The Daily Princetonian: September 8, 2023

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Friday September 8, 2023 vol. CXLVII no. 15

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

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

STUDENT LIFE

Loud Luxury to headline fall Lawnparties concert

By Nandini Krishnan Staff news Writer

Electronic music duo Loud Luxury will headline fall 2023 Lawnparties, with singer and producer Pheelz as a supporting act, according to an email to students from the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Social Committee on Sunday, See LAWNPARTIES page 3

“LOUD LUXURY AT THE B96 PEPSI SUMMER BASH 2019” BY ALEX GOYKHMAN / CC-BY-SA 4.0

U. AFFAIRS

Princeton to change essay question, study further admissions changes for future years

By Bridget O’Neill Assistant News Editor

The University announced changes to its admissions program on Tuesday, almost two months after the June Supreme Court ruling that prohibited colleges from considering race, ethnicity, and national origin when considering students for admission. The changes for the Class of 2028 application cycle will be limited to new essay prompts in the undergraduate application and measures to make the ethnicity and nationality of applicants unavailable to admissions officers, according to an announcement posted to the University website on Tuesday.

In addition, the University announced the Board of Trustees has developed an ad hoc committee charged with evaluating new admission policies to go into effect in future application cycles.

The long-anticipated announcement comes as many groups on campus have suggested much more widespread reform such as the elimination of legacy admissions and the introduction of class-based affirmative action.

In recent weeks, Harvard University has made a similar move to Princeton by changing essay questions to emphasize an applicants backgrounds. Wesleyan University college gained attention after

NEWS

Princeton grad’s AI detection start-up launches, builds features to address false positives

by Senior News Writer Amy Ciceu PAGE 3

eliminating legacy admissions in the wake of the ruling.

The announcement shares the ad hoc committee’s two guiding principles: “merit-driven admissions” and a commitment to admitting talented students from diverse backgrounds. The committee is also charged with reviewing the impact of the pandemic and of campus expansion on “the University’s achievement of its admissions policies.

The committee will evaluate the changes featured in this year’s admission cycle aimed at upholding these principles, including new essay prompts. The group of trustees will also be tasked with considering long-term changes to the admissions process as well as reviewing admission data and trends.

These efforts represent the University’s commitment to “work vigorously to preserve — and, indeed, grow — the diversity of our community while fully respecting the law” as shared by President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 immediately following the ruling.

“This ruling also comes after a global pandemic and amid a significant expansion of the undergraduate student body. It is a good time to take a broader look and ensure our admissions policies in general are optimally serving the University’s mission,” the Aug. 22 announcement reads.

The release of Princeton’s Common Application questions last week already saw a shift in language aimed at gleaning students’ experiences without explicit mention of race. Specifically, the question asks applicants to “reflect on how your lived experiences will impact the conversations you will have in the classroom, the dining hall or other campus spaces.”

The announcement states that modifications in the application process for the coming year will make race, ethnicity, and national origin unavailable to all University personnel involved in the evaluation of prospective students in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision. All such personnel will also receive education on what practices facilitate full compliance.

The ad hoc committee, led by José Alvarez ’85, is expected to share its findings and recommendations by the end of the 20232024 school year before the board of trustees’ May 2024 meeting, though it is expected to regularly share reports with the Board of Trustees about its deliberations.

One Young Alumni Trustee, Jackson Artis ’20, will serve on on the committee.

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

FEATURES

‘Suffer and maybe fail, or go on medical leave’

By Miriam Waldvogel & Lia Opperman Assistant News Editor & Associate News Editor

On May 28, Imani Mulrain ’23 stood on stage in front of dozens of peers as the student speaker at the Pan-African Graduation Ceremony, one of the many affinity graduations that cap the end of Princeton’s semester. She had been awarded honors in the Department of Chemistry and was a member of a number of student groups.

Despite being chosen to speak, Mulrain did not know if she would be among the graduates. Just five days earlier, on May 23, Mulrain opened an email from Jaclyn Schwalm GS ’12, her residential college dean. According to the email, Mulrain “fail[ed] to qualify for a Princeton degree,” because she had not completed the 31 credits necessary to earn her A.B. degree after failing MUS 514, a graduate-level music course taught by Prof. Simon Morrison GS ’97.

The email capped off months of correspondence between Mulrain, Schwalm, Morrison, and other University administrators.

Mulrain had had serious health challenges through her senior year, and she felt that the University had failed to provide appropriate accommodations.

Morrison, in turn, noted that Mulrain had missed almost half the seminars and charged that she did not take opportunities to make up the work in a

How do Princeton’s legacy students stack up to their peers? We looked at the numbers.

by Associate Data Editor Ryan Konarska PAGE 6

See LEAVE page 10

Please send any corrections requests to corrections@dailyprincetonian.com.

INSIDE THE PAPER

DATA

class where 50 percent of the grade was attendance.

The incident ended with complaints of retaliation, of disability discrimination, and a student without a diploma.

Mulrain’s experience provides a window into differences between professors and students on accommodations for health conditions and tensions with the University bureaucracy intended to mediate between the two.

“To be frank, this has ruined my life,” Mulrain told The Daily Princetonian in June. She is currently paying for a summer course to earn her final Princeton credit.

The University declined to comment on the specifics of Mulrain’s case. Instead, in an email to the ‘Prince,’ Dean of the College Jill Dolan wrote that the University’s attendance policy “cannot tolerate excessive absences ‘regardless of the reason a student misses a class,’” and noted that “absences degrade a student’s ability to learn the course material and to participate in class discussions and projects.” She added that students should contact their professors and their residential college dean if they have an extended illness to discuss arrangements for completing

HUMOR

OPINION

Student in wheelchair expelled for using PEV in designated zone during peak hours

by Staff Humor Writer Lauren Owens

Elite universities are not the great equalizers of society

by Head Opinion Editor Abigail Rabieh

PAGE 7

PAGE 8

PROSPECT

‘Oppenheimer’ review: Nolan brings complex humanity to picture of Princeton resident

by Senior Prospect Contributor Tyler Wilson PAGE 14

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Friday September 8, 2023

New restrictions aim to dramatically curtail e-vehicle use across campus ON CAMPUS

By Tess Weinreich

Associate News Editor

The University will be cracking down on the use of personal electric vehicles (PEVs) this academic year.

While stopping short of an outright ban, a campus message issued on Friday, Aug. 18 introduced sweeping new restrictions. According to the new policy, PEVs including scooters, bikes, hoverboards, and electric skateboards will be prohibited during “peak hours” of 7:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on weekdays within a “designated zone.”

The zone encompasses the vast majority of campus, bound North to South by Nassau Street and Faculty Road and East to West by Alexander Road and Fitzrandolph Road.

According to the campus message, this tightened policy comes after a “formal review” conducted by the Environmental Safety and Risk Management Committee (ESRM). The University cites student body growth, increased use of PEVs, and reduced accessibility to pathways due to construction as exacerbating factors.

“The ESRM has concluded that the University’s infrastructure cannot safely accommodate the increasing usage of PEVs on campus without applying certain restrictions,” the message reads. “The Committee recognizes that this could be both disappointing and inconvenient to current users of PEVs and asks for your compliance with this new policy.”

The message also cautions that

failure to comply “could result in a full prohibition of PEVs on campus.”

Non-compliant vehicles will be impounded, and repeat-offenders may be reported to the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, the Graduate School, Human Resources, Dean of the Faculty, or other appropriate entities for additional disciplinary actions.

Several peer institutions have also recently tightened PEV policy.

The Harvard Crimson and The Daily Pennsylvanian both reported heightened enforcement of restrictions on e-vehicle use on their campuses last spring. Boston College and Fordham College banned PEVs entirely during the 2022-23 academic year.

Princeton follows not only the trend in academia, but also local efforts to control the use of micromobility devices, including bicycles, skateboards, and rollerskates, in town. Last December, Princeton Town Council unanimously passed an amendment to an ordinance prohibiting their use in a zone of downtown Princeton, including on Witherspoon Street, between Nassau Street and Paul Robeson Place, the north side of Nassau Street between Bayard Lane and Maple Street, and Palmer Square.

The resulting increased enforcement of a $50 fine received pushback from students throughout the spring, who claimed they hadn’t been properly informed of the municipal amendment.

The University’s previous policy

was adopted in Feb. 2020, and permitted registered devices on all University roads, walks, and pathways with the requirement that riders yield to pedestrians at all times.

The revised policy will change oncampus transportation for many: According to data from the 2023 senior survey, 6.3 percent of respondents reported using a scooter to navigate campus at least some of the time.

Certain groups, such as athletes, who use PEVs at heightened rates to access far-away facilities, may be particularly affected by longer, on-foot commutes. Indeed, an FAQ page on the new policy forebodes disruptions to student life with questions like: “What if I can’t get to class/practice/ activities on time?”

According to the webpage, the Committee on Classrooms and Schedule is “exploring the expansion of passing time to 15 or 20 minutes” but notes that “change is not expected during the 2023-24 academic year.”

The campus message provides more information about how the University intends to support students through this adjustment, promising “continuous updating of temporary wayfinding around construction activities,” “piloting an earlier start to late lunch at Frist Food Gallery on weekdays to allow students more time to eat lunch between classes,” “improving TigerTransit routes and frequency, and deploying new technologies such as real-time arrival screens,” and “investing in longer-term projects to create

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PEV restricted zone on campus.

safe, multi-modal corridors across campus.”

When asked last March if the University intended to join the town in further restricting use of vehicles like e-scooters, Director of Transportation and Parking Services Charles Tennyson wrote in a statement to The Daily Princetonian, “We believe there’s less to do about regulation right now, and much more to do about conversation.”

“The University does not wish to surprise students with any new or significant change in policy, institute

needless regulations, or limit mobility options for students or the broader University community,” he wrote.

Despite this statement, discussions surrounding the policy change were not made public prior to the announcement on Aug. 18, just one week before its scheduled implementation on Aug. 25, and just over two weeks before classes start on Sep. 5.

Tess Weinreich is an associate News editor for the ‘Prince.’

ACADEMICS

Media criticism of book on fall seminar syllabus echoed by Center for Jewish Life

By Rebecca Cunningham Assistant News Editor

A course offered by Princeton’s Department of Near Eastern studies (NES) has come under sustained criticism from offcampus publications and public figures in recent weeks due to the inclusion of the book, “The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability” on the course’s syllabus. A description of the book describes it as arguing that Israel “relies on liberal frameworks of disability to obscure and enable the mass debilitation of Palestinian bodies.” Critics, including a minister in the Israeli government, have argued that the book invokes the antisemitic blood libel trope, while others have defended the use of the book on grounds of academic freedom and human rights. The course, NES 301: The Healing Humanities — Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South, is scheduled to be taught by Professor Satyel Larson this fall.

Criticism of the book originated in the conservative media and has since been picked up by outlets with larger reaches.

On Monday, Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91 of the University’s Center for Jewish Life (CJL) sent a letter to the CJL community expressing concern over the inclusion of the text and urging the NES Department to reconsider its use.

The University has not spoken publicly about the affair and declined to comment for this article. Professor Keith Whittington, chair of the academic committee of the Academic Freedom Alliance, criticized attempts to get the book removed in an email to the ‘Prince.’ “It would be outrageous if a university president were to unilaterally prohibit the assignment of any given book in university classes, and I am completely confident that President [Christopher L.] Eisgruber would not yield to such demands,” he wrote.

Larson did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

National and international criticism

grows The inclusion of the book was first reported on Aug. 4 by The College Fix, a conservative publication with a history of probing and reporting on syllabi of college courses it perceives to carry left-wing biases.

The use of the book was picked up by outlets with primarily Jewish audiences, including the Cleveland Jewish News on Aug. 7 and Ynetnews on Aug. 8.

In the past week, the story has gotten wider attention, primarily from rightleaning outlets, including a story in the New York Post on Aug. 12, and a story discussing Larson’s class more broadly on Fox News Digital on Aug. 13.

Amichai Chikli, a conservative former lawmaker and the Minister of Diaspora Affairs of Israel, also weighed in. In a letter to Eisgruber and Dean of the Faculty Gene A. Jarrett, Chikli condemned the book and challenged the university’s judgment in allowing Larson’s assignment. Chikli characterized the discussion of intentional maiming of Palestinians in the book as “nothing but a modern-day antisemitic blood libel.”

Chikli wrote that he “trust[s] the University administration will act immediately to remove the book from the curriculum of any of its courses.”

The CJL weighs in Steinlauf addressed the situation on Monday, Aug. 14 in a letter to the CJL community at Princeton.

“While we at the CJL recognize academic freedom and the right of professors to present materials based on their expertise and educational goals, and we respect the professor’s expertise in crafting the course, we are still deeply concerned about the potential impact of including this text,” he wrote.

He also wrote that the book’s author, Jasbir Puar, who is the graduate director of women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, has “previously and falsely accused the Israeli military of intentionally

harming Palestinian children, harvesting Palestinians’ organs, and other crimes reminiscent of classic antisemitic tropes stemming from the blood libel of the middle ages.”

Steinlauf said that the CJL has written to the Near Eastern studies department chair Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi and Larson requesting that they “reconsider the impact of this text and to explore alternative ways to teach the course without including an author whose rhetoric and writing have deeply hurt many in the Jewish community, and could do real harm to Jewish students on our campus.”

In an interview with the ‘Prince,’ Steinlauf said that this request entails asking Professor Larson to consider teaching a different book “written by a less inflammatory author.” He clarified that “she has the full authority and right to make whatever decisions she deems best as the professor and that we fully respect free speech on this campus and the way that the university supports that.”

Steinlauf also requested that Professor Larson “provide greater context to the author of the book and her background, and to talk about some of the ways in which that author and that book lands for many in the Jewish community.”

The Princeton Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP), a student group, disagreed with the approach taken by the CJL. A statement by the AJP, shared with The Daily Princetonian by President Emanuelle Sippy ’25, describes the issue as a “rightwing Zionist attack” against Larson’s curriculum.

They criticized the CJL’s response as characteristic of a nationwide pattern of right-wing censorship of educational materials dealing with race, gender, and sexuality.

“We are deeply troubled by the attempt to censor Larson, ban Puar’s book, limit intellectual inquiry, and silence facultystudent exchange within and beyond the classroom, particularly on issues of such political, moral, and philosophical sig-

nificance,” the statement read.

The back-and-forth is the latest flashpoint in a debate about public statements

by CJL staff, with the AJP charging that the CJL does not represent progressive Jewish students on campus. The AJP previously criticized the CJL’s decision to host the scholar Ronen Shoval and for hosting “Israel Shabbat” in April.

“While far-right Jewish leaders in America and Israel claim to speak for us, they do not,” the statement continued.

“This latest attempt to silence educational discourse related to Israel-Palestine is part of a pattern in which the CJL aims to interfere with academic and co-curricular events, inquiry, and debate on campus.”

The statement also pushes back on claims that denounce the validity of the book’s assertions, adding, “Rather than contending with the horrific fact that Israel, like other countries, engages in human rights violations — having illegally harvested the organs of both Palestinians and Israelis, which is well-documented — the CJL perpetuates a rhetoric of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalism, which is deeply problematic.”

Policies of academic freedom The request to remove the text comes into contention with Princeton University’s policies on Academic Freedom and Free Expression. Rights, Rules, Responsibilities declares in the Statement on Freedom of Expression, “Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.”

In order to generate academic debate, the University policy encourages civil disagreement and protects both students and faculty who may convey unpopular sentiment.

“Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to at-

tempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive,” Rights Rules, Responsibilities reads.

“The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University,” the guidelines state.

President Christopher L. Eisgruber ’83 has emphasized his commitment to this principle recently in both his welcoming speech for the Class of 2026 and his Commencement speech for the Class of 2023.

Whittington, author of “Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech,” described the liberty to assign books according to an individual professor’s discretion as “one of the most fundamental features of academic freedom in the United States” in an email to the ‘Prince’.

He defended the University policy as necessary for intellectual discourse and an expectation that students and faculty should anticipate at “serious scholarly institutions.”

“It is a routine feature of university classes to criticize and analyze controversial materials and not simply to absorb them uncritically,” he wrote. “But the mere fact that a professor assigns a controversial or mistaken text for undergraduate students to read is no reason to think that the professor is engaged in unprofessional misconduct.”

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

Associate News Editor Annie Rupertus contributed reporting for this article.

The Daily Princetonian

Friday September 8, 2023

page 3

Salama: “We’ve played Princeton grad’s AI detection at some Lawnparties start-up launches, builds features before but only at the to address false positives clubs, so this is a great step up” BEYOND THE BUBBLE

By Amy Ciceu

Senior News Writer

LAWNPARTIES Continued from page 1

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

Sept. 3.

The show will take place on the Frist North Lawn on Sunday, Sept. 10, the weekend after the first day of classes for the semester. The concert will also feature student opener Weatherboy, a band made up of Michael Salama ’24, Paolo Montoya ’25, Rohit Oomman ’24 and Samara Samad ’25.

Spring 2023 Lawnparties was headlined by rapper Waka Flocka Flame, and Fall 2022 Lawnparties by indie rock band Hippo Campus. Both performances battled rainy weather, which likely affected attendance.

Loud Luxury, a duo of electronic music artists and DJs Andrew Fedyk and Joe Depace, are best known for their 2017 hit “Body,” featuring Brando, which currently has just over a billion streams on Spotify. The song is seen as the duo’s breakthrough hit and reached top top 10 in multiple countries. The duo won the Juno Award for Dance Recording of the Year in 2019. The group has 11,652,205 monthly listeners on Spotify as of the start of September 2023.

The group has performed at several similar events at other universities.

They’re scheduled for an upcoming performance at Vanderbilt University on Sept. 29, and have previously performed at Western University, Cornell University, Emory University, UMass Amherst, and Tulane University.

In a survey conducted by USG for the 2019 Lawnparties Report, Loud Luxury

was among the list of artists with more than two recommendations.

The Fall 2023 Lawnparties will also see the introduction of a supporting act. Spring 2023 Lawnparties was originally slated to include Skeez as a supporting act, but he eventually dropped out of the lineup. Pheelz is a Nigerian musician with close to 3 million monthly listeners on Spotify as of September 2023.

In an interview with the Daily Princetonian, Salama shared that he and his band were very excited to be selected as the student openers for Lawnparties.

“We’ve played at some Lawnparties before but only at the clubs, so this is a great step up,” he said. The band, which formed towards the end of last semester, is a psychedelic rock group.

Salama said they would be playing “classic and psychedelic rock covers of new pop songs.”

Loud Luxury’s selection as the Lawnparties headliner follows an activities fee increase from $45.50 to $95.50. USG President Stephen Daniels ’24 has previously noted Lawnparties headliners as something that could be improved with the help of the larger budget afforded by the fee increase.

“As we’ve seen with Lawnparties, we don’t really have the ability to expand funds and get the sort of headliners [that] students want and see their friends in other schools experiencing,” Daniels said at a USG meeting in Spring 2023.

Nandini Krishnan is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince’ who usually covers the USG.

...Senioritis

By Paige Min

Senior Cartoonist

Last winter, the first version of GPTZero, software built by Edward Tian ’23, went viral. GPTZero, created by Tian out of his senior thesis work, is designed to detect text written by artificial intelligence. Since then, large language models like ChatGPT have progressed.

Tian’s product has developed also. After GPTZero was released, Tian founded a start-up of the same name. Devoting his time to the start-up full-time after graduating, GPTZero now has twelve staff, according to its website, and recently took on two interns from Princeton. A preprint of a study on AI detectors showed that, by some measures, GPTZero was the best-performing software out of several competitors at detecting AI text.

Yet the study also backed up concerns that AI detectors can in general be fooled and are likely to have false positives, which can lead to undeserved disciplinary action for students. To address false positives, GPTZero is investing in a feature which students would use to track their writing and prove AI was not used.

According to Tian, GPTZero constantly undergoes updates in service of the dual goal of creating software that can reliably discern instances of AI-abetted plagiarism and provide authentication to certify the originality of human text.

The original version of GPTZero measured perplexity — the randomness of the word choice and construction of a given sentence — and burstiness — a comparison of perplexity across sentences.

Two weeks later, on Jan. 15, Tian’s group released an updated version of GPTZero called GPTZeroX, with new features such as highlights for particular phrases and sentences that exhibit a high probability of having been produced by AI. In February, just over a month after Tian tweeted out the beta version, the group launched GPTZero’s API, with the central mission of making the software accessible. According to the most recent Substack post by the group on June 22, several universities have harnessed the abilities of GPTZero within academia: “Researchers, ranging from Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley, etc. have also integrated and tested our APIs, often validating GPTZero as one of the most robust and accurate AI detection models.”

The Stanford study that noted GPTZero as one of seven leading AI detectors also warned that AI plagiarism detection software is liable to convey biases against ESL (English as a Second Language) writers.

To combat concerns that software may falsely accuse students of using AI, Tian and the team at

GPTZero have focused on helping students prove that their work was not AI generated.

Tian’s group has released GPTZero’s v2 API, which incorporates a number of new features.

The software’s human authentication feature, called “Origin,” was specifically designed with students in mind. Users can harness this newest functionality of GPTZero to document their entire writing process, thereby providing a “human-print” proof in video format demonstrating that AI was not employed to produce written text.

“What we’re doing now is AI detection, but we’re also doing a verification tool where you can write whatever and then on Google Docs you can get a writing report of the actual writing process. And the idea here is that the detection is like a scan where the algorithm predicts whether this [the written prompt] is AI or not,” Tian explained in an interview with the ‘Prince.’

In an era where educators have expressed growing concerns about AI facilitating plagiarism, Tian hopes this new feature will empower students and teachers alike to embrace AI technology.

Among GPTZero’s proponents is Tripp Jones, a general partner at Uncork Capital, a venture capital firm. In a blogpost to Medium, Jones hailed GPTZero as a revolutionary new tool to counteract the dissemination of fabricated information bound to be unleashed by generative AI technology.

“This dual-functionality could be a game-changer in the fight against misinformation,” Jones wrote.

GPTZero’s v2 API launch notes that GPTZero undergoes constant updates, with the most recent Substack post stating that the software “evolves rapidly, and is updated nearly every week!”

The software capitalizes on deep learning algorithms to optimize its plagiarism detection accuracy while simultaneously interweaving elements such as an internet text search functionality that browses troves of web data to authenticate text originality.

In addition, the software makes use of “GPTZero Shield,” a novel feature that buffers the software against tools that may seek to “exploit AI detectors.”

The post emphasizes that the model’s reliance on deep learning has contributed in no small part to GPTZero’s accuracy, with training from “massive text corpuses from the web, education datasets from our partners and also our own synthetic AI datasets generated from a range of language models.”

“Gigantic datasets actually analyze the language in text and it gets better as we have a larger amount of language data. And it gets better as we finetune a model for specific types of writing, whether it’s student writing or

MORE ONLINE

other types of writing,” Tian said.

AI detection software has been criticized for the false identification of text. For instance, TurnItIn, an AI writing-detection tool, recently revealed a proliferation of false positive results in its evaluation of written content, indicating that the system inaccurately flagged human-produced texts as AI-generated at a far higher rate than the company originally disclosed.

Regarding GPTZero’s propensity for creating false positives or negatives, Tian noted that his company’s software has accounted for these potential flaws through the deployment of appropriate software guardrails. As a result, GPTZero boasts a far higher detection accuracy rate relative to comparable models.

“What we’ve been really unique in doing compared to a lot of other folks is being very conservative on the false positive side,” said Tian.

“How we measure accuracy for our model was to tune things to be 99 percent accurate on a testing dataset for detecting if AI is AI, in terms of minimizing both false positives and false negatives.”

Tian also said that GPTZero is retaining its Princeton ties by recruiting University students as summer interns.

One intern, Maggie Wang ’26 wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’ that she appreciates that “GPTZero is diligently working on adaptive solutions that acknowledge the transformative influence of AI on education, while upholding the innate value of the human voice, the authenticity of unique perspectives, and each individual’s personality.”

“The team’s unwavering enthusiasm and ability to fearlessly confront [difficult and complicated] matters head-on inspire me and make me proud as a new member of the team,” Wang wrote.

Another intern, Jin Schofield ’26 echoed these sentiments, noting that she was excited by the prospect of GPTZero transforming into a potent educational tool.

“As GPTZero evolves, I am really excited to see how we can help improve transparency between students and teachers regarding AI use in the classroom,” Schofield wrote in an email to the ‘Prince.’

In the future, Tian said that he intends for GPTZero to become the blueprint for using AI to enhance the writing process in a world rapidly being shaped by technological advancements.

“I think the ultimate goal here is to build not just the detection platform for the Internet but the writing platform of the future in a world where people are writing with some level of AI involvement or not,” said Tian.

Tian served as a senior News writer for the ‘Prince’ during his time as an undergraduate student.

Amy Ciceu is a senior News writer for the ‘Prince.’

scan to read more !

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

Friday September 8, 2023

EXPLAINER

TigerTransit, explained

By Ryan Konarska Staff News Writer

With 347 scheduled trips each weekday, the TigerTransit bus network serves as a critical transportation service for students, faculty, staff, and local residents across Princeton, West Windsor, and Plainsboro. TigerTransit’s stops include both campus buildings, like the Friend Center and Firestone Library, and local destinations, such as the Princeton Medical Center and Palmer Square. In some cases, it provides the only options for fixed-route public transportation to these destinations.

Yet with six lines, 27 destinations, and thousands of bus trips each week, many Princeton students — especially undergraduates — are unfamiliar with TigerTransit’s free-to-ride bus service.

“I think most students [know] it exists, but most are unaware of its scheduling and routes,” George Tidmore ’26 told The Daily Princetonian.

In light of the new restrictions on personal electric vehicles, TigerTransit serves as one of a diminished number of ways to get around campus. The ‘Prince’ broke down TigerTransit’s routes and schedules and identified key trips of interest to undergraduate students to enable them to get around campus quicker.

Where does TigerTransit go?

The TigerTransit service consists of six routes, five of which operate on weekdays. For the purposes of this analysis, we excluded the Weekend Shopper as it is heavily used by undergraduates relative to other routes and does not operate during the academic week.

Some students believe that TigerTransit’s route network does not serve undergraduate students well. “The system seems more oriented towards graduate student housing locations,” said Tidmore, a Forbes resident. Tidmore remarked that he had never used the TigerTransit system during his time at Princeton.

“The routes are sufficient [and] cover most parts of campus,” said Helena Ploss ’26. “I do wish they had one going through campus [up and down Elm Drive] that I would definitely take if I didn’t have a bike.”

“There are no plans for TigerTransit to operate on Elm Drive in the near future,” Director of Transportation and Parking Services Charles Tennyson told the ‘Prince,’ though he did mention that the University is taking steps to restrict construction vehicles operating on Elm Drive for the benefit of pedestrians and bikers.

How much does it cost to ride?

TigerTransit is free at the point of use for all individuals. Riders must present a valid Princeton University ID to travel between Princeton Junction and campus on Route 4, but all other trips are free for use by the public.

Does TigerTransit stop near any dorms?

Most TigerTransit service is geared towards moving graduate students, faculty, and staff from transportation hubs and parking facilities to campus.

“What’s difficult is that, given where most undergraduate students live, students would still need to travel to a pickup spot,” Tidmore said.

Tennyson responded to the lack of service to undergraduate dorms by stating that “there are many stops on most TigerTransit routes that are located less than five minutes walking from undergraduate residences and other popular destinations adjacent to Elm Drive.” We looked at three of these stops for our analysis.

Princeton Station: TigerTransit Routes 4, 5, and the Weekend Shopper stop outside Wawa in the Princeton Railroad Station bus loop. This stop is adjacent to Forbes College and is a short walk from the halls in the rear of Whitman College.

Admissions Information Center:

Routes 1, 4, 5, and the Weekend Shopper stop outside the Admissions Information Center inside the U-Store in both north and south directions. This stop is convenient for students in Mathey or Rockefeller Colleges, as well as those living in Upperclass halls in the West Campus Area (Lockhart, Foulke, Laughlin, etc.)

Goheen Walk at Washington: All routes but the Weekend Shopper provide service at the intersection of Goheen Walk and Washington Road near Fine and McDonnell Halls, though Route 5 only provides service in the southbound direction, taking riders toward Yeh. This stop is especially close to Scully Hall but is convenient for all halls in the Poe Field area, including New College West, Butler, and Yeh Colleges.

For which common trips is TigerTransit faster than walking?

We compared TigerTransit schedules to the walking times provided by Google Maps to see which trips are better accomplished by TigerTransit than walking alone. Our analysis is dependent on buses arriving according to their scheduled times, meaning that these trip times may not be completely accurate if buses are delayed.

To Friend Center and the E-Quad: When traveling from Forbes, the Rockefeller/Mathey area, or the Poe Field area (Butler/New College West/Yeh), TigerTransit is usually faster than walking, though this varies depending on the origin point.

From the Poe Field area, boarding Route 2 eastbound at Goheen Walk (Fine/McDonnell Halls) and taking it to the Friend Center stop is an 11-minute trip, four minutes faster than walking.

From the Mathey/Rockefeller area, boarding Route 1 eastbound at the UStore and exiting at the Friend Center takes nine minutes, saving five minutes compared to walking. Note that only eight buses departing from the U-Store every 30 minutes between 7:22 a.m. and 10:52 a.m. deviate from the normal route along Washington Road to service the Friend Center and the E-Quad.

From Forbes College, boarding Route 4 northbound at Princeton Station and transferring to Route 1 eastbound at Firestone Library before getting off at the Friend Center yields a total travel time of 21 minutes, just a hair faster than the 22-minute walking time Google Maps estimates. Note that this itinerary depends upon the same eight eastbound Route 1 trips that deviate to the Friend Center and E-Quad, meaning that only eight Route 4 trips departing Princeton Station every 30 minutes from 7:11 to 10:41 a.m. make this connection possible.

“It was significantly faster than walking,” Dawood Virk ’25 said about using TigerTransit to get to the Friend Center from Forbes. “I believe after freshman year they changed the routes to no longer include a direct transport from [Princeton Station] to the Friend Center. They should definitely consider reinstating that route.”

Indeed, all TigerTransit routes once served the Friend Center, according to a 2021 route map obtained by the ‘Prince’ using the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. Today, just Routes 2, 5, and the Weekend Shopper serve the Friend Center, with eight Route 1 trips serving it and no service from Routes 3 or 4.

To Firestone Library: Forbesians can shave a minute off their travel time to Firestone by boarding Route 4 northbound at Princeton station and getting off at the Firestone Library stop on Nassau Street. This trip, which can also be used to reach upper campus destinations like East Pyne, takes 13 minutes.

Note that return trips to Forbes require departing from Palmer Square or McCosh Walk.

To Scudder Plaza, JRR, and Robertson: Once again, Forbesians can make their trip across campus a tad faster

by using TigerTransit. When traveling to the Scudder Plaza area — the intersection of McCosh Walk and Washington Road near Robertson, McCosh, and Wooten Halls — riders can board Route 4 northbound from Princeton Station and exit the bus at the McCosh Walk/ Washington Road stop. This trip takes 14 minutes, again a minute faster than walking alone.

Mathey, Rockefeller, and west campus upperclass students can also use Route 4 or Route 1 from the U-Store to Scudder Plaza, but this trip does not save time compared to walking.

To Graduate College: Those on the west side of campus, including Mathey and Rockefeller Colleges, can travel to Graduate College and its far-flung dining hall by boarding TigerTransit’s Route 1 westbound at the U-Store and exiting at the last stop on the route, Graduate College. This trip takes nine minutes in total, saving four minutes compared to walking.

Those in the Poe Field area can also use Route 1 westbound from Goheen Walk (Fine/McDonnell Halls) to travel to Graduate College, but this trip takes as long or longer than walking.

To 185 Nassau Street: Downcampus residents can save time when traveling to 185 Nassau Street (the old LCA) and destinations on the east side of Nassau, including Hoagie Haven and Ficus, by using TigerTransit. Riders can board Route 2 eastbound from Goheen Walk (Fine/McDonnell Halls) and get off at Nassau/Charlton Streets. This trip takes eight minutes, almost half of the walking time.

To the Witherspoon/Jackson Neighborhood: The Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhood is known for its rich history and restaurant establishments like Local Greek. Located a half mile north of Nassau and even further from downcampus makes it a trek for students to reach, however. For downcampus residents, boarding Route 3 northbound at Goheen Walk and taking it to its terminus at Merwick takes 19 minutes, compared to 25 minutes of walking.

When does TigerTransit run and how often does it arrive?

TigerTransit Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 operate only on weekdays, while Route 5 operates on both weekends and weekdays. Routes 1 through 4 begin service at roughly at 7:00 a.m., with the last Route 1 and 2 buses departing their terminals between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m., while the final Route 3 and 4 buses depart their terminals between 6:00 and 6:40 p.m.

Buses on Routes 1 and 2 run every 10 to 15 minutes in each direction most of the day. In the evening, Route 1 and 2 are supplanted by Route 5, the evening circulator, which runs every 30 minutes between 7:00 p.m. and midnight on weekdays and between 5:00 p.m. and midnight on weekends.

Buses on Route 3 operate every 30 minutes during service hours. Route 4

buses operate every 30 minutes between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and after 6:00 p.m., every 15 minutes between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 and 6:00 p.m.

TigerTransit buses operate on regular intervals ranging between 10 and 30 minutes. We looked at departures from three stops close to residential buildings during peak morning hours to make recalling TigerTransit schedules easier.

From Princeton Station near Forbes, northbound Route 4 buses towards academic buildings depart at :11, :26, :41, and :56 on the hour. For example, buses depart Princeton Station at 9:11 a.m., 9:26 a.m., 9:41 a.m., and 9:56 a.m. during the morning rush.

From Goheen Walk near Fine and McDonnell Halls, eastbound Route 2 buses towards the Friend Center, E-Quad, and Fisher Hall depart at times ending in :8 from 8:00 a.m. to noon.

“Bus schedules don’t seem to align with class times,” said Ploss, “so if I want to get up Washington for a class at the top of the hill I’m better off walking [or] biking.”

Indeed, many TigerTransit schedules line up poorly with class times. For example, eastbound Route 1 buses arrive at Goheen Walk near McDonnell and Fine at :44 and :02 on the hour — either too early or too late to be useful for classes that start on the hour.

How can I track TigerTransit arrivals and get service alerts?

TigerTransit feeds data to the TripShot app to provide riders with live information about bus schedules, locations, and delays. It would appear that Transportation and Parking Services no longer provides TigerTransit updates over X (commonly known as Twitter), as the @PrincetonTPS account has been inactive since October 2022.

How can I use TigerTransit in conjunction with NJTransit?

While TigerTransit primarily operates around the periphery of campus, it also extends into West Windsor and Plainsboro Townships. Route 4 extends to Princeton Junction, meaning that it can be used as a fare-free alternative to the Princeton Shuttle, commonly known as the Dinky. The ticket price from New York Penn Station to Princeton Station is $17.75, but the price to Princeton Junction is $16.00. Using TigerTransit instead of the Dinky means that travelers can save $3.50 on a round trip to New York or Newark Liberty International Airport.

We used our previous data on the travel times between New York and Princeton and examined how using TigerTransit instead of the Dinky would affect travel times. On average, return trips from New York Penn Station to Princeton Station are lengthened by eight minutes when using Route 4 versus the Dinky. However, Route 4 extends past Princeton Station, providing direct service from Princeton Junction to the U-Store, Firestone Library, and Washington Road, meaning travelers may save time using Route 4 overall by shaving off walking time from Princeton Station.

Can TigerTransit be used to access athletic facilities?

TigerTransit does not provide direct service to athletic facilities like Jadwin Gym or Princeton Stadium. However, all routes stop at Goheen Walk, which is a six-minute walk from Jadwin, and Routes 1 and 4 service Stadium Drive Garage, which is a four-minute walk from Jadwin. TigerTransit may be used as a means to reach these destinations, which is especially notable in light of the University’s recent strengthened regulations on the use of e-scooters and e-bikes, which are frequently used by athletes to get across campus to Jadwin.

We examined the travel times from the Rockefeller/Mathey area, Forbes, and Palmer Square to destinations like Jadwin Gym and the Shea Rowing Center.

Our analysis found that using TigerTransit offered no significant time savings compared to walking due to the relative distance of TigerTransit stops from athletic facilities and the convoluted route buses take around campus.

According to Tennyson, TigerTransit’s bus fleet will be all-electric by the end of 2023. He also noted that the buses whisk between 1,500 and 2,000 students, faculty, campus employees, and community members around the Princeton area every weekday.

By combing through its schedules, TigerTransit’s utility to undergraduate students can be revealed as a frequent shuttle around the periphery of campus.

Ryan Konarska is an associate Data editor and a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’

The Daily Princetonian

Friday September 8, 2023

page 5

U. AFFAIRS

Sister of kidnapped grad student criticizes Princeton’s response in op-ed

By Lia Opperman

Associate News Editor

Emma Tsurkov, the sister of Elizabeth Tsurkov GS, claims that Princeton University is trying to “distance itself from any responsibility” in her sister’s kidnapping in Iraq in an op-ed on NJ.com on Wednesday, Aug. 23.

The op-ed alleges that Elizabeth Tsurkov’s advisors were aware of her travel to Iraq for dissertation research. In a statement to the Daily Princetonian, University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss wrote that “University Travel to Iraq is not permitted for students (graduate or undergraduate), and there are no exceptions.”

In the op-ed, Emma Tsurkov faults the University for not releasing a statement specifically stating that Elizabeth Tsurkov was in Iraq for dissertation research.

“Princeton was trying to distance itself from any responsibility for Elizabeth’s situation — denying my requests for them to issue a public statement from the university affirming she is a graduate student and was doing research for her dissertation in Baghdad — I could not understand why,” Emma Tsurkov writes.

The University did release a statement noting that Elizabeth Tsurkov was a graduate student on July 6. The statement does not mention Elizabeth Tsurkov’s research.

Emma Tsurkov writes that she “heard from U.S. government officials that Princeton officials were leading them to believe that my sister was operating on her own.”

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Emma Tsurkov did not respond to a request to comment or provide documentation of her claims to the ‘Prince’ by time of publication.

In a statement to the ‘Prince,’ University Spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss wrote that “after learning of Elizabeth’s disappearance, out of concern for her safety, the

University immediately communicated with certain Israeli and U.S. government officials.” He added that once her situation became public, the University “has and continues to communicate with relevant U.S. government officials and experts” about how to best support her safe return.

On July 5, four months after Elizabeth Tsurkov first disappeared in Iraq, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that she is being held by the Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah. The group is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and is classified as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State.

Elizabeth Tsurkov disappeared after leaving a cafe in Baghdad, Iraq. In July, the New York Times cited Elizabeth Tsurkov’s family on the fact that that she was in Iraq conducting research for her Princeton dissertation.

Elizabeth Tsurkov is a Ph.D. candidate in the Politics department. She matriculated at Princeton in 2019 and specializes in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, and Israel-Palestine. The University has boosted Elizabeth Tsurkov’s analysis of Syria in the past, posting about her contribution to the Washington Post about Syrian elections and her observations on the field. The New York Times noted that Elizabeth Tsurkov has worked extensively in the Middle East and traveled to Iraq over 10 times, according to Iraqi officials.

Emma Tsurkov claims in the op-ed that her sister’s advisors for her dissertation, including the chair, Dean Amaney Jamal, Dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), “reviewed, advised, and approved” her dissertation prospectus, which detailed her plan to conduct fieldwork in Iraq.

Emma Tsurkov writes her sister “was particularly grateful that Dr. Jamal took a personal interest in the fieldwork that she was developing in Iraq.” Emma Tsurkov

did not present or cite any evidence to support the claim.

Jamal declined a request for comment.

According to the University, the Department of Global Security and Safety (GS&S) categorizes each location based on risk. Iraq is currently classified as “category X,” which means that as determined by the GS&S, travel is not feasible, “even with significant precautions taken.” University travel is not permitted to a category X destination for students, faculty, or staff.

The U.S. Department of State also classifies Iraq as a level 4, the highest travel advisory, which urges U.S. citizens to not travel there, as there are “high risks to [U.S. citizens] safety and security, including the potential for violence and kidnapping.”

According to Hotchkiss, the prospectus approval process is “separate and distinct from other steps that may be required to carry out the proposed research, including in absentia enrollment, travel registration, and Institutional Review Board approval (if the proposed research involves human subjects).”

Hotchkiss emphasized that all members of the University community participating in University travel must follow the Permitted Travel Policy guidelines, and register their trip in the Enroll My Trip system before the travel occurs. However, students may conduct independent or personal travel without University approval.

“Compliance with the Permitted Travel Policy for University travel is an individual responsibility, and failure to do so may result in a traveler being ineligible for University funding or other resources,” Hotchkiss wrote.

Emma Tsurkov claims that her sister received the Graduate Student Dissertation Grant from the Bobst Center for Peace and Justice.

When asked if Elizabeth Tsurkov’s travel to Iraq was approved by the University or if her prior work in Syria — which is

also categorized as an X level destination – was through the University, Hotchkiss wrote that “the University limits information shared about individual students in keeping with legal requirements, including FERPA.” Danielle Gilbert, an assistant professor of Political Science at Northwestern and the Edelson Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy and International Security at Dickey Center at Dartmouth College, wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’ that “there is no universal rule for how countries deal with international kidnappings; every country has its own policies and practices for bringing hostages home. Accordingly, there’s no set procedure to say that any given country will take responsibility or succeed.”

Considering Elizabeth Tsurkov is a dual Russian-Israeli citizen and has various institutional affiliations, Gilbert added that “we can also expect that there are a number of players with interest and connections that might help free her.”

“Russia has notoriously sacrificed hostages’ lives, while Israel has quite famously engaged in prisoner swaps to bring hostages home,” Gilbert wrote.

The government of Israel released a statement in support of Elizabeth Tsurkov on July 5.

“Elizabeth Tsurkov is still alive and we hold Iraq responsible for her safety and well-being,” Netanyahu’s office said.

Elizabeth Tsurkov’s abduction was not public knowledge until the Israeli government’s July statement, though her family was made aware, according to the New York Times.

“One of the things I know without question about my sister is that she loves my son, her only nephew,” Emma Tsurkov writes in her op-ed. “When I send her a photo of him, she responds regardless of where she is or what she is doing. So when six hours passed — and then 12 — I knew

she was in trouble.” This was on March 21.

Gilbert wrote that she hopes the U.S. government is working with other parties to recover Elizabeth Tsurkov safely.

She added that if the U.S. government can support her safety, it likely will do so, but there will probably be no public evidence to that effect.

Elizabeth Tsurkov is the second doctoral student to be held in the Middle East within five years. Xiyue Wang, another Ph.D. student, was held in Iran for more than three years after his arrest in 2016 while traveling for research through the Department of History. Local authorities charged him with espionage. He was freed in a prisoner swap between the U.S. and Iran in December of 2019 following years of protests and vigils calling for his release.

In 2021, Wang sued the University for “severe personal injuries and other irreparable harm.” His lawsuit claimed that the University encouraged him to travel to Iran despite safety concerns and prioritized their reputation and relationship with Iran over fighting for his release.

Both Emma Tsurkov and the University emphasized their commitment to bringing Elizabeth Tsurkov home and their concern for her well-being.

“The University continues to be deeply concerned for Elizabeth’s safety and wellbeing. As a graduate student in Politics, she is a valued member of the University community,” Hotchkiss wrote.

“We want Princeton, as one of her main connections to the United States, to be an ally in this effort,” Emma Tsurkov writes.

Princeton must not only meet its moral responsibility for my sister, but also honor the words it claims as its unofficial motto: “In the nation’s service and the service of humanity.’”

Lia Opperman is an associate News editor for the ‘Prince.’

DATA

What do Senior Sales actually sell? We looked at the numbers.

By Ryan Konarska Associate Data Editor

As move-out approached, Princeton students flocked to residential college listservs and online marketplaces to sell their unwanted or unstorable clothes and dorm items.

Typically referred to as “Senior Sales,” these sales are typically advertised with a Google Slides presentation of priced items and sell a mix of clothes, furniture, and technology. The Daily Princetonian collected data on 172 sales from March 15 to May 21 through the listserv management tool Hoagie Mail to explore Princeton’s market of virtual garage sales.

Despite their common moniker of Senior Sale, just 115 of 172 of sales were actually posted by members of the Class of 2023. The next most sales were from the Class of 2024 with 24, followed by 2025 with 22 sales and 2026 with eight. Three sales were by recently graduated students in the Classes of 2022 and 2021, possibly in graduate

programs or selling through a friend.

Princeton students preferred to use Hoagie Mail’s Marketplace feature to promote their sales, with all but 40 sales in our dataset using it to sell their items. Part of Hoagie Digest, the Marketplace feature allows several sales, bulletins, and notices to be condensed into one email rather than many, eliminating clutter in students’ inboxes. 120 students used Hoagie Marketplace exclusively to promote their sales, while 12 used both a listserv email and Marketplace.

Nearly 58 percent of sales were posted after Dean’s Date, implying that many Princeton students waited until after reading period to begin packing up their dorms. The large spike in sales after Dean’s Date was mirrored by a similar spike following the last day of class on April 28.

60 of the 172 sales we tracked “bumped” their sale at some point, meaning they sent at least one additional email or Hoagie Marketplace post to promote their sale once more.

21 sales bumped a second time, while six sent a third bump. Two sales sent a fourth reminder, and out of those two sales, one sale was bumped five times. When looking at the average time between bumps, the average time elapsed from the initial email or posting to the first bump was just over ten days, with the second bump, if sent, coming just under six days later on average.

Over 80 percent of sales sold clothing, and of these, almost 83 percent sold women’s clothing. Just 24 of the 138 sales that sold clothing offered men’s clothing.

Across both styles of clothing, small and medium sizes were most commonly offered, with about 70 percent of clothing sales selling one of these sizes. Just 15 percent of men’s and 12 percent of women’s clothing sales offered sizes large and above, while about 13 percent of men’s and 18 percent of women’s clothing sales sold extra small or extra extra small-sized clothes.

Beyond clothes, many students sold dorm items like mini-fridges and fans.

The ‘Prince’ tracked the asking prices of these popular items in addition to full-length mirrors, couches and futons, and rugs to see how much students sought to obtain for their dorm items. The average asking price of a mini-fridge was $56, ranging wildly from $20 to $150. The range of asking prices for futons and couches was even broader, stretching from $10 up to $300. The average asking price for a couch or futon was $84.

Box or stand fans were more consistent, averaging $12 and ranging from $3 to $20. Full-length mirrors were

similar, ranging from $5 to $25 and averaging $10. Rugs, however, encompassed a broad range of prices, with some rugs put on sale for as low as $10 while other students sought up to $240 for their dorm carpeting. The average asking price for rugs was $54.

Rugs and fridges ranged in size, leading the ‘Prince’ to calculate the price per square foot and cubic foot for rugs and fridges, respectively. The average per square foot for rugs was $1.67, ranging from 71 cents to $3.57, while the average price per cubic foot for mini-fridges was $24.87, ranging from $15.15 to $55.55.

52 sales advertised mini-fridges, making it the most popular dorm item sold. To further examine the price of this item, the ‘Prince’ looked at how the asking price of mini-fridges changed over time. Our analysis showed that mini-fridge prices remained constant, with the first half of mini-fridges – those listed on May 12 or before – posted having an aver-

age price of $55.38, rising marginally to $57.31 after May 12. When looking at the price of fridges by the cubic foot, the first half of fridges listed (for which size data was available) had an asking price of $22.36 per cubic foot, rising to $27.38 for the second half of fridges listed.

Through listserv emails and Hoagie Marketplace posts, Princeton students put thousands of their own items up for sale as move-out approached.

These sales serve as a profitable alternative to summer storage – or simply throwing items away – helping reduce waste in the process. Looking at this data shows how all classes, not just the namesake seniors, participate in the annual ritual of Senior Sales to clear out their closets, selling everything from area rugs to formal dresses.

Ryan Konarska is an associate Data editor for the ‘Prince.’

page 6 DATA

The Daily Princetonian

Friday September 8, 2023

How do Princeton’s legacy students stack up to their peers? We looked at the numbers.

By Elaine Huang & Ryan Konarska Head Data Editor & Associate Data Editor

The data we collected shows that legacy students are more white than the class as a whole, with significantly less Asian and Black representation than among nonlegacy students. The wealth gap is even larger, with substantially more legacy students from high-income backgrounds. Survey data also shows, however, that legacy students have higher SAT scores, even when controlled by income, higher Princeton GPAs, and are more likely to go into nonprofit or public service professions.

We examined data from the Class of 2026 Frosh Survey to examine the demographics and incoming statistics of legacy students and the Class of 2023 Senior Survey to analyze their trajectories through Princeton and their post-graduation plans.

According to the survey responses, a majority of legacy students in the Class of 2026, 56 percent, are white, while fewer than five percent are Black and about 20 percent are Asian. Among non-legacy students, just 43 percent are white, while ten percent are Black and nearly 35 percent are Asian. Far more non-legacy students are Black or Asian than their legacy counterparts.

The impact on income is significantly more dramatic. Almost half of legacy students come from households that made above $250,000 a year compared to less than a quarter of non-legacy students. Just 2.8 percent of legacy students came from households with incomes less than $40,000 a year compared to over 18 percent for non-legacy students.

A lot of the discussion surrounding legacy students has focused on the advantage in admissions. Based on self-reported SAT scores from the Class of 2026 Frosh Survey, legacy students had higher SAT scores, with 38 percent having had a score higher than 1550, compared to 32.5 percent of nonlegacy students, and 2.2 percent having had below 1390 on the standardized test, compared to 12.8 percent of non-legacy students.

Other, more holistic, aspects of the application process are harder to measure and it is unclear whether the trend carries across other factors of the admissions process.

Legacy students, as we’ve seen, are in significantly higher socioeconomic brackets, which studies have tied to SAT performance. Based on the Frosh Survey data, within each income bracket, legacy students still have higher scores than non-legacy students at the same income level. The differences were fairly constant across all income brackets, with the median SAT score being between zero and 40 points higher for legacies compared to non-legacies.

Graduating seniors who had a legacy connection had higher GPA’s while at Princeton as well. According to the 2023 Senior Survey, over three-quarters of legacy students finished with a GPA of 3.7 or above, with less than 60 percent of non-legacies accomplishing the same feat. Eight percent of legacy students graduated with a GPA of less than 3.5, with this number rising to 18 percent among non-legacy students.

GPA at Princeton is not as correlated with income level, but nonetheless, the trend persists in most income brackets. The difference was most pronounced for students coming from households making between $80,000 and $125,000 a year, where the median GPA for legacy students was 3.81 compared to just 3.62 for non-legacies coming from the same socioeconomic background. Effects across other income brackets were less stark; the median GPA of legacy students ranged from 0.02 to 0.11 grade points higher than non-legacies.

Only among the wealthiest students did non-legacies perform better. Among students coming from households making over $500,000 a year, non-legacies had a median GPA of 3.74 compared to 3.7 among legacies.

When looking at career paths after Princeton, legacy students chose to start their careers in the nonprofit or public service sectors at higher rates than non-legacies.

About 11 percent of legacies listed “Nonprofit/Public Service” as their post-graduation plan, with less than five percent of non-legacies choosing the same option.

Conversely, over 20 percent of non-legacies indicated they would be heading to graduate school or academia, with just 15 percent of legacy students choosing the same option. Similar numbers of legacy and non-legacy students, about 10 percent, said they were going into finance.

Statistics show that the elimination of legacy admissions likely would result in an increase in racial and socioeconomic diversity. But the data contests the notion that legacy admits underperform their peers before college, during college, and in pursuing societallybeneficial post-college plans.

Elaine Huang is a head Data editor for the ‘Prince.’

Ryan Konarska is an associate Data editor for the ‘Prince.’

Hum r

page 7

Student in wheelchair expelled for using PEV in designated zone during peak hours

By Spencer Bauman Head Humor Editor

The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional.

Following the University’s restrictions on Personal Electric Vehicle (PEV) use, Ina Cessible ’24 was expelled for breaking the new rules on “multiple occasions” and showing “feigned remorse” for her actions, as noted by Princeton Public Safety.

Cessible, who uses an electric wheelchair, lives in one of the University’s completely inaccessible dorm buildings due to her ill-suited sorting into Rockefeller College and unfortunate room draw time.

After bringing attention to her issue, housing services provided Cessible with a chain lock for her wheelchair, so that it wouldn’t be stolen from the bike racks outside her dorm overnight, a strategy with a 100 percent success rate as evidenced by hundreds of residential college listserv emails.

Cessible and her electric wheelchair were first stopped outside McCosh Hall. Officers recorded her rid-

ing at top speeds of 12 mph, faster than the allowed 10 mph described in the message emailed to all undergraduate students on Aug. 18.

The PSafe officer who caught up to Cessible noted that she was “uncooperative” and “refused to step out of the vehicle.”

Cessible explained that the University restriction states that the policy does not apply to PEV use intended to “reasonably accommodate a disability.”

The officer told Cessible it was “above their pay grade” to deem what was considered reasonable.

They then proceeded to mount their SUV and head down Washington Road. Sources on Washington Road claim to have seen the officer approaching 60 mph as they headed toward their PEV stakeout location in front of Jadwin Gym. Before leaving, the officer put a car boot on her wheelchair. Students report seeing Cessible later that day “zooming down Washington Road,” having broken the boot off her chair.

A TigerAlert was sent out to all undergraduates, warning of the danger posed by Cessible’s illicit

use of her PEV, ignoring the restrictions posed by the designated zones and peak hours.

After being stopped multiple times following her first infraction, the University expelled Cessible and blocked off all the ramps in front of campus buildings to discourage other students from PEV use. In addition, the University forced the Ac-

cessAbility center to be moved up to the third floor of Frist Campus Center, with a ropes course built in front of the only (wheelchair inaccessible) entrance.

Spencer Bauman is head Humor editor at the Daily Princetonian and a junior in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering.

JEAN SHIN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Students rush around campus.

Guyot Hall dinosaur to switch major to COS

By Liana Slomka & Spencer Bauman Head Humor Editor Emeritus & Head Humor Editor

The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional.

The next few years will bring the renovation of Guyot Hall to house a sprawling computer science complex, forcing the departments of Geosciences (GEO), Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB), and Environmental Studies to move to the new Environmental Studies and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (ES + SEAS) complex when it is completed in 2025. In preparation for this change, Arnold the Allosaurus, the Guyot Dinosaur, plans to switch its major.

The Daily PrintsAnything spoke to Chair of the Computer Science Department Dee Bugg to understand what this change means for Arnold.

“This department switch is occurring pretty late in Arnold’s Princeton career, extremely unprecedented if you ask me. Guess you can teach an old fossil new tricks,” Bugg said.

Chair of the EEB Department See Bugg also spoke on the switch.

“Whoa, no one’s ever asked for my

comment before. I thought you all forgot about us over here in the EEB Department.”

She continued, “Extinction is inevitable. First the dinosaurs, now

sweatshirt and water bottle.”

“Tech is the future,” Arnold told the ‘Prints.’ “It’s a tough world out there for extinct species. The least I could do is come out of here with

LIANA SLOMKA / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Arnold the Allosaurus will change his major to COS BSE, which he expects to be more useful to his career.

thousands of species around the world. Next, students of the natural sciences. Once it was a meteor, now it’s the promise of a f**king Google

an engineering degree, something useful.”

Arnold’s announcement comes after the Class of 2025 showed a de-

crease in declarations for Computer Science (COS) B.S.E. amid sizable tech layoffs.

“I mean I’ll still be more employable than … what do you even call them? Ecologyists? Evolutionarists? Geoscientists? Those all sound like made-up jobs, I mean, I stand around them all day, and I’ve never once heard any of them talk about anything that seemed important.

Just ‘conservation’ this and ‘natural disasters’ that,” Arnold said.

Arnold still plans to minor in the newly-announced Climate Science program, as he has already fulfilled a lot of prerequisites for EEB and GEO and “does not want them to go to waste, just like [his] AP scores from during the pandemic.”

Spencer Bauman is a head Humor editor and a sophomore studying Chemical and Biological Engineering. He will be taking an EEB class next semester for the first time to “get away from the CBE department for a bit and clear his head.”

Liana Slomka is a former head Humor editor who studied Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, which she declared solely so she could hang out with Arnold and also because she thought it stood for “Eating Eggs and Beans.”

Opinion

page 8

Friday September 8, 2023

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Elite universities are not the great equalizers of society Abigail Rabieh

Head Opinion Editor

A

ccording to Princeton professor Shamus Khan, taking his class, or any other class for that matter, is not the most important part of attending Princeton. Rather, he claims, it is the symbolic, social, and cultural “capital” that one gains. This is his defense of legacy admissions: the main benefit that students from “historically marginalized and excluded backgrounds” receive is the opportunity to mingle and network with their “socially advantaged peers.” But it should not be Princeton’s intention to churn out a series of alumni prepared to build and hoard wealth and simply take their place in an elite class, even if that group comes from a diverse range of backgrounds. Elite universities have but one raison d’être: their educational mission. We cannot pretend that admissions policies, or the existence of elite universities in general are reparative endeavors or based on values of social justice.

Khan and those who seek to maintain legacy admissions understand Princeton’s existence as working to produce societal elites.

On the other hand, progressives would establish class-based affirmative action and end preferential admissions that favor white applicants in order to rectify the injustice of long-term achievement gaps between groups caused by a history of racist policies — this, too, is motivated by an understanding that elite schools create the elite and moneyed class.

In a recent New York Times article discussing the findings of a study quantifying the effect of family income on college admis-

sions, the economist directing the research group pondered whether his findings could be applied to “potentially diversify who’s in a position of leadership in our society.”

Yet if the end goal of elite schools consists of changing the perpetuation of “the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity” their existence is indefensible, and simply making the next generation more diverse does not render it more defensible. That is not to say, of course, that Princeton does not serve as a conduit of power. It would be naive to pretend that Princeton doesn’t create alumni who hold inordinate amounts of wealth and influence. But that cannot be Princeton’s ultimate end. That would be turning their back on their intellectual mission, and accepting the untenable inequity of Princeton’s existence. It doesn’t serve humanity or intellectualism to churn out graduates who are driven by power and salary, regardless of how many races are represented in this production process.

Raising a new or different people to the status of the wealthy elite does not change the fact that an elite class is inherently inequitable. If Princeton’s goal is to further social justice aims, should we not tear it down, along with the entire college admissions process altogether? Applications are inherently unequal: let’s abolish selective institutions, and redistribute their money to fund enough open-enrollment academic programs to serve every student in this nation who wants a higher degree.

Princeton cannot defend itself from this criticism: using any kind of theory stemming from the effective altruism movement to justify its benefit to reform-

ing society at large clearly fails since Princeton clearly reserves its benefits for a small few of the large group whom it could potentially serve. The correct defense is that perpetuating an elite, even a more diverse one, is not Princeton’s purpose at all — the mission of an elite school can have no large-scale social justice goals by virtue of its educational process itself. Rather, a school with a highly driven intellectual mission should aim to educate its students to act morally throughout the world, learning both how and why to identify and address injustice and immorality.

Elite schools are elite because they are uniquely poised to give unparalleled academic experiences and help students pursue intellectual human excellence: that must remain their ultimate goal.

It’s easier to be smarter, to have a longer resume, and have had more academically impressive life experiences if you are wealthy. Colleges should seek to look deeper into applicant’s life stories, and see merit, intelligence, and success in non-traditional areas.

They should also look for a diverse set of applicants — in terms of race, geographic origin, economic background, academic interest, and more — because, among numerous other educational reasons, it is impossible to grow and learn while being surrounded by similar people and thinkers.

But they should not create policies that change the stakes entirely: a college should look for students that are going to flourish and profit the most from the academic and intellectual experience, not students who are going to gain the most capital by getting a diploma — the secondary, and ideologically less important benefit a university offers.

It is not entirely clear what goal

admissions officers and University leaderships have in mind when they speak of opening the doors of elite universities to individuals against whom they were previously closed. Is it lavishing these individuals with the gifts of capital-based opportunity elite schools have access to, or is it pursuing an educational community with new and strong voices? The latter is in line with their mission: the former is not. Yet can elite schools truly consider searching for and admitting intelligent, promising, and bright individuals with the goal of shaping an intellectual community to be righting the wrongs of history? I think not: while such a strategy is vital to the continued growth of Princeton, and inherently calls for creating a diverse community, adhering to this agenda in its strictest sense does not mean considering what is best for each individual student, but rather the university as a whole.

This may all sound inequitable and harsh — of course it is. An elite school is also inequitable and so is participating in it, something any Princetonian or Ivy-Leaguer must be well aware of when they choose to attend such an institution. As Emma Green proposed in her 2020 interview with President Eisgruber ’83, “an investment in the elite few is ultimately a less robust vision of justice.” But this does not make Princeton’s existence, nor its goal of using education to achieve new intellectual and humane heights, unimportant or unattainable.

Current admissions policies do not do a particularly good job of fulfilling this end, and they must be changed accordingly — for example, by ending preferential treatment for legacy applicants, Princeton could take a lesson from M.I.T, which searches for

talent while accounting for “the different opportunities students have based on their income.”

However, the ultimate question that Princeton should strive to answer in looking at each applicant is whether they will raise the intellectual heights universities aim to enable their students to achieve. The strategy of admitting students as a — granting them the gift of the elite experience — is potent with the ideological end goal of offering entrance into the moneyed elite class. As Princeton searches for a way to rethink its admission process sans affirmative action, it must maintain its core value as an intellectual and educational institution, and avoid considering diversifying policies as social or restorative goods.

Elite institutions must not become a focal point for rectifying societal wrongs — that would be to seriously misunderstand their role in society, the real ways in which previous injustices can be rectified, and the different but nonetheless important role that such institutions seek to fulfill.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College cited, there are “persistent race-linked gaps” in American society, which were caused by inequitable and racist laws and policies. So let’s focus our energy on implementing legislation and social benefit programs to resolve those gaps.

That’s exactly what Princeton strives (or should be striving for) its students to do: serving humanity through education and intellectual growth.

Abigail Rabieh is a rising junior in the history department from Cambridge, Mass. She is the head Opinion editor at the ‘Prince’ and can be reached by email at arabieh@princeton.edu or on Twitter at @AbigailRabieh.

Princeton should not grant diplomas to insurrectionists Frances Brogan

Contributing Columnist

On May 30, Larry Giberson ’23 graduated from Princeton with a degree in Politics. His graduation deserves attention because he participated in the January 6th riots at the Capitol. He has identified himself in photos at the riot and recently pleaded guilty to a felony charge of interfering with police during a civil disorder. So why did Princeton grant him a degree?

In addition to his Politics degree, there is an almost comic irony to Giberson’s receipt of a certificate in Values and Public Life. After all, he posed a significant threat to public life when he was part of a mob that stormed the Capitol and exhibited perverse values when he cheered at attacks on Capitol police officers. Giberson’s behavior clearly implies that he believes in lies and is willing to violently act on them, violating Princeton’s code of conduct and demonstrating that he does not understand Princeton’s emphasis on principled civic engagement. Because of this, the University should not have awarded

Giberson a diploma.

Can a student whose behavior indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of political truth and lies have adequately mastered the content taught by Princeton’s Politics department? A student need not conform to a particular ideology to be worthy of a degree.

But adherence to blatantly untrue ideas is an intellectual failure.

Giberson’s attempt to break into the Capitol represents an endorsement of debunked claims; the Capitol rioters intended to impede the certification of electoral votes for President Biden because of the unequivocally false contention that Biden lost the 2020 election. Having far-right political beliefs does not make one unfit for a Princeton diploma. Yet by denying objective facts through his participation in a riot that revolved around an insidious conspiracy theory, Giberson fell short of Princeton’s academic standards.

Giberson’s participation in the Capitol riots doesn’t just represent an intellectual failure, but a moral one as well. He tried to sabotage the nation Princeton asks students to serve. He was part of a mob that

assaulted police officers. He directly repudiated the University’s motto “in the nation’s service and the service of humanity” by attacking individuals whose actual job is to serve the nation. Acting in accordance with the school’s unofficial motto and mission, at least while enrolled as a student, should be a prerequisite for receiving a Princeton diploma.

Because the University prioritizes civic responsibility and ethical leadership, it should maintain high expectations for student conduct. By denying Giberson’s diploma, Princeton could establish a precedent of strict intolerance for destructive, illegal behavior on and off campus. In fact, this precedent already exists — at least theoretically. According to Princeton’s Rights, Rules, Responsibilities policy manual, “deliberate participation in a riot” qualifies as an “extremely serious offense,” and “violations of local, state, or federal laws … may trigger disciplinary action regardless of where such violations occur.”

Giberson has admitted that he deliberately participated in what the rest of us should fairly charac-

terize as riot and pled guilty to a violation of federal law. He clearly qualifies for disciplinary action per the above stipulations.

Withholding a diploma would not be unprecedented. In the past year, the University withheld the degrees of four students found responsible for fraternity hazing.

While those students will receive their diplomas within two years, their punishment reveals that Princeton is not afraid to take bold action when students infringe the University’s code of conduct — except in this case. The University might have been reluctant to punish Giberson because his behavior could be construed as a manifestation of free speech, and Princeton is admirably dedicated to that value. But there is a difference between peacefully advocating unorthodox views and engaging in political violence. Princeton should encourage the former, but it can’t defend the latter.

Like anyone else, Giberson has potential to learn and grow and achieve moral redemption. He may one day become a person who satisfies Princeton’s intellectual and ethical standards. But just as

Princeton can’t punish alumni who contradict the University’s mission later in life, it should not retroactively award diplomas to individuals who demonstrate their worthiness long after their time on campus is up. Princeton can’t confirm if alumni retain what they learn after they graduate, but it can reward current students who honor their educational commitments and discipline those who don’t. Giberson attempted to overthrow the American government while a Princeton student; his actions defied the University’s academic and moral expectations of students. This makes him undeserving of a Princeton diploma.

As a university that values democracy, justice, scholarship, and service, Princeton should not be in the business of granting degrees to insurrectionists.

Frances Brogan is an incoming firstyear from Lancaster, Pa., intending to major in the School of Public and International Affairs. She can be reached at frances.brogan@princeton.edu.

Opinion

Friday September 8, 2023

page 9

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } vol. cxlvii editor-in-chief Rohit Narayanan '24

AHMED AKHTAR / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

business manager Shirley Ren ’24

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

president Thomas E. Weber ’89

assistant treasurer Kavita Saini ’09

Kathleen Crown Suzanne Dance ’96 Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 Danielle Ivory ’05 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Julianne Escobedo Shepherd Abigail Williams ’14 Tyler Woulfe ’07

trustees Francesca Barber Craig Bloom ’88

trustees ex officio Rohit Narayanan ’24 Shirley Ren ’24

vice president David Baumgarten ’06 secretary Chanakya A. Sethi ’07 treasurer Douglas Widmann ’90

147TH MANAGING BOARD upper management

Kalena Blake ’24 Wilson Conn ’25 Katherine Dailey ’24

Julia Nguyen ’24 Angel Kuo ’24 Hope Perry ’24

Strategic initiative directors

Education Kareena Bhakta ’24 Amy Ciceu ’24 Financial Stipend Program Genrietta Churbanova ’24

Mobile Reach Rowen Gesue ’24 DEIB Chair Christofer Robles ’25

head audience editor Rowen Gesue ’24

community opinion editor Lucia Wetherill ’25

Sections listed in alphabetical order.

associate audience editor 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

associate opinion editors Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26 Ashley Olenkiewicz ’25 head photo editor Jean Shin ’26 head podcast editor Eden Teshome ’25 associate podcast editor Senna Aldoubosh ’25 Vitus Larrieu ’26

associate data editor Ryan Konarska ’25

head print design editors Avi Chesler ’25 Malia Gaviola ’26

head features editors Paige Cromley ’24 Tori Tinsley ’24

head prospect editors Kerrie Liang ’25 Claire Shin ’25

associate features editor Sejal Goud ’25

associate prospect editors Isabella Dail ’26 Joshua Yang ’25

head graphics editors Noreen Hosny ’25 Katelyn Ryu ’24 head humor editor Spencer Bauman ’25 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 head opinion editor Abigail Rabieh ’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 Cole Keller ’26 associate sports editors Diego Uribe ’26 Hayk Yengibaryan ’26 head web design and development editors Ananya Grover ’24 Brett Zeligson ’24 associate web design and development editor Vasila Mirshamsova ’26

147TH BUSINESS BOARD assistant business manager, director of sales Aidan Phillips ’25 business directors Benjamin Cai ’24 Jessica Funk ’26 Gabriel Gullett ’25 Andrew He ’26 Tejas Iyer ’26 Daeun Kim ’26 Kok Wei Pua ’25 Sophia Shepherd ’26

Christina Zhang ’26 project managers Anika Agarwal ’25 Julia Cabri ’24 Jason Ding ’25 Bibiane Kan ’26 Jordan Manela ’26 Robert Mohan ’26 Kaustuv Mukherjee ’26 Shravan Suriyanarayanan ’26 My Ky Tran ’26 Brian Zhou ’26

147TH TECHNOLOGY BOARD

chief technology officer Joanna Tang ’24

lead software engineer Roma Bhattacharjee ’25 software engineers Pranav Avva ‘24 Carter Costic ’26 Dylan Epstein-Gross ’26 Jessica-Ann Ereyi ’24 Ishaan Javali ’26

Adam Kelch ’24 Austin Li ’26 Isabel Liu ’26 Tai Sanh Nguyen ’26 John Ramirez ’26 Hang Pham ’26 Aidan Phillips ’25 Caitlin Wang ’26 Jessie Wang ’25 Shannon Yeow ’26 Brett Zeligson ’24

THIS PRINT ISSUE WAS DESIGNED BY Avi Chesler ’25

Malia Gaviola ’26

Princeton’s scooter restrictions pose a harm to all students, especially disabled ones Guest Contributor The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.

W

hen I read through the University’s message about restrictions on personal electric vehicles (PEVs), a flurry of conflicting thoughts entered my mind.

I do want to recognize and appreciate the concern that the University has for pedestrians’ well-being.

I am grateful, in some form, for these restrictions.

Near misses happen all too often, and something, at the very least, needs to be done to change this.

Yet ultimately, the University’s approach to this new PEV policy has key flaws. My goal here is not to slam or condemn the University’s new policies, but rather, to encourage dialogue and possibly some reconsideration. Currently, these new and impractical restrictions punish the majority of riders due to the actions of few, while also overlooking students that rely on electric scooters due to their disabilities.

While there may be more near misses on electric scooters when compared to bikes, there also seem to be more scooters on campus — with more scooters come more incidents. Yet there are many responsible riders, and for us to be negatively affected by a minority of irresponsible ones is very unfortunate.

My main concern centers around the use that scooters serve for students with disabilities (like myself). I suffer from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a chronic illness that is unpredictable and often unmanageable. Some days, I feel healthy and full of energy. Others, I struggle to get out of bed.

There are also some days when I experience both of these feelings.

While I often use my scooter for its ease and convenience, I also use my scooter for mobility purposes. It would be frivolous to get a wheelchair, especially when scooters are available at such an affordable price and can serve multiple purposes.

If I wake up from a nap (which I often take because I tend to lack the energy to make it through the day) and do not feel comfortable walking up a hill to class, my scooter provides a reliable and easy alternative. The policy makes exceptions for those with disabilities, but in my case along with many others, there is no way to identify whether the rider is disabled and can fall under the exception.

With the University’s new restrictions, I picture one of the following scenarios occurring: I use my scooter anyway, and peers scorn me for appearing to believe that I am above the rules.

I use my scooter anyway, and am confronted by Public Safety (PSAFE) about my use during restricted hours — I will then have to explain my invisible disability and stress over whether they’ll believe me, and whether I’ll be punished.

I try to book a TigerAccess vehicle, which is often unavailable at short notice.

I do not attend class.

Disabled riders, like myself, deserve a sense of privacy and support. IBD is an invisible disability, which means you cannot see that I am disabled by looking at me. It is demoralizing to have to explain my disability to somebody when questioned or to feel like I am being perceived as making something up. In addition to punishing responsible riders, the University is placing disabled riders, like myself, in a very uncomfortable position.

Ultimately, I believe the University has taken too dramatic of action with these policies, not even giving scooter riders the option to adhere to moderate restrictions, such as riding only on main campus

roads, as they have with e-bike riders. As it stands, the policy will hurt disabled riders and will only be moderately successful in its goal of safety. In truth, students are unlikely to simply give up the ease and convenience that electric scooters provide.

The ban will not stop scooter traffic, it will likely just redirect it to Nassau St., Alexander St., and Washington Rd.: three places with no bike lanes yet significant traffic, posing a threat to scooter riders and pedestrians alike.

There are ways to achieve safety without inconveniencing students or compromising privacy. I fully support the speed limit and the registration of personal electric vehicles. I believe that registration gives the University a great opportunity to give a driver’s ed of sorts to riders, hopefully making an impact on the safety of community members.

With this, I believe that the University should give scooter riders a chance by restricting speed and usage criteria on campus before totally eliminating it during prime hours.

I’d like to be able to ride my scooter responsibly and when I need to, and I’m sure my peers, whether they have a disability or not, feel the same. I also want to ensure we minimize near misses and injuries — with all types of vehicles, including construction vehicles and PSAFE vehicles.

We must open up a dialogue with the University on how we can make our community safer and more accessible to all, and I hope that we can move forward together in a way that is best for the community.

Editor’s Note: To allow the author to share private medical details, the author has been granted anonymity.

Please send responses to opinion@dailyprincetonian. com.

Class-based affirmative action is not as forward thinking as Princeton’s progressives promise Christofer Robles

Associate Opinion Editor

On May 30, Larry Giberson ’23 graduated from Princeton with a degree in Politics. His graduation deserves attention because he participated in the January 6th riots at the Capitol. He has identified himself in photos at the riot and recently pleaded guilty to a felony charge of interfering with police during a civil disorder. So why did Princeton grant him a degree?

In addition to his Politics degree, there is an almost comic irony to Giberson’s receipt of a certificate in Values and Public Life. After all, he posed a significant threat to public life when he was part of a mob that stormed the Capitol and exhibited perverse values when he cheered at attacks on Capitol police officers. Giberson’s behavior clearly implies that he believes in lies and is willing to violently act on them, violating Princeton’s code of conduct and demonstrating that he does not understand Princeton’s emphasis on principled civic engagement. Because of this, the University should not have awarded Giberson a diploma.

Can a student whose behavior indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of political truth and lies have adequately mastered the content taught by Princeton’s Politics department? A student need not conform to a particular ideology to be worthy of a degree. But adherence to blatantly untrue ideas is an intellectual failure. Giberson’s attempt to break into the Capitol represents an endorsement of debunked claims; the Capitol rioters intended to impede the certification of electoral votes for President Biden because of the unequivocally false contention that Biden lost the 2020 election. Having far-right political beliefs does not make one unfit for a Princeton

diploma. Yet by denying objective facts through his participation in a riot that revolved around an insidious conspiracy theory, Giberson fell short of Princeton’s academic standards.

Giberson’s participation in the Capitol riots doesn’t just represent an intellectual failure, but a moral one as well. He tried to sabotage the nation Princeton asks students to serve. He was part of a mob that assaulted police officers. He directly repudiated the University’s motto “in the nation’s service and the service of humanity” by attacking individuals whose actual job is to serve the nation. Acting in accordance with the school’s unofficial motto and mission, at least while enrolled as a student, should be a prerequisite for receiving a Princeton diploma.

Because the University prioritizes civic responsibility and ethical leadership, it should maintain high expectations for student conduct. By denying Giberson’s diploma, Princeton could establish a precedent of strict intolerance for destructive, illegal behavior on and off campus. In fact, this precedent already exists — at least theoretically.

According to Princeton’s Rights, Rules, Responsibilities policy manual, “deliberate participation in a riot” qualifies as an “extremely serious offense,” and “violations of local, state, or federal laws … may trigger disciplinary action regardless of where such violations occur.”

Giberson has admitted that he deliberately participated in what the rest of us should fairly characterize as riot and pled guilty to a violation of federal law. He clearly qualifies for disciplinary action per the above stipulations.

Withholding a diploma would not be unprecedented. In the past year, the University withheld the degrees of four students found responsible for fraternity hazing. While those students will receive

their diplomas within two years, their punishment reveals that Princeton is not afraid to take bold action when students infringe the University’s code of conduct — except in this case. The University might have been reluctant to punish Giberson because his behavior could be construed as a manifestation of free speech, and Princeton is admirably dedicated to that value. But there is a difference between peacefully advocating unorthodox views and engaging in political violence. Princeton should encourage the former, but it can’t defend the latter.

Like anyone else, Giberson has potential to learn and grow and achieve moral redemption. He may one day become a person who satisfies Princeton’s intellectual and ethical standards. But just as Princeton can’t punish alumni who contradict the University’s mission later in life, it should not retroactively award diplomas to individuals who demonstrate their worthiness long after their time on campus is up. Princeton can’t confirm if alumni retain what they learn after they graduate, but it can reward current students who honor their educational commitments and discipline those who don’t. Giberson attempted to overthrow the American government while a Princeton student; his actions defied the University’s academic and moral expectations of students. This makes him undeserving of a Princeton diploma. As a university that values democracy, justice, scholarship, and service, Princeton should not be in the business of granting degrees to insurrectionists.

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

Features

page 10

Friday September 8, 2023

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

“To be frank, this has ruined my life,” Mulrain told the ‘Prince’ in June

LEAVE

Continued from page 1

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

missing assignments.

Morrison did not respond to repeated attempts to obtain an interview and multiple requests for comment.

A rocky start to senior spring At the beginning of the Spring semester, just two credits stood between Mulrain and her graduation. Mulrain concentrated in chemistry and signed up for two classes. For one, she applied to take MUS 514, a Pass/D/Fail only graduate seminar on Tchaikovsky.

In the first week of the class, Mulrain wrote to Morrison, saying that “I’ve never had the opportunity to take any formal music theory courses in my life, although I do arrange music for my local steel band orchestra/a student group here on campus.” Mulrain also had a different musical background than many of her classmates: She played the steel drum, the national instrument of her family’s native Trinidad and Tobago. She founded Tiger Chunes, a student-run steel ensemble, and arranged music for MPP 231, a steel drum course taught by Professor Josh Quillen.

“I was completely lost in our first discussion [in class] and was too embarrassed to say anything during or after class,” Mulrain continued.

Morrison responded encouragingly, writing in an email, “You’re not alone: some students have a lot of music theory, specifically the graduate students, but others have none and come to the class with a general interest in Tchaikovsky and/or play an instrument.” He met with Mulrain on February 8 to get her up to speed.

Months later, in a May 18 email to University administrators, Morrison described the meeting differently. “It was mostly a complaining session about the fact that she didn’t know anything about music theory, despite signing up for a graduate seminar that required knowledge of music theory,” he wrote. He noted she never took him up on his offer for guidance beyond that.

Unlike Western classical music, steel drum is traditionally taught by rote, and that was how Mulrain had conducted Tiger Chunes and the steel class.

“When Imani teaches the band, it sounds like her,” Quillen told the ‘Prince.’

“It’s a real privilege to hear.”

She could read music and had knowledge of classical styles — including some Tchaikovsky — through her time in her high school’s wind ensemble.

A series of absences Mulrain’s bumpy start continued when she missed the third class meeting on Feb.

16 due to a knee injury from women’s club basketball practice.

Mulrain has Type 1 diabetes and approved accommodations from the University’s Office of Disability Services, such as leaving class periodically to get food to boost her blood sugar. In an interview with the ‘Prince,’ she credited that absence and the subsequent absences that she accumulated over the course of the semester to her chronic illness and health complications that resulted.

“As somebody who’s immunocompromised, I have to take injury seriously, especially when they involve my feet,” Mulrain said. She later contracted Osgood-Schlatter’s disease in her knee, an injury that causes painful swelling.

“Princeton University is committed to providing access to all individuals, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Dolan told the ‘Prince.’ “When an accommodation is approved, faculty are notified and work with the student to meet their needs and the requirements of the course.”

Morrison later claimed that he was not informed about Mulrain’s documented disability.

Mulrain’s troubles compounded after she tested positive for COVID-19 in midFebruary. Her case was particularly severe, resulting in her being hospitalized at Princeton Medical Center three times for

complications and missing a second seminar. As Mulrain put to her professors in a Feb. 22 email, she was “in terrible health.”

She asked for Zoom options to be able to participate in class. No Zoom option was ultimately provided for MUS 514.

After her hospitalization, Mulrain wrote to Dean Schwalm for the first time.

Given the severity of Mulrain’s symptoms, Schwalm told her not to worry about attending class remotely. “In the long run, it will serve you far better, both for your long-term health and your academics, to take some time to get well,” she wrote in an email to Mulrain.

Residential college deans form a key part of the University’s advising infrastructure, primarily working with upperclassmen. Their responsibilities include handling extended absences from classes and approval of transfer credits from other institutions.

Schwalm, the dean of Whitman College, has worked at the University in various teaching and administrative roles.

She earned a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from the University in 2012 and served as a lecturer in the subject.

“The residential college deans support students in communicating openly and honestly with their professors. They may support them in navigating absences for illness and will seek to give the student the best advice about how to manage a challenge they encounter,” wrote University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss in a July statement to the ‘Prince.’

Schwalm declined a request for comment.

When Schwalm reached out to Morrison to communicate Mulrain’s absence, Morrison wrote to Schwalm on Feb. 22 to recommend Mulrain drop the class “[t]o avoid unhappiness down the line.” When Schwalm pointed out that it was well past the add/drop deadline, Morrison said he could suggest some “robust” make-up assignments.

“Of course, ultimately, if she is unable to pass the class, that will be what it will be,” Schwalm wrote back to Morrison.

“But, at least with respect to this week and her current illness, I would certainly support some flexibility.”

In Mulrain’s email communication with Morrison, however, no mention was made of the risk of failing the class. When she offered to send him her would-be discussion thoughts from the class she had just missed, Morrison reassured her in a March 2 email, saying “I know you’ve done the work.”

It was not until Mulrain met with Schwalm for a separate issue on March 3 that she was informed about his concerns for her standing. When she raised the concern with Morrison on March 4, he wrote to her that she should be “fine” if she kept up attendance along with good assignments and a final paper.

“I obviously can’t foresee if I will get sick again in the future during this semester,” Mulrain wrote to Morrison in a March 5 email, adding that she “fully” engages with course material and assignments when she misses class.

Mulrain missed another class on March 20, when Morrison rescheduled the first class after spring break due to travel.

The new time conflicted with Mulrain’s work as a tutor at the McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning.

“I’m an independent student. I have to pay for groceries,” Mulrain told the ‘Prince,’ also citing the fact that her mom sends money back to family in Trinidad. “I could not afford to miss work.”

Morrison described the absence differently: “I rescheduled the class after specifically asking Imani if she could make

it given her previous absences. The other option, Tuesday, March 21, was no good for her so I made it Monday. She didn’t attend. She didn’t do the makeup assignment I sent out,” he wrote in a May email to University administrators.

Mulrain confirmed to the ‘Prince’ that Morrison polled the class but did not recall him checking her schedule specifically.

Towards the end of the semester, Mulrain also struggled with a mental health crisis. Between April 12 and April 22, Mulrain spent time at Princeton House Behavioral Health, an intensive psychiatric inpatient facility. She missed her original thesis deadline, in addition to her last two weeks of classes.

She told the ‘Prince’ that she was struggling with the passing of her longtime endocrinologist, who had been with her since her initial diagnosis of diabetes.

Right before she was admitted, the company that supplied her medical devices said they could no longer supply her with devices unless they had a prescription from her doctor.

“I was like, my doctor hasn’t been with us since 2022,” she said. “I had a mental crisis.”

“When you go into an inpatient psychiatric care, especially when it’s in-house, you don’t have access to the internet, nor do you have access to electronic devices,” Mulrain said. “So the first thing I did when I came out was try to reach out to my dean as soon as possible to catch up on makeup work.”

But it was already too late for MUS 514.

“I’m sorry that you’ve been unwell and hope you can return to full-time study soonest,” Morrison wrote to her on April 24. “There’s no mechanism for me to pass a student who has missed so much of a seminar.”

Mulrain attributed the majority of her absences, including her stay at Princeton House to her chronic illness and Type 1 diabetes. In total, she had missed five classes, nearly half of the seminar’s meetings.

A dean makes a difference Mulrain’s situation is not unprecedented on a campus where debates about balancing academics and student well-being have been in the spotlight. In some cases, residential college deans can play important roles in guiding a student through those challenges and helping them graduate.

During the fall 2022 semester, Sydney Bebon ’23 also struggled with a serious health challenge that caused her to miss a substantial portion of her classes.

“It was just a terrible experience — as someone who really has loved Princeton, especially Princeton’s academics, and had such an amazing experience, learning and working and researching,” Bebon told the ‘Prince’ in August. “It was just really hard. And maybe [it made me] a little bit jaded about my Princeton experience.”

Bebon was able to graduate with her class on May 30, which she credits to support from her professors and residential college dean.

“I would have not graduated without that,” Bebon told the ‘Prince.’

During Princeton’s annual Halloween weekend, a traditionally raucous Princeton occasion, Bebon suffered a concussion at an eating club. In the weeks that followed, she developed a number of debilitating symptoms, including balance issues, vertigo, and sensitivity to bright lights.

“It was making me really nauseous to read and to look at computer screens,” she said. “I couldn’t go to multiple classes in a

Friday September 8, 2023

Features

page 11

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } row … I just couldn’t process things.”

Bebon estimated that, after Halloween, she was only able to attend roughly half of her classes. However, she was able to get extensions to finish some of her end-ofthe-semester work over winter break, a feat she credits to her residential college dean, Michael Olin of Mathey College.

“May he go down in history as the best dean to ever exist, because I would not have graduated without him,” Bebon said.

She added that her professors were “so understanding and so generous,” granting her extensions and encouraging her to seek help from the University administration.

But Bebon still struggled. She contracted COVID-19 over winter break as she was finishing her work and like Mulrain, suffered from a severe case. “I was lying with frozen food on my head because I had such a high fever trying to write term papers,” she recalled. “It was just a terrible experience.”

Mixed messages Following her stay at Princeton House, Mulrain met with Schwalm to discuss her academic standing, including a new thesis deadline. According to Mulrain, Schwalm did not suggest any paths for Mulrain to complete the course and graduate on time.

“My dean said that there was no point of me going to the last week of classes or turning in the final paper because I was going to get an F anyways,” Mulrain said.

Mulrain turned to Professor Reena Goldthree, her only other professor that semester.

“I told her my situation to get advice, because she’s actually been my only Black professor throughout my Princeton career,” Mulrain told the ‘Prince.’ “I just felt a connection with her class.”

According to Mulrain, Goldthree encouraged her to see the course through.

Mulrain attended the final seminar of the semester on April 27.

Goldthree did not respond to a request for comment.

Afterwards, she spoke with Morrison

about her final paper and standing in the class, while recording the conversation.

According to the recording obtained by the ‘Prince,’ the two agreed that Mulrain would complete the 12–15 page final paper, and would be able to receive an extension until May 19, the last day of exams.

“My approach to this is, I’m not going to stop you from getting your degree,” Morrison told Mulrain during the exchange.

Faculty may not grant extensions for papers of more than 24 hours past Dean’s Date without approval from a residential college dean or assistant dean of studies; the extension of Mulrain’s final paper deadline to May 19 required approval from Schwalm.

Mulrain and Morrison also discussed the requirements for the final paper. The two agreed the paper would be 12–15 pages discussing Tchaikovsky’s perspective on the inevitability of death.

Mulrain did not hear from Morrison or Schwalm about the extension until May 15, when she reached out. There, Morrison replied that he was told May 16 would be the paper deadline.

At the time, Mulrain was still finishing her thesis and independent work, due that night on the 15th. Additionally, as part of her return to campus from Princeton House, she was required to attend six hours of intensive outpatient therapy every day.

“It would be extremely difficult, unreasonable, and non-conducive to my mental health to be expected to write a 12 page paper in less than 24 hours,” Mulrain wrote to Schwalm in a May 15 email.

One day later, Schwalm approved the extension to noon on May 19, and Mulrain turned in her final paper minutes before the deadline. In an email later that night to Joyce Chen Shueh, a dean overseeing disciplinary matters for undergraduate students, Morrison acknowledged receipt of Mulrain’s paper.

But less than an hour later, Morrison contacted Chen Shueh and Cheri Burgess, the director of institutional equity, to allege that Mulrain had violated University policy. He claimed that Mulrain “attempt-

ed to gaslight [him] into believing that she was present when absent and submitted assignments that she did not submit,” and “used what I consider to be threatening and harassing language to coerce me into passing her.”

Morrison also said that Mulrain had not yet turned in her final paper — an hour after telling Chen Shueh that he had received it.

Morrison was responding to an email he sent the previous day in which he laid out an annotated timeline of events that Mulrain had sent him. “She missed class, and I have no way of knowing if she prepared, since the assignment was reading and listening meant for seminar discussion,” he wrote regarding one seminar.

“There was no presentation assignment for her and her ‘partner,’” he wrote underneath where Mulrain had written that she had come to the seminar ready to present.

Morrison also cited a lack of participation in the seminar.

Mulrain noted in an interview with the ‘Prince’ that she had on at least one occasion written to Morrison to note her participation and Morrison had written back acknowledging her participation.

On Feb. 9, Mulrain had emailed Morrison her week two assignment, and he had responded the next day, acknowledging her assignment and thanking her for her contribution in the day’s seminar.

A University investigation into the matter is ongoing.

“This has been decided and completed” Mulrain did not pass. On May 23, she received an email from Schwalm notifying her that she would not be graduating that week due to her being short of the required 31 course credits. Mulrain attempted to appeal the grade, submitting a formal appeal to the Department of Music and Committee on Examinations and Standing on May 24.

As part of the appeal, two faculty members of the department read an anonymized copy of Mulrain’s final paper; both determined it did not meet passing

standards. Mulrain was informed of this outcome on June 1.

“My issue was that I was never given a document saying what the paper requirements were,” Mulrain said. She cited the fact that Morrison had said that the final paper should be on a topic of her choosing, and that it didn’t even have to be musical, but biographical or historical if she preferred. In a last-ditch attempt, she wrote to a number of University administrators to request the criteria used to evaluate her paper.

Dean of the College Jill Dolan replied.

“I can assure you that the grading process has been fair. This has been decided and completed; your final grade will stand,” she wrote to Mulrain on June 2.

Dolan added, “I’d urge you to decide on a course to take this summer to fulfill your degree requirements,” but did not point Mulrain to any resources.

“I’m the lowest I’ve ever been in my life mentally,” Mulrain told the ‘Prince’ on June 6.

Claims of discrimination Mulrain told the ‘Prince’ she felt Morrison was retaliating against her and playing into “this angry Black woman stereotype.” She also claimed that he demeaned her background in Caribbean music; for example, in his May 18 reply to her claims of attendance, Morrison claimed that Mulrain could not read music.

Mulrain ended up filing complaints of race and disability discrimination and retaliation with the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity.

The University declined to refer Mulrain’s allegations of race-based discrimination to an investigation. However, an investigation into her claims of retaliation and disability discrimination is ongoing.

Mulrain is also planning to pursue legal action against the University, and her GoFundMe “Help Black Princeton Senior Afford Legal Counsel” raised $3,180 from 113 donations. The page was circulated on the social media accounts of Princeton students, who encouraged their class-

mates to pitch in.

An ongoing story Mulrain currently has an A in a Genetics course at Boston University, which she expects to finish this month. The course cost her $3,100, and her family paid out of pocket. The credit has to be reviewed by the Department of Molecular Biology and the Faculty Committee on Examinations and Standing before they determine whether or not to award her degree to her this fall.

Mulrain connected her experience to the historical marginalization of students of color at Princeton. “I hope that by sharing my story, other students will come forward and just shed a light on this university that claims to care so much about all these underrepresented students,” Mulrain told the ‘Prince.’

Morrison is not scheduled to teach any classes in the fall. He recently submitted his latest book, a biography of Tchaikovsky, to Yale University Press.

Perspectives on the University’s responsibility to provide accommodations continue to vary.

“When students are ill, we encourage them to take good care of themselves,” Dolan wrote to the ‘Prince.’ “Class attendance is very important, but if a student has a communicable disease and can’t make it to a session, it’s their responsibility to speak with the faculty member about how to make up missed work, and to ask classmates for notes and information.”

“The reality is, when you have a serious health condition, and it impedes you in some way from performing academically, your choices are: suffer, and maybe fail, or go on medical leave,” Bebon said.

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

Lia Opperman is an associate News editor and the Investigations editor for the ‘Prince.’

MARK DODICI / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

The Woolworth Center of Musical Studies, home of Princeton’s Music Department.

page 12

Features

Friday September 8, 2023

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

After ‘Oppenheimer,’ a look back at Princeton’s complicated role in nuclear history

By Gia Musselwhite Assistant Features Editor

Last spring, filming for Chistopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” stirred excitement at the Institute for Advanced Study and in Princeton’s East Pyne courtyard. The 1940s-era biopic, which opened with positive reviews on July 21, invites reflection on the role University faculty members, Princeton residents, and J. Robert Oppenheimer himself played in the Manhattan Project and the subsequent development and governance of nuclear weapons.

“The big news of the week — the big news of the century — in the world of science.”

That was the front page of the Princeton Herald a few days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took over 200,000 civilian lives, brought World War II to an end, and eternally raised the stakes of global war.

The Herald covered Princeton’s instrumental role in developing “the greatest discovery in modern warfare.”

Dr. Zia Mian, co-director of the University’s Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), points to that headline as giving a crucial insight into atomic history.

“You might think that you wouldn’t be so proud of having worked on nuclear weapons, given where we are now at Princeton,” said Mian in a recent interview. “But back then, it was seen as this great thing Princeton had done. Princeton benefited afterwards because of its special role [in the project].”

Princeton’s part in this atomic history involves a range of players, from J. Robert Oppenheimer himself to the rarely-credited women who “crunched the numbers,” and the physicists responsible for the world’s first antinuclear non-governmental organization.

Oppenheimer at Princeton Oppenheimer’s story stands out among those central to the Manhattan Project, the wartime operation that was responsible for the development of the world’s first atomic bomb. A faculty member at UC Berkeley, Oppenheimer is commonly attributed with helping bring quantum mechanics to America.

In 1942, he was recruited to direct the laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, which became the most famous nuclear development site to come out of WWII. The Trinity site — where the bomb was first tested in July 1945 — stood 220 miles south. Notably, the development of these sites displaced parts of the Navajo Nation and southwest Pueblo nations who inhabited the land.

Following the war, Oppenheimer surrendered the helm of atomic weapon development. Reportedly, he told President Harry Truman “[he felt he had] blood on [his] hands” when meeting him in October 1945 after the introduction of such a threat into the world and the destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While Oppenheimer would refer to his role in the bomb’s creation as “the fulfillment of an expectation” for years to come, he championed policy regulations of atomic weapons and advised against the US government’s development of the thousands times more powerful hydrogen bomb without success.

In 1947, he was appointed with support from his future foe, Lewis Strauss, to become the third director of the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) in Princeton, New Jersey. The IAS, though officially independent from Princeton, has had a strong relationship with the University and shared library resources since its founding.

IAS Archivist Caitlin Rizzo noted that there was a scholarly cross-exchange between the two institutions through “seminars, conferences, and even positions to attract the best scholars.” Albert Einstein is also associated with Princeton through the IAS, of which he was a founding member.

Oppenheimer became an important figure in Princeton life. He lectured in McCosh 50 while bringing young scholars and new dis-

ciplines to the IAS. At the same time, he was shifting his public efforts to atomic regulation as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)’s science advisory board.

“When you open any door in Washington, Oppenheimer’s in that room,” said Dr. Michael Gordin, a historian of science at Princeton, about Oppenheimer’s days on the board. “For that period of time, he was a key advisor to many aspects of atomic policy.”

Early connection to the development of the bomb “Oppenheimer himself has often been discussed as ‘the father of atomic bombs,’” explained Assistant Professor of Anthropology Dr. Ryo Morimoto, in an interview with the ‘Prince.’ “But the reality is that he happened to take the leadership role of a project that involved the entire nation.”

The University’s involvement in the Manhattan Project began earlier and was far more extensive than just through a connection to Oppenheimer. The August 1945 edition of the Princeton Herald covers this complex history.

This record begins in February 1941, when Princeton researchers experimented with the first steps towards harnessing the nuclear chain reaction for atomic weaponry.

Many experiments were conducted in Palmer Physical Laboratory, the home of Princeton’s Physics Department (located in what is now Frist Campus Center) and Frick Chemical Laboratory.

Gordin, who specializes in early nuclear history, commented on Princeton’s involvement in the Manhattan Project.

“Physics was a reasonably small field in the U.S., up until the 1920s. It really started to grow in the 1930s, and Princeton is one of [its] centers. It makes sense that when you’re going to recruit people to work on a physics-based project, you would [recruit] from Princeton,” Gordin said.

One of these figures was Professor Henry DeWolf Smyth GS Class of 1921, a leading faculty member in the Princeton Physics Department from 1924–1966. During the war, Smyth taught practical physics principles like mortar round trajectories and anti-aircraft targeting to US officers. Additionally, he consulted for the Manhattan Project and held membership in the National Defense Research Committee’s uranium section.

Notably, Smyth wrote a 60,000-word technical report on the Manhattan Project’s military research and use of atomic energy, with the subtitle “The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government.”

This account was released by the United States War Department on August 12, 1945, days after the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The public weight of the Smyth report “tells you the kind of trust that the Manhattan Project leadership had in Smyth and the Princeton Physics Department,” said Mian. “[But] part of what that official history did was to tell the world the kind of science and technology the public had the right to know about. Princeton, through Smyth, played this fundamental role in establishing the barrier of the great wall of secrecy that has surrounded nuclear weapons.”

Unsung contributions Smyth recognized eight notable Princeton researchers in his public report, including prominent physicists Richard Feynman ’42, John Wheeler, Eugune Wigner, and Robert Wilson. Many of these scholars hold renowned legacies at Princeton today for their groundbreaking achievements.

However, the men credited by Smyth are far from the comprehensive list of Princeton involvement in the Manhattan Project. According to Gordin, Princeton faculty contributed to Manhattan Project work in many ways, from particle accelerator experiments on campus to on-site work at Los Alamos and

KATELYN RYU / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

other secretive bases. Over two dozen faculty members were employed at Los Alamos alone.

“It wasn’t just famous physicists [who] went … they took their graduate students with them,” said Mian.

A few women held official research status on the Manhattan Project during the time.

Two of these groundbreaking physicists were Chien-Shiung Wu and Elda Anderson. Wu was the first woman to join Princeton’s physics department faculty and made important contributions to uranium enrichment. Anderson, meanwhile, developed the first test sample of uranium-235 on Princeton’s campus.

Professors’ work at design and operation sites also often became a family affair. The wives of faculty members did not just move with them, but they were regularly employed at the sites doing calculations on key experiments.

“The word ‘computer’ used to be a job description, not a device,” said Gordin. “Almost always, it was a woman. There [was] a lot of that at Los Alamos—because of secrecy, the labor pool they [had were] the families.”

Despite their essential work, these women did not receive much credit for their part.

To this day, many other historically marginalized groups have also been written out of the Manhattan Project narrative. No African Americans worked at Los Alamos, but the facility at Oak Ridge, Tenn. was a segregated community for scientists, engineers, and construction workers alike.

“There was no effort to try and address this discrimination,” commented Mian. “All the existing social relations were just distilled down to their purest essence and put to work on a military project.”

Morimoto said that there is a record of Native people working in facilities, but only a few — like Herbert York at the Oak Ridge site — are credited in the records. Native people, like the Navajo in the American Southwest and the Deline in Northwest Canada, were even coerced into mining uranium for the project as one of the only job opportunities available to them.

“I think the challenge is to tell the alternative narratives that exist as a way to try and change the present and the future,” added Morimoto.

Concerns about nuclear weapons In decades to follow WWII, Princeton administrators would justify the secrecy and consequences of Princeton’s involvement in the Manhattan Project as “in the nation’s service.” But the atomic bomb’s impact on society was highly contested by scientists and policymakers, even prior to the first nuclear test at

Trinity.

Oppenheimer was one of many physicists who came to fear the global implications of atomic weapons — especially elevated to the level of the hydrogen bomb — after Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated their potential for destruction.

“In Princeton proper, there were several gatherings of those that feared [the bomb’s] development,” wrote Rizzo.

Soon, the Emergency Committee of the Atomic Scientists — the world’s first anti-nuclear organization — was born with headquarters at 90 Nassau Street. The group was founded by Einstein and fellow physicist Leó Szilárd.

The Emergency Committee fundraised, wrote articles, gave lectures, and created the first documentary films about the dangers of nuclear weapons, according to Mian.

But some who contributed to the development pushed back, even denying the impact of the bomb.

Smyth and others on the project denied the lasting damage of nuclear radiation and questioned the accuracy of Japanese reporting on the catastrophe months after the war.

Such damages were, of course, proven true — radiation poisoning was directly tied to massive spikes in diagnoses of leukemia and other cancers.

According to Morimoto, “there were [also] people like John Wheeler who continued [their research] thinking it was in service of nation and humanity.” Wheeler directed Project Matterhorn B at Princeton, developing hydrogen bombs for the US government during the Cold War. Oppenheimer’s own credibility took a hit during the second Red Scare, the rampant American anti-Communist era in the early 1950s, when he was publicly humiliated in an AEC hearing led by Strauss over his security clearance. The story was covered by the ‘Prince’, with prominent Princeton scholars like physics professor Wigner taking up his public defense.

Oppenheimer died in 1967 — with a memorial held at Alexander Hall — but Oppenheimer’s legacy in atomic policymaking and nonproliferation lived on at the University.

Since its inception by a group of physicists in 1974, Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security has made global policy efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and gather together science graduate students with a future in security policy.

since, that challenge has only fueled leaders on campus.

SGS’s current work, for instance, is focused on eliminating the culture of nuclear secrecy that began with the Smyth Report by bolstering public knowledge through seminars and research journals.

“It’s about accountability,” said Mian. “[We believe] everybody needs to know about how nuclear weapons work [and should] have a right to decide.”

Meanwhile, Morimoto facilitates Nuclear Princeton, a Native American and undergraduate-led project started in 2020, and teaches an affiliated course by the same name. According to the project’s mission statement, Nuclear Princeton works to “[focus] attention on Princeton’s involvement in nuclear projects and explore the ways underrepresented, particularly Indigenous, communities have been impacted by [science, technology, and engineering] projects.”

One major accomplishment of the project, Morimoto explained, is its online archival work that has taken strides to make science history more accessible and promote “longterm thinking about [its] impacts.”

As part of Morimoto’s Nuclear Princeton course, for instance, he takes students to the Mudd Manuscript Library to look at declassified documents from 1945. But he says one of the most interesting relics there is an irradiated roof tile from Hiroshima University.

The tile was gifted to Princeton in 2012 as a thank-you and historic memento, after the University donated “one book and just enough money to plant one tree on [Hiroshima’s] campus” in 1951.

“Hiroshima basically said, ‘Oh, please use this material to disseminate the idea of peace to your students,’” Morimoto explained. “The problem has been that it’s just been kept in the archive [and] hasn’t been utilized in a way that the Hiroshima group asked for.”

Nevertheless, Morimoto recognized that Princeton actively employs faculty members like him who are teaching students about the history and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons.

Mian shared a similar sentiment, noting that Princeton physicists were both involved in making the weapon and actively campaigning against them.

“There are a lot of interesting contradictions that coexist in this [story],” said Morimoto.

Commemorating that history today “It’s a very interesting, complicated, difficult story to tell,” says Mian. In the years

Gia Musselwhite is an assistant Features editor for the ‘Prince’.

the PROSPECT. Friday September 8, 2023

The Daily Princetonian

page 13

ARTS & CULTURE

‘How to Stand Up to a Dictator’ is an important warning about misinformation

By Ivy Chen | Contributing Prospect Writer

“How to Stand Up to a Dictator: The Fight for Our Future” by Maria Ressa ’86 is one-part indictment of the role played by social media in spreading misinformation, one-part call to action in support of journalism in the face of right-wing populist regimes, and onepart personal memoir. Ressa traces her path from student to reporter to cofounder and CEO of the Filipino news company Rappler. Even when faced with online attacks and legal intimidation, she never wavers in her convictions, delivering a passionate argument for the importance of journalism and truth in fighting the erosion of democracy.

Ressa, awarded the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize for her work defending freedom of expression and exposing abuse of power, was born in the Philippines. At the age of ten, she left for the United States, where she eventually attended Princeton, graduating in 1986. Her senior playwriting thesis drew an allegory between her family history and the state of politics in Philippines, where the People Power

demonstrations had ousted the dictator Ferdinand Marcos earlier that year.

Ressa describes the writing process as her “own private exorcism,” stating that it gave her “a deeper sense that what’s personal is political” (p. 34).

The play was only the beginning of a long journey of pursuing the truth that would take Ressa back to the Philippines. After stints at the People’s Television 4 station, CNN, and ABS-CBN, she co-founded Rappler, describing her vision as the convergence of “investigative journalism, technology, and community.” At Rappler, a series reporting on the Duterte administration’s weaponization of the internet sparked attacks from the government.

Each chapter focuses on a distinct challenge of Ressa’s life, from watching artificial online bandwagons tear down her credibility to facing repeated arrest warrants to being convicted for a story she hadn’t written. By laying out informative accounts of corruption and misinformation alongside explanations of how she and Rappler fight back, as well as more personal reflections, Ressa creates a work that both educates and moves.

Ressa expertly imbues “How to Stand Up to a Dictator” with her values. In a passionate narrative voice, she lays out the principles she lives by: honesty, vulnerability, empathy, thinking rationally, standing up for justice, believing in the good. From childhood playground lessons to a hostage situation, these through lines serve as the heart of the story, underlying every decision made.

Particularly revelatory is Ressa’s damning indictment of Facebook for its facilitation of the spread of misinformation and undermining of journalism. In well-researched, methodical detail, Ressa uncovers a history of systematic manipulation, describing how Facebook commodifies human data and allows politicians’ propaganda machines to thrive.

Even when delving into the technical, Ressa writes with a clear, firm logic, making the topic at hand easily understandable. She discusses how Facebook’s friends-of-friends algorithm inevitably causes radicalization, with clicking on one borderline conspiracy theory bringing the user to another more radical piece. She also explores how us-against-them rhetoric distorts facts and destroys public trust, such as the Duterte administration’s armies of planted comments, which resulted in a wave of venom against journalists and anyone who questioned the government.

The flip side of Ressa’s detailed explanations is that the book can at times feel a little pedantic and repetitive, with phrases like “seeded metanarratives” and “collective action.” It’s also occasionally clumsy: moments like childhood lessons on bullying can read trite, and meditations on the Golden Rule feel slightly clichéd. It’s in the less explicitly articulated pieces that Ressa is best able to demonstrate such messages: the book is most effective when Ressa allows her beliefs to come across organically, through depictions of actionable efforts like her #FactsFirstPH news accountability movement.

Another instance of this idea can be seen in the memoir’s more emotional side. Where Ressa’s overt statements on the importance of vulnerability don’t necessarily resonate deeply, what truly hits home are the scenes that show rather than tell: Ressa’s unguarded expressions of fear and doubt amidst her arrests humanize her strength and make her decision to stay in the Philippines even more powerful. One of the most impactful sequences is about Ressa’s late friend Twink Macaraig; the quietly emotional tribute echoes her message of the need to live meaningfully.

The book is also valuable because of the context where Ressa situates her message. Social media has shifted the information landscape: now, personalized news feeds present individuals with different realities. But, as Ressa argues, “all these realities have to coexist in the public sphere. You can’t tear

us apart to the point that we don’t agree on facts.” This extends to the United States, where social media bubbles exacerbate political polarization.

Take TikTok, for instance. I deleted the app two years ago after noticing that it felt like I was losing hours scrolling.

It can often lean into the worst of online behavior — face-value judgments, mob mentality in the comments. I remember, years earlier, laughing with my friends at conspiracy theories on their parents’ Facebook accounts. It’s less easy to be amused now. Anyone who’s read Twitter arguments knows how potent an echo chamber can be, or how difficult it is to change the mind of someone who’s closed theirs off.

Ressa puts what I’ve long felt uncomfortable about into words, supported by evidence and data. The consequences of the co-opting of algorithmic weaknesses will be something we contend with in the near future: think the January 6th attack on the Capitol and Stop the Steal, or the QAnon conspiracy theory that went from fringe to mainstream (even in the online response to a recent movie) or harmful anti-vaccine hoaxes traced to just a few sources. The further we drift, the more difficult it becomes to bring everyone back to a common reality.

As an admitted student “How to Stand Up to a Dictator” also resonates as a pre-read, due in large part to the chapter Ressa includes on her time at Princeton. The University receives shoutouts in mentions of Blair Arch and Firestone Library, but most impactful is Ressa’s reference to the Honor Code: the idea that “you are responsible not just for yourself but also for the world around you, your area of influence” (p. 28).

This idea is mirrored much later on, when, upon being asked why she chooses to return to the Philippines, Ressa says, “I run Rappler; I am responsible for a company. If I get scared and leave, who will bear the brunt of all of the attacks?” (p. 209). In a compelling manner, her perspective turns the Honor Code from an academic promise to a tenet one might live by: accountability to those more vulnerable than her.

Ressa is an inspiring figure, one whose determination and belief in the responsibility we have to the world and one another shines through her writing. These values, alongside vital warnings and accounts of Ressa’s own efforts in defending journalism and personal freedoms, all converge to create a relevant and valuable read for incoming first-years looking to navigate the years to come.

Ivy Chen is a contributing writer for The Prospect. She can be reached at iychen@ princeton.edu.

The Daily Princetonian

page 14

Friday September 8, 2023

The experience at the Maruichi market

By Gregory Serrano Arevalo | Contributing Prospect Writer

The closest grocery stores in Princeton, such as Costco and Target, are a fair distance from campus. This might encourage students to spend on nearby restaurants. However, as of late, Maruichi Japanese Food & Deli has presented students who are sick of Frist sushi with a slice of authentic Japanese cuisine.

Located on Nassau Street, Maruichi is a market that offers various Japanese foods, ingredients, snacks, and more. I found the addition of Maruichi to Nassau Street’s array of restaurants to be absolutely life-changing. Whenever I engage in food-securing expeditions with my friends, we often find ourselves in situations where we can only purchase food from restaurants. As a result, during my time at Princeton, I have formulated some short-hand rules: the food on Nassau Street must cost at least $8 but is often between $10 and $20. At times, it feels like I am paying my life savings for a loaf of sliced bread. At Maruichi, you can find onigiri for $3, pastries for $3.75, and more. Near closing time, the onigiri and some meals, such as gyudon, are half-priced.

Given this and the fact that there are not many markets on Nassau Street, others at Princeton seem to have found Maruichi’s debut to be sensational. On the day of Maruichi’s grand opening on March 25, there was a line of excited customers at the front doors, who stood in the rain to experience Princeton’s latest attraction. I learned that many stayed on the line in hopes of obtaining free

products from Maruichi. I made it my mission to learn more about the new Japanese market.

Walking into Maruichi, I could not help but notice how much I’ve missed the distinct supermarket aesthetic and experience, which is rare at Princeton. I felt like I was back home at my local Japanese market. When you enter through the doors and look to the right, you’ll find an impressive and diverse set of bread and pastries. Most of the pastries are baked at Maruichi itself, and they offer a selection of Tokyo Bread pastries in their aisles.

Some of the types of bread they offer include maple bread, chocolate

bread, coffee cornets, and buns with red bean paste inside. Nearby, there are a set of refrigerators containing matcha ice cream, Ramune, matcha lattes, and much more. To the left of the entrance, you can find delectable snacks such as daifuku and Pocky, which are sold at competitive prices ($2.00–$2.50) when compared to Princeton’s U-Store ($5).

I continued the exploration through the aisles of Maruichi with a comrade. We found stacks and stacks of dangerously good gummies, chocolate snacks, sweet bread, mochi, and ramen. Some of my personal favorites at the market include maple bread, Alfort chocolates, and

rice crackers; my eyes also could not help but fall victim to the allure of matcha-f lavored Kit Kats. To my initial surprise, Maruichi went beyond the realm of snacks: at the back of the market, there are aisles dedicated to various home products such as shampoo, plushies, bags of rice, and skincare products. There are even sections of the market devoted to raw seafood, sushi, and prepared meals such as beef with udon noodles.

Initially, the plan with my friend was to simply explore Maruichi.

However, I fell victim to my materialistic desires and told my friend to fetch me a basket, so I easily spent about $50 on my first trip to Maruichi. After many weeks since its grand opening, I have made numerous trips to Maruichi, and I expect to make many more while I spend this summer at Princeton. My roommate has spent hundreds of dollars within the first two weeks of the market’s opening. My friend and I left the establishment wailing to each other, ‘No! My money!’ Indeed, our wallets are in grave danger: suffice it to say that Maruichi certainly lives up to the hype from our fellow students.

Gregory Serrano Arevalo, a sophomore from Salinas, California, is a contributing writer for The Prospect at the ‘Prince.’

GREG AREVALO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

‘Oppenheimer’ review: Nolan brings complex humanity to picture of Princeton resident

By Tyler Wilson | Senior Prospect Writer It has been the summer of Princeton at the movies. The University was mentioned in the animated smash-hit “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” and Jennifer Lawrence’s hilarious “No Hard Feelings,” but only one filmmaker had the unadulterated vision to put boots on the ground, and that was the one and only Christopher Nolan.

One could say that Princetonians were on the “Oppenheimer” hypetrain well before the general public (all the way back in April 2022), and for good reason — it’s not every day that a Hollywood production blocks your way to language class. The scene was not one for the cutting room floor: East Pyne can be seen clearly early in the movie, and the nearby Institute for Advanced Study is the location of some of the movie’s most memorable scenes. But beyond the film’s proximity to our community and the social media frenzy of Barbenheimer, the question remains: is it any good?

I am pleased to report that yes, Christopher Nolan delivers in this excellent nuclear opus. After “Tenet,” a film that gave the impression Nolan might have forgotten the humanity required to ground his always high concept work, “Oppenheimer” is built on introspection. The central conflict of the movie is within the protagonist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and is not the race against the Nazis or the continuous full-contact politicking. The weight of the narrative falls upon Cillian Murphy — specifically his face. Murphy’s cold blue eyes are shot on 70mm IMAX by director of photography Hoyte van Hoytema. They consume the screen and lock the viewer into the three-hour behemoth of a character study.

The movie is long, and if I had one central complaint, it is that it feels its length at certain points. The editing and music do a lot to keep the film moving at a breakneck pace, but a three-hour psychological drama about the fate of mankind takes its toll on you.

However, this story deserves to be told in its entirety at the highest caliber of filmmaking, which is accomplished by Nolan. Thus, I can forgive its runtime, especially when it sticks such an accomplished landing. There were moments when I thought I would never see the end credits of this movie, but when they finally arrived, I was shaken to my core. In fact, Nolan leaves the viewer with such a haunting final message that I woke up the next morning with a pit in my stomach. More on that later.

Certainly, the film is largely the Nolan and Murphy show, but like all films, it is a team effort. Robert Downey Jr. gives an incredible supporting performance with far more screen time than I expected — this is a packed ensemble in which A-listers and Oscar winners are essentially given cameo roles. Matt Damon provides enough comedic charm to uplift the heavier scenes. Emily Blunt is wounded but strong in the role of Oppenheimer’s wife, Kitty (although the film’s female characters certainly take the backseat despite the screenplay’s insistence of their academic prowess and

qualifications). Finally, as previously mentioned, the score by Ludwig Goransson and the editing by Jennifer Lame intertwine different timelines and perspectives effectively, all while building a haunting atmosphere.

J. Robert Oppenheimer is a particularly difficult character to build a film around. This is the man who introduced nuclear weapons to the world. Nolan, in a smart creative choice, takes a mixed approach to his central character. He makes it clear that Oppenheimer is manipulated by the US government. To the many bureaucrats in the film, he is simply a pawn to be used and disposed of immediately after. President Harry S. Truman even memorably calls him a crybaby. The audience can root for a man against the might of McCarthy era anti-communist fervor.

On the other hand, Oppenheimer is an impulsive, erratic spirit.

He is a serial adulterer and, in an early scene involving a tutor’s apple and some cyanide, someone capable of impulsively committing acts of violence. Such is the hypocrisy of J. Robert Oppenheimer; he lacks

foresight and self-control, but then laments his actions afterward.

He creates the atomic bomb, but only questions its use after it drops.

Like the flaming column of a mushroom cloud, Oppenheimer burns bright, but he is caught off-guard by the shockwave that follows. Nolan understands the contradiction and does not let the man off easily.

The film ends with a horrifying prediction. Each character would like to believe that they dropped the atom bomb and got away with it. The sky did not combust, the world did not end. They can grow old and rest on their laurels — content with the global peace that followed World War II. However, Nolan argues that the shoe has yet to drop. That the future is more foreboding than the past ever was. It is forever disturbed, like raindrops falling on a still pond.

Tyler Wilson is a senior contributor for The Prospect and Humor at the ‘Prince.’

AUDREY YANG / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Friday September 8, 2023

Sports

page 15

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } ROWING

Men’s and women’s lightweight rowing claim national championship titles at IRA Regatta

By Olivia Lechner Contributing Sports Writer

Princeton rowing celebrated a triumphant close to a historic season, as the No. 1 men’s and No. 1 women’s lightweight teams claimed national titles at the Intercollegiate Rowing Association (IRA) National Championship Regatta. Women’s openweight additionally placed third at the NCAA championship, and No. 3 men’s heavyweight placed fourth at IRAs. IRA championship weekend began at Mercer Lake in West Windsor, N.J. in early June with men’s heavyweight heats. The Tiger Varsity Eight finished first in both the heat and semi-finals, ahead of Harvard and Yale respectively, and came in third place in the finals, behind California and Washington.

This victory is the first medal at IRAs for the Tigers top varsity boat (1V) since 2016 and marks a significant leap from 1V’s ninth place finish last year.

Second Varsity finished second behind Brown in heats and fourth in semi-finals, but they

recovered and finished in first place ahead of Boston in finals.

Third Varsity came in third in heats, and fourth in semi-finals, but also recovered in finals to come in first place ahead of Syracuse.

However, when points were totaled, the men’s heavyweight team ultimately finished in fourth place with 236 points, behind California, Washington, and Yale, which is a four spot improvement from Tigers’ eighth place finish last year.

The No. 1 men’s lightweight team swept the competition.

Both the Varsity Eight and the Second Varsity Eight finished in first place in both heats and finals. The Varsity Eight finished 2.146 seconds ahead of Pennsylvania in heats and 1.862 seconds ahead of Harvard in finals, while the Second Varsity Eight came in 1.602 seconds ahead of Yale in heats and 2.48 seconds in front of Harvard in finals.

The Varsity Four placed second in heats, finishing 3.406 seconds behind Georgetown, and fourth in finals. Overall, Princeton fin-

ished with 54 points, putting them four points ahead of Harvard for a national title.

The No. 1 women’s lights saw a similar sweep. The Varsity Eight, Varsity Double, and Varsity Four all finished in first place in both heats and finals. The Varsity Eight finished 4.014 seconds ahead of Stanford in heats, and clocked in a whopping 6.280 second margin ahead of Stanford in finals. The Varsity Double finished 8.352 seconds ahead of Harvard in heats and 4.470 seconds in front of the Crimson in finals, and the Varsity Four came in 4.200 seconds in front of MIT in heat, and .872 seconds ahead of MIT in finals.

This series of perfect finishes earned the Tigers 72 points, 15 points ahead of Boston, and their second consecutive national championship. This victory is only the second time the same school has won both lightweight championships in the same year.

The first time was in 1997 with Harvard and Radcliffe.

Slightly south of IRAs, in Pennsauken, N.J., women’s open-

weight claimed a bronze medal at the NCAA championship a week earlier. No. 1 Varsity Eight finished in third place, 2.62 seconds behind Washington.

This is the third time that the boat has medaled in consecutive years, the last being during the 2009–10 season. The Second Varsity Eight (2V) came in fifth place, 4.41 seconds behind Yale — the same position the 2V finished in last year, and these two years mark the highest finishes since the 2V medaled in 2014.

The Varsity Four finished in sixth place, 5.49 seconds behind Virginia. These results earned the Tigers a spot on the podium, with a total score of 113 points, behind Washington’s score of 120 and Stanford’s 129.

This is the second straight season the Tigers placed third at NCAA’s, and the first time in program history Princeton placed in the top three in consecutive seasons. Princeton was also the highest finish in the Ivy League, with Yale coming in fifth, Penn in sixth, and Brown in seventh.

Senior and first team All-Ivy

selection Lydia Rosen notes the team’s success was largely due to learning from each race and is hopeful that the success at NCAAs will encourage the team to continue striving for more.

“We talked about each race — the good and the bad — and came together as a boat to make the next race better than the last,” Rosen told the Daily Princetonian. “We felt confident entering the races, and the rankings only helped motivate us and reassure us of our potential as a team.”

The program has celebrated several milestones this year, with historic anniversaries, exciting finishes, Ivy League titles, and the recent successes at the national championships, demonstrating the high caliber, commitment, and resilience of Princeton’s rowing teams. Fans will have much to look forward to in the coming season.

Olivia Lechner is a contributor to the Sports section at the ‘Prince.’

page 16

Sports

Friday September 8, 2023

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S TRACK

‘A coaching genius’: Men’s track and field head coach Fred Samara announces retirement after 46 years

By Nishka Bahl Head Sports Editor

On June 27, the beloved Fred Samara announced his retirement after 46 seasons as the William M. Weaver Jr. ’34 Head Coach of the men’s track and field team.

Samara’s legacy will not be forgotten by the Tiger faithful as he retires having won more championships than any other coach in Princeton history.

“Princeton track and field is one of the most dominant teams of any sport in the Ivy League, and the reason for that is entirely Coach Samara,” rising junior thrower Avery Shunneson told the Daily Princetonian.

Samara’s Ivy League domination saw him lead his team to 51 Heptagonal team championships and 502 individual championships. In 2017, he earned his induction into the U.S. Track and Field and Cross Country Coaches Association Hall of Fame for his unparalleled achievements.

“Track to me is not an individual sport,” Samara told the ‘Prince’.

“It’s a team sport and that’s how you win the championships.”

It is Samara’s dedication to the team aspect of the sport that, beyond championships, has left a lasting impact on Princeton and his athletes.

“I think to call Coach Samara a legend would be an understatement,” said former captain and middle distance runner Duncan Miller ’24.

“Coach Samara built this team into the best in the Ivy League and one of the best in the nation.

He not only cared about our success as student-athletes, but also as young men. He certainly has shaped the person I have become throughout my time at Princeton, and he always reminded us that we could be greater than we thought.”

Samara cultivated strong relationships with each member of the men’s track and field team during his coaching tenure, and it is these relationships that Samara says will be the hardest part of the job to leave.

“The relationships I had with the athletes—they’re all a very special group, and I always look at things as a journey,” Samara said.

“We start off freshman year and then we move through the years and then there’s tremendous development, not only on the track, but just—and it’s not a cliche— just growing as a person in a lot of different ways. And that’s, that’s the most rewarding thing for me, and I’ll miss that quite a bit.”

Samara himself was a part of the track and field team as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania. His events included the decathlon, pole vault, long jump, and sprints. As head coach at Princeton, Samara focused largely on field events, but he always made sure to touch all parts of the team.

“I would always kind of put my

nose into—so to speak—all the events,” said Samara. “I think one of the ways you can become a successful coach is to really know everybody on the team and pay attention to everybody. I think the guys appreciate that because I think too many coaches have a narrow focus.”

Samara’s athletes certainly appreciate his dedication to knowing both the student and the athlete. Moreover, they remember the way he not only celebrated with them during triumphs, but also comforted and pushed them through challenges.

“He cares immensely about the person, rather than the athlete of those he coaches,” said Shunneson. “He pushed us and created an intense and fun environment during practices. At meets, he understood when to give us space after poor performances and celebrated with us after new personal records or regional qualifying marks.”

Samara guided six of his athletes to the Olympics in his time coaching, and he was a 1976 Olympic decathlete himself.

“For me, he’s a role model, and he’s an exceptionally good Olympian personally,” said rising sophomore hurdler Easton Tan. “I want to be like him myself. The whole team follows his example and follows in his footsteps, and he knows each of us very well.”

Samara went out of his way to ensure each of his athletes knew he cared. Tan’s role model is Liu Xiang, the only Chinese who won the Olympic championship and who broke the world record in hurdling. Knowing this, Samara motivated Tan by giving him Xiang’s autograph and photo. Samara’s love for the sport influenced his coaching every day.

“His passion for the sport was unlike anything I’ve ever seen,” said former Princeton track heptathlete and current Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Andrei Iosivas ’23. “He made you want to practice every day not only to get better for yourself, but for him.

He was a person that demanded your best.”

Samara, indeed, produced the best results. In the last 35 years, Samara was the only Ivy League coach to win all three Heptagonal championships—in cross country, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field—in the same year. In 35 years, no other coach managed it, while Samara did it 10 times.

“I think that Princeton should always strive to be the best at everything we do,” said Samara.

“Whether that’s in athletics, academics, how our campus looks, the cleanliness of campus, just everything. Everything. And that’s what I tell my team. We have to, we always strive to be the best you. You have to be the best person, you have to be the best teammate, you have to be the best student.”

This strive-for-the-best men-

tality is something that Samara has always believed in, and he encouraged his athletes to do the same, nourishing a culture of success in the program.

“Throughout my time at Princeton he was a constant source of inspiration and encouragement,” said Miller. “His passion and dedication to this team were unparalleled. No one cared more about the success of the program than Coach Samara.”

After 46 years of leading the men’s track and field team to victory after victory — including a fifth-place NCAA indoor championship finish in 2022 —the lasting legacy Samara leaves on the program and its athletes is undeniable.

“The togetherness of Princeton men’s track and field resembles more of a big family, rather than a track team, and at the

center of it all is Coach,” said Shunneson. “He is a coaching genius and one of the all-time greats in our sport. It is difficult to imagine the program without Coach, so I was excited when he told me that he would still be around working out in Jadwin, even after his retirement.”

As he has assured his athletes, Samara’s plans for retirement involve returning to Princeton’s campus every day.

“Well, I’ll be around Princeton every day because I have a kind of a legendary workout scheme,” said Samara. “I work out every day, and I think that’s important for anybody to do when they get older. But, you know, [Princeton’s] such a big part of my life, and I don’t want to leave it totally. So I’ll be around, and we’ll see what happens.”

After decades of striving for

and achieving the best, Samara hopes retirement will allow for new adventures beyond athletics.

“Part of the reason why I retired is that I was at Penn for four years, and, before that, obviously in high school doing athletics, and then 46 years at Princeton,” said Samara. “ I just felt it was time to do something else, whatever that’s gonna be. It could be just being around the house and being with my family, which is fine, and then if there’s a new adventure, then great.”

Although his athletes will be thrilled to see Samara visit campus often, Princeton’s men’s track team will need a new head coach, and whoever takes over will have remarkably large shoes to fill.

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