according to its March 8 email, maintains that the cameras’ “primary intended use is to help in emergency situations and post-incident investigations; the cameras will generally not be monitored in real-time.”

There is documented abuse of security cameras within the institutions entrusted with monitoring them. In London, audits showed that camera operators focused on women, including zooming in on intimate areas.

This abuse gives us reason to question the use of qualifiers such as “primary” and “generally.”

Even at the March 27 CPUC meeting, VP Calhoun would not guarantee that the cameras would not be used to pursue unrelated disciplinary actions during an emergency investigation. Additionally, the University has not conveyed any plan for oversight of their usage.

Student perspectives sidelined

The University has shown extensive disregard for student perspectives on the subject. Feedback sessions during the fall semester were scheduled during times which, in our experience, were inconvenient for many students. In fact, as Assistant Vice President of Public Safety Kenneth Strother mentioned during the USG Meeting on April 2, the Department of Public Safety’s plans to expand cameras had been in the works since June 2021 when Strother was hired with the goals of expanding the video program in mind.

During the March 27 CPUC meeting, which the March 8 announcement email said would provide community members with the chance to

ask questions, President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83, who was facilitating the meeting, did not call on student activists, instead taking questions only from CPUC members (comprised of select students, faculty members, alumni, and staff).

While VP Calhoun approached us after the meeting to say that we could send follow-up questions to her, it was deeply unfortunate that our concerns and answers could not be heard in that public forum — despite the previous promises of the email and assurances from Christine Gage, Associate Secretary in the Office of the President, to whom we emailed our questions prior to the meeting.

While VP Calhoun did say during the CPUC meeting that there will be avenues for feedback, there has been no public information about what those might look like. And the aforementioned disregard for student concerns leaves us nervous about camera expansion, lack of accountability, and the potential for institutional abuse of footage.

The potential for inequality

It is especially worrying for a university with a history of going so far as to use prox records in the context of Honor Code investigations to propose these plans. And we know that Honor Code violations disproportionately impact low-income, first-generation students. It is not then a leap of the imagination to see how these cameras may have a similarly disproportionate impact on low-income students on campus. Research has shown that

camera operators and systems also focus disproportionately on people of color. One study found that Black people were 1.5–2.5 times more likely to be surveilled than their percentage of the population. While cameras are apparently neutral pieces of technology, they often demonstrate systematic biases. We also know that policing and police systems disproportionately impact people of color. Princeton is not immune to these challenges either. The SPEAR working group Princeton Student Against Policing (PSAP) has documented some of these negative experiences in their handout exploring experiences with PSAFE and alternatives. During an open USG meeting on April 2, Assistant VP Strother and VP Calhoun discussed how “suspicious persons” reported would be investigated often using the new cameras. We know that bias can often play a big role in who is deemed suspicious, disproportionately men of color, for example.

Additionally, when it comes to their use during “emergency situations,” extensive camera systems haven’t always been effective. Take, for instance, this case study of the London terrorist attacks in 2007, which found that extensive camera systems are not only ineffective and expensive but also require employees for monitoring.

Expansion of Public Safety (PSAFE)

More security cameras likely speaks to an expansion of PSAFE, which we find deeply concerning and problematic. The University directing funds and attention towards policing is an affront to our calls for

holistic care that addresses the particular impact of systems of oppression on low-income and students of color, such as expanding the services and capacity of Counseling and Psychological Services (CPS) or other programs that directly benefit student well-being.

The expansion of PSAFE, including through security cameras, is not a happenstance, but an intentional decision on the University’s part.

During one student feedback session, hosted by USG, on Nov. 21, Assistant VP Strother explained that with the expansion of the undergraduate student population and the construction of two new residential colleges, an expansion of PSAFE was natural.

We recognize and share concerns about our communal safety. But more policing and surveillance is not the solution. From the PSAFE show during orientation to their public relations officers, PSAFE makes us feel like they are the best and only option. But other forms of non-carceral safety exist, as long as we commit to them. Please join SPEAR in learning about, imagining, and working towards transformative justice and safety for all.

This opinion piece was written by members of Students for Prison Education, Abolition, and Reform, a Princeton University-based student organization that educates, advocates, and agitates against the carceral state on Princeton’s campus, in New Jersey, and beyond. Follow us on Instagram at @princetonspear. Questions about this piece can be directed to Alan Plotz at ap3169@princeton. edu.

Dear Princeton, you must do more on Title IX

The following is an open letter and reflects the author’s views alone.

Princeton has repeatedly failed survivors of sexual violence. As alumni of the Princeton Class of 2022, we call upon Princeton University to take action to protect survivors and to implement measures that ensure safe, accessible, and just processes to keep our campus safe. The following is a list of demands we propose as necessary steps to ensure that survivors of sexual violence have access to safety and justice. Moreover, these steps aim to protect survivors from an unnecessarily large emotional burden and the potential for retraumatization associated with reporting acts of sexual violence.

Demands: ENFORCEMENT

Investigation interviews, in-

take appointments, etc. should all be monitored by a trained, thirdparty advocate that is unaffiliated with Title IX. This advocate should be clear on what can and cannot be asked of a survivor and should be trained in recognizing administrative coercion.

All rights of a survivor and nuances of the process or questions asked during the reporting process and examinations should be clearly outlined prior to initiating the process. When the University deviates from these standards, it should be reportable to an external party or advocate.

SAFETY

There must be practices in place to prevent retaliatory claims or accusations against the student who initially reported sexual misconduct. The status of the other party’s potential claims, or lack thereof, should not be used to pressure students who initially report into a rushed timeline for resolution.

Accommodations for the sur-

vivor must be in place to protect them from retaliation or continued abuse, including access to a restraining order, a no-contact order, or changed housing immediately. No survivor should be forced to wait for either an alternate resolution or a finding of guilt to receive accommodations for safety. Further, these accommodations should not be contingent upon the survivor filing a Title IX or alternate resolution case.

The approval of an alternate resolution should be purely concerned with restorative justice, not safety. Changed housing and no-contact orders should be nonnegotiable if requested, granted as soon as a survivor reports. The alternate resolution should focus on the survivor’s needs for peace of mind (whether it is counseling, an apology, etc.), but should not be put forward as a way to ensure safety.

COST

Cost ought not to prevent a sur-

vivor from receiving legal and advocacy support in Title IX cases. The University must ensure that competent pro bono lawyers and trauma-informed counselors are readily available to support survivors. This is especially important for survivors that are low-income and lack the resources to press charges and protect themselves.

JUSTICE There must be consequences for multiple offenses, and patterns of sexual violence must be considered in Title IX findings. Repeat offenders present a particular danger to our community, and failing to promptly address these concerns is unacceptable. The Title IX and reporting processes must consider and provide resources for students whose race, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic background, immigrant status, or other intersectional identities may compound the violence they experience. This means providing increased support — emo -

tionally, legally, financially, academically, or otherwise — that is conscious of cultural, social, and emotional differences and intersectional harms experienced by students.

These actions are absolutely crucial steps for the University to better support survivors of sexual violence and make the process of reporting sexual violence more trauma-informed, just, and safe for students. We urge the University and the Undergraduate Student Government to take action toward implementing these suggestions. Princeton’s handling of sexual violence reporting has a long way to go, but by taking the essential steps to put survivors’ health, safety, and well-being first, we can ensure a safe campus for all.

Hannah Reynolds and Jessica Lambert are alumni of the Princeton Class of 2022. You can reach them at hannahr@alumni.princeton.edu and jessicalambert@ alumni.princeton.edu.

Hannah Reynolds & Jessica Lambert

Guest Contributors

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

Vote Masheke for Young Alumni Trustee

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

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

head audience editor

Financial Stipend Program

Genrietta Churbanova ’ 24

Mobile Reach

Rowen Gesue ’24

DEIB Chair

Christofer Robles ’25

Sections listed in alphabetical order.

community opinion editor

Lucia Wetherill ’25

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

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

Avi Chesler ’25

Malia Gaviola ’26

Annabel Green ’26

Rachel Seo ’26

Cindy Chen ’26

Vivi Lu ’26

Austin Guo ’26

AND COPIED BY

Lindsay Pagaduan ’26

The field of the upcoming Young Alumni Trustee (YAT) election was culled to three spirited and devoted candidates last Friday. Although Caroline Kirby ’23’s commitment to school spirit is impressive, and Mayu Takeuchi ’23 showed admirable leadership in her role as USG President, we believe that Mutemwa Raphael Masheke ’23 has demonstrated a willingness to undertake the most pertinent University issues and reforms.

Kirby highlights her involvement in many community-building activities in her bio, from instructing High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) and spin at Dillon gym to serving as the vice president of Charter Club. However, her vision for the University’s future is out of touch with the muchneeded changes Princeton requires. She emphasizes her role in interacting with “prospective students” and experience in “showing off our incredible campus.” Princeton, however, has no issue with public relations, and has more than enough appeal worldwide.

Takeuchi’s bio emphasizes her time as president of USG, particularly in dealing with the challenges of students’ mental health. Takeuchi has been an engaged and active participant in campus dialogue, and her focus on student health has been admirable and appreciated. Her platform also touches on the issues of divestment, dining, environmental justice, and her active participation in a number of campus communities. While she has risen to the challenges that have surfaced during her time in USG and on campus, success in the role of USG President may not translate to further progress on these issues as YAT. Takeuchi has worked with University administrators for multiple years, and though she has excelled in the USG, the YAT should bring a more disruptive attitude to the Board.

The YAT role has the potential to contribute to large-scale change. Among the important committees Trustees serve on, the Committee on

Finance, for example, has the power to determine the vote of Princeton’s “corporation” on “any question submitted to [it] as a stockholder with respect to corporate stock held by it.” This means that the YAT could potentially impact Princeton’s dealings with companies holding stock in fossil fuel companies. Further, the bylaws of the Trustees of Princeton University state that the “Dean of Admission and Financial Aid shall be elected by the Board,” demonstrating that the YAT could also impact the direction of the University’s future financial aid plans and admissions policies.

Masheke has best recognized the weight that this role holds, and the changes that are most critical to campus. His recent op-ed in the ‘Prince,’ co-authored with Gil Joseph ’25, shed light on a previously under-discussed financial issue facing international students. He also has significant experience in “community advocacy,” including fighting against “social injustice” at large and specifically assisting low-income students in securing “subsidized summer housing,” indicating that he is aware of pressing issues that are both urgent and currently underrepresented in campus politics.

Masheke emphasizes his focus on elevating “overlooked perspec-

tives,” and his actions and candidate information clearly demonstrate that. The YAT should not only communicate the majority desires of the current student body to the Board, but fight for specific change that has yet to be addressed at Princeton. The role has more to offer than being a mouthpiece for the students who have already had the loudest voices on campus. Although we could only analyze a limited amount of information regarding each candidate, as the University prohibits YAT candidates from campaigning, we believe that Masheke’s commitment to resolving important issues that have yet to become mainstream can best serve the young Princeton community.

147th Editorial Board

Mohan Setty-Charity ’24 (Chair)

Kalena Blake ’24

Hope Perry ’24

Abigail Rabieh ’25

None of the candidates requested any endorsement or comment from the ‘Prince’ regarding the YAT election; nor were they consulted prior to the release of this article.

Class of ’27: choose scholarship, not dogmatism

Matthew Wilson & Myles McKnight Contributing Columnist & Guest Contributor

Welcome to Princeton! This fall, if you so choose, you will walk through FitzRandolph Gate and join an intellectually vibrant community united by a desire to pursue knowledge, test ideas, and be challenged. As you prepare to join our academic community and engage in meaningful, open-minded inquiry, those of us committed to the liberal arts character and spirited truth-seeking mission of our university will be cheering you on.

Now, one of your future peers recently authored a demand that you make social justice activism a primary value during your time at Princeton. Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26 implores you to “cause trouble,” engage in activities that “disrupt” campus life, and dismantle the pillars of “systemic injustice” through which our university upholds forces of violence and oppression. She equates contemporary campus activist movements — which have included demands for total fossil fuel divestment and more gender-neutral bathrooms — with opposition to the evils of South African apartheid and Jim Crow laws.

We agree that you should be people of conviction — we ourselves are — and that you should be prepared to act on your convictions. We also believe in the value of civic engagement. We write today, however, to remind you of our community’s primary service to humanity: contributing to human flourishing and advancement through scholarship, truth-seeking, and the dissemination of knowledge. While activism

can be an important part of your college experience, your commitment to any cause must never come at the expense of your fidelity to the truthseeking process. After all, “social justice activism” can only be righteous if the causes championed and policies advanced are founded in moral and empirical truths about the human good. Faithfulness to truth and obedience to the habits of mind necessary for its discovery are the only things separating ideologues from people with a genuine yearning for human progress and development.

Ideologues — who forget about authentic truth-seeking — believe they already have access to the full truth regarding important and fundamental questions of justice. Regarding themselves as practically infallible, they see no reason to engage rigorous challenges to their core commitments. In short, they exhibit the worst form of intellectual arrogance and ideological dogmatism.

The intellectual forefather of such ideologues is a man named Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse’s famous theory of “repressive tolerance” can be summarized as follows: the elimination of “intolerant” ideas is a prerequisite for the creation of a maximally tolerant, inclusive, and just society. For the Marcusian, respecting the free speech rights of people with whom you disagree about fundamental questions of justice just isn’t very important. Why should error be permitted in the public forum? The ideologues conclude that “words are violence,” “silence is complicity,” and ideological “safe spaces” are a necessity. They are right, you are wrong, and there is no space for respectful disagreement. But if you think that important questions are often the hardest ones — and are therefore questions that

we fallible human beings can get wrong — you will remember that, as a student, you are a truth-seeker above all else. With an open mind and a willingness to learn, you will carry yourself as coming here to pursue knowledge and have your worldview vigorously and frequently challenged. While you may be confident that your positions are the correct ones, you will retain a fundamental willingness to test — and possibly even to revise — your deepest, most cherished, even identity-forming beliefs.

Accordingly, those of you who commit yourselves to truth above all else (as we believe you should) will also view the protection of free speech, the importance of intellectually serious and dispassionate scholarship, and the desire to learn rather than impose as essential components not only of the University’s truth-seeking mission but of your own intellectual development.

So, welcome to the moving train. Join us in fighting to keep the train moving in the right direction: truth. We look forward to seeing you around — in lectures learning from world-renowned faculty, in seminars engaging in lively discussions with your peers, and at campus events listening to speakers whose views may be diametrically opposed to your own. But remember: despite what some might try to tell you, the primary reason you are here is to be a student. A truth-seeker, not an ideologue.

Athletic scholarships are not the solution. An activity stipend is.

Christofer Robles Assistant Opinion Editor

The expiration of Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 has raised one question: what is the fate of athletic scholarships in the Ivy League, especially here at Princeton? Proponents of compensating student-athletes generally cite the immense difficulty of performing well physically, academically, and mentally, and argue that it is exploitative to withhold fair compensation from the very students generating national attention and revenue for their universities.

Compensating studentathletes via athletic scholarships undermines the importance of need-based aid and presents a model for student-athletes that is far more athlete than it is student. In addition to its regular need-based financial aid, Princeton ought to provide every student with an extra-curricular activity stipend to compensate them for their contributions to the University and allow for greater flexibility in exploring their non-academic interests.

Princeton has found itself in a difficult legal position. In 1991, when all members of the Ivy League were found to have violated federal antitrust laws, all eight schools signed a consent agreement agreeing to not collaborate on tuition and financial aid methodology. While the Ivy League gave in, MIT pushed the question, insisting that with need-blind financial aid, they had the right to coordinate with other schools.

The Justice Department eventually conceded and dismissed the case against MIT on the basis of protecting need-based financial aid. Soon after, Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 secured the Ivy League an exemption to antitrust conspiracy, providing students were admitted need-blind.

This exemption expired in September, however.

Furthermore, pressure has mounted against the Ivy League in recent years — especially as their tuitions continue to inexplicably rise to nearly six figures despite “ballooning” endowments — to approach antitrust more cautiously and compensate athletes more appropriately.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston et al. (Alston) provides a legal basis, with Justice Kavanaugh writing in his concurring opinion: “Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate.” Alston established that the NCAA may not limit education-related compensation — such as computers and books — for student-athletes. Another case, Henry et al. v. Brown University et al., asserts that the seventeen colleges named in the suit, six of which are members of the Ivy League, participated in a “price-fixing cartel.”

Most recently, two plaintiffs, current Brown University women’s basketball player Grace Kirk and former Brown men’s basketball player Tamenang Choh, have filed a class ac -

tion lawsuit against the Ivy League and its members, alleging their withholding of athletic scholarships is illegal. These collusion accusations may force the Ivy League — and by extension, Princeton — to embrace athletic scholarships as a result. The Ivy League has already swiftly adopted its policy to allow studentathletes commercial rights to their name, image, and likeness (NIL). At Princeton, this policy has resulted in students already being afforded NIL contracts.

I believe students have a right to their NIL. It is blatantly unethical to suggest otherwise; students should enjoy both bodily autonomy and the right to financially gain from their NIL under the NCAA and University’s parameters. But whether student-athletes should receive athletic scholarships is a completely different question. The push towards such a move is frankly concerning.

Firstly, financial aid should — on principle — never be dependent on demonstrated ability, especially at a university like Princeton with abundant financial resources and proven student ability. Students don’t need to keep proving themselves to earn a scholarship the University could afford to offer everyone. Financial aid should not be contingent on a student’s continued involvement with past activities, interests, or sports either. Rather, the University should guarantee that students never have to fret about the cost of attendance during their time enrolled. It is only in this way that a

student’s past and future involvement in extracurriculars may continue to deepen, and occasionally change, as they grow. Student-athletes should never worry that their financial ability to attend Princeton is conditional on their participation in athletics.

The push for studentathlete compensation, more generally, is also worrisome because it reduces the position of student-athletes to that of professional athletes who just happen to attend Princeton. Yes, the mental, physical, and time demands of studentathletes are significant when paired with the mental, physical, and time demands of being a Princeton student. But, the excessive time-commitment should highlight Princeton’s unrealistic expectations for athletes and how poorly it accommodates them, not demonstrate a need to stratify them to a wholly different class of student.

Paying student-athletes for their contributions to sports at Princeton is complicated. If students are paid in proportion to the revenue they generate for Princeton during conferences, it will be difficult to resolve Title IX violations of gender discrimination: men and women sports yield different revenue and investment, which would result in unequal pay for male and female athletes.

What about the value that low or zero-earning sports teams bring to Princeton? Do these athletes not also deserve compensation for their efforts? Moreover, the University’s reputation is not only bolstered by its athletic successes — what is to be done about the

Rhodes scholars, researchers, and other University community members who may not be athletes, but contribute significantly to Princeton’s reputation and, consequently, its donorship?

What I suggest, then, is not that student-athletes should not be paid — their contributions are invaluable. Rather, all students should be paid in the form of an extracurricular activity stipend. This stipend, separate from the aid students receive through Princeton financial aid, would recognize and compensate for the time and effort needed to support student involvement in their non-academic activities. More importantly, this stipend would ensure students may explore the endless academic, artistic, and athletic opportunities the University offers them without contingency and instead with comfort.

It is likely that Princeton will have to grapple with providing athletic scholarships. In that decision, however, the importance of need-based financial aid and of recognizing the equality of other students — whose commitments may also be extensive and beneficial to the University — cannot be lost.

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

To alleviate student stress, Princeton must expand the pass/D/fail option

Let’s be honest, Princeton students are stressed about their grades. And there’s an easy fix that could help alleviate this stress: Princeton should extend the current three-weeklong window to elect the pass/D/fail (PDF) option to allow students to PDF a class at any point in the semester. This change would help to reduce grading and GPA pressure, as well as relieve some student stress.

With Princeton’s Honor Code, and the grade-deflation that only recently became grade neutral whilst our peer institutions such as Harvard remain active practitioners of grade inflation, Princeton is well known for being academically challenging. According to research from 2019, Princeton’s average GPA of 3.49 ranks the lowest among all Ivy League schools, while the highest-GPA school, Brown, had an average GPA of 3.71.

For most of us playing by the rules of the game in this world, your GPA is an important part of getting internships, jobs, and sports in graduate school programs. Since many

firms — though oftentimes not explicitly stated on their job posts — use 3.5 as a benchmark to sift through piles of resumes, an average-GPA Princeton student would be less competitive than an average-GPA Brown student when faced against the resume screener. Many graduate school programs engage in similar GPA screening. It follows that GPA is an immediate concern for most students and a big factor in their school-related stress.

To make students less stressed about their grades and GPAs, and to improve their standing in the post-graduate market, we can make the PDF option more useful by allowing students to PDF a course at any time throughout the semester. The University may have originally envisioned the PDF option as a way for students to explore classes they’re interested in but not particularly skilled at. However, it has ultimately served as a way to protect students’ GPA from taking a hit, either due to these exploratory courses or distribution requirements. To a certain degree, this means that the PDF option is aimed at lessening students’ stress. Princeton’s pass/D/ fail option grants a maxi-

mum of four PDF options throughout the four undergraduate years, with at most one being used per semester and none to be used on your departmental requirements.

During the period of peak COVID-19 restrictions, the PDF option regulation was loosened to accommodate students with online learning. The loosened PDF option enabled students to PDF more than one course in a semester, and even allowed it to be used on traditionally off-limits courses such as departmental requirements, the writing seminar, and the BSE prerequisites.

My AASA (Asian American Student Association) ORFE mentor told me that, during this period, she PDF’ed two ORFE departmental requirements and subsequently landed an internship at a prestigious firm. Another Princeton alumna shared that it was thanks to PDFing her lowest course grades during COVID that she was able to save her GPA from sinking. This ultimately helped her get — or rather, did not hinder her from getting — into a top consulting firm. The COVID-era PDF expansion was important for these alumni. Once

again, allowing students to elect the PDF option at any time and to PDF departmental classes would take off another layer of stress that students have concerning grades and GPAs.

Additionally, students should be allowed to decide whether to PDF a course after final grades come out. Currently, the registrar requires students to make a final decision on the grading basis of their courses between the seventh and ninth week of the semester. However, this is not the most effective use of the PDF option for many students. In some courses, the midterm grade only reflects 25 percent of one’s grade for the course, and for others, the midterm grade reflects only the student’s score on the midterm exam without considering any other components of the course grade. Some students regret having not chosen the PDF option after a less-than-stellar performance on their course final, which could make up to 50 percent of their entire course grade. In other scenarios, students have mistakenly PDF’ed a course they would have received an A in after performing better in the second half of the semester

than in the first. We should normalize PDF-ing a class, especially for first-years, who sometimes hear from professors that the PDF option means that you’ve made a mistake. When I was a frosh, taking a course in the huge McCosh 50 classroom, the professor told us that if employers see a “P” on your transcript they are going to assume you received a “C-.” The professor was trying to discourage the use of the PDF option solely for the purpose of avoiding a “B” on your transcript. However, having gone through the career recruiting process, I find that employers, who don’t always require a copy of your transcript as part of the application, prefer a high GPA. After all, if the PDF option is aimed to lessen students’ academic stress, it should make the process surrounding electing PDF as stressless and painless as possible.

Kelsey Ji is a junior from Cambridge, Massachusetts majoring in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. She can be reached at xingej@princeton.edu.

Dr. Jonathan Lee Walton reflects on his path to becoming first Black and first Baptist Seminary President

By Julie Levey Senior Features Contributor

When asked what matters to him, Dr. Jonathan Lee Walton — who, “in very good Southern fashion,” always goes by his full name — does not hesitate, not even for a moment. “Love,” he said. “Love.”

Walton clarified, “Not sentimentality. Not eros, filial, or even brotherly [love]. No, agape. A moral, ethical commitment, that keeps us bound, one to another.”

This love pervades Walton’s work and his decision to assume the presidency of Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) at the beginning of 2023. For Walton, an alum of Princeton Theological Seminary’s M.Div and Ph.D programs, assuming the position was both a next step and a homecoming.

“It is beautiful, it is wonderful, to have this opportunity to give back to an institution and a community that have given me so much. It’s hard for words to describe,” he said.

Walton’s appointment is historic. Not only is he the first Baptist president of PTS, but he is also the institution’s first Black president.

Walton’s appointment came nearly two years after the release of a historical audit report, which examined “the institution’s historic connections to slavery.” After a protest by the Association of Black Seminarians (ABS) in January 2022, PTS disassociated its chapel from Samuel Miller, a slave owner and anti-abolitionist.

“It’s a positive step that we are able to imagine and celebrate people from varying walks of life in roles that we were once excluded from,” Walton said, reflecting on his appointment. “I think that everybody will see that as a beautiful thing, and we all pray for the day where we won’t celebrate such a thing, and so we work for the day that this could be something that we take for granted.”

Hanna Reichel, associate professor of reformed theology at PTS, noted that Walton’s feelings about returning are matched by the rest of the community. “The excitement in the community is as palpable as his own enthusiasm,” Reichel wrote in a statement to The Daily Princetonian.

Walton’s path back to Princeton

Walton was born in 1973 in Atlanta, Ga. “I was part of those who were able to benefit from the incredible courage and strength and organizational actions of the civil rights movement,” he reflected. Walton describes Atlanta in the 1970s and 1980s as a city “where civil rights narratives were sacred history.”

Walton grew up in a progressive family with a strong commitment to civil rights. His family regularly attended African Methodist Episcopal and Baptist churches, but he decided to become more active in church on his own in high school.

As a high schooler, he went to church with his now wife, Cecily Cline Walton. Their three children, Zora Neale, Elijah Mays, and Baldwin Cline, are named for Zora Neale Hurston, Benjamin Elijah Mays, and James Baldwin respectively — all of whom are figures Walton regards as a source of inspiration.

After graduating high school in Atlanta, Walton briefly left Georgia to attend Wofford College in South Carolina on a football scholarship. “I was a much better football player in my imagination than I was in reality,” said Walton. He subsequently returned to Atlanta and transferred to Morehouse College.

Walton entered college thinking that he wanted to become a lawyer and be involved in politics. By the end of his time at Morehouse, his interests had shifted. “It was in college that I really began learning much more about sacred narratives around churches and politics and activism.”

Walton developed an interest in “the theological underpinnings that animated the civil rights

movement” and enrolled in many religion courses. He learned about the ideas, values, and leaders that would eventually inspire him to pursue seminary.

After graduating from college in 1996, Walton spent a couple of years working in a congregation in Atlanta before enrolling in the Master of Divinity program at PTS. He had planned to spend only three years in Princeton before returning to Atlanta, but, as he noted, “the spark of Morehouse was really roused [by the Master of Divinity program].”

“I had more questions than answers, and those questions remained,” Walton added. Curious to further pursue his interests in Christian social ethics and the moral issues he observed that were facing many African American Christian congregations at the time, Walton applied for and was admitted to PTS’s Ph.D. program.

Walton spoke about the aspects of the Ph.D. program that influenced him the most: “It was the way that everyone in this learning community was committed to the formative task [and] involved in the process. I had incredible faculty. But it was also those who worked in the banking office, and in the bursar’s office, and the way that members of the custodial staff would stop and ask you about your studies, talk to you about matters of faith.”

The Ph.D. program was not only an intellectually and spiritually formative experience for Walton, but it also introduced him to many of his closest mentors and friends.

Eddie S. Glaude Jr., professor of African American studies at the University, met Walton early on during Glaude’s tenure at the University.

In a statement to the ‘Prince,’ Glaude wrote, “I thought he was brilliant and a bit unmoored in those early days. Jonathan had not settled on the question of whether he was going to be an academic or a preacher. I watched him eventually reject that he had to choose between the two.”

Professor Wallace Best, professor of religion and African American studies and the director of the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University, met Walton right after Walton finished his Ph.D. in 2007.

“The first thing that impressed me about Jonathan is that this is someone who had intellectual fire,” Best said. Best also commented on Walton’s generosity, saying he “has the gift of just really making you feel all important in the moments that he’s talking to you.”

After earning his Ph.D., Walton joined the faculty of Harvard Divinity School, eventually taking over leadership of the University’s Memorial Church as the Pusey Minister. In 2019, Walton headed back south and became the dean of Wake Forest University’s School of Divinity.

An expanded search Simultaneously, Walton served as a Trustee of PTS. When PTS President Emeritus M. Craig Barnes announced his intention to retire in early 2022, the institution launched a search committee for a new leader.

“[Serving as president] was not something that I would have ever thought about, because it was not possible,” Walton explained, elaborating, “It was in the bylaws that you had to be an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church (PC) of the USA — [to be president].” As a Baptist, Walton did not qualify.

Wesley Rowell, a student currently in his final year of the Master of Divinity program, served on the search committee. Rowell, reflecting on the very small number of Black Presbyterians, remembers wondering, “If we are committed to diversity, are we going to change [the bylaws]?”

After starting the search, the committee went back to the Board of Trustees with a resolution expressing that they believed they could conduct a more inclusive, expansive, and diverse search if they

were permitted to consider candidates outside the PC (USA). The resolution passed.

“Immediately after the vote, I got a couple of calls asking, ‘Would you entertain this?’ I hope, and I do believe that I received those calls because it was no secret, my love for the institution,” said Walton.

Michele Minter, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity at the University and a PTS board member and member of the search committee, explained in a statement to the ‘Prince’ why she believes Walton stood out as a top candidate.

“In a competitive field of candidates, Jonathan brought a high level of higher education administrative experience, excellent scholarly credentials, a track record of thoughtful innovation, and love for the Seminary,” Minter noted. “He also has a distinctive moral voice and commitment to community.”

Rowell explains that in light of declining seminary enrollment, the search committee posed the question, “What is the role of seminary? Why seminary, why now?” to the candidates that made it to the final round of interviews.

“[Walton’s] answer was, ‘I acknowledge all that [information about declining enrollment], but that’s the wrong question. Depression is up. Suicide is up. Addiction is through the roof. What a time to be a seminary.’”

Rowell reflected, “That is the best thing I’ve ever heard. In my mind, I was like, OK, he’s got to be the president because that’s such a genius way of seeing it.”

At a dinner, the night before PTS announced their next president, Cecily Cline Walton told Best that Jonathan Lee Walton would be assuming the position. “My heart got so full at that moment,” Best noted.

“It’s one of those things that you hear that seems and sounds and

feels so right.”

When Glaude heard about the appointment, “I wanted to shout the news at the top of my lungs. I am just delighted he has returned home!”

Walton articulated his goals for Princeton Theological Seminary:

“Number one, the African American Protestant tradition always viewed education as a sacred task. Education is something that should be cherished; it’s something that we should always pursue because a healthy democracy hangs on the hinges of equitable educational opportunities.”

Walton’s second goal derives from his perspective on education. “I have a commitment to flexibility and accessibility. We know that

we can create systems and structures to provide the extraordinary resources of institutions such as Princeton seminary to a large swath of the public.”

Finally, Walton connects to his own journey of homecoming in his third goal: to emphasize PTS’s role as a lifelong learning community. “We are a learning community of which people become a part and they remain apart. A place where people can come and upskill and retool and re-engage. This is what I pray and hope for this campus — that it will be that learning community for life.”

Julie Levey is a senior Features contributor for the ‘Prince.’

TITLE IX

Continued from page 1

resentative of the Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources and Education (SHARE) office walked Beth through the various options available to her — and Beth decided to pursue the formal Title IX grievance procedures laid out by the University’s Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy. ***

In the 2019–20 school year, 19 cases were adjudicated through the route Beth took: a formal process under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that protects people from sex-based discrimination in education programs or activities that receive federal funding.

Yet by 2021, when Beth filed her case, the University’s policies had shifted. Updated federal regulations required colleges to provide a live hearing in all Title IX cases. The University had also established a new informal process in which the two parties could negotiate a mutual agreement, which it refers to as an “alternate resolution.” On a voluntary basis, students can agree to arrangements and terms such as participation in behavioral training or restrictions from certain extracurriculars. However, the process cannot result in disciplinary consequences like suspension or probation, though parties can be disciplined for breaking a finalized and signed agreement.

Since the implementation of these policy changes, the number of students who have pursued the formal Title IX process at Princeton has dropped sharply. Over the course of the 2021–22 school year, only three cases were concluded through the formal Title IX process; Beth’s was one of them. Instead, 16 students pursued alternate resolutions.

The trade-off is stark. The formal process offers a chance at disciplinary justice, but requires months of interviews and investigation before culminating in a live hearing. The alternate resolution process concludes much more quickly, but with all terms requiring the agreement of the alleged perpetrator.

In interviews with The Daily Princetonian, five students shared their experiences with the formal Title IX and alternate resolution processes, detailing months-long investigations, upsetting interviews, and unsatisfactory negotiated agreements.

By interviewing these students, experts on Title IX, campus activists, and University officials, as well as examining troves of documents supplied by the individuals who went through the processes, the ‘Prince’ sought to reconstruct the complex nature of the dilemmas these survivors face. For one student, the formal Title IX process proved to be flawed but still provided some justice. Another said she was ultimately driven to leave Princeton by the experience. Others chose to pursue alternate resolutions instead — to varying degrees of satisfaction.

The University defended its processes: “We work to provide a range of supports and options to students who report experiences of sexual misconduct — regardless of whether they choose to pursue a formal grievance process, the alternate resolution process, or neither,” wrote Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Michele Minter, in a statement emailed to the ‘Prince.’

“The choice of whether to proceed with the formal grievance process or the alternate resolution process is a very personal one, and complainants balance the opportunity to share their experience and have an impartial factfinder determine whether University policy was violated against a much shorter process that does not require them to answer questions regarding the allegations,” Minter added. “Since it was introduced in 2020, most complainants have chosen the alternate

resolution process, and it has successfully resulted in the parties reaching agreement on terms in the overwhelming majority of matters.”

*** Beth began the formal process, which would ultimately take eight months, during which she was interviewed multiple times by investigators, asked to compile evidence such as medical and phone history records, and questioned by an attorney during a live hearing presided over by a former judge.

Months earlier, Jessica, another undergraduate, was talking to a SHARE peer when she realized that an experience might have been “more than just a bad hookup.” She had engaged in sexual activity with another undergraduate and described it as an uneasy experience that she wanted “to be done with.” She said she felt him pressuring her into things that made her “physically uncomfortable.”

Yet after Jessica filed a formal complaint, her experience diverged sharply from Beth’s. Jessica chose the alternate resolution. For her, an agreement was signed within a month. She avoided some of the lengthier aspects of the formal procedure; however, she found enforcement of the agreed terms imperfect. Other students who spoke to the ‘Prince’ emphasized how the voluntary nature of the terms and lack of disciplinary consequences make possible outcomes of alternate resolutions significantly more limited for victims.

How we got here

In 2020, the University’s Title IX system faced significant pressure from both students advocating for reform and pending changes to federal regulations.

Following a 2014 lawsuit, the University shifted its Title IX processes from a subcommittee of the Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline to a panel of investigators that collected evidence and conducted interviews.

But in 2019, student protests erupted on campus over complaints about the handling of cases. One of the leaders of Princeton Students for Title IX Reform (PIXR), Aisha Tahir ’21, recalled in an interview that the protests stemmed from the feeling that “the people within the Title IX office had no experience of handling gendered violence or trauma.”

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Education under the Trump administration was drafting new federal regulations regarding Title IX formal procedures, which they released in May 2020. Among the more significant changes, the regulations required that all cases have a live hearing. Decision-makers could not rely on the testimony of any party or witness who did not submit to crossexamination at the hearing, meaning that survivors would have to make themselves available for questioning by the representative of their alleged assailant. A federal court later set aside the cross-examination provision, though several Title IX experts said it remains the norm for parties and witnesses to be cross-examined.

“The Trump administration had very heavy focus on due process and the rights of the respondent, the individual accused of alleged policy violations,” said Mikiba Morehead, a consultant at TNG, an education risk management firm that assesses schools for Title IX compliance, in an interview with the ‘Prince.’ “The 2020 regulations became much more prescriptive in how institutions needed to respond to allegations of sexual harassment.”

To comply with the new regulations, the University had to change its policies by August 2020.

***

With new regulations looming, early in the summer of 2020, one University administrator raised concerns that the proposed new procedures could lead to increased

underreporting of sexual misconduct.

“In general, we think they’re going to have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to go through the process,” Minter said during an Undergraduate Student Government (USG) meeting in June 2020.

Underreporting of sexual misconduct was no idle fear. In an anonymous We Speak survey conducted at Princeton in the spring of 2017, 81 students indicated that they had experienced non-consensual sexual penetration during the past school year. Yet that same year, the University concluded just 15 cases involving students alleging violations of Title IX, including, but not limited to, penetrative sexual assault. While in many cases, students were found responsible for some violations, accused students were found responsible for non-consensual sexual penetration in only two cases.

In August 2020, Princeton updated its Title IX policies to comply with federal regulations, implementing a live hearing both for Title IX cases and for an expanded set of violations covered under the University Sexual Misconduct policy.

Speaking about changes to university policies across the nation in the aftermath of the Trump-era regulations, Morehead said, “The process now more closely mimics our judicial system.”

She emphasized that the new regulations had resulted in elongated timelines for formal proceedings, which can commonly stretch multiple semesters.

In policies released concurrently with the changes to Title IX processes on campus, the University created a shorter, more informal route: the alternate resolution process.

The previous year, protestors from PIXR had included in their demands “an opt-in restorative justice track for survivors who wish to avoid the process of Title IX proceedings.”

Alternate resolution did serve as an opt-in path to avoid the formal Title IX proceedings and bore several similarities to what the protestors had called for. However, a University website notes that it is “not a restorative justice process.” As the website explains: “Restorative justice processes typically require the respondent to acknowledge and accept responsibility for an offense; the alternate resolution process does not require respondents to do so.”

Hannah Reynolds ’22, who advocates for Title IX reform on campus, said that the alternate resolution process was insufficient “because it puts survivors and perpetrators on equal footing in a way that can be harmful.”

Following the formal process

In January 2022, Beth submitted a formal complaint, intending to follow the Title IX process to a hearing. For her, the decision came down to the fact that the alternate resolution process could not result in disciplinary action.

“It felt like whatever I could ask for in the alternate resolution process would not be enough for me to have justice,” she said.

The Title IX coordinator determined that, if proven, Beth’s alleged assault would constitute a violation of University policy. A notice of Beth’s allegations was sent to the student she accused, and the University opened a formal investigation.

A panel of University employees with the University’s Investigations Unit began the process of collecting evidence, interviewing parties and witnesses, and compiling everything into a case file that would be given to the decision-makers before the hearing.

Both Beth and the accused student needed to choose an adviser, who does not need to be affiliated with the University and can be an attorney. The adviser would crossexamine witnesses at the hearing and could also provide emotional or legal support through the in-

vestigation process. If either party doesn’t choose one, the University is still required to provide them with an adviser to represent them at the hearing.

Since the 2020 changes took effect, the University has provided financial assistance for an adviser through the University External Adviser Program, with these advisers receiving $10,000 for cases that reach a hearing.

Beth chose an out-of-state attorney who prepared her for interviews and other aspects of the multi-month investigation along with representing Beth at the hearing. “I couldn’t have done it without her,” Beth said. ***

Before the 2020 changes, the University did not provide financial assistance for students to hire advisers, posing a major financial hurdle for students to hire an attorney. Molly, a graduate student who filed a formal complaint against two fellow students in the spring of 2019 before the changes were implemented, said her adviser was only there for emotional support and “didn’t offer any advice on how to navigate the process.”

Molly had been hesitant about going through an investigation since she had her general examinations to enter PhD candidacy coming up, but decided to anyway.

“I really trusted the institution and its power to protect me, which is why I chose to file that complaint. It entirely failed me,” she said.

Even before the addition of live hearings, Title IX investigations could drag on for months. Molly’s case took almost half a year. She recalled being unable to concentrate on her work and research, and said she had to ask her advisers for time off and reschedule her general exams several times. In the end, only one of the accused was found responsible.

After enduring the whole process, Molly said she felt “betrayed by the University.” Eventually, she left Princeton. “It became unbearable for me,” she said. She plans at some point to return to complete her PhD defense.

The University declined to comment on Molly’s case specifically. University spokesperson Mike Hotchkiss wrote that “the University cannot comment on specific matters.” Hotchkiss noted that students “are provided with detailed information regarding the process at the outset through email communications and an initial meeting with the Director of Gender Equity and Title IX Administration.”

“[Those administrators] are always available to answer questions from parties and their advisers regarding the process,” he added.

***

Between January and April 2022, investigators interviewed Beth three times and asked her to submit evidence ranging from medical examination records to text messages.

The interviews were “inherently intrusive,” according to Beth.

“The investigators were just doing their job[s],” she said, but she found the questions difficult and personal. They included descriptions of pain during the assault and health symptoms after. During one interview, when investigators asked her for details about her personal medical history, her adviser intervened.

The University says it recognizes the difficulty of the experience for complainants. Hotchkiss noted that investigators are trained in trauma-informed questioning, that parties can request a break at any time for any reason, and that interviews begin with investigators acknowledging that there may be difficult questions and attempting to make students more comfortable.

In addition to Beth and the accused student, the investigative panel interviewed over 20 witnesses, some of them twice, via Zoom over several months.

Investigators compiled evidence and interview transcripts into “case

files,” which they sent to both parties. In all, Beth received and responded to three different versions of the case file, and the final case file was presented to the hearing panel before the trial.

“I didn’t know going in that I’d have case files I’d have to respond to,” she said. “It felt like a training in law school.”

According to Beth, aspects of her digital footprint from high school were initially included in the file.

“It felt like my whole digital track and my whole character was called into question,” she said. “I did not know that going in.”

The University declined to comment on Beth’s assertions about the kind of information included in her case file.

Three months after Beth’s first interview, she received an email from the University’s Title IX administrator stating that the process would take longer than the allotted 90 days since the first interview that the University aims for.

After both parties received the final case file, they had two weeks to submit a list of witnesses they wanted to call to the hearing, with proposed topics for examination.

The hearing was scheduled for mid-summer.

Being called as a witness

Caroline, a close friend of Beth’s, was one of the witnesses Beth called to the Title IX hearing. Prior to the hearing, investigators interviewed her twice about what happened on the night of the alleged incident, as well as Beth’s emotional state in the weeks after the incident. They asked her to submit evidence ranging from text messages to confirmation that a specific phone call occurred.

“It was so difficult seeing my best friend go through this,” Caroline recalled in an interview with the ‘Prince.’

In addition, Caroline said that she herself had recently experienced sexual assault at the time she was being interviewed. “It was triggering to go through the interviews,” she said.

The first interview lasted over an hour. Caroline said she felt a lot of pressure from the investigators, especially when she struggled to answer their questions or remember specific details.

“I felt like they were pushing me to remember things I couldn’t and questioning my answers,” she said. “Sometimes I wanted to tell someone that I’m not sure I can talk about this right now, but I felt like I had to answer all of their questions.”

“Understanding that the investigation process is emotionally stressful, all parties are provided with information about mental health resources throughout the process,” Hotchkiss, the University spokesperson, wrote in an email to the ‘Prince.’

The hearing presented new challenges for Caroline. Both the panel members and the accused student’s adviser questioned her. The crossexamination, she said, was the hardest part. “It felt like his lawyer was trying to catch me in a mistake,” she said.

Caroline feels that there were things Princeton could have done differently. For example, she wishes there had been some warning in the initial email calling her as a witness that the process could be upsetting.

“The University needs to pay attention to witnesses in case they have had traumatic experiences too,” she said. “I lost a lot of trust in the University because of this process.”

***

Two students who went through the formal Title IX complaint process cited friends being called in as witnesses as one of the more difficult parts of the experience for them.

“I wasn’t supposed to share any details with what was happening, because I would be corrupting their abilities as a witness,” Beth said. “I felt like I couldn’t talk to anyone

Beth: “I didn’t know how it would feel to have someone doubting everything you say. You start doubting yourself, gaslighting yourself”

about it without hurting my own case.”

In a statement to the ‘Prince,’ Hotchkiss wrote that each party receives an email from the Office of Gender Equity and Title IX Administration at the beginning of the formal process that encourages students “to exercise discretion in sharing information in order to safeguard the integrity of the process and to avoid the appearance of retaliation.” But the email also states that students “are not restricted from discussing the allegations under investigation.”

Vanessa is a graduate student who began a Title IX case but eventually switched to the alternate resolution process. She said that the investigators interviewed all of the people she had told about the incident, around a dozen friends.

“In the end, almost everyone that I asked for emotional help in dealing with my trauma ended up testifying as a witness,” she wrote in an anonymous op-ed in the ‘Prince’ in November. “With seemingly everyone I knew being called to give testimony, I felt increasingly alone.”

The hearing

In July, Beth logged onto a Zoom call. It was her case hearing, during which she would be questioned by a former judge who would ultimately determine whether or not her allegations were true.

For two long days, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m, Beth sat on the call as the panel and advisers questioned her and 16 witnesses. For the most part, her video remained off.

A hearing panel oversaw the proceedings. Panels are composed of two University administrators who assist with deliberations and a Presiding Hearing Panelist, usually a former judge or attorney. The Presiding Hearing Panelist ultimately determines whether or not the respondent is responsible for violating University policy.

The panel was familiar with the case, having reviewed the case file compiled by investigators, though Beth said she was questioned over things she had already answered.

“It was like, really, I have to explain this once more?” she said.

The cross-examination, carried out by the accused student’s lawyer, was emotionally exhausting for her. “I didn’t know how it would feel to have someone doubting everything you say. You start doubting yourself, gaslighting yourself,” Beth said.

Both parties submitted written closing statements a few days after the hearing. They received the written determination of responsibility roughly a month later.

Ultimately, the panel determined the accused student was responsible for sexually assaulting Beth – a violation of Title IX – though he was not found responsible for some of the other allegations Beth had made. The University sent the decision to Beth in mid-August, a month after the hearing and seven months after she filed the formal complaint.

Both parties appealed the outcome, but in a response sent in September, they were informed that neither appeal was successful. The accused student was suspended for two semesters.

Ultimately, the whole process took eight months, longer than Beth had hoped.

Hotchkiss noted that “the University seeks to complete cases as efficiently as possible without compromising fairness” and that “the complexity of the case may affect the amount of time required to conduct a thorough process.”

***

Vanessa pursued the formal process for five months. She, too, found the investigation exhausting.

“After the first interview, my body reacted to the stress. I got sick and lost my voice,” she said in an interview with the ‘Prince.’ “Leading up to the second, I had panic attacks.”

Ultimately, the prospect of going through with a hearing became too much.

“Soon I learned that the past five months of depression, anxiety, and PTSD were not over. At my hearing, I would be interrogated anew,” she wrote in her op-ed.

With a hearing date set, Vanessa instead opted to pursue alternate resolution.

Avoiding the hearing: alternate resolution process

In the spring of 2021, Jessica was deciding how to pursue her own Title IX case.

As part of training for a campus position, she learned about the various options open to her. Jessica considered the formal process, culminating in a hearing. She said that if the formal process was “less intimidating,” she might have pursued it.

“I thought ‘absolutely not that’ when I heard about the hearing. It wasn’t the path for me,” she said.

Jessica instead pursued the alternate resolution process.

Alternate resolution terms can include one party being banned from specific campus organizations, changes in either party’s housing, and required participation in the Community Integrity Program (CIP), a behavioral intervention training. The process can also result in No Contact or No Communication Orders, including a skewed No Contact Order that places the burden of limiting physical proximity on one party — for example, if the victim arrives at a party where the perpetrator is present, the perpetrator must leave.

At any point until an agreement is reached and signed by both parties, either has the right to switch to the formal grievance process.

Jessica wasn’t necessarily looking for disciplinary action or for anything to be placed on the respondent’s permanent record. Getting him to agree to participate in the Community Integrity Program (CIP), “an intervention process designed to address the nature of the problematic behavior by targeting attitudes and behaviors that contribute to sexual harm,” was more appealing to her.

“It seemed like a more productive form of healing for me,” she said. “I just wanted to educate him on consent, and for him to stay away from me.”

She met with a SHARE counselor and the University’s Title IX Coordinator, both of whom provided her with more information about pursuing the alternate resolution process.

The Title IX Coordinator must determine whether the case is appropriate for the alternate resolution process. They may decide that it’s not and that the student must instead pursue a formal Title IX grievance, if anything. The process is not available for cases between University employees and students.

Vanessa, the graduate student, was initially told that her allegations were so severe that she would not be able to pursue it through alternative resolution. Vanessa later appealed that decision on the grounds of her mental health, and the University ultimately allowed her to pursue alternate resolution.

***

In contrast to Vanessa’s case, Jessica’s situation was deemed appropriate for the alternate resolution from the start. She met with the Title IX administrator again a few days later, who told her to document what she wanted to include in the agreement.

Two weeks after submitting her formal complaint, she requested

terms, including a skewed No

his participation in

the CIP, and for him not to bicker her eating club.

“I wanted to feel safe in my eating club and to eat without looking over my shoulder,” she said.

He objected to three of the five terms, and the two parties proceeded to negotiate indirectly. The Title IX administrator would hear terms from one party, communicate them to the other party, then shuttle messages over and over until both parties agreed. ***

After about 10 days of negotiation, the agreement was signed electronically by both parties.

The final agreement maintained some of Jessica’s original requests, though not all. In particular, the skewed No Contact Order had been changed to a mutual No Contact Order. A mutual No Contact Order requires that whoever arrives second to a location must leave if the other is already there, rather than putting the responsibility of leaving and limiting physical proximity entirely on the accused student.

He did agree to participate in the CIP. Jessica later wrote a statement to be read to him by a clinician at this program, about what happened and what should have gone differently that night.

The whole process, from the initial filing of a complaint to the signing of the agreement by both parties, took less than a month. Though short compared to the formal grievance process, Jessica says it was still draining.

“I had a lot of anxiety before and during the process, especially when he didn’t agree at first to the terms that mattered the most to me,” she said. “I remember having panic attacks walking through campus.”

Since signing the agreement, Jessica hasn’t been entirely satisfied with the outcome.

Once, Jessica said, when she was sitting at a coffee shop, the other student came in and waited for his drink before moving upstairs. Knowing he was close, Jessica said she couldn’t focus on her work. Later, she asked her SHARE counselor about the situation. Jessica showed the ‘Prince’ an email in which a SHARE counselor told her that in

her experience, administrators considered another floor “usually sufficient” for purposes of the No Contact Order.

A No Communication Order FAQ document from the University lists “studying in the same section/floor of the library” and “standing next to the other party in line at a food servery” as behavior that might be considered a violation.

Jessica said that the student she accused of misconduct also appeared at a pre-Bicker event at her eating club, which he had agreed not to attend. A few weeks later, he was on the list for a party at the club.

Although students can appeal to the administrator who issued a No Contact Order to address violations, Jessica decided not to reach out to the Title IX office about the situation. “At this point, I was so exhausted dealing with the Title IX office,” she said. “It’s just so slow.”

Instead, she told the club’s president, and when the student showed up for the party, the bouncers turned him away. ***

Vanessa also found that the process didn’t meet the standards she wanted. When she first attempted alternate resolution, the alleged perpetrator objected to her terms.

“There was no way to push the terms I wanted through,” she said.

She shifted back to the formal grievance process, but found once again that the stress was too high. Turning to the alternate resolution route a second time, the parties eventually reached an agreement.

However, the terms were not what Vanessa had hoped for.

The agreement included a mutual No Contact Order instead of the skewed No Contact Order she had wanted. And her alleged assailant had refused to split time at the gym, for instance a plan where one student was allowed in the morning and the other was allowed in the afternoon.

As a result, when she spoke to the ‘Prince,’ Vanessa hadn’t been to the gym in months.

“I wouldn’t feel safe there,” she said.

Vanessa feels little emotional resolution. “He took no accountability

or responsibility for his actions,” she wrote in her op-ed.

The future of Title IX at Princeton

The Biden Administration released proposed changes to current Title IX regulations in June 2022. It is unclear which of the proposals will go into effect, but the new rules are expected to be made public in May. While proposals released by the Department of Education remove the live hearing requirement, schools would still have the option of offering informal resolution processes. If the final regulations match the proposals, Princeton would be allowed to preserve its alternate resolution process, the path that most students currently choose.

***

As one of the few students to go through the formal Title IX process in recent years, Beth acknowledged that many difficult aspects of the process that she went through were out of University control.

“At the end of the day, this is a federal policy,” she said.

Still, she wishes the process were better. Beth hoped to have more information during the appeals process and about how they chose the out-of-state judge who presided over her trial.

Beth also wishes that there was more awareness among students and faculty about the Title IX process and what people might be going through on campus. She struggled asking teachers for extensions, and most of her friends knew almost nothing about the process, from the lengthy investigation to the hearing. It was difficult for her to explain what she was going through.

Still, she said, pursuing the formal Title IX process was worth the effort.

“I don’t regret going through with it,” she said. “But I just wish I knew how hard it would be.”

Paige Cromley is a head Features editor for the ‘Prince.’

PROSPECT.

Six apps and extensions I use to manage my reading workload

By Avery Danae Williams | Staff Prospect Writer

It’s no secret that Princeton is a major academic transition during your first semester, especially if you load up on reading-intensive courses like I did. It wasn’t long before I was reading an average of 70 to 80 pages a week for my humanities classes, more than I ever had for my high school courses. Fortunately, I have and will continue to use six apps and extensions to manage my workload. Let’s get into them!

1. Finch

First and foremost, prioritizing your mental health is critical to your academic performance. This is especially the case when reading about sensitive topics before class.

If I ever found myself getting emotional while reading, I’d simply open Finch. Available for mobile devices only, Finch describes itself on Google Play as a “self-care pet tracker.”

The bird you care for grows from a baby to an adult as you progress through your mental health journey. Moreover, as your bird embarks on new adventures, it develops new likes, dislikes, and interests that shape its unique personality.

My favorite part of Finch is how everything is in one place. I, for instance, use the habit tracker to ensure I’m balancing my reading with activities like writing poetry. This way, I project my strong emotions creatively rather than onto other people. And unsurprisingly, I mostly use the mood journal to write out my emotions. I ask myself:

What about the text is making me feel this way and why?

How does the reading relate to past and present life events?

When I finish, I feel a lot better knowing I’m in a calmer headspace to continue reading.

Self-care can often feel impossible when you seem to be working nonstop in college. Nevertheless, using Finch can hold you accountable for your mental health as you track the ebbs and flows during your time at Princeton.

2. Squid Nonfiction writer William Zinsser once said that “writing is thinking on paper.” Therefore, I prefer handwriting my papers to avoid writer’s block. But when I bought a stylus for my touchscreen Chromebook, I downloaded the app, Squid, to try my hand at digital note-taking — no pun intended.

I was previously opposed to handwriting my notes digitally, because other apps made my penmanship appear messy. But what I love about Squid is that I can zoom in as much as 1000 percent to ensure my handwriting remains legible. Squid also lets you choose from several templates and sizes depending on your project needs. My go-to settings are the blank piece of paper and infinite size. My note-taking style, where all possible ideas written in different colors fill the page, best aligns with these two options.

I highly recommend Squid for documenting longer readings, too. I’ll listen to the reading using Speechify, give myself an hour to process the information, and then start writing my thoughts out. Granted, it is time-consuming, but not as time-consuming as typing copious notes per page on EverNote. Squid is available to download on mobile and

desktop devices, as long as the latter has a touchscreen. And who knows? Perhaps by trying it, your writing will become thinking on digital paper!

3. EasyBib Research is often the most fun, yet overwhelming, part of writing papers for me. An abundance of (mostly) reputable information, yet not many pages in a research paper to include all of it. That’s why ever since high school, I’ve used EasyBib to create my citations. All I needed to do was copy and paste the website link into EasyBib, and the extension automatically filled out the important fields like date published, article title, and website title. Sometimes, the information was not explicitly stated on the website, so I manually typed what was missing or left those fields blank. Additionally, you can create citations for other media like books and documentaries.

In EasyBib, you can create and name citation lists. In my first semester, I used to keep all my sources in one place and copy them individually. This led to confusion about what sources went with each paper, especially if I was working on multiple at once. But, taking advantage of this new feature, I made lists for each paper to reorganize my sources. It also, in the future, would make great trips down memory lane — if I ever chose to submit my papers for possible inclusion in academic journals, I could look back on previous sources to determine if they’re still relevant to my paper. After all, you often gain a new perspective from rereading your writing several weeks, months, or years later.

4. Speechify I was skeptical at first after seeing YouTube advertisements for this extension. However, I started using it senior year for AP Literature and haven’t looked back. Using Speechify, you can select a male or female narrator to read articles and documents aloud to you. Narrators’ accents range from English, British, and Australian. You can also adjust the speed. Faster speeds, for instance, may help auditory learners absorb information while doing other tasks like laundry.

Sometimes — and I’m sure other writers could relate to this — we become so emotionally attached to our writing that we do not want to change anything. Speechify is my last step before submitting papers, because I am more likely to take my time fixing grammatical errors or rephrasing sentences when I hear it out loud than if I sat silently skimming through the document. I’m not saying that Speechify should replace physical reading, attending office hours, or visiting the Writing Center. Instead, it’s best to use this extension to supplement the work you’re already doing.

5. EverNote

EverNote is a productivity platform that lets you create to-do lists, write notes, and plan projects … the possibilities are endless! I use it in place of Google Docs to create notebooks for my classes. I appreciate how simple the interface is, allowing me to take the time to understand the material. Other apps like Notion distract me with the amount of customization involved, whereas the straightforward design of EverNote is great for focusing.

For my notes, I separated them into “Preliminary Process,” where I predicted what the reading will entail, and “Actual Reading,” where I engaged with the text as I read. I would record important details and my interpretations to include in class discussions; I divided my notes with subheadings that corresponded to the reading’s different sections. Any details I accidentally left out during my initial reading I would include if they appeared on professors’ slides. Unless you’re Sonic the Hedgehog, I don’t recommend waiting until during class to write notes. You’ll be overwhelmed by cramming information and probably won’t be able to pay attention to the professor. Do the notetaking in advance, so that when it’s time to write papers, you won’t be scrambling to collect the information needed to strengthen your arguments.

6. Google Docs

I know you’re probably thinking, “Avery, everyone uses Google Docs.” And although I still use it to write my papers, I no longer use it to write class notes. Instead, in Google Docs I create what I call my “Reading, Writing, Watching, and Studying Schedule” for the semester. Suppose I had 28 pages to read for my Wednesday philosophy class. I would allocate how many pages I would read on Monday and Tuesday — I would enter the date and task, and then strikethrough once I finished.

The master document also contains reminders to work on papers and watch documentaries for my Freshman Seminar. Since I intentionally designed my schedule to space out my classes, I often put two to three tasks per night depending on how much work I want to complete in between classes. You don’t have to replicate this system, but I found that it helped me visually track my deadlines while giving me time to process what I’m learning.

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.

By Elizabeth Medina | Senior Cartoonist

A challenging yet rewarding life: Naval ROTC reflections, Part One

By Abigail McRea, Wyatt Rogers, & Megan Ogawa Guest Contributors

The Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (NROTC) at Princeton is a small community, but it is also a community which has shaped the lives and experiences of 12 students on campus unlike any other. Though our Midshipmen represent a variety of backgrounds, majors, and interests, we’re all — as cliche as it might sound — united by a common understanding of each other, our role models, and who we aspire to be in our near future. And though NROTC sometimes looks like exhausting weeks and sleepless nights, one thing that keeps us going is a shared appreciation for a challenging but rewarding way of life.

In the following two-part essay, a few Midshipmen — Wyatt Rogers ‘26, Megan Ogawa ‘23, William Suringa ‘26, Lea Casano-Boris ‘25, and me — from the campus community elaborate on our NROTC experience: what inspired us to serve, what keeps us going, and what our future aspirations are.

Wyatt Rogers’ story:

I joined NROTC this fall as an incoming freshman. NROTC is a big time commitment, and it can be a bit of a challenge waking up at 4:30 a.m. to get to training on Monday mornings, but it has been a defining part of my Princeton experience thus far. I have met a ton of new people, both inside and outside Princeton, that I never would have had the chance to know if I wasn’t in the unit. As a NROTC unit, we got to meet General Cavoli, who is the Commander of the U.S. European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. It was a fascinating experience hearing him talk about the future of what the U.S. military may look like.

To be honest, I am not sure what motivated me to join NROTC. I decided to join when high school was coming to an end, and I started to wonder what I wanted to do with my life. Part of me wanted to shape my Princeton experience to prepare for a career in finance or consulting, but I decided to try something different — I wanted to try a unique career that would keep me active. The Navy has jobs which bring you across the world and prevent you from being stuck at a desk all day. I also had a desire to serve and protect my country. I grew up in Japan, a country which — despite having a history of intense conflict with the United States — is one of our closest allies. While the U.S. military is not perfect, it helped change Japan from an imperialist empire to a successful representative democracy. I want to help maintain this relationship between the United States and Japan.

I have had an amazing time in NROTC so far, and I look forward to continuing in the program throughout my four years at Princeton. While it is not always easy, it is a fulfilling experience with amazing opportunities to meet new people and to try new things.

In the NROTC program, students spend four years learning how to be a Navy or Marine

Corps officer. The program takes place at Rutgers University and involves tri-weekly workouts; a class learning about tactics, history, or ethics; active peer leadership; and mentorship from active-duty service members. As Wyatt described, many Midshipmen join NROTC in order to add a layer of challenge into their lives. Their future career aspirations, during and post-military, are inspired by and intertwined with this love for a challenging way of life. In the following reflection, Midshipmen Ogawa elaborates on this, touching on her extracurricular activities, busy schedule, and personal development.

Megan Ogawa’s story:

Aside from waking up at 4:30 a.m. for physical training, maintaining my uniform and studying Naval Science, all while balancing Princeton academics, my time in ROTC has also been balanced by hours on the track as a varsity athlete and responsibilities as an Residential College Advisor (RCA). All of these things together have supported my development not only as a future Naval Officer, but also as a person. Being an RCA in particular has provided me the opportunity to be responsible for the care of other people and exposed me to an arsenal of resources which empower students of all backgrounds to find their own success.

As Company Commander — a position of high authority within the student command structure —, the skills I acquired as an RCA have carried over to a military environment — NROTC has allowed me to practice task-oriented and peer-to-peer leadership that has helped me develop my own confidence and time management skills. Looking back, thinking about all the different paths I could have taken, NROTC at Princeton has definitely been a unique one.

As a fairly new program with only 12 members, NROTC at Princeton has allowed me to experience the very steep contrast between a regimental military life and a civilian college life, especially during my underclass years. This unique separation has given me the best of both worlds and helped me make meaningful connections with military advisors, as well as peer leaders and like-minded students at Princeton.

On the more personal side of things, all of this would not have been possible without the moral support and friendship that has come from the varsity track team, NROTC, and the residential college. It goes without saying that my time as a Princeton Midshipman, athlete, RCA, and a student have been very formative experiences, but it was definitely not always easy. I cannot understate how much I can attribute the positive friendships, mentors, coaches, and peers to how I have been able to get this far.

Abigail McRea ’23 is an Electrical Engineering major from San Diego, California.

Wyatt Rogers ’26 grew up in Tokyo, Japan and is a prospective SPIA major.

Megan Ogawa ’23 is a BSE Computer Science major at Princeton.

The Prospect 11 Weekly Event Roundup

By Assistant Prospect Editor Russell Fan

Spring 2023 Student Reading

Chancellor Green Rotunda

April 18 at 5 p.m.

Students from spring 2023 creative writing courses read out their work, covering a wide array of genres like fiction, nonfiction, poetry, screenwriting, and literary translation. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

VIS Junior Show: “This is self-organized by numbers”

Lucas Gallery, 185 Nassau St.

April 12–21 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

This exhibition showcases the work of 20 students from the Program in Visual Arts certificate and Practice of Art concentration in the Department of Art and Archaeology. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

“Three Loves (The Musical)”

by Halle Mitchell ’23

Donald G. Drapkin Studio, Lewis Arts complex

April 14 at 7:30 p.m., April 15 at 2:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.

Through an exciting “journey of romance, heartbreak, and self-growth,” this contemporary musical explores the cultural phenomena of “young love, hard love, and love that lasts.” It is written and music directed by Halle Mitchell ’23, and co-directed by Wasif Sami ’25 and Christine Chen ’25. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

“Collage”: A Senior Exhibition

by Maggie Chamberlain

April 10–21 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Hagan Gallery, 185 Nassau St.

If the floral designs featured on the cover poster draw your attention, take some time to go see this exhibition of work by Maggie Chamberlain ’23, a senior in the visual arts department. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

“King of the Yees”

by Lauren Yee Berlind Theatre at McCarter Theatre Center

April 13, 14, 15 at 8 p.m.

Directed by guest artist Bi Jean Ngo and features lighting design by Angelica Qin ’23, the Lewis Center for the Arts website describes this performance as “an epic joyride across cultural, national, and familial borders that explores what it means to truly be a Yee.” . After the opening show, there will be a talkback with McCarter’s Director of Equity and Organizational Culture Gina Pisasale, whose research centers on Asian American performance, American dramaturgy, and representations of race within the American Theater. Tickets can be bought through the McCarter Box Office.

“Petty Saint”: A Senior Exhibition

Lane Marsh

Hurley Gallery, Lewis Arts complex

April 10–21 from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Lane Marsh ’23, a visual arts major, presents his senior thesis work in an exhibit exploring how barbed wire can act “both to protect and to injure” and “the ecstasy of saints.”. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

“Liminality”

Hearst Dance Center at Lewis Arts complex

April 13, 14, 15 at 8:30 p.m.

Two dance works by Camryn Stafford ’23 and Michael Garcia ’23 explore “the critical point between multiple states and sensory thresholds, internalized and externalized processing, and the process of understanding over time,” according to the Lewis Center for the Arts website. Stafford choreographed “There She Is,” which seeks to portray the concurrent hypervisibility and invisibility of Black women in society, and Garcia choreographed “Acero,” which investigates the human body’s stress response. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

Fund for Irish Studies: Lecture on “Fierce Appetites: Lessons from my year of untamed thinking”

Elizabeth Boyle

James Stewart Film Theater, 185 Nassau St.

April 14 at 4:30 p.m.

As part of the Fund for Irish Studies lecture series, this lecture features Elizabeth Boyle, a Lecturer in Early Irish at Maynooth University in Ireland, who will talk about her Irish Times bestseller book “Fierce Appetites.” The lecture will be introduced by Professor Fintan O’Toole, one of Ireland’s leading public intellectuals. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

Labyrinth Live at the Library: Daphne Kalotay and A.M. Homes

Princeton Public Library and online

April 19 at 7:00 p.m.

Creative writing lecturer Daphne Kalotay and creative writing faculty member A.M. Homes discuss Kalotay’s new collection of stories The Archivists. This event is open to the public, and does not require tickets or registration.

Authentic Jazz and Swing Dance Workshop

Murphy Dance Studio, Lewis Arts complex

LISTEN DO

April 17 from 2:30 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

LEARN LEARN

Want to learn more about jazz and swing dance? Come join this lecture/workshop on authentic jazz and swing dance practices led by guest artist Mickey Davidson. This is part of Dyane Harvey-Salaam’s spring 2023 dance course, DAN 211: The American Experience and Dance Practices of the African Diaspora. This event is open to the public and does not require tickets or registration.

Princeton French Film Festival

Various times and locations on campus

April 16–28

Hosted by the French and Francophone Society, this festival will present various award-winning films by emerging filmmakers from different French-speaking countries. All films will be screened in the original language(s) and with English subtitles. This event is open to the public and tickets are free, but it requires registration through the French and Francophone Society’s website. Check their website for the full schedule of film screenings. In the week of April 16th, Animal (2021) by Cyril Dion will be played on April 16th at 6:30 p.m. in McCosh Hall 10 and Gagarine (2020) by Fanny Liatard and Jeremy Trouilh will be played on April 19th at 6:30 p.m. in Betts Auditorium N101 - Architecture Building.

First-year guard Xaivian Lee participates in Canada Basketball Assessment Camp

By Diego Uribe Assistant Sports Editor

Standout first-year guard

Xaivian Lee participated in the Canada Basketball Men’s High-Performance U19 National Team Assessment Camp this past weekend in Toronto.

Lee entered the camp as one of 46 invites who hoped to make the final roster that will represent Canada at the biannual International Basketball Federation (FIBA) U19 Basketball World Cup in June. Now, after 26 players were cut throughout the weekend, Lee is one of 20 players still being considered for the team. In the most recent World Cup held in 2021, Canada placed third.

Lee was “pleasantly surprised” to receive the invite, but confident in his ability to compete for a spot on the final roster.

“I’d never really played with Canada Basketball before — I was never really on their radar,” he told The Daily Princetonian. While many of the other invites had spent significant time with the na-

tional program, Lee had only attended one provincial talent identification camp when he was younger, where he was cut after the first day.

“When I was younger, I didn’t really have that type of exposure, so for me to not have grown up in the system like most of the guys there, it was unusual,” he added.

“It definitely means a lot,” Lee said about the invite. “Putting Canada on your chest, that’s something I’ve dreamt about since I was a little kid.”

As a Toronto native, Lee knows what basketball means to the area.

“When people think of Toronto and Canada, they think of hockey, but to be honest, where I was from, there was a big importance placed on basketball. Everywhere you go there’s people always playing outside,” Lee told the ‘Prince.’

Lee averaged 4.8 points, 1.8 rebounds, and 0.9 assists in 13.4 minutes per game for the Princeton men’s basketball team this season. He also earned an Ivy League Rookie of the Week award in November. He feels as though his

time with Princeton basketball has prepared him for this opportunity.

“Just playing at the Division I level, especially playing in the Ivy League where there’s a lot of emphasis on system … that’s really helped me mature as a basketball player,” said Lee.

“Playing with guys that are older, Mush (junior guard Matt Allocco), Borg (senior guard Ryan Langborg), just learning from them has really made me a more well-rounded player, and to take that home [to the camp] against guys who are my age, I think it’s definitely prepared me well to succeed at the U19 level.”

Lee was crucial in the Tigers’ run to an Ivy League championship. In the Ivy Madness semifinal game against the Penn Quakers, he connected on two free throws with eight seconds remaining to ice the game for the Tigers.

With the Tigers losing senior starters — forward Tosan Evbuomwan, forward Keeshawn Kellman, and Langborg — to graduation, Lee hopes to add leadership to the team

next year.

“The biggest thing I’m trying to work on is my communication and being a leader because I feel like we’re losing a lot of that next year,” he told the ‘Prince.’ “I want to be able to step up and help us be this good again next year.”

If he makes the final roster, Lee will be traveling with the team in May to begin preparing for the World Cup in June.

The World Cup will be hosted in Debrecen, Hungary at the Olah Gabor and Főnix Arenas. Diego Uribe is an assistant editor for Sports and contributor for News at the ‘Prince.’

Abby Meyers ’22 selected first round, 11th overall in 2023 WNBA draft

By Wilson Conn Head Sports Editor

The Dallas Wings just couldn’t stand not having a Princeton Tiger on their roster.

On Monday night, the Texan WNBA franchise selected Abby Meyers ’22 — a former star Princeton guard who played this past season at Maryland — with the 11th overall selection in this year’s WNBA Draft. The selection comes after Bella Alarie ’20, a former Wings player selected with the fifth overall pick in the draft three years ago, retired earlier this year.

In her senior season at Princeton, Meyers was selected as the Ivy League Player of the Year, averaging 17.9 points while shooting

39.3 percent from three. She was the leader of a Tigers squad that went 14–0 in Ivy League play and beat sixseed Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament. In the Tournament win over the Kentucky Wildcats, a team which featured future top overall pick Rhyne Howard, Meyers scored 29 points.

Her impressive play earned her a spot as a graduate transfer at Maryland this past season, one of the top women’s basketball programs in the country. There, she continued to shine, scoring 14.3 points per game while increasing her averages in steals and assists, and decreasing her turnover average. Meyers joins fellow Maryland guard Diamond Miller, who went second overall to the Minnesota

Lynx, as the second Terrapin selected in the first round of this year’s draft. “There are so many amazing teams [in the WNBA], and I just looked up to all of them when I was growing

up,” Meyers told The Daily Princetonian when she declared for the draft in March.

“This whole experience is surreal, [it’s] like a full circle moment.”

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

COURTESY OF @XAIVIAN/INSTAGRAM.

First-year guard Xaivian Lee holds the Ivy Madness championship trophy following the Men’s basketball team’s title game triumph over the Yale Bulldogs.

RODRIGUES / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN.

Abby Meyers ’22 was selected 11th overall in the 2023 WNBA Draft by the Dallas Wings.

WOMEN’S LACROSSE

‘The sequel to a book’: Jenn Cook to lead the next generation of Princeton women’s lacrosse

By Brian Mhando Associate Sports Editor

Last year, Hall of Fame women’s lacrosse coach Chris Sailer retired after a 36-year career. She led the Tigers to 15 Ivy League titles and three national titles, including the program’s first national title, establishing herself as arguably the greatest lacrosse coach in program history. Sailer not only left the next Princeton lacrosse coach with big shoes to fill, but higher expectations and a more demanding crowd than the one that welcomed her 37 years ago.

Luckily, Sailer’s replacement, Jenn Cook, is no stranger to the high standards of Princeton lacrosse.

Now in her 11th year at Princeton, Cook has spent the majority of her coaching career with the Tigers as an assistant and associate coach, helping lead Princeton to seven Ivy titles, five Ivy tournament wins, and eight NCAA qualifying appearances.

Though her mentor is retiring, Cook told the Daily Princetonian that because of Sailer’s work at Princeton, the transition to the role of head coach has been seamless.

“If I’m being honest ... Chris did such an incredible job, so I really don’t feel like my role is much different,” Cook said.

However, only attributing her successful transition to Sailer would be doing a disservice to Cook’s own career.

MEN’S VOLLEYBALL

Growing up, Cook’s parents encouraged her to pursue what she loved doing, and for her, that was lacrosse. Her passion for the sport extended beyond just playing. Following her parents — who both worked in education — Cook took an interest in educating others by coaching lacrosse during her senior year of high school.

“For me, I knew I had committed to play Division I lacrosse at University of North Carolina (UNC) [Chapel Hill], so for my senior externship, I chose to [shadow] Julie Weiss [a former lacrosse head coach],” Cook told the ‘Prince’. “I really wanted to know how coaches did practice plans, how they organized their office, and how they did film.”

After high school, Cook joined the Tar Heels, where at the time of college graduation, she had played the highest number of games in program history at 76 games. She won All-American honors on three separate occasions; of the three, she was named National MVP twice, and was also nominated for the Tewaaraton award for the most outstanding women’s lacrosse player twice. Despite her elite defensive talent on the field, it was Cook’s attention to detail and eye for scouting that caught the attention of her head coaches.

“[During] my senior year, Jenny Levy, my head coach at UNC, pulled me aside in January and said: I really think you should

coach ... you’re like having a coach on the field,” Cook remembers.

Cook decided to attend Drexel University to study sports management and coaching. After 10 months, Cook returned to UNC to start her first official coaching gig.

It didn’t take long for Cook’s career to start flourishing. Players that she coached brought talent to new levels on the field. Players were awarded the 2009 national goalie and defender of the year, and later Tewaaraton finalist in 2010. Working primarily on defensive recruitment at Chapel Hill, Cook quickly made the Tarheels one of the most formidable defensive teams in the country. By the time she had reached her final season at UNC after four years, the Tarheels were ranked third nationally on goals allowed per game.

At Princeton, Cook credits her lengthy stay to the values of Princeton athletics.

“I think the difference between our [team], and probably my experience [as a player] is that much more balanced approach,” Cook explained. “That’s probably why I’ve stayed at Princeton for so long, because our players are [going to] go on and do incredible things that are not just lacrosse related.”

But for Cook, there was more to Princeton than its emphasis on education through athletics. Sailer’s trust in her as a coach, from working on admissions and

recruiting, to allowing Cook to conduct her own team meetings, made her believe in the collaborative effort of Princeton’s lacrosse program.

“I think Chris Sailer, in particular, knew in order to keep me around, she had to keep me busy. So she constantly delegated tasks that kept me busy, and I was never bored.”

Sailer’s collaboration gave Cook the leeway to implement her own cultural practices before she was appointed head coach. Now, as head coach, she believes that her time here won’t be too different from Sailer’s.

“It’s like the sequel to a book. So there are threads that are definitely the same and traditions that are never going to go away within our program. But, of course, my approach is different than Chris’s foundationally,” Cook explained. “What Chris and I always appreciated about each other in coaching was our ability to collaborate and have different ideas and let each other lead with our strengths.”

Compared to Sailer, Cook has emphasized collaboration between the coaching staff and the players. In practice, for example, Cook frequently asks her players for their thoughts on team drills and splits her team up into smaller groups called Tiger Families, which serve as a support system for every player on the team.

Cook strives to prioritize the well-being of her students first

before the game of lacrosse.

“I very much prefer to let the players drive the bus. I think it’s really about them and their experience, and I’m here to help develop them as lacrosse players, and more importantly, as people.”

As for her coaching? The defensive-minded coach plans to experiment until she figures out the best system. In the meantime, the goal in the locker room has always been clear: to win championships.

“Our whole staff is super competitive, and our players are equally as competitive. And that’s what’s so fun about it. For us, it really is about being the best version that we can be of ourselves and as a team, so keeping that level of play up is massive.”

Cook’s goal as head coach is more than just developing the greatest lacrosse players in the country. To her, developing the next generation of leaders is just as important.

“I think the biggest goal for any coach who really truly is a mentor is having players look back on their experience and knowing that they were supported in every facet,” Cook said. “I think it’s so cool to see the growth from 17 through 22 in the strides that players make, not only as players but as people.”

Brian Mhando is an associate editor for the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’

Men’s volleyball sweeps weekend slate over No. 14 Charleston

By Allison Ha Sports Contributor

This past weekend, men’s volleyball (12–11, 6–3 EIVA) picked up two solid wins against No. 14 Charleston (22–4, 5–3). With these two wins, the Tigers are now second in the Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association (EIVA), while the Golden Eagles have dropped down to third.

The first match played out pretty smoothly for the Tigers, as they were able to glide past the Golden Eagles with a 3–0 sweep. Princeton was in the driver’s seat throughout the whole game, and the Tigers won every set by at least a three-point margin.

It was an overall solid game for the Tigers. Princeton simply outperformed Charleston in every aspect, and their 43 kills nearly doubled the number of kills (25) recorded by the Golden Eagles.

Huge contributors to the game-one win against Charleston were junior outside hitter Ben Harrington

and senior hitter Brady Wedbush. Harrington had a game-high 13 kills, and Wedbush added 10 kills of his own. Sophomore rightside hitter Nyherowo Omene also played a key role in the Tigers’ success and put up seven kills and three blocks.

Coming off of a loss against George Mason, the Tigers learned from their mistakes and pushed themselves to be a better team against Charleston.

“We really just took that initial sting of losing to a team we just beat and turn[ed] up our aggression in practice leading up until this match,” Omene told The Daily Princetonian. “As a result, the Charleston match felt very comfortable because we spent the entirety of practice training for that.”

The second game played out in a similar fashion for the Tigers, as they were able to get a 3–1 win against the Golden Eagles.

While the Tigers may have won the game, all four sets were well-fought and ended within a three-point margin.

Despite the first set being back and forth, Princeton was able to pull out the win. The set ended 25–22 in favor of the Tigers as Harrington propelled the team with six kills and three aces alone just in this set.

The second set was another close battle. Both teams came out firing, but eventually, Charleston was able to pull through and gave Princeton their first set loss of the weekend.

Fortunately for the Tigers, they were able to bounce back for sets three and four. Princeton took an early 11–8 lead in the third set and continued to ride that momentum throughout the rest of the set, taking a 27–25 set win from Charleston.

In the fourth set, the Tigers came back from a six-point deficit, but still later found themselves down 24–22. Despite being one point away from a set loss, Princeton was able to rally and score four straight points to end the match and hand Charleston their fourth loss of the season.

Harrington again led the team in kills, with 17, and also contributed three aces. Along with Harrington, Omene added 10 kills and first-year blocker Ryan Vena had eight kills and six blocks.

The Tigers will return to Dillon Gymnasium on Friday, April 14 to face off against

another EIVA foe, NJIT (8–16, 2–7).

Allison Ha is a contributing writer for the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’