Protesters, fire alarm disrupt former prime minister of Israel
A walkout, a fire alarm, and a group singing the Israeli national anthem.
A speaker event with former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on Monday was interrupted at various points, with approximately 20 protesters walking out of the event, an extended disruption by an individual who does not appear to have an affiliation with Princeton in the middle, a subsequent fire alarm interruption, singing by the event’s
U. AFFAIRS
attendees at the end, and yelling between protesters and event attendees in the courtyard after.
The off-the-record event, which was hosted by the Center of Jewish Life (CJL) and co-sponsored by the School of Public and International Affairs, the Program in Judaic Studies, Scharf Family Chabad House of Princeton, and the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, was held in McCosh 10. Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91, the director of the CJL, moderated the discussion. Approximately 200 students, faculty, and other community members were in attendance.
Outside the building, about 200
pro-Palestine protesters chanted, screamed and banged on drums in a display of their dissatisfaction at the decision to host the former Israeli prime minister. The chants of protestors outside were audible inside the lecture hall throughout the talk, and reached as far as Firestone Library and the Architecture Building.
Steinlauf welcomed former Prime Minister of Israel Naftali Bennett to the stage shortly after 7:30 p.m. Before declaring that the event was off-the-record, Steinlauf briefly read through Princeton’s regulations on free speech and warned that
U. is investigating disruption at Bennett event, Eisgruber says
By Vitus Larrieu Senior News Writer
The University is investigating the disruption of a speaker event on Monday with former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 wrote to The Daily Princetonian on Tuesday. Eisgruber also said that he had personally apologized to Bennett and said he was “appalled at reports of antisemitic language” outside the event. Eisgruber’s statement followed a letter written by Danielle Shapiro ’25 and Maximillian Meyer ’27, the respective presidents of pro-Israel student groups B’Artzeinu Princeton and Princeton Tigers for Israel. The letter accused protesters of antisemitism, asking Eisgruber to implement a campus-wide mask ban and dissolve Princeton’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The letter also called on Eisgruber to issue a public apology to Bennett and initiate disciplinary action against the protesters.
The event with Bennett was ini-
tially disrupted by 20 demonstrators shouting “Naftali Bennett, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide” before walking out of the lecture hall the event was being held in. Another protester disrupted the event several minutes later, yelling at Bennett and refusing to leave for several minutes before being walked out by Public Safety officers and free speech coordinators. The event was further derailed when the fire alarm went off, an action that some have attributed to protesters. Attendees then began singing, including the Israeli national anthem.
Outside, over 200 protesters chanted in McCosh courtyard throughout the duration of the event. As people from the talk spilled into the courtyard, interactions between protesters and event attendees became tense, with people on both sides of the fence shouting at each other.
Despite the presence of protesters at the event, Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ’91, the executive director of the Center for Jewish Life (CJL), high-
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REFERENDUM PASSES
lighted the perceived success of the event in a written statement to the CJL community on Tuesday.
“Those who tried to silence us could not succeed,” he wrote. “Their efforts to disrupt the event instead brought forth something even stronger: a joyful, defiant affirmation of Jewish life and identity.”
The event was a rare example of a speaker being shouted down at Princeton. It comes a week after the Trump administration suspended several dozen grants to the University, citing a pending investigation into antisemitism on campus from last April.
The letter from Meyer and Shapiro describes a number of alleged remarks at the protests as antisemitic, including “go back to Europe,” “you’re all fucking inbred,” and “inbred swine.” The letter also claimed that a protester used an upside-down triangle symbol, which has been used by Hamas’s military wing to identify Israeli targets.
By Leonard Milberg
Last month, I had the chance to review Princeton’s Report of the Treasurer for the 2024 fiscal year. Having spent most of my working time since 1967 as Chairman of a quite successful mid-size financial company that has made a respectable profit every year, I have read a number of financial statements in my time. But Princeton’s report this year has made me quite concerned. Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO), the University’s investment office, has invested much of its money in illiquid assets which could be difficult to turn into cash quickly at an amount close to
the value listed on the University’s financial statements.
In a volatile political environment, our lack of liquidity limits how fast we can draw from the endowment, as well as how sure we are about its true value. With Princeton under threat of funding cuts from the federal government, liquidity is essential.
With our current investment distribution, the endowment hasn’t been doing so well in recent years. Last valued at $34.1 billion, it declined by 1.7 percent in the fiscal year 2023 (FY2023) and gained 3.9 percent
Institutional neutrality roundtable addresses federal funding and free speech
By Meghana Veldhuis Senior News Writer
In light of recent scrutiny on higher education by the U.S. federal government, on April 2, the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom (PCAF) held a roundtable discussion in McCosh Hall titled, “Should Universities Engage in Politics?”
The meeting came after President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 declared that Princeton will not practice institutional neutrality in his annual State of the University letter published on Jan. 29.
Institutional neutrality states that colleges and universities should not make collective statements, a point of discussion at Princeton in the wake of Eisgruber’s statement, especially as several other universities adopted institutional neutrality.
The discussion was moderated by Princeton politics professor Frances Lee. University of Chicago philosophy professor Anton Ford, Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy ’77, and Yale politics professor Keith Whittington all shared their opinions on the role that Princeton and other universities should generally play during a time of turmoil in higher education. Eve Krakowski, a professor in the Department of Near Eastern Studies and one of the PCAF co-chairs, spoke to The Daily Princetonian in an interview about organizing the discussion. “[PCAF] has two core missions. One is to defend academic freedom, and we had no idea how timely that would be. The other is promotion of respectful and seriously engaged discussion across differences,” she shared.
This event comes in amid federal funding cuts and pauses at several universities, including Princeton. On April
1, Eisgruber announced in an email that the Trump administration suspended several dozen research grants to the University. After the Trump administration cancelled $400 million in federal funding at Columbia University, Eisgruber took to The Atlantic to rebuke the government’s actions as “a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research.”
Elaborating on the motivations of PCAF, Krakowski specified that she wanted to represent the different philosophies around institutional neutrality. “The original idea was to really tackle the idea of political neutrality at the institutional level, which is something that we as a council believe in but recognize is complicated,” she said.
She said that PCAF selected speakers who have “all either written or spoken about aspects of [institutional neutrality],” making sure to garner a collection of diverse perspectives.
“The moral threat to universities is external, not internal. It does not come from our students,” Ford, who offered opening remarks, noted.
Kennedy, citing the current political environment as “worse than McCarthyism,” stated that his perspective on institutional neutrality is that universities should be careful not to “needlessly bring heat onto the institution.” Instead, he believes the increased popularity of institutional neutrality among universities in recent times could be “a fearful stance” rather than a result of any inherent benefit of institutional neutrality.
“The core responsibility of the university is to resist those pressures to suppress controversial speech that people disagree with and instead hold the standard that universities are places in which people get to speak their
minds,” Whittington added.
When Lee asked about the recent suspension of federal funding by the Trump Administration, Whittington shared, “I think we’re facing a kind of scope and detail of pressure on universities from the political arena that really we’ve never faced in this country before.” He added that state universities face additional pressures as they need to follow their state’s legislation in addition to federal.
Ford additionally discussed external funding pressures, highlighting the role of external donors beyond the government. “As federal funds are withdrawn from the university … the only place that these institutions have to turn is donors … the less [universities] can depend on the government, the more they depend on the rich,” he stated. Ford speculated that universities’ responses to encampment protests in Spring 2024 often involved an element of responding to donors’ requests.
Regarding how universities should handle publishing public statements, Whittington said that, “We ought to distinguish between statements and actions. And I think a lot of the arguments and concerns that are applicable if you think about statements are not so applicable when we think about actions.” He added that certain issues that students push for statements on, such as divestment, are feasibly actionable and require a concrete plan to accomplish — which goes beyond a simple statement.
After Lee concluded pre-determined questions, she opened up the floor to audience questions. “At what point do you go from acceptable student protest to behavior that is destructive to the mission of the university?” one audience member
asked. Kennedy clarified that, though students may have perceived universities’ responses to protests as confusing, public universities are allowed to prohibit unlawful verbal conduct in alignment with the First Amendment. He also noted that all schools have their own policies regarding disruptive behavior.
Another audience member asked about a resolution, proposed at an Oct. 21, 2024 faculty meeting by multiple PCAF members, that would prohibit collective faculty statements. She stated that the faculty are going to meet and potentially vote on issues pertaining statement containment in a few weeks and asked how the panelists were planning on voting. Whittington answered, “My own view is faculty shouldn’t be issuing those kinds of institutional statements … while also making sure that we all recognize and continue to value and protect the ability of faculty to speak out individually.”
At the Oct. 21 faculty meeting, the faculty voted with a narrow margin to postpone voting on controversial proposals and to form an ad-hoc com-
mittee to research faculty-wide statements.
Another audience member asked again about how funding cuts will impact universities, specifying his confusion over how universities are planning to sustain themselves with the potential of federal cuts remaining long term.
Kennedy responded by emphasizing that universities will need public support in the coming years, especially noting how Ivy League institutions like Princeton can often face additional public derision of Ivy League universities as elitist. He asked, “How do we convince people to stand with us? How do we convince people that we are actually contributing? Maybe we should do a better job of making [Princeton] more available to a wider scope of people, so that a wider scope of people feel like they have a stake.”
Meghana Veldhuis is a senior News writer for the ‘Prince.’ She is from Bergen County, N.J., and typically covers graduate students, postdocs, faculty, and campus unions and labor.
U. punts on releasing total operating budget after funding cuts, says it will support financial aid
By Luke Grippo Senior News Writer
Following funding cuts, a hiring freeze, and increased scrutiny from the federal government, the Board of Trustees did not announce the total operating budget for the University in its budget plan press release for the 2025–26 academic year. However, the University did commit to “projected” increases in undergraduate financial aid and graduate student stipends.
This annual announcement typically updates the campus community on important information regarding the operating budget, financial support for students, and how costs have changed. The missing operating budget marks a departure from the past three years, as the University has shared it in these announcements since the 2022–2023 academic year, and may reflect continued uncertainty about future funding.
According to the article from the Office of Communications, the projected increase in total Undergraduate financial aid is intended to support the University’s commitment to access, affordability, socioeconomic diversity, and the expansion of the undergraduate population. The University plans to augment the undergraduate aid budget by eight percent, from $279 million to $306 million. Graduate student
support, which assists in degree and research funding, will increase by seven percent, from $335 million to $365 million.
The University has steadily increased its financial aid offers since 2001, when it became the first university “in the country to eliminate loans from undergraduate aid packages, enabling students to graduate debt-free,” according to the University’s statement.
In the 2001–02 academic year, the average grant awarded to students covered 65 percent of total student charges; the average award is now projected to cover 90 percent of total student charges.
The University’s financial aid program was revamped in 2023 to cover all costs for just over 25 percent of the undergraduate population, and Princeton is widely regarded as having one of the most generous financial aid programs among higher education institutions.
Currently, families with incomes up to $100,000 are eligible to receive full attendance assistance, covering all costs of attendance, including tuition, dining, and housing, while families with incomes up to $200,000 can receive aid that covers the full tuition cost.
Two-thirds of all undergraduate students currently receive assistance, including those from families with incomes up to $300,000. In 2024–25, the total cost for undergraduates was $82,650, and the cost for the av-
erage aid recipient was $13,000; for 2025–26, the total cost for undergraduates is set to be $86,380, and the average aid recipient is expected to pay $10,380.
These changes to undergraduate financial aid also accompany the changes to graduate funding.
Under the newly approved budget, there will be a “3.2 percent average increase in graduate fellowship and stipend rates,” the University’s statement said. This change is expected to support graduate students as uncertainties around funding and internship opportunities arise following multiple executive orders pausing federal funding and hiring.
However, these changes are
mostly funded by the endowment, which covers 70 percent of the undergraduate financial aid budget and 60 percent of the overall operating budget. The University has faced endowment challenges in recent weeks, and is currently considering issuing bonds for the first time since 2022.
The University did address the issue of recent federal funding concerns in its statement, and noted that the operating budget is susceptible to change. “While the total size of the 2025–26 operating budget may change due to uncertainty about federally sponsored research funding, which represents almost one-fifth of Princeton’s overall annual spending,
the Board of Trustees at their late March meeting approved primary budget parameters and affirmed the University’s unwavering commitment to financial support for students,” the statement read.
The Daily Princetonian reached out to University Communications to confirm when an operating budget would be finalized; the University declined to answer.
Luke Grippo is a senior News writer and Features contributor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from South Jersey and usually covers administrative issues, including Undergraduate Student Government, the Council of the Princeton University Community, and institutional legacy.
AMMAAR ALAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN McCosh from the outside.
Faculty vote to remove references to affirmative action from procedures, non-discrimination statement
By Nikki Han & Sena Chang Assistant News Editor & Senior News Writer
Faculty members voted to approve a proposal to remove references to affirmative action and other suggestions of race-based preferential treatment from the University’s Non-Discrimination Statement and the Rules and Procedures of the Faculty. Instead, the language will center the University’s current commitment to “Equity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity.” This proposal was passed at the faculty meeting held on April 7, with only a few opposing votes.
The removals could also extend to other University statements and policies. “It is also appropriate to remove references to ‘affirmative action’ from University statements and policies pursuant to Executive Order 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”),” a footnote on the proposal reads.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled to dismantle affirmative action for college admissions on the basis that “many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.”
More recently, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies at universities have come under attack by the Trump administration in a slew of executive or-
ders. Critics of DEI contend that it poses a threat to merit-based opportunities. Princeton, however, has remained committed to DEI. In his State of the University Letter in 2025, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 wrote that the annual DEI report displays “the important work of students, faculty, staff and alumni to build community and support success and belonging at the University.”
The proposed revision to remove references to affirmative action is intended to clarify ”the University’s commitments and accurately defines current faculty search practices,” according to the Office of the Dean of the Faculty.
Provision IV.J of the Rules and Procedures of the Faculty, which is currently entitled “Affirmative Action,” will be amended to “Equity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity.”
Language that currently stresses “broadening the Faculty to include more women and minority group members” when considering tenure track positions will be changed to highlight the importance of “identifying candidates who will contribute to the University’s strategic excellence and expand the curriculum.”
Previously, while each department had a search officer responsible in part for safeguarding affirmative action, the search officer will now work with the Dean of the Faculty “to review and expand candidate pools, where appropriate.”
Two full sub-clauses will also be removed: sub-clause (1)(a),
which states that the search officer should track “availability data concerning women and minorities” and investigate possible reasons if applicants from these groups are “significantly less than the data would lead one to expect,” and sub-clause (1) (b), which states that the search officer should “review files” of women and minority applicants who have been rejected and “determine whether any might merit further consideration.”
In the Office of the Dean of the Faculty’s Non-Discrimination Statement, a reference to “equal opportunity and affirmative action regulations and laws,” will be amended so that the section of the sentence that states “and affirmative action” will be struck out.
The statement also currently refers to non-discrimination on the basis of “national or ethnic origin.” In the new statement, the word “ethnic” will be struck out and replaced by subsequent mentions of “ancestry” and “genetic information.” The new statement will read that the University does not discriminate on the basis of “national origin, ancestry, disability, genetic information.”
The revised Non-Discrimination Statement will also include new references to Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin “in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance” and Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to discrimi-
nate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Currently, the statement only refers to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally-funded education programs and activities, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects certain “qualified” individuals from discrimination based on their disability.
The Non-Discrimination Statement will also include a sentence stating that “inquiries about the application of Title VI or Title IX and supporting regulations may also be directed to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education.” On Tuesday March 11, the Trump administration slashed half of the Office for Civil Rights amidst widespread layoffs.
The statement will also add a new reference to non-discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy and related conditions.”
According to Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion Rayna Truelove, the changes are meant for “creating a fair and global search process [when hiring], as such, ensuring that there is not any particular preference given to any particular protected characteristic or or identity.”
Nikki Han is an assistant News editor and a contributing Features writer. She runs the Faculty, Graduate Students, and Alumni coverage area.
Sena Chang is a senior News writer for the ‘Prince.’ She typically covers campus and community activism, the state of higher education, and alumni news.
After passing in the fall, four student referenda appear stalled
By Kian Petlan News Contributor
Undergraduate students passed four referenda last fall with at least 65 percent of votes for a variety of issues, including divestment from weapons manufacturers, dissociation from fossil fuel companies, improving standards for student workers, and instituting a pass/D/fail option for language classes.
But several months after the vote, University administrators have indicated that the referenda will not necessarily be implemented — and the student sponsors say they are unclear on where their proposals currently stand.
“It’s very much behind closed doors. [There’s] no transparency at all,” said Anna Buretta ’27, the sponsor of Referendum No. 3, which advocated for fossil fuel dissociation.
At a meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) in February, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 referred to the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) student referenda as “something that the student government created” and emphasized that the referenda are “not part of something that is a part of University administrative processes.”
The CPUC includes students, faculty, and staff as well as top administrators like Eisgruber and Vice President for Campus Life W. Rochelle Calhoun.
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill referred The Daily Princetonian to Eisgruber’s com-
ments in response to questions about the status of the referenda.
Despite having no binding power over University policy, USG referenda have a long history on Princeton’s campus, often acting as a driving force behind campus discourse and, in some cases, producing tangible change.
For example, a November 2020 referendum that called for fossil fuel divestment passed with 82 percent approval among students. Two years later, in September 2022, the Board of Trustees voted to dissociate from 90 fossil fuel companies, including major players like Exxon Mobil Corp. and NRG Energy Inc (although late last year, the University said it would accept some research funding with fossil fuel companies previously subject to dissociation).
Some referenda have been more contentious, and less successful in promoting change. The Caterpillar referendum, for example, which called on the University to halt the usage of Caterpillar construction equipment, passed the student body vote in 2022 according to the rules of the USG. However, USG later upheld an appeal contesting the efficacy of the vote, choosing not to move forward with a recommendation to the University to implement the Caterpillar referendum.
Position papers drafted by the USG Senate — which outlined students’ stances on each of the referenda — were sent to University administrators on Jan. 26, as required for successful referenda.
In a written statement to the
‘Prince,’ USG President Enzo Kho ’26 and Vice President Aishwarya Swamidurai ’26 wrote that student referenda were “a meaningful mechanism for students to express their perspectives and advocate for issues they care about.”
They added that USG’s main responsibility was to administer the referenda and effectively communicate the positions expressed — and that the USG Senate did not take a position on the “underlying referendum question(s).”
Bryce Springfield ’25, an organizer with the Young Democratic Socialists of America who con-
tributed to portions of Referendum No. 2 — which advocated for improved employment standards for student workers — said that while he had met with administrators about the proposal, it was not necessarily the only end goal.
“The referendum process is a way to get people conscious about various issues,” he said. “Students do not have any democratic control over [the] University by any official means.”
These comments came amid growing frustration among progressive campus groups over the lack of administrative action on
the referenda.
Buretta expressed her view on the relationship between the University and USG initiatives.
“I think that a university that thrives and prospers is one where the people running the university are in constant communication with the students,” she said. “If they’re essentially dismissing referenda then there’s literally no way for us to hold University officials accountable. And I don’t think that is a healthy dynamic.”
Kian Petlan is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’
ANNIE RUPERTUS / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
The faculty meeting was held in McCosh Hall.
ANNIE
It begins: 2025 residential college draw
By Vincent Etherton & Alexa Wingate head Data Editors
Count yourselves lucky, Class of 2029. Your rooms are already set aside for you. Meanwhile, rising sophomores and some rising juniors and seniors will vie for residential college rooms starting on Wednesday, April 2. In the upcoming days, students will draw into the various four-year residential college options in a wide range of buildings built from 1877 to 2022.
There are 1,001 rooms available during this year’s residential college draw. Some will end up in a one-room triple or a 99-square-foot trapezoidal single, and one lucky group will find themselves in a 1,115 sq. ft. quad in Whitman, half the size of the median newly-constructed single-family home in the United States.
Butler College’s room draw will start off the set. Each following day, students intending to draw into Forbes, Mathey, New College West, Rockefeller, Whitman, and Yeh will draw in that order. The final day of residential college draw is April 10. Every year, first-year rooms are withheld from the room draw process so that incoming first years can be assigned to advising groups centered around their Residential College Advisor. Rising sophomores who requested housing accommodations have already been assigned their rooms.
The number of available rooms in each college varies year-by-year depending on the number of rooms reserved for incoming freshmen or students requesting accommodations. The number of available rooms on the upperclass draw list has increased by 11.4 percent — 96 rooms — since last year, even though there are 2,234 students on the list, 40 fewer than last year.
Whitman is offering the most singles this year, with 129 available to the 478 students currently on the Whitman draw list. Rockefeller College, in contrast, has the fewest number of singles up for draw, with 58 rooms available to the 393 students on the draw list.
Students drawing in Butler College have the best chances of getting a “quingle” — a spacious quad with a common room and independent bedrooms for each resident. Butler, with 11 available quingles, is followed by the three newest residential colleges, New College West, Yeh, and Whitman, which each have eight.
For students seeking doubles, Forbes is most plentiful, with 68 two-person rooms available — three times as many as next-in-line Mathey’s 23. However, over 80 percent of two-person rooms offered in Forbes are single-room doubles.
Antoun Salib ’26 is the student in a solo draw group with the first overall pick in the Mathey draw. “I drew alone, and that’s be -
cause I want a single,” Salib told the ‘Prince.’ “I’m really just looking for size and location, so I’m probably just gonna choose the biggest single in Little [Hall],” Salib continued. While Joline Hall and Campbell Hall singles have, on average, 20 additional square feet, Little Hall is more centrally located.
Murley-Pivirotto Tower in Whitman College and 99 Alexander Street, part of Forbes College, have the highest average square footage per resident, with around 197 square feet and 207 square feet respectively.
However, there are discrepancies in the data: According to the University’s officially published available rooms list, Room 205, a two-bedroom double with an en suite bathroom at 99 Alexander Street — colloquially known as the “Pink House” — offers residents 340 square feet each and close proximity to the building’s private kitchen and lounge. Meanwhile, the floor plans of the Pink House show that Room 205 is much smaller than claimed by the university, offering each resident closer to 200 square feet.
The two halls with the lowest average square footage per person are Lauritzen Hall in Whitman and Forbes Main Inn with 134 sq. ft. and 137 sq. ft., most likely due to the high amount of low-squarefootage singles in Whitman and the high amount of small single-room doubles in Forbes.
With the exception of quads, Rockefeller College has the highest average square footage among all room types when compared to other residential colleges. On average, Rocky doubles are larger than Forbes triples. However, Forbes has the largest singles.
By the end of the residential college draw, four students will have the opportunity to live in the largest sophomore quad on campus, 1981 F201 in Whitman College, which has 1115 square feet. As one former inhabitant commented on TigerDraw:
“Amazing room! The four singles are all larger than any one person reasonably needs, and the common room is still not crowded with a couch, two armchairs, a futon, a fridge, and a TV on a cabinet.”
Four other students will have the privilege of living in the fifth smallest quad across residential college draw, Campbell 32 in Rockefeller College, which has 422 square feet. On TigerDraw, one reviewer wrote:
“Campbell basically has the smallest quads of any res college. Its possible to debunk only if all of the desks and bookshelves are moved out… Campbell also looks like a WW2 bunker. you get used to it.”
Whether you score a palace in Whitman or a broom closet in Mathey, at the end of the day, it’s all just luck of the draw.
Vincent Etherton is a head Data editor for the ‘Prince.’ Alexa Wingate is a head Data editor for the ‘Prince.’
Over one thousand turn up for ‘Hands Off!’ rally in Princeton downtown
By Christopher Bao & Clara Docherty Head News Editor & News Contributor
More than 1,000 people packed into Hinds Plaza on Saturday for a ”Hands Off!” protest against the Trump administration, joining millions of others nationwide. Approximately 30 students attended a rally organized by Sunrise Princeton starting in Firestone Plaza, eventually joining the main event in town. Attendees at the campus rally expressed concern about a range of recent issues such as funding cuts to the University and deportations of international students, among other threats, with speakers urging protesters to “be loud on behalf of our international friends who are facing threats.”
Some protesters said they were grateful that Princeton has so far stood against Trump’s funding cuts, but they also expressed skepticism that the University would be willing to do more.
“We also must recognize that Princeton is not going to save us,” said Kristin Nagy ’27, an organizer for Students for Prison Education, Abolition and Reform.
The students then marched through East Pyne and made their way to the town, where hundreds of others had gathered. This larger protest was emceed by Laura Zurfluh of Indivisible Cranbury. The protest featured Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12); Reverend Bob Moore, the executive director of Coalition for Peace Action; NJ Senator Andrew Zwicker; Assemblyman Roy Freiman; and Assemblywoman
Mitchelle Drulis, as well as various representatives of local activist groups.
Attendees cited a multitude of reasons for showing up: Elon Musk and DOGE’s large-scale layoffs, the kneecapping of the Department of Education, the arrests and deportations of immigrants by ICE, the overhaul of social security, the administration’s recent tariffs, Trump’s attacks on NPR and PBS, and more.
The protestors held signs that ranged from “hands off our neighbors” to “only you can fight fascism,” “Down with DOGE,” “mass deportation is a crime against humanity! Fuck I.C.E.!” “Dissent is patriotic,” and “Dear Lord, please take the Sharpie away from him.”
New Jersey Senator Andrew Zwicker said in a speech that the administration is failing to uphold the Constitution.
“We refuse to let them make a mockery of our Constitution. We refuse to let them go after freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of love. After the Fourth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, we refuse to let them take people off the streets without due process, different skin color, who were born in a different country,” he said.
Gary Pearsall, another attendee of the rally, said that he was politically active in high school, but hadn’t since then been motivated to come to a rally until recently, when he was angered by the actions of the administration.
“I’ve watched the ebbs and flows over the decades,” Pearsall said.
“The right has gotten to a point where they are unwilling to lose and … they’re ready to take it all by force and shove their vision of what the United States should be down everyone else’s throat.”
Pearshall added that he would like his grandchildren to “grow up in the same country [he] did.”
The protest emphasized the importance of elevating younger voices. Gregory Stankiewicz GS ’05, the statewide coordinator for the New Jersey Community Schools Coalition, said that “the target of the [Trump administration] is our children and young adults.”
“We stand instead in the rich American tradition of seeing education as a way of binding all of us together, of preparing our children for the future, as a way of strengthening America.”
Assemblyman Roy Freiman, the deputy majority leader, spoke about the harms of research funding cuts.
“Princeton University, right across the street, is under threat and is being punished by Trump because they believe in free speech … Trump has stopped cancer research right here in New Jersey because he does not agree with universities,” Freiman said.
Amy Torres, a speaker at the protest, commended New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s record-breaking 25-hour filibuster protesting Trump and his administration. Her comment prompted chants of “Cory” among the crowd of protesters.
Mary Delia, an attendee of the protest, noted she was “inspired by Cory Booker.”
“I really do believe that we needed that moment in time to light a fire under people,” Delia said.
She noted that protests are important for engaging others in a political cause. “If having a protest like this and seeing this many people inspires more people to get out, then I feel like we’ve served a purpose from being here.”
Another attendee, Chris Delaney, went to the protest because Trump is “destroying our democracy.” She stressed the importance of Medicare and Social Security, which 71.6 million people rely on in the United States.
Delaney went to the rally with her sister, Maria Lombardi. The protest was Lombardi’s first, and she told the ‘Prince’ she was motivated to come out to the protest after seeing information about it online.
The final speaker of the rally was
Watson Coleman, the representative for Princeton, N.J. She opened with a focus on women’s rights by stating that she should be able to “make decisions for [her] own body.”
“This is the most corrupt and incompetent administration in my lifetime,” Coleman said.
When looking back to when President Trump entered office on Jan. 21, Coleman said she believed the nation back then was in a moment of uncertainty.
“We’re no longer in that moment. We’re in a movement.”
Christopher Bao is a head News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Princeton, N.J. and typically covers town politics and life.
Clara Docherty is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’
Faculty approve four new minors, including Native American and Indigenous Studies
By Nikki Han & Sena Chang Assistant News Editor & Senior News Writer
Princeton’s faculty approved the introduction of a new minor in Native American and Indigenous studies (NAIS) at the faculty meeting on April 7 along with three other minors in American Studies, Entrepreneurship, and Quantitative and Computational Biology. The NAIS minor comes after years of student advocacy for Indigenous scholarship.
A dedicated faculty committee within the Effron Center for the Study of America has been actively developing the NAIS minor program for several years. Last semester, the University hired its first Professor of Indigenous Studies in Anthropology J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, who began teaching this spring. In an interview with The Daily Princetonian in April 2024, Kauanui also expressed wishes to establish a minor program for NAIS.
“I’ve only had informal involvement, but I’ve been watching and paying attention to the development of the minor for the last several years … I’m really excited to see it finally happening,” Suzanne Conklin Akbari, a professor of Medieval Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, told the ‘Prince.’ Akbari works with Indigenous language support and local community engagement with the Lenape, which includes initiatives such as the Unami Language and History Symposium at Princeton held last week.
“The new minor would be grounded in a Native American and Indigenous studies framework that
highlights Indigenous governance, histories, and cultural continuity while examining the lasting impacts of historical structures and the ongoing efforts toward selfdetermination,” the Effron Center’s proposal reads.
The proposal also highlights “significant student interest” in NAIS, citing consistent over-enrollment in NAIS courses and an expansion in course offerings over the past five years. Akbari commended the role of Natives at Princeton (NAP) and their alumni counterparts in calling for the establishment of the minor and “bringing about this accomplishment.”
“I see the approval of the Native American and Indigenous Studies minor as a positive and long overdue step, one that reflects the tireless advocacy of many Indigenous and nonIndigenous students over the past years who have consistently voiced the need for this academic recognition,” Gustavo Andre Blanco-Quiroga ’25, one of the co-presidents of NAP, who has Aymara Indigenous roots, wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’
However, Blanco-Quiroga noted that the introduction of the minor remains “a relatively minor step” in comparison to what peer institutions have done to elevate Indigenous studies.
Until the introduction of this new minor, Princeton was among only three Ivy League institutions that did not offer a formal academic program focused on NAIS. A 2020 opinion piece in the ‘Prince’ also found that Princeton provided the least amount of academic, institutional, and so-
cial support for Indigenous students compared to peer institutions.
“Overall, I believe this is an important move Princeton is making toward being recognized as a ‘world-class institution,’ but there is still a long way to go for Princeton to meaningfully engage with and uplift global Indigenous studies as part of its academic vision,” BlancoQuiroga wrote.
Three certificate programs were also approved to become minors: American Studies, Entrepreneurship, and Quantitative and Computational Biology. In the past few years, the University has shifted
away from certificate programs and has replaced them with new minors.
The two terms are largely synonymous, and a shift towards using the word “minors” is an effort to move away from Princeton-specific terminology. During the transition, students will be able to pursue up to two minors, or a mix of minors and certificates.
Princeton’s efforts in expanding Indigenous scholarship dates back to 1970, when historians, artists, and scholars were invited by the University to its First Convocation of American Indian Scholars. “One of the things that’s really striking
about Princeton, I think, is that in some ways, there’s a deep history of Indigenous Studies here,” Akbari said.
“Institutionally, it’s a very particular place, and it will be wonderful to see how [the minor] takes shape.”
Nikki Han is an assistant News editor and a contributing Features writer. She runs the Faculty, Graduate Students, and Alumni coverage area.
Sena Chang is a senior News writer for the ‘Prince.’ She typically covers campus and community activism, the state of higher education, and alumni news.
GABY GUTIERREZ / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Princeton downtown during the protest.
By Peter Stover
The Minis
By Sid Singh CONTRIBUTING CONSTRUCTOR
Eisgruber’s empty defense of ‘academic freedom’
Zach Gardner Guest Contributor
In response to the Trump Administration’s recent efforts to suspend $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University and $210 million to Princeton University, professors and administrators have rushed to the defense of “academic freedom.” In a recent op-ed, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 charged President Trump with launching “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.” At stake, he argues, is the notion that “people and ideas [should] be judged by scholarly standards, not according to the whims or interests of powerful trustees, donors, or political officials.”
What Eisgruber doesn’t consider, however, is that the threat to academic freedom comes not from the government but from the universities themselves. Rather than focusing on external threats, Princeton should turn the microscope inward and acknowledge the recurring problem of intellectual diversity in its ranks. Allowing faculty to write and research freely, although admirable on its face, ignores a deeper problem. Faculty might indeed be unencumbered by external threats, but they will be constrained, internally, by the ideas and methods incentivized by the academic monoculture in which they work.
Consider a few statistics. First, according to a 2020 study, Democratic
registration of Princeton faculty outpaced Republican registration by a staggering 40:1 ratio. Across the universities surveyed, the average was 8.4:1. When it came to donations, none of the surveyed Princeton faculty reported donating to Republicans. What’s more, a 2017 study found that between 1969 and 2014, the conservative-liberal ratio among American college and university faculty rose from just under 2:1 to just below 5:1.
Contrary to President Eisgruber’s assertions, there is little threat that future “left-leaning politicians may demand that universities do their bidding.” For all intents and purposes, the universities already do — and this is a problem that shows only signs of worsening.
A few years ago, then-professor Joshua Katz was ousted after a University investigation said he was not forthcoming about an inquiry into a consensual relationship with an undergraduate. But the circumstances under which the charges were brought — after he had made controversial comments about a student organization — raised doubts as to the University’s true motives. Moreover, Princeton violated the sacred tenet of professorial tenure in firing Katz, precisely meant to protect academic freedom. Elsewhere, Princeton departments have relentlessly pushed diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on their own faculty, with some including antiracism or diversity statements on their websites.
This cultural problem has spread to the University administration’s decisions around the system of no-
communication orders — reserved for victims of sexual harassment and stalking — which was allowed to be weaponized against Jewish student journalists trying to cover campus protests for my student publication, The Princeton Tory. As long as they receive federal funding, universities cannot be as independent as they claim. James Madison, a member of the Class of 1771, warned in the Federalist Papers about worthless written demarcations of authority. The ideal of “independent academic institutions” may sound great in principle, but in a monocultural academic system tied incestuously to the federal government, such a promise is nothing but a parchment barrier. Indeed, now, universities also cannot expect to shirk public accountability for their commitment to progressive ideology. Universities should not pretend to be independent when they are not.
President Eisgruber’s response thus betrays an entitlement that only decades in academia can cultivate. The American people have little patience for institutions of higher education, especially given decades of cultural and economic preferentialism given to college graduates, years of discrimination in admissions practices, and months of destructive protests. They see their hard work being exploited to pay the debts of college graduates, watering the ivy of academia with the sweat of their brow. When institutions like Princeton betray their academic mission in pursuit of ideology, they break the social contract made with the American people, adding the insult
of hypocrisy to economic injury.
In his article, Eisgruber exposes his own ideological bias by asserting that research universities exist to “challenge political power” and “overcome injustices.” In his 2025 State of the University letter, he writes that “diversity and inclusivity are essential to the excellence of our campus communities and the achievement of our educational mission.” Academic freedom, which exists to protect faculty in their pursuit of truth in teaching and research, has been appropriated to catechize university communities in the credos of diversity and identitarianism. Ideology threatens academic freedom because it narrows the scope of the ideas that will be entertained, disfavoring ideas not for lack of intellectual rigor but simply for ideological non-alignment.
Such a politicized conception of a university’s mission breeds disaster, especially in the sciences. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the scientific establishment squashed the opinions of thinkers whose findings went outside the academic mainstream. Stanford health economist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was ruthlessly shamed for his independent findings on the adverse effects of lockdowns, incurring the wrath of the scientific establishment and some in the Stanford faculty. Hoover Institution fellow Scott Atlas was censured by an 85 percent vote of the Stanford Faculty Senate for the crime of “promot[ing] a view of COVID-19 that contradicts medical science.”
America’s universities have an ideological problem on their hands,
but their leaders refuse to admit any wrongdoing nor propose any improvements. Rather than honestly and humbly justifying their work to the American people, administrators exploit their institutions’ successful pasts to maintain their current cultural standing. At the same time, like at Princeton, they attack the figures who contributed to the very prestige they now wield as a weapon. Until they either admit their actual intentions or reform their institutions to truly reflect the principles they claim to value, these universities should expect continued pressure from both the public and the federal government. If President Eisgruber is right about one thing, it is that America’s universities have contributed mightily to its greatness. Many, like Princeton, were crucial to the nation’s founding, and they have proven crucial to its climb toward global leadership. But we cannot trust these institutions with prestige and public funding if they use them without regard for the people, and country, they claim to serve. If Princeton wants to regain the trust of the American people, it should start by ditching ideology and pursuing truth. Only then can true academic freedom flourish in its halls.
Zach Gardner is a junior majoring in Politics and minoring in English and History. He is the publisher of The Princeton Tory, the President of the Princeton Federalist Society, and the President of the Princeton Open Campus Coalition. He can be reached at zachgardner[at]princeton.edu.
Writing Seminars must prioritize substance over structure
Ziyi Yan Opinion Contributor
It seems like every first-year has a story to offer about the ubiquitous stress and exhaustion of Princeton’s Writing Seminars. My peers often mention pulling all-nighters to finish their Writing Seminar assignments, and I’ve heard countless students say that they want to drop the class altogether. Still, the general consensus among students and professors is that the Writing Seminar is a bitter medicine: it may be hard to take, but it’s good for you! As the only class that all students must take, Writing Seminar positions itself as the gateway to academic life at Princeton. As long as we do our best, Writing Seminars promise to provide a solid foundation in writing and research skills that will serve us as we navigate our junior paper, senior thesis, and beyond.
On closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that Princeton’s Writing Seminars do a poor job of introducing students to academia. Before embarking on academic research, students in Writing Seminars are introduced to two important terms: “motive” is the purpose of academic research, and “methods” are the techniques that must be employed to achieve a given motive. The “motive” of Writing Seminars is to teach students “transferable skills in critical inquiry, argument, and research methods.”
However, these seminars employ a misguided pedagogical model that neglects the discipline-specific research skills that students will actually need in their future pursuits, and their structure disincentivizes deep intellectual engagement. Therefore, if Princeton hopes to cultivate genuine intellectual inquiry, the writing program must diversify its offerings and prioritize the research process over the finished product.
All Writing Seminars incorporate an independent research assignment in which students are encouraged to develop methodological skills. However, Writing Seminars do not actually provide an introduction to distinctive research methods such as quantitative analysis, archival research, and ethnography. During the independent research unit, my professor told me that I should undertake a digital ethnography, but the only guidance I was given on this method were links to three anthropology articles. While students in the anthropology department are required to take two full courses focused on methodology in preparation for their senior thesis, I was expected to “contribute to a genuine scholarly conversation” — as my course syllabus stipulates — armed with only a few hyperlinks.
Writing Seminars attempt to make up for their lack of substantive methodological training by imposing inflexible timelines and grading structures. Real research is never predictable: a months-long literature
review could reveal that an intended academic contribution is implausible, and an initial research plan could lead to a new path that requires far more time to pursue. Princeton even preaches that “any good research project” contains “intellectual twists and turns” where “the questions emerge as they proceed, often taking [students] in unexpected directions.”
Yet Writing Seminar students are given two weeks to complete a research proposal, two weeks to create a first draft, and two weeks to transform that draft into a polished product. For first-year students, who often lack previous experience in their Writing Seminar’s topic and who aren’t given proper methodological training, such a timeline is simply incompatible with intellectual nuance and exploration. In the face of tight deadlines, students have no choice but to forgo creative thinking and ambitious research aims.
Princeton is full of creative, intelligent students who love to learn. When even students who might otherwise enjoy writing regard Writing Seminars with dread, it is time to stop insisting on an approach that doesn’t work.
The assignment guidelines for my writing seminar’s first long-form essay tell students to “embrace the value of radical and—dare I say— revolutionary revision.” Indeed, I changed my entire approach to motive halfway through my first essay assignment. Though this led to many sleepless nights, it also taught me the value of change and open-minded-
ness.
While the project of Writing Seminar is intellectually worthwhile, its flaws make it difficult for students to reap its proposed benefits. Currently, the compressed schedule of Writing Seminar makes it difficult for firstyears to pursue “revolutionary revision” without compromising their wellbeing. Additionally, rather than teaching students how to conduct research, Writing Seminars use convoluted grading practices to teach students what a finished product should look like. As a result, we are unable to fully realize our potential for motivated intellectual exploration.
But it is not too late for Princeton’s writing program to change course. Instead of applying a one-size-fits-all approach to research, Princeton must truly introduce students to the methods and writing styles of the academic fields they are passionate about. Because Writing Seminars are based on topics rather than disciplines, the 12 students in each seminar will inevitably pursue projects that require different methods. No matter how dedicated a given instructor is, it is impossible to train students in so many different methods within the span of a few weeks — especially given that students have varying levels of prior research experience. Furthermore, the writing program’s approach to scholarship neglects entire academic fields. For example, an overwhelming majority of this semester’s 38 Writing Seminar instructors are trained in the human-
ities. Only four instructors have any background in scientific research, and not a single Writing Seminar focuses on artistic or creative forms of communication. Therefore, Writing Seminars fail to equip students with the skills they will need to uniquely convey ideas in all of the academic disciplines that Princeton offers. In order to foreground methodological training, Princeton’s Writing Seminars could take inspiration from the University of Pennsylvania’s writing program, which allows students to pick between introductory writing courses geared specifically to different academic disciplines. Princeton can expand on this approach by creating seminar options tailored toward prospective chemists, legal scholars, creative writers, and more. Students should be able to engage various scholarly fields by exploring multiple seminars, and each seminar should develop tailored assignments that encourage curiosity and risktaking rather than false perfection. After all, every piece of real, published research is an experimental contribution to the scholarly discourse, and scholarly fields themselves are sites of constant revision. Rather than creating a distorted microcosm of academia, Princeton must open the doors to the possibility — and the imperfection — of true knowledge.
Ziyi Yan is a first-year student and a prospective History or Anthropology major. She is from Riverside, Connecticut and Shanxi, China.
Campus bags unzipped: the good, the bad, and the bulky
The precious minutes before classes wrap for the day are often signaled by the crinkling of paper and the echo of rushed zippers. Cramming loose pencils and expensive laptops into their bags of choice, students brush by each other as they near the classroom exit.
Some students carry bags that are clear forms of aesthetic expression, while others seem to use a bag only because they had to. Wrapping up the last of my classes for the day, I found myself leisurely strolling through the main campus, taking in the clusters of students hauling everything from full backpacks to empty totes. In these moments of observation, here’s what I found.
As groups of students open the heavy wooden doors at McCosh 50, you can’t help but notice a wave of sleek, minimal black bags. Spanning brands from The North Face to Her -
schel Supply & Co., these bags rarely deviate from the norm with a sleek, minimal aesthetic, except for the occasional decorated pin or sentimental patch.
Many of these bags have been accompanying their student counterparts since their high school years.
In an interview with The Daily Princetonian, Nicole Ramirez ’27 said of her bag, “I’ve had her since my sophomore year of high school, and I just have to sew her up every once in a while.”
Aside from the usual worn-down backpack, another familiar backpack among the student body continues the sporty, sleek trend — the Princeton athlete backpack, adorned with tags and symbols of the owner’s sport.
But even athletes are updating their bags — although within the brands under which they are contracted.
“We get one every year. So I’ve just kind of cycled through four back-
packs during my time here,” said Mason Armstead ’25, a defensive back on the football team. While athletes aren’t required to wear their issued bags, he mentioned some restrictions on the type of bag he is allowed to carry: “No Under Armour or some other sports teams [brands],” he said, since the Princeton football team contracts with Nike.
Beyond their oftentimes simple exteriors, backpacks are a popular choice of bag because of their useful interiors. With a million random pockets, the most organized (or disorganized) student can neatly manage their items, or at least attempt to. The appeal of these bags is simple, and their function is guaranteed for users: Even the clumsiest student knows that their expensive technology won’t be cracked anytime soon.
Pushing past the sea of black bags and moving towards East Pyne, the bag colors shifted from black to beige and from two shoulder straps to one. Rather than minimalist exteriors and complex interiors, the world of tote bags, designed with the opposite concept, opened in front of me.
Like a treasure hunt without the map, tote users must forage in their bag for their singular pen, which, of course, is right next to the book they don’t read.
Dylan Conard ’27 uses a canvas tote bag that has a light blue painted background stamped with picturesque images of France. Conard found the tote during his trip to Paris, where he was visiting a family member. This was typical with tote users I spoke to: Designs were often tied to the stories of where students found them.
In fact, from the Princeton-branded totes found in the U-Store to totes found abroad in foreign places like Madrid and Greece, it seems that no two totes are the same. Unlike other bags, however, I found that it was rare to see individual expression in the form of attached charms or pins on tote bags. It seems that tote bag users base their individuality on the original design of their tote bag or, simply, whatever was conveniently on the tote, regardless of design.
“I had a backpack, and I switched to a bag just because it’s bigger and more convenient for my computer,”
Maria Olivarez ’28 said in an interview with the ‘Prince.’ Olivarez’s current tote is decorated with popular Princeton imagery and was sourced from the U-Store. Doodles of iconic buildings such as the Princeton Chapel are paired with drawings of tigers, making Olivarez’s tote both functional and fashionable.
However, there is one standout tote bag that has recently made waves on campus: the Longchamp Le Pliage Original L Tote bag, specifically in the color Navy. Gaining popularity on social platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, this tote quickly replaced the former slouchy leather tote bag aesthetic that was present last semester.
Some Longchamp owners, like Anamaria Artola ’27, made the switch from using a backpack to a tote. Artola told the Prince, “I like this bag because I only carry my computer and my iPad. Since everything’s on a laptop and it’s pretty light, you can keep it in the tote.”
Combining the possible sore shoulders of the tote bag and the maximum square footage in a backpack, one group of bags balances the expressive traits of tote bags with the organized aesthetic of backpacks: the messenger bag. Ranging in construction from deep red and black leather to lighter canvas fabrics, messenger bags on campus are often decorated with unique and mismatched charms and trinkets.
“I got a carabiner from my host grandmother in Japan, and I also have a little mahjong towel that I got from a gotcha-pong machine,” said Matthew Barrett ’25. Barrett’s bag was gifted from a family member, a trend I saw in other messenger bags around campus. The older aesthetic still serves its purpose for a new generation. While our bags may serve as our mostly-unacknowledged companions through the experience of Princeton, our choice in how we carry our tools of success might make you give a second thought about bags the next time you rush off to your next class.
Amanda Hugas is a member of the Class of 2027 and a staff writer for The Prospect. She can be reached by her email at ah0942@princeton.edu.
A new contender in the sandwich game: Capriotti’s
The Princeton Shopping Center has welcomed a new contender in the sandwich game: Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop, a franchise that first opened its doors in Wilmington, Delaware, in 1976. Capriotti’s has steadily grown across the U.S., and its recent arrival in Princeton offers a new spot for students and locals to grab a hearty bite.
As a broke college student trying to avoid Uber fares, I initially set out to walk to Capriotti’s from campus — a decision I abandoned on the return trip. After a 35-minute trek, I arrived with a healthy appetite — what the French would call la meilleure sauce, hunger. My hunger prepared me for a favorable review, despite having no substantial expectations about how this chain might differ from other major sandwich franchises.
Upon my entrance, the interior of Capriotti’s was clean and modern, with a color palette of reds, yellows, and silvers — distinctly removed from the more nostalgic Subway decked in bright greens and yellows. It was a simple, efficient space that let the food do the talking.
Faced with a well-stocked menu and my usual indecision — especially with so many options available — I asked the friendly employee behind the counter for a recommendation. Without hesitation, he suggested the Classic Philly Cheesesteak — a house favorite. To get a broader taste of the menu, I opted for a half-size cheesesteak and paired it with a cold sandwich: the Classic Club.
When I opened the sandwich, I was immediately impressed by its thoughtful construction. Unlike overstuffed sandwiches that collapse on the first bite, Capriotti’s Philly Cheesesteak was thick yet
manageable, with thinly sliced beef, melted cheese, and sautéed mushrooms evenly distributed and wrapped neatly in soft, chewy bread.
Each bite delivered a balanced blend of richness from the meat and cheese and a subtle umami depth from the mushrooms. It was flavorful without being greasy, a surprising feat for a hot sandwich of its kind. Compared to the cheesesteak offered at Choi Dining Hall, this one had more depth, better seasoning, and a far more satisfying mouthfeel. I would rate it a solid 9/10, and if I were to order it again, I would definitely pair it with a Coke or Sprite — the crisp carbonation would cut beautifully through the sandwich’s savory richness.
To avoid the primacy effect from my hungry first impression, I gave myself a few minutes before diving into the second sandwich, The Classic Club. It was, quite honestly, delightful. Made with handpulled turkey, smoked bacon, provolone cheese, and the usual crisp produce suspects — lettuce, tomato, and onion — this cold sandwich struck a nostalgic chord. It tasted like a perfect hybrid of a familiar deli sub and an Italian chopped salad, thanks to the tangy vinaigrette-style dressing on the vegetables.
The textures were what really sold me: the turkey was tender, the bacon added a smoky chewiness, and the iceberg lettuce brought a satisfying crunch that held up impressively against the moisture of the other ingredients. Each bite was fresh, balanced, and deeply satisfying in a no-frills, back-tobasics way. The Classic Club didn’t try too hard by adding creative twists or unexpected combos — it didn’t need to. It was a classic done well — the ideal balance between indulgent meats and cheeses and the fresh brininess of the dressed vegetables.
All in all, Capriotti’s has carved out a compelling
spot in Princeton’s food scene, especially for students like me looking for solid, flavor-packed sandwiches that don’t feel like fast food. Whether you’re in the mood for a warm, savory cheesesteak or a crisp, refreshing deli-style cold sub, this Delawareborn franchise delivers. Just maybe don’t try to walk there from campus unless you’re ready to earn that sandwich with some extra steps. If you want to save some time, take the NJ bus. Regardless, the trip will be worth it.
Junie Ko is a contributing writer for The Prospect. She is a member of the Class of 2027 and can be reached at ek3682@princeton.edu
AMANDA HUGAS / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN
A student backpack hanging in a coatroom.
By Junie Ko | Prospect Contributor
By Amanda Hugas | Prospect Staff Writer
MEN’S TENNIS
Men’s tennis snaps nine-match losing streak against Harvard, defeats Dartmouth
By Lily Pampolina & Jay Crowther Associate Sports Editor & Sports Contributor
No. 34 Princeton men’s tennis (19–6 overall, 3–0 Ivy League) fought past No. 14 Harvard (15–5, 2–1) in a hard-fought battle featuring a pivotal performance in the deciding match from first-year Milan Markovits to secure the 4–3 win. The following day, the Tigers earned a clean Senior Day 7–0 sweep against Dartmouth (11–8, 0–3).
The successive wins for Princeton pushed them into pole position for Ivy League play, and the team cited the crowd as a major factor that helped them over the finish line this past weekend.
“The crowd was crucial in our win,”
sophomore Landon Ardila told The Daily Princetonian. “Since moving from [the facility at] Jadwin to Meadows, we have seen the crowd levels surge: everyone wants to be at Meadows and stay there for the whole match, whereas Jadwin was tough to get the crowd to stay.”
MEN’S LACROSSE
Long-overdue revenge over Harvard
The victory against Harvard finally snapped the Tigers’ nine-match losing streak against the Crimson. After winning only three of their last 20 meetings, it came as an especially satisfying success given that Harvard had taken the Ivy League title from men’s tennis just last season.
“The team and I are ecstatic after such a close win,” Ardila told the ‘Prince.’ “After losing a tight match last year for the Ivy title, it means everything to be able to turn it around and get the clinch[ing] win in our favor.”
Princeton took an early lead by seizing the doubles point thanks to wins from the junior pair of Fnu Nidunjianzan and Ellis Short and sophomores Landon Ardila and Aleksander Mitric, who cleaned up shortly after.
Necessary singles performances from sophomore and No. 40-ranked Paul Inchauspe over ranked No. 94 Benjamin Privara (4–6, 7–5, 6–1), combined with an efficient win from Ardila and a riveting
three-set win from Markovits, led the Tigers past the Crimson in dramatic fashion.
The players cited specific adjustments made throughout the season to avenge the 2–4 loss earlier in the year.
“Given the season we’ve had so far, [we] definitely needed to adjust a lot as it’s gone on,” junior captain Sebastian Sec told the ‘Prince.’ “[We’ve had] a lot of ups and downs, and I think it’s made us stronger as a unit.”
“I also think that because of our coaches and relying on each other,” Sec continued. “Our confidence never faded and that’s allowed us to continue improving and ultimately pull off big wins.”
Dominating Dartmouth
The second day of Ivy League play culminated in a swift victory against Dartmouth 7–0, with duos Inchauspe and senior Filippos Astreinidis and Short and Nidunjianzan taking quick doubles points to start the day. Soon after, a series of six dominant singles wins followed to end the weekend with plenty of positives for the team.
Sunday also was Senior Day for men’s tennis, during which the four seniors on the team — Aidan Mahoney, Alan Kam, Matthew Bosancic, and Astreinidis — were all honored for their deep and longstanding contributions to the program.
Princeton extended their winning streak against Dartmouth to six in a row, having won seven of their last 10 meetings.
Back-to-back victories against two strong Ivy League rivals resulted in heightened confidence for the team. “First of all, we might not be highly ranked but every one of us knows we can take out any team on our schedule with a consistent performance throughout the lineup,” said Ardila.
Looking forward, the team is optimistic about upcoming conference matches. Ahead lie the highly ranked Cornell and Columbia, followed by Yale and Brown to conclude Ivy play leading into NCAAs.
“We have four matches left, the goal is to go undefeated and get the Ivy title,” Sec told the ‘Prince.’ Columbia is the most notable
opponent since they have been consistently top 10 in the past five years or so.
Spirits remain high as Princeton marches into the final stretch of their season, seeking the Ivy League title to avenge their heartbreaking loss last year, all leading into the NCAA tournament. With confidence soaring after picking up a pair of dominant wins, all eyes are on the Tigers for these crucial next few weeks.
Even beyond the Ivy League tournament, Sec and the Tigers are looking ahead.
“However the remainder of the season finishes, we hope to make a push in the NCAA tournament,” Sec told the ‘Prince.’ “Assuming it goes well, I think we will have tremendous momentum in the tournament.”
Lily Pampolina is an associate Sports editor for the ‘Prince.’
Jay Crowther is a Sports contributor for the ‘Prince.’
No. 3 men’s lacrosse wins final nonconference game behind scoring outbursts from Mackesy and Burns
By Doug Schwartz Associate Sports Editor
On a rainy Saturday afternoon, the No. 3 men’s lacrosse (8–2 overall, 2–1 Ivy League) beat Vermont (4–5 overall, 2–1 America East Conference) 10–5 in their final nonconference game this season. After playing an intense stretch of three games in seven days, the Tigers picked up a momentum-building win heading into the final three games of the regular season.
Despite the brisk weather, Princeton got hot quickly. Senior attacker Coulter Mackesy recorded an impressive hat trick after just the first seven minutes of play. Mackesy’s finesse was on display, scoring his first goal unassisted before capitalizing on assists from sophomore attacker Nate Kabiri and first-year attacker Peter Buananno to make it 3–0 with 8:11 to go in the first quarter.
When asked about his quick start, Mackesy pointed to the work his teammates did to
create opportunities for him.
“Our middies, we like to call them good party starters,” he told The Daily Princetonian. “They get the defense rotating, and then once the ball swings to me it’s a good time to dodge. All the work’s done, there’s no slide ready, so it’s a good time for me to go.”
With a little over a minute to go, junior attacker Chad Palumbo added to the lead with a low-to-high missile, putting Princeton ahead 4–0.
At the end of the first, Princeton held Vermont to zero goals. Junior goalie Ryan Croddick made several solid saves, adding onto an already extremely impressive first season as a starter. As a whole, the defense looked impenetrable, forcing several turnovers. Notably, senior long stick midfielder Michael Bath moved up to third all time in Princeton history for forced turnovers.
“Vermont is a slide and recover team,” Head Coach Matt Madalon told the ‘Prince’ postgame. “We were a little tight not to slide
as much early on, and I think it gave them some trouble.”
“They started to figure it out later in the game,” Madalon added, alluding to the Catamounts’ two goals late in the fourth quarter.
After Croddick started the second quarter with a save, Mackesy netted his fourth goal of the game. The score was the senior star’s 31st of the year, putting his career total at 152. Mackesy now trails only Jesse Hubbard by 11 for most career goals in Princeton history, a milestone he has a very good chance of reaching as the regular season winds to a close.
Following a goal from sophomore attacker Colin Burns, Vermont finally snuck one past the defense with 7:03 to play, making the score 6–1.
The first half finished with Princeton ahead 7–1 thanks to a goal from Palumbo. It was a dominant 30 minutes of play for the Tigers who outshot the Catamounts 27–12. On the day, although Princeton had over 50 shots on goal, Mackesy was not satisfied.
“We’ve discussed that getting shots is not hard for us,” Mackesy told the ‘Prince.’ “It’s about getting the right shots, so I think it’s more about the end score than the shots.”
In the second half, Princeton finally began to slow down. While goals from Kabiri and Burns gave the Tigers a 10–3 lead heading into the final quarter of play, the offense seemed to lose some of its potency from the first half.
In the fourth, Princeton was held scoreless while Vermont tacked on two more. Although they allowed two goals, the defense played well with Bath and senior short stick defensive midfielder Michael Kelly recording forced turnovers. After the final whistle, the Tigers were ahead of the Catamounts 10–5.
read
!
By MC McCoy Staff Archivist
Almost 22 years ago, the issue of affirmative action was at the forefront of nationwide discussion, as it once again was facing a Supreme Court decision in the case of Gratz v. Bollinger, nearly 25 years after the court’s original ruling on the subject. The Ivy Council, a non-profit group made up of student leaders from all the Ivies (except in this case Harvard), voted unanimously in support of affirmative action. Of the seven schools at that Ivy council, Princeton was the only school to hold a campus referendum on the issue. As the court neared a decision, The Daily Princetonian reported on the campus discussion surrounding the use of affirmative action.
While the campus community supported affirmative action, opinions were not unanimous. Out of the 45 percent of students who voted for the Undergraduate
Student Government (USG) referendum, 65 percent of students voted to include race as a factor in university admissions. The former U-Council chair, Josh Anderson ’04, proposed the referendum to gauge student opinion on affirmative action. In an article from April 3, Anderson stated that because affirmative action had such an effect on campus, “it was incumbent on [them] to take some sort of action.” Although he suggested the high level of student voter participation in the referendum demonstrated clear support for the issue, other student leaders were not as accepting of the referendum itself.
In an email USG President Pettus Randall ’04 sent to the student body prior to the referendum, he characterized the resolution as a message of support for affirmative action. Although Owen Conroy ’05, former president of Princeton Democrats, agreed with Randall’s conclusion, the then-editor of The Princeton Tory, Josh Andrews ’05, argued the referendum
could not have fully understood the student perspective because it did not have an impactful “no” option. He maintained that voting “no” meant nothing happened, and thus did not take into account whether a student was actually opposed to affirmative action as a whole. Rather, a “no” vote only suggested that a message of support should not be published. Today, campus views on affirmative action have somewhat changed. In a Data article from June 2023, Princeton’s student body was still largely supportive or neutral towards affirmative action across class years, although support sharply dipped among more right-leaning students. In total, however, 50.3 percent of the 2023 student body reported being somewhat or strongly favorable to affirmative action.
In late June 2023, a little over 20 years later, affirmative action was struck down in a 6–2 Supreme Court decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, making any debate about its merit hypothetical.
“We’re just going to keep getting better and try to make the shots the best ones possible, up our shooting percentage, and then just get more efficient,” Mackesy stated.
Next Saturday, Princeton starts a stretch of three Ivy League games with a matchup against Brown (3–7, 0–3) at Sherrerd Field.
“They handled the business, three games in seven days,” Madalon told the ‘Prince.’ “Now they get to settle in and take one Ivy at a time. We’re looking forward to it.”
Doug Schwartz is an associate Sports editor for the ‘Prince.’
A notable trend for Princeton on Saturday was its long possessions. Offensive possessions often used up the entire shot clock, and the Tigers got many second and occasionally third chance opportunities by collecting rebounds and scooping ground balls. While these prolonged possessions allowed Princeton to beef up their shot numbers, not many of them found the back of the net, ending with only ten goals against an unranked opponent. Nevertheless, the win was a confidence booster as the team begins to prepare for what is shaping up to be a competitive NCAA Tournament.
Out of three Princeton alumni on the court, Justices Sotomayor ’76 and Kagan ’81 both voted in dissent while Justice Alito ’72 voted with the majority. In his statement following the decision, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 wrote that it was “unwelcome and disappointing,” although “not unexpected.” He also stated that the University would continue to strive for “the diversity of our community while fully respecting the law.” In its wake, the ‘Prince’ reported that although almost all minority groups experienced some sort of drop for the class of 2028, changes from the previous year were not significant in comparison to peer institutions. Even though affirmative action has been struck down, Princeton maintains diversity as a priority, even through current budgetary cuts and continuing changes in the political landscape.
MC McCoy is a staff Archivist, staff Photographer, and senior Puzzle Constructor for
