Education Department dismantling could impact slice of PPS budget
By Luke Grippo Senior News Writer
Following President Donald Trump’s executive order last week to dismantle the Department of Education,public school systems nationwide have experienced concern over its potential effects.
Administrators from Princeton Public Schools (PPS) raised concerns about the possible loss of about $1.3 million in federal funding — around two percent of the district’s budget — from sources administered by the department, including the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The Department of Education currently oversees the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) which “directs programs designed to meet the needs and develop the full potential of children with disabilities.”
Trump has said that he wants to move special education programs to the Department of Health and Human Services — a department which began mass layoffs on Tuesday morning. Regardless, OSERS administers several initiatives that could be at risk, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which assists in allocating grants to state education programs for technical and developmental assistance for students with disabilities.
President of the Princeton Board of Education (BOE) Dafna Kendal told The Daily Princetonian that “parents are concerned, especially those that are receiving some services that are funded by the federal government, mainly special education. They’re just concerned that their children’s services will be affected.”
Matt Bouldin, the business administrator for PPS, identified the potential loss of IDEA funding as the district’s primary concern. According to Bouldin, PPS receives slightly more than $1 million each year in IDEA funding from the Department of Education, which helps cover “outof-district” special education tuition.
IDEA provided around $14 billion to state education programs last year. Both Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon both said that they would like to maintain the budget for special education.
Bouldin noted that the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which contributes roughly $300,000 to PPS annually, may also be at risk.
Under the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) ESSA provisions, funds must only be allocated to certain programs that advance equity, support local educational innovation, expand access to high-quality preschool programs, and ensure spending goes to the schools “in need of the most support and resources.”
“We’re not allowed to use those [funds] to supplement regular spending that’s been written into [ESSA] for decades now, and so we don’t think that’s going to go
away,” Bouldin commented. “We hope it doesn’t, because it helps, but it wouldn’t be as big of an impact as IDEA.”
Beyond funding concerns, Kendal pointed to the Education Department’s new report form at enddei.ed.gov which allows parents, students, and others to report “divisive ideologies and indoctrination.”
“It gives parents a direct line to complain about some things that they might not like, let’s say, books or or some programming. We do have some parents that complain that we have books that talk about children who are part of the LGBTQ+ community,” Kendal said.
Kendal warned that eliminating this reporting mechanism will cause a “chilling of speech,” where parents will no longer be able to “report activities that [they] feel are not happening correctly in [their] school district.”
PPS Interim Superintendent Kathleen Foster shared with the ‘Prince’ that open communication will remain a top priority as PPS monitors the effects of the dismantling. PPS currently holds parent informational nights and BOE member meetings where there is an active “exchange and dialogue” between parents and administrators, according to Foster.
“We are in really good financial shape for a public school system,” Kim Tew, assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction, told the ‘Prince.’
One point of relief, Tew described, is that “there’s no explicit message messaging about education in our federal Constitution; it lies in the state’s hands.” As a result, PPS follows the standards and mandates of New Jersey and thus receives a majority of its funding from local taxpayers and state aid.
“A very, very small piece of the pie comes from the federal aid,” Tew explained. It’s about 2 percent of the budget, according to Kendal.
Kendal expressed that the loss of federal aid would be more impactful on other districts.
“A million dollars is a lot of money, but it’s not catastrophic to the extent other districts could be impacted.”
PPS is currently also engaged in a five-year strategic plan with the University, which is providing over $14.6 million to PPS. This funding will not be affected in any way as a result of the dismantling of the Department of Education and will remain a steady form of funding for PPS, according to Bouldin.
“It is not going to impact what we are steadfastly committed to, which is excellent education for all of our students, and we will continue to do this in any way possible,” Foster said.
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.
David Piegaro ’25 found not guilty of simple assault
By Christopher Bao & Luke Grippo Head News Editor & Senior News Writer
David Piegaro ’25 was found not guilty for simple assault in Princeton Municipal Court at a hearing Tuesday. This marks the end of a months-long judicial process for the current senior, who was first arrested last April in the aftermath of the occupation of Clio Hall.
“Since I have determined that the state has not determined its case beyond a reasonable doubt, in connection with the criminal intent element, I find it unnecessary to address the element of bodily injury. Therefore, I find the defendant not guilty of simple assault,” Judge John McCarthy III ’69 read to the court.
The case centered around a brief altercation between Piegaro and Assistant Vice President for Public Safety Kenneth Strother on the steps of Whig Hall on April 29. After several chaotic hours of demonstrations around the area, which culminated in protestors occupying Clio Hall, Piegaro attempted to listen in on and record a conversation between Strother, Professor Max Weiss, and Zia Mian, Co-Director of the Program in Science and Global Security. Strother, Weiss, and Mian then tried to enter Whig Hall, and Piegaro attempted to follow. Before Piegaro could enter the building, he had a brief altercation with Strother, who attempted to prevent Piegaro’s entry to the building. What happened next was the central issue of the two-day trial. The prosecution argued that Piegaro had grabbed Strother’s arm when trying to enter the building, and he had fallen off the stairs in the ensuing scuffle. The defense, on the other hand, maintained that Strother had pushed Piegaro down the stairs.
Piegaro initially appeared in court on Feb. 4 and 5 for charges of simple assault and criminal trespass, though the trespass
charge was later dropped. Multiple witnesses from the University’s Department of Public Safety and one faculty member testified for the prosecution, while several students testified for Piegaro. Of particular importance were the testimonies from Strother himself and Sarah Kwartler GS, the only defense witness who had seen the altercation.
In his verdict, McCarthy explained that there were two significant questions to consider in regard to the decision. The first was whether Piegaro caused bodily injury to Strother, and the second was whether he acted intentionally.
In accordance with New Jersey law, any bodily injury must be performed “purposely, knowingly, or recklessly.” McCarthy found that because Piegaro primarily intended to enter Whig Hall, he did not intentionally cause harm to Strother.
McCarthy added, “Given the circumstances, the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the specific intent to cause bodily injury or that he acted with awareness of reckless disregard or a substantial risk of such injury occurring.”
However, McCarthy still said that Piegaro’s actions were “confrontational” and “ill-advised.”
“Sir, I hope you take this as a lesson. I think an apology would be appropriate,” McCarthy said. “If you had engaged with law enforcement in different jurisdictions, I think the results would’ve been far more serious, potentially involving significant injury.”
McCarthy additionally suggested that the Scottish judiciary’s practice of the “not-proven” verdict would have been applicable for Piegaro’s situation.
McCarthy explained that such a verdict “carries an implication of lingering doubt about a defendant’s innocence – this verdict has been described as meaning ‘not-guilty’ but don’t do it again.”
“The sentiment serves as a cautionary note,” McCarthy said. “I would advise you to reflect on your actions and consider this experience as a warning to exercise better judgement in the future.”
This concludes months of deliberating for Piegaro.
“It’s been a really difficult year, and I think I was just very relieved that it was finally over, that I no longer had a criminal prosecution hanging over my head. And I feel like I stood by what I think is the truth and my principles,” Piegaro told The Daily Princetonian.
He added, “I really am just super grateful for many faculty members who have been really supportive, my friends who have been really supportive, family, girlfriend.” On the days of the trial, his mother, girlfriend, and friends were seen appearing at court.
Piegaro also said that, with regard to Strother, “I certainly would like to see accountability.” Piegaro is looking forward to turning his attention to finishing his thesis in the Economics Department and enjoying the rest of his time at Princeton.
“I kind of feel like I lost a huge portion of my senior year, and I think that finally, this burden has been lifted, and I really want to try my best to enjoy my last month or so at Princeton,” Piegaro said.
Christopher Bao is a head News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Princeton, N.J. and typically covers town politics and life.
Luke Grippo is a senior News writer 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.
CHRISTOPHER BAO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Piegaro, seated at the left end of the table, at his Feb. 4 trial.
Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment approves renovations to Tower and Charter Clubs
By Sena Cheng & Isaac Bernstein senior News writer
staff News writer
In two unanimous 7–0 votes on March 27, the Municipality of Princeton’s Zoning Board of Adjustment approved construction developments for Tower Club and Charter Club.
Tower Club’s renovations will include installing an elevator to improve accessibility and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, along with grading improvements in the parking area. Charter Club also plans to add ADA-compliant pathways and an elevator.
The Tower application was presented by Ryan Kennedy from the law firm Stevens. Additional representatives on behalf of the application included John Hasson, an architect from 3GHC Architecture, Sameh Wali, a project manager at Dynamic Engineering, and Jim Hayes, the Tower Club’s General Manager. This project has been in the
works for years, with the first proposal coming to the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 25, 2022. This proposal sparked concerns, however, as the trees around Tower would be problematic for the four proposed parking spots.
Two parts of the plan changed in response: There are now two parking spots in the updated proposal, and the roots of the tree have been accounted for by pulling back the asphalt located near the tree.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Officer Elizabeth Kim said that “with this change, I think the HPC would completely support this design.”
Hasson specifically explained how the “elevator will be on the west side of the property and will provide full accessibility to the basement, first floor, and second floor. She lastly added that the elevator’s exterior will be “plaid with the brick veneer [of the Tower Club]” in addition to the structure having a “nice hip roof,” which features four
sides that slope downwards from the peak.
Future additions to Tower Club are in development, but Kennedy states that “Ultimately, we [the management of the project] just don’t think we’re there yet with something that makes sense for the applicant and addresses all the comments. So our desire is just to proceed with the ADA-approved Tower.”
The elevator is the first key project, but more developments to Tower Club are to come.
Renovations for Charter aim to make the club ADA-compliant by adding a pathway, ramp, elevator, and accessible bathrooms. The project will also expand floor space to accommodate servery equipment and additional dining tables, along with renovations to the Great Hall.
On behalf of the club, Charter Board of Trustees member Robert Ridolfi ’70, Club Manager Holly Trump, engineer Russ Smith, and Ford 3 partner Moira McClintock were present. Repre-
sentatives noted that expansion is necessary to accommodate the increasing number of students in Charter.
“We’re just trying to expand enough to create more dining space and servery space for our membership as it is now a little bit tight,” Trump said in her testimony. According to Trump, Charter is currently “crunched” in terms of dining space, with the main foyer and other dining rooms at full capacity.
Both McClintock and Trump emphasized the importance of maintaining the building’s historical integrity during the renovation process. Charter’s architects, McClintock explained, are trying to “work as much as possible with existing architecture.”
“I have over 4,500 alumni, as well as present members, that are counting on me [to] make sure that we still keep to the entire history, as well as their stories,” Trump added.
“I think the proposed modifications to the house are very
well done and in keeping with the original character of the building itself,” Ridolfi said. Princeton’s HPC unanimously supported the application last week, with Kim reiterating in the zoning meeting that Charter did a “sensitive job designing, selecting the material, and placement of all the components of the application.”
Both Tower’s and Charter’s renovations were officially approved.
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.
Isaac Bernstein is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’ From Pittsburgh, Penn., he most commonly covers new academic departments and majors, progressions in faculty research and pursuits, and the most recent happenings of Princeton’s alumni.
Thirty-one seniors running for Young Alumni Trustee, continuing trend of candidate pool growth
By Devon Rudolph & Sarah Mashiat Associate News Editor
Contributing News Writer
Thirty-one seniors are running for the 2025 Young Alumni Trustee (YAT), continuing an increasing trend over the years. Last year, 27 people ran, compared with 23 in 2023 and 21 in 2022.
The 31 candidates come from a variety of campus backgrounds and majors, but there are some commonalities. Approximately one-third were involved in the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) or Class Council in some form, and nine are residential college advisors.
Twenty-nine candidates responded to a questionnaire sent by The Daily Princetonian. Two, Alaa Omer ’25 and Mark-Anthony Prescott ’25, did not respond to multiple requests for response.
The majority of the YAT candidates are from the United States, with only three international seniors running for election. Cap and Gown is the most represented eating club of the 29 responses, with five YAT candidates affiliated with Cap and Gown. Tower is in second place with four candidates, followed by Terrace and Tiger Inn tied for third place with three candidates each.
More YAT candidates identify as male, making up 59% of the candidates who responded.
There are YAT candidates from 12 distinct A.B. majors, with Economics and Public and International Affairs being the most popular. There are four of each of these majors, around 13 percent of the total candidates. Comparatively, only two B.S.E. majors are represented among the YAT candidates: Computer Science (COS) and Operations Research and Financial Engineering (ORFE). ORFE is the most represented among the B.S.E. candidates: Around 57 percent of the B.S.E. candidates are ORFE majors.
A majority of 77% of YAT candidates are A.B., and the most popular major among all YAT candidates is COS, with two A.B. COS majors and three B.S.E. COS majors.
Primary election voting for the Class of 2025 Young Alumni Trustee will open on March 31 to all current University seniors. The elected candidate will serve on the Board of Trustees for four years, acting as a full board member.
In the Young Alumni Trustee election, a member of the senior class is first elected through a primary, in which only other seniors can vote. Following this,
the top three candidates advance to the general election, with the senior class, the junior class, and the two most recent alumni classes all eligible to vote.
The 2025 Young Alumni Trustee primary election will begin on Monday, March 31, with voting open only to the members of the Class of 2025, and will end on April 8. The primary election uses ranked-choice voting, and seniors will be able to rank all 31 candidates in order of preference. The results of the primary election will be announced the day after voting closes.
Voting for the general election will open on April 30 and close May 14 for members of the Class of 2023, Class of 2024, Class of 2025, and Class of 2026. The general election also uses rankedchoice voting, so electors will be able to select a first choice and a second choice from among the candidates. The winner will be announced at an alumni council meeting on May 23.
YATs serve a total of four years on the board, meaning there will always be four board members that are recent graduates. Currently serving on the board are graduates Aisha Chebbi ’24, Mutemwa Masheke ’23, Naomi Hess ’22, and Morgan Smith ’21.
One key difference between the YAT process and most oth -
er elections is that candidates are prohibited from campaigning. Candidates do not run on a specific platform, and they are allowed only a brief statement about themselves which can be found on Princeton’s YAT website. The Young Alumni Trustee Candidate handbook explains that allowing candidates to conduct issue-based campaigning could potentially undermine the position of a trustee in the proceedings of the board, holding them to a previously expressed stance on any given issue.
The elected candidate will hold the same responsibility as other board members, according to Princeton’s YAT website. The website also states that “a trustee will spend an estimated 200 hours per year on Princeton board commitments.”
Devon Rudolph is an associate News editor and staff Sports writer for the ‘Prince.’
Sarah Mashiat is a contributing News writer for the ‘Prince.’
SCREENSHOT FROM ISAAC BERNSTEIN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Renovation Plan.
CANDACE DO / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Charter Club (left) and Tower Club (right).
Steinlauf: ‘There are real concerns, serious concerns, in the Jewish community about some of the discourse and rhetoric around anti-Zionism … but the fact that these elements exist at Princeton in no way is unique to Princeton’
tor and co-founder of Princeton’s Chabad House, wrote in a statement that there was more work to be done for Jewish students on campus. However, he noted that the campus climate “has significantly improved from last year.”
Neither rabbi directly addressed the cuts. Several student groups had much more forceful reactions.
“As part of J Street, we think that this administration is using
Eisgruber:
antisemitism as a dog whistle and a tool to further their agenda and their assault on higher education, and so we wholeheartedly oppose the implementation of these funding cuts under the guise of combating antisemitism,” said Maddy Denker ’27, membership chair for J Street U.
J Street is a self-described “proIsrael, pro-peace” national advocacy group.
“I think my main reaction was just bewilderment, because I think the University does a really good job at reaching out to and accommodating Jewish stu -
dents,” she added.
Elena Eiss ’28, a leader in the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP), said that cutting federal funding would not protect students from antisemitism. Eiss, who is also a leader for J Street U, said she was only speaking on behalf of AJP.
“[If non-Jewish students believe that] their internships, their research grants have been cut in the name of protecting Jewish students ... I wouldn’t be surprised if this actually sparks more antisemitism than there was on campus before,” she stat-
ed.
Max Meyer ’27, the president of Tigers for Israel, declined an interview and did not directly address the question of his opinion on the cuts, but expressed agreement with the administration’s position in a written statement.
“I am grateful for the Trump administration’s efforts to combat antisemitism on college campuses. I am hopeful that the University will work with the White House to rid academia of its pervasive moral rot for the benefit of our campus and our nation,” he wrote.
The Department of Education first started investigating Princeton after Zachary Marschall, editor-in-chief of the right-wing outlet Campus Reform — who has no affiliation with the University — filed a complaint alleging antisemitism at the University last April. The complaint largely pertains to chants at proPalestine rallies in October 2023.
Christopher Bao is a head News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Princeton, N.J. and typically covers town politics and life.
‘We have to be willing to say no to funding if it’s going to constrain our ability to pursue the truth.’
he said the University would address “legitimate concerns where they exist.”
But he also strongly defended a university’s duty to foster speech.
“We have to stand steadfastly against antisemitism and other forms of hate, but we do that at Princeton through anti-discrimination principles that are broad and that do not incorporate specific definitions of particular kinds of discrimination,”
Eisgruber said in the interview, which was conducted in the Mathey Common Room.
In the past few months, once-rare public statements from Eisgruber have increased in frequency as Trump turns up the heat on higher education. In an article in the Atlantic last month, Eisgruber condemned the Trump administration’s cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars to Columbia University. He reiterated his thoughts during a PBS interview after Columbia announced it would meet the administration’s demands. Now, however, the crosshairs are aimed at his own university.
Eisgruber also said in the Bloomberg interview that the pauses to grants would “undermine our ability to attract talent, and it will make us
weaker as a country.”
“A very constructive partnership that’s existed for about 70 years now between American universities and the American government — all that is in danger right now,” he said.
Eisgruber also came close to criticizing Columbia University’s capitulation to federal funding cuts.
“There are other people who urge, ‘Well, are there other ways that you can accommodate the government in some way, or bend to the government’s policy preferences in order to restore funding?’ I think that’s the wrong way, at least, for an academic institution, to be thinking about what its responsibilities are,” he said.
Eisgruber also addressed what the University’s next steps would be.
“If government funding were to go down, we and others would look for other sources that we could use to support the funding to the research that has to take place on our campuses,” he said. “We would look for things that we could stop doing. There would be a real cost to that, because I’m proud of what we’re doing on the campus. We would try to raise other funds.”
Eisgruber also broached the topic of examining the endowment, an approach to which he was previously very reticent.
“We would look at ways to potentially reallocate endowment funding,
which would involve very difficult choices, but at the end of the day, what would happen here and elsewhere is that less research would get done, and that would be a bad thing,” he said.
Eisgruber also emphasized the need for universities to act together in response to governmental funding cuts.
“I think it’s important for universities to stand shoulder to shoulder as we go forward,” he said.
Devon Rudolph is an associate News editor and staff Sports writer for the ‘Prince.’
Christopher Bao is a head News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Princeton, N.J. and typically covers town politics and life.
Princeton NAACP hosts seven gubernatorial candidates in candidate forum
By Clara Docherty News Contributor
Princeton’s NAACP chapter hosted a forum for candidates for the governor of New Jersey on Friday ahead of the June 10 primary and Nov. 5 general election. Seven candidates participated: CEO of Clean Energy Advisor 4 U Stephen Zielinski, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) and Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11), Former New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney, New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) President and former Montclair Mayor Sean Spiller, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop.
All candidates were Democrats, except Zielinski, who is running independently for the Green Party. Isabella Rayes, a member of the audience from South Jersey, said that she was “really surprised that they invited GOP candidates, and they didn’t show up.” Throughout the panel, candidates discussed similar opinions, with little disagreement.
Moderated by journalist Anthony Johnson of ABC7, the panel addressed the candidates’ views on housing, clean energy, police reform, and more. The candidates collectively expressed concern over President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders. Fulop described
this as a “lack of progress that we’re seeing in the federal administration in Washington.”
The candidates communicated urgency for New Jersey voters to vote in this upcoming election, pointing out New Jersey’s close results in the 2024 presidential race, where Trump narrowly lost by five points.
Representative Mikie Sherrill said, “That’s what makes this race in 2025 so incredibly important, so we can chart a different course here than what we see coming from Washington.”
Ian Mann ’28 attended the panel. He is originally from Chicago but registered to vote in New Jersey, mainly because it is “one of only two states with a gubernatorial election” in 2025.
Mann, a member of the College Democrats, was pleased with the panel. “I was happy to see the pretty wide range of questions, especially on voter rights.” Mann noted that the panel was “pretty well attended.”
The seven candidates offered different views on rent control, addressing New Jersey’s housing affordability crisis. The average rent in New Jersey is $2,500, which is 20.48 percent higher than the national average of $2,075.
Josh Gottheimer described his tax cut proposal, which “gives a property tax cut
of nearly 15 percent across the board.” Gottheimer’s plan is expected to benefit three million families.
Baraka was in favor of rent control, even if it was temporary.
“Every single property in the state of New Jersey has to be stabilized,” he said. Sherril pushed back on the success of rent control in New York City and focused on the lack of houses as a whole.
“We’re about 200,000 houses short of where we need to be,” Sherrill said. “[I’ve] come up with a plan so we can push money into remediating and repurposing commercial properties.”
This plan supports commercial-toresidential building conversions that will be available to people making “100 percent, 80 percent, and 60 percent of the area median income.”
New Jersey’s history of redlining — the discriminatory practice of denying home loans based on geography to people of color — has led to segregated school districts. With 9.3 million residents and 593 school districts, the distribution of students to schools is uneven, often resulting in students attending schools based on their residential area codes.
“Our state is the sixth-worst segregated school system in the nation,” Sweeney said.
When asked about educational funding, all candidates expressed that they would fight for it in New Jersey. Fulop proposed a constitutional amendment to New Jersey’s State Constitution that would restructure the Department of Education.
“The Department of Education is not codified as it should be in the state constitution,” Fulop said.
Sean Spiller, a former science teacher and the president of New Jersey’s education association, emphasized the importance of adequate educational funding New Jersey’s healthcare costs per-person are 15 percent higher than the national average. The candidates expressed the need for affordable solutions and the importance of making Medicare accessible for all.
Before the panel, in an interview with The Daily Princetonian, Zielinski outlined his plan for Medicare for All, motivated by his personal commitment to fighting cancer.
“We are called the Garden State, but we spray more pesticides and herbicides on our crops than any other state,” Zielinski said. “I want to make New Jersey the first fully organic, regenerative state in the nation.”
Turning from agriculture to broader environmental goals, current New Jer-
sey Governor Murphy set the goal of obtaining 100 percent clean energy by 2035. Zielinski cautioned that progress may be slower and referenced a target date of 2045.
“I think we need an objective to meet,” Baraka said. “But I also think we should continue to pursue solar energy. In Newark and Paterson, we’ve already gotten federal grants to begin to expand solar in our cities.”
Chris-Tina Middlebrooks ’27, the president of Princeton’s chapter of the NAACP, asked the panelists if they support lowering the voting age to 16 for school board elections. All candidates supported lowering the voting age, a change that Ras Baraka had already implemented in Newark. In closing remarks, candidates reiterated their commitments to reducing living costs for New Jersey residents. Sweeney was not present for the closing statements.
Fulop extended the panel’s overwhelming concern about Trump’s activities to the state itself. “The country is at a crossroads, but the state is at a crossroads too.”
Clara Docherty is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’
www.
Your Ivy League experience would not send anyone into a coma
Shane McCauley Assistant Opinion Editor
Since I arrived at Princeton, a niche type of content has flooded my social media feed: elite university students documenting the unique experience of attending a selective school. From packed “day in the life” vlogs to sneak peeks at seemingly luxurious dining hall meals, these videos emphasize the privilege, aesthetics, and exclusivity of the Ivy League student experience.
Instagram Reels or TikTok videos about the Ivy League college experience are often harmless. Personally, I enjoy videos with a simple Q&A format, or those where students showcase glimpses of their school’s main green to give a sense of its culture.
But when this content markets the prestige and exclusivity of attending an elite university as central to the student experience, it risks misconstruing the true value of our education as a status symbol and not an intellectual experience. This reinforces the cultural gulf between the academic elite and America at large. This content often dramatiz -
es the difference between the experience at elite universities and other schools. I’ve seen several TikTok videos with captions like “Things about [Ivy League school] that would send people from other schools into a coma” that, in reality, showcase something mundane that could be found at any university, like placement tests for languages. In doing so, these creators imply that the selectivity of elite universities somehow renders them entirely different from others.
By dramatizing the difference between elite schools and other universities, we play into the obsession with college admissions that has dominated the national discourse and perpetuate an idea of studentbody superiority despite the inequities present in these admissions. In the process, we increase the cultural focus on the exclusivity of these schools rather than the quality of education that they offer. We should be wary of reinforcing this culture of exclusivity for prospective applicants perusing Princeton content online. Content about the unique luxuries of an elite college experience doesn’t just distort how our schools are perceived by prospective applicants; it
also distorts the perception of higher education by the nation at large. In one popular type of video, creators showcase the material luxuries that come with attending an Ivy, flaunting the gourmet cuisine and decadent decorations at events like “Harvard’s fanciest party” or the exquisite Yale holiday dinner, often to hundreds of thousands of likes. By doing so, they reinforce the idea that Ivy League schools provide a luxurious experience for a select few rather than a top-notch education meant to better the world.
The comment section of the aforementioned Yale video demonstrates this adverse effect. Many viewers point out the disparity between the event’s decadence and the poverty in New Haven. If we want to contradict the perception that elite universities are nothing more than finishing schools for the privileged, we need to think carefully about how we represent our student experience online.
Of course, Princeton’s student body remains disproportionately wealthy compared to the entire country, and Princeton students increasingly choose high-paying careers like consulting. In some ways,
we are indeed the out-of-touch elite the media stereotypes. But to dismantle the elitism at Princeton, we first must reject it, not embrace it.
Given the national landscape, the association between elite schools that produce important research and havens for rich kids is especially important to fight. After all, it is well-established that Americans are beginning to lose faith in elite academia, viewing institutions like ours not as bodies to further knowledge for all but as finishing schools for an existing educational elite. In a poll by Gallup in 2023, the country’s confidence in higher education fell to 36 percent, down from 57 percent in 2015. When we outwardly market the privilege and exclusivity of attending an elite university as central to the experience, we only accelerate this loss of confidence.
When students highlight only the most luxurious aspects of schools like Princeton on social media, it becomes no easier to convince prospective students who aren’t from society’s upper echelons that Princeton is an inclusive place for them. In this way, the prestige and elitism promoted on social media create a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
And with the Trump administration beginning to rescind university funding for bad-faith reasons — including at Columbia and Penn — the way we represent ourselves as a community takes on greater importance. Someone who believes their taxpayer dollars are funding Yale students’ gratuitously fancy holiday dinners might find no problem with withholding the university’s federal funding. Even though that funding is specifically earmarked for worthy causes like research or financial aid, it would be hard to blame them.
In this frightening political landscape, 30-second videos posted to social media may seem the least of our issues. But as students at a school aiming to increase its diversity and impact in the world amid a fraught moment for higher education, it is vital that we accurately convey our institution’s values. That starts by being thoughtful about how we represent the Princeton experience — and the college experience as a whole — on and off social media.
Shane McCauley is an assistant Opinion editor from Boston.
Princeton, it’s time to reflect, not to blame
Thomas Tao Guest Contributor
Higher education in America is in turmoil. Faced with an assault from the federal government, we at Princeton and others in higher education have sprung up quickly to defend our operations. In a recent essay published in The Atlantic, for example, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 cited the track record of American institutions and argued that they “have given the country prosperity and security.” This paper’s Editorial Board and a number of professors have likewise published opinions in support of Eisgruber in recent weeks.
While the Trump administration’s actions may be capricious, vengeful, and poorly targeted, I am nonetheless troubled by the position we have taken to unconditionally defend ourselves in the wake of its attacks. The rise of populism worldwide reflects the belief of many that “elites” — and associated institutions like universities — no longer represent the interests of a significant portion of our population.
For too long, we have willfully ignored the rationale behind the antagonism that many of the 77 million Americans who re-elected Trump feel for academia. Now, more than ever, we must listen to the public on what we think are closed debates and be open to research spurred by those new ideas.
Many American voters consider
much of our priorities and agendas irrelevant, or even actively harmful, to them or society in general. Many feel distanced, for example, by our incessant push around the start of the 21st century to rebrand American higher education with the mission of educating “global citizens” — a trend symbolized by Princeton’s 2016 decision to append global impact to its own informal motto. Many feel our push for diversity and inclusion in society, as we understand it, fails to benefit the nation and may even be harmful. Americans now more than ever think that universities are on the incorrect path in educating our students.
And this extends to research, not just educational programming. For instance, while scientists overwhelmingly affirm that climate change is a real problem, that does not have to be the end of the debate. Many feel that this will materially harm their lives. Consider that even many residents of America’s most polluted state, Louisiana, reject or even deplore the ideas of environmental protection and action on climate change. As UC Berkeley sociologist Arlie Hochschild discovers in her book “Strangers In Their Own Land,” many in the “oil-plant south” who consider work in the oil-and-gas industry crucial to the “American way of life” feel like they have been made strangers by “liberal” media’s framing of the oil and gas industry as an immoral disregard for the planet.
Yet, faced with these allegations of the irrelevance or harmfulness of our operations and programs, we at higher education institutions continue to refuse to question our fundamental assumptions in our recent defense of higher education. In our recent public-facing dialogue, such as the op-ed President Eisgruber published, we largely do not seriously discuss the goodness and social benefits of educating a “global citizenry,” of furthering agendas relating to climate change, and of our efforts to promote diversity and inclusion as we define it.
Instead, members of prestigious academic institutions and elite media outlets have fallen into a mistake only prone to academic amateurs: framing opponents in the least favorable way. A denial of the mission of global engagement has been casted as an immoral disregard of universal values for kindness or empathy. The rejection of significant action against climate change is equated to a denial of truth and reality itself. And, overwhelmingly, push-back against diversity and inclusion has been framed as indefensible positions representing racism and sexism.
I am not advocating that the mission of private universities should be forced to align with popular opinion — academic institutions should have absolute discretion to determine priorities in education and social engagement, and researchers within should be protected to freely
offer their opinions on any issue. I concur with President Eisgruber when he rejects the idea of restricting academic freedom and the freedom of expression. And I oppose the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw research funding based on political viewpoints.
But the dedication to our academic freedoms in setting priorities and agendas in higher education can never be based on the assumption that our decisions are infallible. In the face of zealous discontent toward us, I urge that we shed our infallibility and interrogate the ramifications of our present higher education priorities: The goodness of dealing with climate change in the way we frame it, the correctness in promoting diversity, as we define it, and the benefits of educating global citizens, to name a few. Treating these issues like closed debates helps no one and only enforces echo chambers on both sides.
Pushed to the brink by Trump and the Americans who elected him, our present time is also one of opportunity — not of calling to “defend all of higher education” in its present state but instead, to fundamentally reconsider our direction for higher education and whether missions we have come to undertake in recent decades are truly as infallible as we think.
Thomas Tao is a first-year undergraduate student. He can be reached at thomas.tao[at]princeton.edu.
Trump is bringing authoritarianism to Columbia. Princeton must democratize in response.
Issac Barsoum Opinion Columnist
President Donald Trump recently moved to consolidate power in the Office of the President — not the office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, but the one at Columbia University.
On March 13, the Trump administration sent Columbia an ultimatum. To restore $400 million in frozen federal funds, Trump officials wrote, Columbia must “abolish the University Judicial Board [UJB] and centralize all disciplinary processes under the Office of the [University] President” and “empower the Office of the President to suspend or expel students with an appeal process through the Office of the President,” among other demands.
On March 21, Columbia acquiesced. A statement from the interim university president, Katrina Armstrong, stated that “the UJB will be situated within and overseen by the Office of the Provost, who reports to the President of Columbia.”
Trump’s demands of Columbia were extreme and autocratic — an attempt to employ his own authoritarianism to breed more of it. And by accepting his demands, Columbia allows itself to be restructured as more authoritarian and follows in the federal government’s footsteps. But as our Editorial Board warns, Trump’s actions will not stop in
Morningside Heights. When the Trump administration asks Princeton to sell out its community, that community should have real power to say “no.”
At a time when autocracy is rising nationwide, Princeton should respond with democracy here. For too long, the disciplinary and policy-making procedures at Princeton have been opaque and anti-democratic. We ought to move toward the democratization of internal processes, thereby affirming the importance of disciplinary due process and true community input in policy formation.
University democratization is often mischaracterized, including by my former colleague Abigail Rabieh, as reckless direct democracy for undergraduates. But that is not what democratic processes at a university would resemble. Instead, to democratize Princeton would be to integrate democratic values — due process, the presumption of innocence, constituent input on (but not complete control over) policy-making — into our processes.
Princeton should first move towards democratizing discipline processes. While Trump attempts to push Columbia’s disciplinary processes into the Office of the President and remove authority from its University Judicial Board, Princeton should move in the opposite direction, starting with its equivalent, the Committee on Discipline (COD).
As it exists today, the COD lacks guardrails, violating students’ due process rights when it should be affirming them. When speaking to university in-
vestigators about alleged disciplinary violations, students are not afforded the same right to silence as in legal proceedings. Instead, their silence may be taken as evidence of their guilt, or as a violation in itself. Rather than gathering information, investigators also operate under a presumption of guilt, working to construct a narrative about accused students instead of listening to them.
No student should be asked to experience emotional turmoil, isolation, and depression as they work frantically to prove their innocence, when the burden of proof ought to lie with their accuser. The presumption of innocence is an essential democratic right, and we should treat it as such.
The normative shift here is twofold: First, it would humanize the discipline process for students accused of violations by shifting the burden of proof; and second, it would legitimize the process by reducing the possibility of an incorrect guilty verdict and aligning with broader due process standards. These shifts, if the University sticks to them, would allow Princeton to resist attempts to curtail free speech on college campuses by unfairly prosecuting or deporting students.
Beyond disciplinary due process, Princeton has plenty of room to move opposite the Trump administration. The University’s policy-making procedures are still a far cry from democratic. Because of the lack of clear processes for policy change at Princeton, coordinated efforts are often necessary to achieve community engagement. And
it becomes far too easy for those efforts to fall out of the equation altogether.
Although University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 told The Daily Princetonian that he “encourage[s] [students] to engage with the community-wide processes through which policy is made at the University,” façades of student, faculty, and staff input often give way to an obfuscated and centralized policy-making process mostly controlled by the Board of Trustees.
President Eisgruber points to the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) as a “body which is rare in higher education, in being one that allows for open deliberation.”
However, a council of community members whose primary responsibility is to “make recommendations” regarding University policy to actual decision-making bodies is not democracy, but the mere semblance of it. And the CPUC requirement for pre-approved questioning produces sanitized engagement with the University community rather than legitimate discourse.
Other means of expressing community opinion are regularly dismissed out of hand. Student referenda, according to Eisgruber himself, are “not part of [the University’s] governance processes.” The University dissociated from fossil fuel companies based on the recommendations of a faculty panel, but then resumed accepting research funding from those companies without input from any student, staff, or that faculty panel. And every decision and conversation had in a Trustees meeting is secret until the minutes are unsealed
… thirty years later.
This lack of transparency, combined with the evident disregard for actually considering community input in policy-making, renders Princeton’s processes exceedingly undemocratic. There is no reason that student referenda, which capture student consensus, should not be considered when making decisions. And if the Trustees were truly working for the good of the University community, they’d have no issue making their meetings public and accepting civil comments from the community.
As they have in the past, universities must be the first to resist authoritarianism. By moving in the opposite direction of the Trump administration, we can stand up for our community even as an autocrat attempts to impose his will on our peer institutions. We are a reflection of America, and must be the bedrock of its democracy.
Democracy is not a radical idea, but a sensible one. We ought to affirm that in our practices for discipline and decision-making — whether or not the Trump administration picks us as the next target for an authoritarian overhaul.
Isaac Barsoum ’28 is a first-year intended Politics major from Charlotte, N.C. He believes that loving Princeton means finding ways it can become a safer, happier, more inclusive place. His column, “A Princeton for All,” runs every other Thursday. You can read his column here. You can reach him at itbarsoum[at]princeton.edu.
Princeton can find the cash to weather the storm
Wynne Conger Opinion Columnist
From student op-eds at Columbia to castigatory CNN reports, American media is once again calling upon the Ivy League to stand up as the first line of defense against the Trump administration’s assault on national education. In one recent instance, UC Merced associate professor Charlie Eaton made a proposition to America’s Ivy League institutions: that “$15 Billion Is Enough to Fight a President.”
Eaton’s thinking, as laid out in his New York Times piece, is that the “wealthiest universities” should “carry the most responsibility … to push back against [the recent Trumpian] authoritarian creep” — and that they can afford to because of their massive endowments. This doesn’t only apply to Columbia, as Eaton primarily argues, but also to Princeton. However, so far, many institutional responses from the Ivy League have been dissatisfying genuflection. Key to this is that, despite Ivies’ best institutional efforts to prepare for the challenges ahead, federal funding has tethered our institutions in ways that the public cannot fully perceive. Again and again, the Trump
administration has weaponized federal funding as a leash, both to constrain the independence of higher education and to incentivize the implementation of its executive orders. In accordance with Eaton’s argument, Princeton should draw on its endowment to weather the storm from the government.
The University, including President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, has largely dismissed this idea. In his annual State of the University letter, Eisgruber argued that the endowment is “nothing like a savings account” and “more like a retirement annuity that must provide income every year for the remainder of the owner’s life.”
But drawing on the endowment would not, on its own, be a longterm threat to its health. After all, Columbia’s canceled $400 million in funding only represents about 1.2 percent of Princeton’s $34.1 billion endowment, as valued at the end of the 2024 fiscal year. The $175 million pulled from the University of Pennsylvania is even less, representing about 0.5 percent of our endowment. Princeton’s net assets at the same time were in excess of $36.3 billion.
The University has reported an increase in the institution’s $34.1 billion dollar endowment for the first time since 2021. To date, it spends the most per individual student and ranks as the fourthlargest university endowment in the nation, behind Stanford, Yale, and Harvard respectively.
Furthermore, there are many years in which the University spends more than it brings in in revenues. During the global financial crisis, the University ran deficits to sustain its operations.
In the medium-to-long term, the University’s endowment has generated solid returns, with an average of 9.2 percent in the last 10 years and 9.9 percent in the last 20.
In the 2024 fiscal year, Princeton had $165 million in long-term gift and pledge revenue, as well as $95 million in immediately spendable gifts. Princeton received $455 million in government contracts in the same year. If Princeton’s endowment returns maintain their historical performance, we can expect gains of about $3.1 billion per year. Combined with alumni gifts, which would likely increase if the University had its federal grants withdrawn, these sources of funding could easily cover the gap in funding.
Admittedly, the University does have significant reliance on federal funding. From departmental research projects to the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, federal funding has permeated nearly every aspect of campus life. As demonstrated by the recent hiring freeze at Princeton, we are not immune to potential pressures.
Our ability to draw on the endowment doesn’t mean that we don’t also have to adjust in other ways. In a memo to staff and faculty, Provost Jennifer Rexford ’93 and Executive Vice President Ka-
tie Callow-Wright identified how Princeton would respond to the “budget realities” of the current administration, including avoiding staff growth and postponing faculty searches. Moving forward, both Princeton and other affluent universities across the nation should seek to undertake similar measures as a blueprint means of moving away from federal funding in the long run. However, as Eaton previously identified, Princeton University, along with other institutions in the “Big Five,” is in the unique position to weather this storm. They might not even have to wait that long: under four years until the Democrats could retake the White House and under two until the balances of power in the House and Senate could change. There is also a chance that relief will
arrive even sooner, as some spending cuts have been blocked in the courts before they have been implemented.
To be complacent in silence, or even worse compliant in action, is a disservice to the guiding mission of education that underpins us all. But in order to best position Ivy League universities to contest against the administration, it is essential that we take steps to ensure that federal funding does not constrain the ability of institutions to stand in defense of education across the nation.
Wynne Conger is a sophomore and prospective SPIA major from Bryn Mawr, Pa. She can be reached by email at wc2918[at]princeton.edu. Her column “Popping the Bubble” runs every three weeks on Monday.
vol. cxlviii
editor-in-chief Miriam Waldvogel ’26
business manager Jessica Funk ’26
149TH MANAGING BOARD
upper management
Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26
Isabella Dail ’26
director of outreach Oliva Sanchez ’26 Bridget O’Neill ’26 Bryan Zhang ’26 creative director Malia Gaviola ’26
strategic initiative directors
Accessibility
Suthi Navaratnam-Tomayko ’26
editors at large
Research
Andrew Bosworth ’26
Education Hayk Yengibaryan ’26
Sections listed in alphabetical order.
head archives editor
Ifeoluwa Aigbiniode ’27
Lianne Chapin ’26
associate archives editor
Jillian Ascher ’28
head audience editors
Paige Walworth ’26
Justus Wilhoit ’26 (Reels)
associate audience editors
Catherine Ross ’27
Amparo Sofia Sanchez ’27
associate reels editors
Natalia Diaz ’27
Loreta Quarmine ’27
head cartoon editor
Eliana Du ’28
head copy editors
Lindsay Pagaduan ’26
James Thompson ’27
associate head copy editors
Coco Xu ’27
Song Ting Tang ’27
head data editors
Vincent Etherton ’26
Alexa Wingate ’27
head features editors
Raphaela Gold ’26
Coco Gong ’27
associate features editors
Mira Eashwaran ’26
Valentina Moreno ’26
head humor editor
Sophia Varughese ’26
associate humor editors
Tarun Iyengar ’28
Francesca Volkema ’28
head news editors
Christopher Bao ’27
Victoria Davies ’27
associate news editors
Thomas Catalan0 ’27
Devon Rudolph ’28
Hayk Yengibaryan ’26
Chair
head newsletter editor Caleb Bello ’27
associate newsletter editor Corbin Mortimer ’27
head opinion editor
Frances Brogan ’27
community opinion editor Jerry Zhu ’27
associate opinion editors Preston Ferraiuolo ’26
Siyeon Lee ’27
head photo editors Calvin Grover ’27
Jean Shin ’26
head podcast editor Maya Mukherjee ’27
associate podcast editors
Twyla Colburn ’27
Sheryl Xue ’28
head print design editors Kriste An ’28
Juan Fajardo ’28
head prospect editors Russell Fan ’26
Mackenzie Hollingsworth ’26
associate prospect editors
Natalia Diaz ’27
Gavin McLoughlin ’28
head puzzles editors Wade Bednar ’26
Luke Schreiber ’28
associate puzzle editors Jasin Cekinmez ’27
Lindsay McBride ’27
Peter Stover ’28
head sports editors
Alex Beverton-Smith ’27
Harrison Blank ’26
associate sports editors Lily Pampolina ’27
Doug Schwarz ’28
head web design and development
editors
Lauren Pak ’27 Cole Ramer ’28
149TH EDITORIAL BOARD
Christofer Robles ’26
Members
Isaac Barsoum ’28
Frances Brogan ’27
Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26
assistant business manager
Preston Ferraiuolo ’26
Anna Ferris ’26
Ava Johnson ’27
Jorge Reyes ’28 Bryan Zhang ’26
149TH BUSINESS BOARD
Alistair Wright ’27
directors Andrew He ’26
Tejas Iyer ’26
William Li ’27
Stephanie Ma ’27
Jordan Manela ’26
James Swinehart ’27
Adelle Xiao ’27
Chloe Zhu ’27
business manager emeritus
Aidan Phillips ’25
149TH TECHNOLOGY BOARD
chief technology officer
Yacoub Kahkajian ’26
software engineers
Abu Ahmed ’28
Jaehee Ashley ’25
Brian Chen ’26
Nipuna Ginige ’26
Angelina Ji ’27
Allen Liu ’27
Rodrigo Porto ’27
Stephanie Sugandi ’27
ui/ux engineer Joe Rupertus ’26
THIS PRINT ISSUE WAS DESIGNED BY
Kriste An ’28
Juan Fajardo ’28
Marley Hartnett-Cody ’28
Chengyu Fu ’28 Jose Santacruz ’27 AND COPIED BY
Is Princeton men’s basketball at an inflection point?
Steve Silverman Guest Contributor
Now is the spring of our discontent, at least for the Princeton men’s basketball team.
The news that two assistant coaches — Associate Head Coach Brett MacConnell and Assistant Coach Lawrence Rowley — have been fired is certain to shake the world of Princeton men’s basketball and reverberate through the entire Ivy League.
The departure of MacConnell is particularly shocking given the central role he played in recruiting top-tier talent to Princeton over the past 12 years. The Princeton Athletic Department’s website credits MacConnell with recruiting some of the greatest players in the history of Princeton basketball, including NBA talent Tosan Evbuomwan ’23, who led Princeton to the Sweet 16 just two years ago.
Other notable MacConnell recruits include current star juniors Caden Pierce and Xaivian Lee, along with highly ranked former players such as Jaelin Lllewellyn ’22, Devin Cannady ’20, Myles Stephens ’19, and Amir Bell ’18. MacConnell is so highly regarded in Ivy circles that his name has been floated for recent head coach vacancies at Penn and Columbia.
But how important is this development to the future of Princeton men’s basketball?
The departure of MacConnell and Rowley will have some impact in the near term. However, this development is overshadowed by bigger forces in the college basketball world that are detrimental to the Ivy League, such as the institution of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals.
In the short term, the sacking of MacConnell and Rowley reveals a troubling rupture in the program, the contours of which are not yet fully known.
What is known is that the Tigers, picked in the preseason to win the Ivy League, underperformed throughout the season, often falling behind by doubledigits in the opening minutes of games. Head Coach Mitch Henderson ’98 seemed to be at a loss to correct the problem and vocalized frustration at multiple points in the season.
In a moment of candor after Princeton’s season-ending loss to Yale in the semifinals of the Ivy League Tournament, Henderson admitted he had mismanaged the amount of playing time he gave to Jacob Huggins, a sophomore forward who started the season strong and then inexplicably disappeared from the lineup.
“Got to blame the coach on that one,” Henderson told reporters on March 15, following Princeton’s loss to Yale. “You know, that’s on me. He was really helpful all season and [it was] my decision at certain times to not play him, [but] he was terrific when he did [play].”
Reflecting on his coaching for the season, Henderson provided a curt summary. “Yeah, [it] wasn’t my best year.”
Some may speculate that MacConnell and Rowley are fall guys for a season that failed to live up to expectations. But that explanation doesn’t make sense given that Princeton has had plenty of seasons that didn’t quite work out as planned in the past without heads rolling on the coaching staff.
Something deeper seems to be at work here.
A year ago, the Tigers managed to avoid the kind of roster churn that has been afflicting so many college basketball programs in recent years. After a shocking loss to Brown in the 2024 Ivy League tournament, Pierce and Lee could have easily left Princeton, as others did. Yet both players returned for their junior campaigns, as did Jack Scott, who initially transferred to William & Mary and then abruptly changed course and returned to Old Nassau.
Other Ivy programs were not as fortunate. Yale lost its best player, Danny Wolf, to the transfer portal, as did Penn with Tyler Perkins, the 2024 Ivy League Rookie of the Year. The year before, the Quakers lost Jordan Dingle, the 2023 Ivy League Player of the Year, to the portal. And earlier this week, another standout Penn player, Sam Brown, announced his intention to enter the portal, as did Cornell’s AK Okereke.
Thus, the turmoil now afflicting Princeton is, to some extent, endemic to the game of college basketball today, especially at the mid-major level.
In the long run, the biggest risk to the continued success of Princeton basketball isn’t the sud-
den departure of two assistant coaches. The real issue is whether Princeton and every other Ivy program can continue to compete in a Division I landscape increasingly divided among the haves and have nots.
The advent of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals, direct player payments, and the transfer portal, along with conference realignment, is leading to a consolidation of power among a handful of programs within the so-called “power four” conferences.
The Ivy League has made a conscious attempt to avoid playing in this arena by denying graduate students an opportunity to play varsity sports, opting out of player payment plans made available under the House antitrust settlement, placing constraints on NIL deals, and making it difficult for transfers from other programs to come into the Ivy League.
And these are just the most recent developments that put the Ivy League at a disadvantage. Princeton and its Ivy compatriots were already handicapped by refusing to offer athletes scholarships and by adhering to much higher admission standards than any of their Division I competitors in sports.
If it wanted to, the Ivy League could make it easier for its members to compete in this new world of money-driven intercollegiate athletics. Graduate students with eligibility could be allowed to compete in varsity sports. The Ivy League could reverse its decision to opt out of the player payment system established by the House settlement. New procedures could be established to make it easier for players to transfer into the Ivy League.
The surprising firing of two assistant coaches will hurt in the short-term, but in the long run, the biggest threat to the relevance of Princeton basketball is the increasing flow of money into the sport and the unwillingness of the Ivy League to embrace the new realities of big-time intercollegiate athletics.
Steve Silverman ’83 is a lifelong follower of Princeton basketball, an adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School, and a frequent contributor to Ivy Hoops Online and The Next.
’00
Woulfe ’07
officio Miriam Waldvogel ’26
Sarah Li ’28
Public intellectuals owe their institutions courage. Do not obey in advance.
France Brogan Head Opinion Editor
In his 2017 book “On Tyranny,” an analysis of America’s anti-democratic shift under Trump, Yale historian Timothy Snyder implores his audience, “Do not obey in advance.” “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” he writes, arguing that those who adjust their behavior to fit the demands of an oppressive regime are “teaching power what it can do.”
But this week, Snyder and two other Yale professors, Marci Shore and Jason Stanley, announced that they are leaving Yale and joining the University of Toronto’s faculty. While Snyder and Shore, a married couple, attributed their departure to personal reasons, they accepted the positions at Toronto after the November presidential election. And Stanley said that his decision to leave Yale is “entirely because of the political climate of the United States.”
By taking positions at a Canadian university, these professors contradicted Snyder’s memorable directive. They are teaching power what it can do: intimidate fierce crusaders for the free pursuit of knowledge into leaving their institutions and their country. In essence, Snyder, Shore, and Stanley — the very “enemy” profes-
sors that the Trump administration wants to purge — obeyed in advance.
Their departure misleadingly signals that universities are no longer safe for scholars who reject Trumpian orthodoxy. But the drastic nature of this action makes this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Timothy Synder is emblematic of the parts of Yale that Trump wants to destroy. In this catastrophic moment for higher education, leading public intellectuals at Princeton and our peer institutions have a moral obligation not to turn their backs on American universities.
The Trump administration has been transparent about its intention to dismantle the university as we know it. Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist and intellectual architect of the administration’s crusade against higher education, admitted that thrusting universities into “existential terror” is the goal. In this climate, no member of a university community is immune from threats to their free intellectual exploration or their livelihood.
But tenured public intellectuals are the most insulated from the Trump administration’s political persecution, buoyed by the dual cushion of tenure and their public stature. It is extremely difficult to fire a tenured professor. Even as universities confront staggering federal funding cuts, the jobs
of superstars like Snyder, Shore, and Stanley will be the last on the chopping block. They also enjoy broad latitude afforded to few other members of a university community. They’re safer than University presidents, who have been gratuitously scrutinized and forced to resign after right-wing mega-donors launched an ideologically motivated pressure campaign. Unlike grad students facing hiring freezes, they don’t need to worry about where they will work next year. Unlike international students, they don’t need to fear they’ll be deported for First Amendment-protected expression of their political views. Superstar professors have the privilege of leaving voluntarily. Even if these intellectuals lost their professorships, their livelihoods remain secure because there is a massive public appetite for their insights. Snyder’s “On Tyranny” has sold almost half a million copies. Princeton professors (and trenchant Trump critics) Eddie Glaude and Julian Zelizer are frequent contributors on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and CNN, respectively. These big names at Princeton and its peer institutions are financially secure and that enables them to maintain a public platform and continue serving the American public. Professors define the character of their universities. They create department cultures that fa-
cilitate exploration and nurture students’ intellectual curiosity. Titans like Jen Rexford, Ilya Kaminsky, and Ruha Benjamin are points of pride for Princeton. These professors’ teaching and mentorship directly shape the development of America’s future leaders. Their departures don’t just affect the quality of a university’s offerings — they also have ramifications for future scholarship.
When the most vocal dissenters against Trumpian demagoguery leave their institutions the second they’re under threat, it sets those universities on a trajectory of transforming into exactly what the right falsely accuses them of being: ideological safe spaces that are only tenable communities for those who subscribe to a narrow, extreme political orthodoxy. It enforces the exclusion of academics whose views are unacceptable to the administration or those who won’t self-censor when their views attract ire.
If professors like Timothy Snyder won’t choose courage in the face of authoritarian attacks on their scholarship and independence, who will?
Snyder, Shore, and Stanley have set a precedent that their peers, at Princeton and elsewhere, should resist the temptation to follow. Leading intellectuals set the tone for public discourse and have security from Trump-induced marginalization that few other groups share. They must not squander their privilege. They must not comply in advance.
Head Opinion editor Frances Brogan is a sophomore History major from Lancaster, Pa. She can be reached at frances.brogan[at] princeton.edu.
Universities are under threat, like in any autocratic regime. Some universities are capitulating to demands that amount to chilling and blatantly ideological government overreach, such as placing ethnic studies departments under administrative supervision. That’s exactly why professors — especially those who have devoted their careers to thinking about how to resist tyrants — need to stay: to strengthen their institutions and to insist that they refuse to appease the Trump administration. By maintaining their positions at top universities in a country hurtling toward authoritarianism, they communicate to the Trump administration that it cannot manufacture their consent. If they stay, they demonstrate that universities will continue to be bastions of free thought. But if these respected professors leave, it only conveys to the administration that it can make increasingly sweeping behests of universities — and encounter little or no resistance.
Face it, Eisgruber is the man for the moment
Jerry Zhu & Preston Ferraiuolo Community & Associate Opinion Editors
Higher education is in trouble. Princeton is in trouble. After Tuesday’s announcement that the federal government suspended some of Princeton’s research grants, it’s clear that we’re already in the crosshairs. At Columbia, after the university appointed an administrative official to oversee an academic department in acquiescence to Trump administration demands, it appears that the integrity of academic freedom is also under attack.
Many university presidents have chosen to remain silent in the face of this attack on academia. Others, such as Michael Roth of Wesleyan University, have explicitly vilified the Trump administration. Rather than taking an overtly political stance against the administration, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 has chosen to take a principled stand against the most troubling facet of the recent grant suspensions: their impact on academic freedom.
While support for one’s university president may not be common in the pages of a student newspaper, it’s time for Princetonians to realize that for years, Eisgruber has kept the University on the right course of free expression and academic freedom. He has arguably handled the issues of the past two years the best out of any of our peer institutions, and it’s important in this moment to stay his course.
Princeton has been a model of discourse in the Ivy League in major part because of Eisgruber’s leadership. Eisgruber, who is also the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of the Princeton School of Public and
International Affairs and the University Center for Human Values, is one of our nation’s most esteemed constitutional scholars, with an immense repertoire of First Amendment scholarship, which has informed his leadership of Princeton.
Under his tenure, barring a few notable critiques, Old Nassau has routinely ranked as one of the schools with the most robust protections for free speech, and overall has developed a culture of discourse respected by students and faculty alike. “Shouting down” speakers, routine at our peer institutions, is relatively rare at Princeton.
Even before the Trump administration’s recent attacks on academic freedom, there has been a crisis of discourse at America’s universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) which defends free speech on college campuses found that 63 percent of students are “frequently” or “sometimes” intimidated to share ideas that differ from their peers. Nowhere is this experience more pressing than our nation’s elite universities, such as at Harvard, where just this semester, a survey indicated that most students are uncomfortable sharing controversial opinions in class.
This phenomenon, however, has mostly escaped Princeton. The Daily Princetonian’s 2024 Senior Survey found that just 18 percent of graduating seniors felt very or somewhat uncomfortable sharing their political views on campus.
Eisgruber has prioritized fostering discussions on free speech, including adding programming to freshman orientation, exposing students to the importance of free expression during their very first days on campus. He has also notably championed Princeton’s policy of “institutional restraint.”
Eisgruber is one of the most senior elite university presidents, managing to retain his position while many peers have been forced out of their offices. To top it all off, he’s writing a book sharing his story of success: “Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right,” to be published in September.
And now, at the exact right moment, Eisgruber is speaking out in defense of universities, and doing it in such a way that highlights the value of academic freedom. Last week, Eisgruber published an article in The Atlantic pushing back against the government’s attempt to chip away at academic freedom, and reaffirmed his views a few days later in a PBS interview. After Tuesday’s funding freeze announcement, he also appeared on Bloomberg Business’s “Big Take” podcast to maintain his defense of academic freedom.
But some of our fellow students have expressed their discontent with Eisgruber’s approach. During a Council of the Princeton University Community meeting last week, a student demanded that Eisgruber commit to using his position as chair of the Association of American Universities to “defend all members of the University community from the recent Trump administration attacks on free speech, funding cuts and threats for deportations.”
Eisgruber deflected in response, affirming the importance of speaking about the good of universities but rejecting the idea of directly opposing administration officials. This is, again, a prudent strategy: the administration’s response would trounce the University. If Princeton were to do what the activists ask and look for a fight with the executive branch, Princeton would lose. A single university is certainly no match for the awesome power of the
federal government.
In this critical moment for higher education, we implore our fellow students to unite behind President Eisgruber, instead of undermining his efforts to keep us on the right course. Eisgruber is right in saying that we must follow the law while also defending our academic freedom and due process. When Columbia faced funding freezes, little was said by their president before they announced measures implementing all of the Trump administration’s demands. Conversely, on Tuesday, Eisgruber declared that “we have to be willing to say no to funding if it’s going to constrain our ability to pursue the truth.”
We do not envy Eisgruber’s job. But the fact that he has continued to voice his commitment to academic freedom and the strength of the American university is commendable. In a time when Princeton and higher education are under fire, we
ought to be uniting against the threats and supporting the academic freedom principles that Eisgruber has championed. Princeton’s commitment to truth requires discourse. Protection of these sacrosanct values have been fundamental to Eisgruber’s philosophy of the presidency. We should be supportive.
Jerry Zhu is a sophomore majoring in Economics. He serves as the community Opinion editor of The Daily Princetonian, and encourages you to submit a response to this piece or write an op-ed for the ‘Prince.’ You can reach him at jfz[at]princeton.edu.
Preston Ferraiuolo is a junior from Brooklyn, New York. He is an associate Opinion editor majoring in the School of Public and International Affairs and can be reached at prestonf[at] princeton.edu or online @NYCPreston.
By Angela Li Assistant Features Editor
Professor Pietro Frassica has taught in the French and Italian Department since before it was called the French and Italian Department. He joined the University in 1976. In addition to lecturing on the literature of the Italian Renaissance and Italian dramatist Luigi Pirandello, Professor Frassica introduced Food Studies to the curriculum in the 1990s with one of his most popular seminars, The Literature of Gastronomy.
The Daily Princetonian spoke with Professor Frassica to hear more about his perspective on literature and Princeton after all these years.
Daily Princetonian (DP): What initially drew you to teaching and the field of Italian literature?
Pietro Frassica (PF): I always had teaching as one of my priorities, even as a child. Obviously, I had other ideas, like singing, but when I started seriously studying and going to university, I knew my goal was to do research, write, teach, and eventually bring my work to the classroom.
Through literature, you learn a lot about life, even within fiction. You learn how to somehow deal with your emotions, with your way of understanding life, and this is what I like to also bring to the students. It’s important, especially nowadays, to not lose the sense of understand-
On learning, life, and literature with Professor Pietro Frassica Tiger Tots: Lucie and Constance
By Maya Chu Features Staff Writer
Sébastien Philippe is a Research Scholar with Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security. His research focuses on addressing the global security and environmental challenges associated with nuclear arms and emerging technologies. Christine Blumauer, GS ’18, is the executive director of policy for the NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Philippe and Blumauer are married and have two children, Lucie and Constance.
The Daily Princetonian: How old are you?
Lucie: I’m eight.
Constance: I’m three.
DP: What grade are you in?
Lucie: I’m in second.
Constance: I’m in first grade.
ing and exchanging ideas in a free context.
So, for me, I didn’t want to do anything else. I’ve been very happy, and I’m prolonging my teaching as long as I can, as long as I feel healthy and comfortable.
DP: What led you to start teaching at Princeton, and what made you decide to stay?
PF: Before I came to Princeton, I had the choice between Princeton and Berkeley. For an Italian, Princeton is much closer to Italy, which seems silly, but geography was an important factor for me. But also, when I first visited the campus, I fell in love with the place. I really fell in love.
I said, “This is the place I’d like to be, and I’m staying as long as I can,” because I loved the place, the people, the department, the students, and the way it’s structured. I felt very comfortable then, and I feel comfortable now. Of course, I had the opportunity over the years to go somewhere else, but I always said, “Okay, I can come and visit to give a lecture, but I will never leave Princeton.”
I also love to walk into the classroom and see the students. Seeing them asking questions and participating gives me a lot of energy. Even after so many decades, I still feel as if it’s the first time.
DP: How have your experiences here influenced your own work and approach to literary education?
Lucie: No, you’re not.
Constance: Pre-K three.
DP: What do you like about the grade you’re in?
Lucie: I like that I learn more in second grade. Learning about biographies. Sojourner Truth won in court to get her son back because he was getting sold … and that was illegal.
Constance: I love playing with my friends.
DP: What’s something you dislike about your grade?
Lucie: That I have to do a lot of homework.
Constance: I don’t know.
DP: What’s your favorite subject in school right now?
Lucie: Writing.
Constance: Writing.
DP: What do you like to do outside of school?
Lucie: I like playing at the play-
PF: I listen to students a lot. Their reactions are very important to me. Over the years, I have seen a lot of changes in students, so I want to know what aspects of literature or history they are interested in. This makes me very eager to answer to their expectations, because times have changed, and I find it very exciting to see how students perceive literature differently now.
When students come to me and say, “I have an idea, but maybe it’s silly,” I always respond, “No, no, nothing is silly. You speak, I listen, and we can discuss that. You are in the classroom and we talk. You tell me how you feel.” So it’s important for me also to somehow evolve with the time and with the students.
I also bring my research to class, because to make a class lively, you have to bring your own experience and share what you do, how you do it, the kind of methodology you use.
DP: In 1993, started offering a class on literary texts concerned with gastronomy, a novel field at the time. What inspired you to study this unique connection, and how has this relationship between food and literature affected the rest of your interdisciplinary studies?
PF: Teaching this course has been an incredible experience, because the students like the idea of studying fiction. It contains not only descriptions of dinners, but descriptions of lack of food, especially in books that describe war and
ground and playing with my friends. And judo.
DP: How long have you been doing that?
Lucie: For six months. I’m soon going to get my yellow belt.
DP: What do you like about judo?
Lucie: That I like to fight with people, and I don’t get to the principal’s office. (Lucie has never been to the principal’s office and knows that Judo stays in the dojo, her mom clarifies.)
DP: Constance, what about you?
Constance: Playing. And doing instruments! Doing the recorder.
DP: How long have you been playing the recorder?
Constance: A long time.
Lucie: No, no, no, no.
Constance: Yes.
Lucie: No.
Mom: Three days ago.
DP: Well, I hope it’s off to a good start. Do you guys have a favorite book?
Constance: I do. “Pete the Cat”!
Lucie: “Dragon Masters” series.
DP: Favorite movie?
Lucie: “Sing 2.”
Constance: “Sing 3.”
Lucie: There’s no “Sing 3.”
Constance (after a pause): “Thelma the Unicorn.”
DP: Do you guys have a dream job?
Lucie: I want to be a surgeon that specializes in the heart. I want to help people get better, and I want them to survive. I want them to keep living; I don’t want them to die.
Constance: I want to fly in the air.
DP: In a plane, or just you?
Constance: Just me. In the clouds!
DP: I notice you guys speak French, have you been speaking [that] your whole life?
concentration camps. So food is not only eating, but also a lack of eating, which is very important in our days to consider too.
To talk about the literature of gastronomy, you must necessarily speak about other things like history, politics, anthropology, sociology, biology, and all kinds of disciplines, because food is something you find everywhere. It’s a common denominator for everybody. People also have different traditions, so when you bring that factor into the classroom, it opens up the whole discussion.
The class, ITA 319, is being taught this semester as an interdisciplinary course that explores the depiction of food in Italian literature through anthropological, cultural, and socio-political lenses. Drawing from well-known stories like “Pinocchio,” selections from cookbooks, and the 1972 film “Roma,” the course seeks to understand how food and the action of eating can serve as a commentary on life in Italian society.
DP: Beyond your work at Princeton, you’ve been deeply involved in the community, serving as a trustee for Dorothea’s House, an Italian-American cultural institution. What initially led you to take on this role, and how has it shaped your experience at Princeton?
PF: Dorothea’s House invited me many years ago to be one of their trustees, and I accepted because I felt it was important to give the
Lucie: We weren’t born in France. We were born here, but our parents taught us how to speak even though we were around people speaking English.
DP: Do you think your English is better than your French?
Lucie: Yeah, I think so. I also speak Spanish —
Constance: And me too!
Lucie: — and just a couple words of German.
Constance: And me too!
DP: What do you think is one thing the world needs more of?
Lucie: Trees.
Constance: Clouds.
DP: If you could invent something, what would it be?
Lucie: I would invent a flying car. It would be like an airplane but the size of a car. And the shape of a car, just with wings and more power.
Constance: I want to be a princess.
Lucie: Non, c’est qu’est-ce que tu veux faire. (No, it’s what do you want to do).
Constance: I want to do a toy monster. It would crawl on the floor and fly, and [help to] get the car in the air.
DP: If you became president tomorrow, what’s one rule you would put into place?
Lucie: I would want my school to have water slides sticking out of it to get out of the school and have fun. But they would only be water slides in the summer. They would be snow slides during the winter, leaf slides during autumn, and then flower slides during spring.
Constance: I would clean the floor.
DP: What is one thing you guys are really proud of?
Lucie: Speaking a lot of languages.
community something. We always have to be happy for what we get, for what we have, and to give it back. As part of the organization, we organize cultural events. I bring my experience at Princeton to invite people for lectures and concerts, among other things. We also give 10 to 15 scholarships to young people who are residents in Princeton.
Although the University has obviously been a big part of my life, since it’s where I live, Dorothea’s House has also given me a sense of the Princeton community beyond the University. It gives me an incredible sense of accomplishment to help these young, promising people for four years.
DP: If you could give one piece of advice to aspiring Italian majors today, what would it be?
PF: When you are away from your family, you are on your own. So talk to people. Talk to your professors. If you have a problem, rather than feeling isolated, you can talk to your professor. Professors don’t only teach literature, or mathematics, or chemistry. Professors are human beings, and I do think there is always the possibility of communicating on a different level with students. To me, it is very important not to lose the human aspect in any kind of relationship in life.
Angela Li is an assistant Features editor for the ‘Prince.’
Constance: I love speaking in Spanish.
DP: What do you guys think about Princeton?
Lucie: I really like it, and I really like all the stuff in Princeton, like Bent Spoon.
Constance: I love living in Princeton, New Jersey.
Mom translates the question in French.
Constance: My parents!
DP: Is there anything you would change about campus?
Lucie: I would make it more hightech. Drones that would deliver stuff and houses that are abstract.
Constance: Drawing pictures!
DP: Have you interacted with the students?
Lucie: No.
Mom: We see students when they go to the dining hall.
Lucie: At Yeh.
DP: Are there any observations you’ve made about students?
Lucie: They’re tall, they’re big, and adults, if they’re 18.
Constance: They’re nice!
DP: Is there any advice you would give to Princeton students?
Lucie: To do more homework! Everybody’s homework, and everybody’s jobs!
Constance: I want them to play. With the foods!
DP: Anything else before we wrap it up?
Lucie: Thank you for the interview!
Constance: Thank you for the interview!
Maya Chu is a Features staff writer for the ‘Prince.’
Maya Chu / The Daily Princetonian
sisters Constance and Lucie pose together.
the PROSPECT. ARTS & CULTURE
Female scientists illuminate McCarter in play ‘Legacy of Light’
By Lily Hutcheson | Assistant Pospect Editor
When I entered McCarter’s Matthews Theatre for a professional production of Karen Zacarías’s “Legacy of Light,” I was expecting the stage to look familiar, as its setting was one I know well: Princeton. Instead, I found a theater transformed into a Princeton full of sparkling planets, gold chandeliers, and much brighter rainbow hues than our current rainy spring allows. It’s a Princeton that oscillates between present-day New Jersey and 18th century France in fluid scenes, tied together by actors who deftly swap between jeans and lacy pastel gowns to portray the lives of two scientists living three hundred years apart.
“Legacy of Light” tells the interconnected stories of two female physicists, historical figure Émilie du Châtelet and fictional modern-day scientist Dr. Olivia Hastings Brown. Châtelet is known for building off of the ideas of scientists such as Isaac Newton and her long-lasting relationship with Voltaire, while fictional Hastings Brown is an astrophysicist living in Princeton, who has just discovered a new planet.
Zacarías told The Daily Princetonian that she decided to set the play in Princeton to find the “modern day equivalent” of Émilie du Châtelet, and described Princeton as a place of “women astrophysicists who are mothers” just like Châtelet.
“Your campus is the perfect place to
cultivate that kind of intellectual curiosity, and the idea of a woman loving her work and still trying to maintain some kind of balance with her family,” Zacarías explained.
Princeton astrophysical science professor Jenny Greene was consulted during the production process to develop the scientific elements of the play, mainly seen in soliloquies about Hastings Brown’s discovery of a planet and in Châtelet’s work with the properties of light. Zacarías said she wanted to prepare for the Princetonians she described as a “generous but exacting audience.” The complex explanations of a developing planet certainly make for a powerful contrast with the burbling humor of the show, balancing a generous wit with precise scientific knowledge.
This interconnection of science and art defines much of the play; one scene brings an all-too-familiar scientific talk to life, as Hastings Brown adjusts the microphone of a lectern and thanks a tech person for their assistance. This moment infuses scholarly lectures with a sense of performance sometimes missing from the world of academia, showing how artistic flare can bring rigid physics to life.
What struck me the most about the show was how deeply women are centered in its narrative. Although Châtelet and Hastings Brown are both loving mothers throughout the course of the show, this does not prevent them from pursuing their scien-
tific worth or maintaining a strong sense of self. Their male partners were supportive of their work, and, although the mood of the show ranges from silly to somber, women — and their passions, ideas, and loves — are always the center of its cosmos.
Perhaps the most emotionally poignant moments of the play were what Zacarías described as “joyful soliloquies about intellectual pursuit,” in which both Châtelet and Hastings Brown were empowered to take up the whole stage as they worked through scientific discoveries — commanding the audience with exuberance on their faces as they worked through scientific concepts like the properties of light. Their passion for their respective work was as palpable as their ardor for lovers or children, despite the impending danger of childbirth for Châtelet. Zacarías mentioned the issue of women’s health and reproductive rights as one that weighed on her, and one to which she hoped the play could bring some hope.
“Women in science is really important, but the science of women is also really important to keeping us alive,” she noted. I took the play’s final moment, in which Châtelet gazes into the audience as the lights go out, as a reminder that, even in the face of challenges to women’s health, luminaries like her continue to fight for their voices to be heard and shine their light.
“Legacy of Light” deals with difficult
topics, such as death during childbirth and surrogate pregnancies, but carries them with a celebratory lightness. A sense of joy emanates from its humorous oneliners, such as the physical comedy, a gorgeously-glittering set design, and the many remarks about the shortcomings of men that brought the performance to a pause for a collective chuckling.
The climax of the show brings outpourings of emotion from each character, but it’s flavored with a dash of comic absurdity. There’s a Mad Lib quality of eccentric combinations to it all, with French and American characters crossing time and space to meet under the dazzling, candlefilled branches of Newton’s fictional apple tree — a highlight of the set design. Hastings Brown scrambles awkwardly around the trunk of the tree, seemingly trying to escape from her fears of motherhood in its branches, and the air rings with cries such as “you just got struck by lightning!” The play’s closing moments feel a bit like the explosions of color that portray Hastings Brown’s new-found planet during her lecture — a jumble of love, passion, and light.
“Legacy of Light” runs at McCarter through April 6.
Lily Hutcheson is a member of the Class of 2028, an assistant editor for The Prospect, and a contributing constructor for the Puzzles section.
Princeton Playhouse Ensemble examines memory and nature in spring concert
By Irene Kim | Prospect Contributor
Held on March 1, Princeton Playhouse Ensemble’s spring concert “Foibles and Fables: Songs of Magic and Memory” in Berlind Theatre was a night of intertwined exploration between memory and nature.
In the overture, singers dressed in black and red creeped onto the stage, their backs to the audience. Their hands rose, fell, and swirled as they shimmied into three groups, hypnotically chanting “join us” repeatedly. The beginning set the stage for reflection and sentimentality.
Floating between a nostalgic and dreamlike atmosphere through a collection of cavernous sounds, each piece invited personal reflection and an exploration of the audience’s memory.
To begin, Director Solon Snider asked the crowd, “What [do] we make of our memories?” before briefly discussing the theme of change present in pieces like the
arrangement done by Matt Cline ’27 of Steven Sondheim’s “I Remember.” In Cline’s arrangement, I appreciated how the serenity of the lyric “I remember skies” contrasted the perkiness of “soft as feathers” and “sharp as thumbtacks,” engaging the audience.
The next song, “In the Wind,” was the first piece produced by the Playhouse Ensemble as a group, led by guest resident composer Kenyon Duncan. The piece sings, “The way is changing. The air on all my sides is willing to learn my name,” capturing the loss of childhood and the transition into a new period of life. Within the piece, I especially enjoyed the poetic lines that anchored the song: “Have you ever thrown a kite before? … run with the wind you would be weightless, willfully guided by nothing but a gentle breeze.” Accompanied by members swaying their bodies and a lyrical dance solo reminiscent of a falling leaf, the wind imagery in this piece was truly brought to life.
One of my favorite pieces, “The Smallest World,” was composed uniquely for Playhouse. The piece uniquely incorporated white “memory balls” as props that performers played with in childlike manners. As the story progressed, the members’ experiences lit the balls up in several vivid colors. The piece was inspired by journal entries and other written materials shared by Playhouse members.
After, Grammy-winning violinist and composer Nathan Schramm and Broadway performer and songwriter Becca Stevens were invited to perform pieces from Stevens’ new album “Maple to Paper.”
“As composers, this opportunity to write for this big of a group is huge … It’s so hard to organize a bunch of students to do this for you … the fact that there is a framework for you to do it, it’s so underrated,” Cline said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.
Upon the concert’s end, family and friends showered performers
with flower bouquets and streamed out of the theater. Jenna Mullin ’27 told the ‘Prince’ that the performance “was magical.”
“It was going from all in Woolworth music building to being on stage and being able to hear the full orchestra … It gave me chills, hearing it for the first time,” she continued.
Along with the ensemble’s wealth of musical talent, the tightknit Playhouse community drives a chemistry and connection that results in meaningful music.
“I hope it manifests into something so much greater and so much bigger,” Angela Kwon ’26 told the ‘Prince.’
The incredibly alluring and sentimental experience reminded me of the fading memories of childhood and growing older.
Irene Kim is a contributing writer for The Prospect and a member of the Class of 2028. She can be reached at ik7641[at]princeton.edu.
Anora: A powerful, realistic Cinderella story
“Anora,” this year’s Best Picture winner at the Academy Awards, is an unflinching portrait of a nightmare disguised as a fairytale. Written and directed by Sean Baker, “Anora” tells the tale of a brash, crafty New York City stripper who marries an immature son of Russian oligarchs. The second Anora signs her marriage license in a 24-7 Las Vegas chapel, she is destined for a bitter conflict with her new in-laws. Baker, a leading director in sex worker narratives, handles the subject matter with a mature and grounded lens. He crafts a vignette of a woman who may not get the security and stability she is secretly desperate for. Over the course of nearly two and a half hours, “Anora” is a sensual and frustrating tour de force in empathetic but realistic filmmaking.
Actress Mikey Madison effortlessly plays the titular character Anora, navigating the thematic shifts in the film with subtle sadness, immense vulnerability, and abject rage. No matter how street tough and savvy Anora is, she can never win against the sheer wealth and power of her new oligarch “family.” Baker could have allowed Anora to be the victorious one. However, Baker holds true to a more authentic narrative, despite potential moments of frustrated dissatisfaction for the audience. Baker’s commitment to relaying this is commendable, and his execution heartbreaking. He crafts an exciting whirlwind world for Anora and her new husband, Vanya. Sex is fast and clumsy. Multi-level hotel suites are a given. There is an endless amount of drugs and alcohol. As Vanya’s posse drifts from party to
party, eventually ending up in Las Vegas, Baker switches to fast handheld camera shots, à la MTV documentary. Anora settles into her new life with a wicked grin and no hesitation. Everything seems perfect — until it disintegrates. Despite its darker moments, “Anora” is also daringly humorous. Actor Mark Eydelshteyn’s Vanya provides most of the laughter in the film. He expertly plays the role of a coddled child who will never have to grow up. Vanya bumbles through sex jokes and laughs through the sex itself. He spends his days playing video games and strolling around with a weed pen wedged in his ear. Although Eydelshteyn was shut out of this year’s award season, viewers will still leave “Anora” feeling that they just met a future Hollywood powerhouse. Both Madison and Eydelshteyn deliver captivating performances. At first, Vanya is boyishly charming, which Eydelshteyn encapsulates perfectly. He seems to care about Anora and is genuine in his excitement about their new life. However, Baker reminds audiences that appearances can be deceiving. Ulterior motives and weakness lurk beneath Vanya’s charm. When he abandons Anora to avoid his parents, his character shift is striking. My amusement with Vanya’s character morphs into disgust.
After Vanya’s disappearance, the film unfurls its middle section. Baker slows the whirlwind romance down and makes viewers experience the long, futile hunt to somehow find Vanya in the enormous New York City. Some of the film’s momentum is lost at this point, as the plot is shoved aside in favor of character devel-
opment. At this point, the audience must ask themselves: Am I invested in these characters? Do I want to sit through their growth? If you don’t care enough about said character growth, getting through the next 30 minutes of bigcity cinematography and little dialogue might prove difficult. However, I found that Baker put enough work into his characters for me to be invested. I wanted Anora to retain her dream life, even though I knew that she wouldn’t.
A particularly compelling part of the film involves the relationship between Anora and Igor, one of the henchmen sent to end the marriage. The budding relationship between the two is compassionate and complicated, yet Baker refrains from over-explanation, allowing the bond to develop naturally in the film’s quiet moments. He makes his final, poignant statement where he leaves them — two lost, lower-class people who may be forever reliant on the whims of the wealthy. His use of tight, lingering shots of the two reinforces their shared vulnerability.
Reality is far from a fairytale in “Anora.” Baker teaches us that wanting a character to win does not mean they will — a truth as frustratingly pragmatic as it is heartbreaking to witness on screen. Baker’s meandering middle and heartbreaking conclusion may turn some viewers away. However, his sharp sense of character creates a memorable cinematic gem.
COURTESY OF JASON HABERMAN @JASONHABERMANPHOTO Playhouse Ensemble cast gathered on stage.
Meredith Sneed is a contributing writer for The Prospect from Savannah, Ga. She can be reached at ms1290@princeton.edu.
By Meredith Sneed | Prospect Contributor
Artist Q&A: NYC’s Young Artist Scene With Sadat Ahmed ’28
By Monica Zepeda | Prospect Contributor
While some students might shop online or binge-watch a Netflix show, Sadat Ahmed ’28 is busy scouring the internet for online beats that’ll spark his musical identity. Having created music from a young age, Ahmed has continued his artistic journey at Princeton by working on new songs, hoping to create a new album during his free time.
This interview has been edited for clarity and concision.
The Daily Princetonian: Hi Sadat. Thank you for being here with us today. To start, tell us a little bit about yourself.
Sadat Ahmed: I’m a freshman, and I’m currently an ECE major. I’m from Queens, New York. I was born in Bangladesh, but I moved here when I was two and ultimately ended up in East Elmhurst.
DP: Where did your passion for music originate? How long have you been pursuing it?
SA: When I first came to this country, it was a lot about exploring the culture. I really liked Justin Bie =ber; I listened to a lot of his music. It inspired me to hit some notes. Ultimately, I started making a cappella music for fun. I recorded them on voice memos. From there, I did some talent shows in middle school where I wrote songs. Someone from my middle school said he liked it — he saw my potential and reached out to me. At this point, I started working with beats online, free for profit, YouTube beats, and then started releasing stuff. The same guy from middle school also started finding me beats, and he started making music with me more seriously. We started working together and now make music together consistently. He’s become my producer.
DP: When did music become more
than a hobby, where you knew you wanted to produce and release music rather than doing it in your free time?
SA: I did this one music program, where we were connected to a lot of professionals, during my sophomore year of high school. There’s this guy who performs all around New York City, and we were talking about hosting shows. He was saying, “this is the best opportunity of your life, because you’ll never get access to this many people in such a tightknit circle ever again.” I felt I needed to take advantage of it right away. At that point, I had released a few songs, but then I really locked in and worked on an album. I hosted my first concert, rented out a small venue, and invited everyone I knew. A lot of people ended up coming, and it was so fun. Meeting with my friend who produces music was probably one of the greatest experiences of my life because it was something new. Before going to a studio, I recorded it in my room, so it was a little awkward. But when we’re in the studio, he tells me if something sounds off. He tells me if my voice cracks or I’m off beat, and we just fix it. I’ve collaborated with other people when I used to host concerts throughout New York City — it was just a great opportunity to meet people.
DP: What does the process of producing music look like for you? Do you work on one song at a time or multiple? Are you always writing with the goal of an album?
SA: It depends. I wanted to release an album to end high school. It took about a year because my producer and I couldn’t get songs that we liked. So, we started the summer before senior year. My producer sent me beats, and ultimately, we crafted a story we wanted to tell. Originally, I sent him a list of ideas I wanted and then
he sent batches of beats for me to choose from. Sometimes, it was trial and error. Ultimately, we moved from there to finishing the album. When we’re not working on an album, I try to tell him the type of vibe I want, and he sends me a bunch with that vibe. Then, we go with whatever sounds intriguing to work with. I record in voice memos, and once we both have time, we go to the studio and record.
DP: What or who inspires you the most when it comes to making music?
SA: Sometimes, I ask for beats that match the vibe of certain artists that I seek inspiration from. While I’m working on a song based on their vibe, I also find parts of me that shine through. Other than that, my producer really inspires me because he’s very versatile. He’s able to work with a lot of genres. Whenever we work together, it’s always a vibe.
DP : What have been some difficulties you’ve dealt with as an artist?
SA: Not everyone’s going to like your music. You just have to know how to deal with negative criticisms. When I first got criticism, it was sad, but you just keep doing what you’re doing. There’s always writer’s block when ideas don’t come to my head, or if I’m just not able to work with the beat.
DP: Earlier, you talked about your involvement in organizing shows. Can you tell us a bit more? Why has it been something important to you, and what type of community do you aim to build through them?
SA: After my first show, I decided to do charity concerts, where I donated all the proceeds to different charity organizations. I met a good amount of artists through this one program I did called “Sound Thinking NYC.” Through that, I realized I had a good amount of connections, and I reached out to basically
all the artists. I thought if we all came together and brought all our friends, we could host a great show. We packed the small venues we got, and everyone shared their craft. I wanted to create a space where everyone could share their music and have fun.
DP: What’s been the most rewarding part of making music?
SA: I’d say getting into Princeton. It’s been a way to tell my story. For the application question that asked for the soundtrack that represents your life, I used a song of my own.
DP: Love it. What do you hope people take away from your music?
SA: I hope they understand the stories I’m telling with it. With each song I’m trying to say something different. I got the sad songs, I got the happy songs, I got the egotistic songs, and I got the vibey songs.
DP: Have you released music recently? What are your upcoming plans regarding your music, and where can we listen?
SA: I released a song earlier this year called “Working Harder” on all streaming platforms. After the semester is over, I plan to meet up with my producer and work on an album and maybe release it at the beginning of next semester. So that’s the goal right now, and that’s what I’m gonna be working on over the summer.
DP: Do you have any parting words for our readers?
SA: Yes! Stream my music under the name S4D4T on all streaming platforms and thanks so much for listening.
Monica Zepeda is a contributing writer for The Prospect and a member of the Class of 2028. She can be reached at mz9063[a] princeton.edu.
The ‘Prince’ water sommelier’s search for the best water on campus
By Cynthia Lee | Prospect Contributor
Between cramming for exams and navigating the sprawling campus, Princeton students are always on the go. However, what often gets overlooked in the hustle is something they rely on every day: the water that keeps them going.
To assess the taste of campus water and its quality, I sampled water from dining halls and residential college water fountains. What I found might not surprise you: water at the newer colleges passed the test of student approval, while Roma isn’t quite as satisfying. However, students have found some ways to improve their hydration experience with some refreshing alternatives.
Choi Dining Hall, one of the newer additions to campus, sets the standard for great water quality. The water here tastes fresh, crisp, and clean, making it one of the most reliable places to hydrate. The water fountains in Yeh and New College West are also consistently well-maintained, with clear, cold water that doesn’t have any noticeable metallic or chemical aftertaste.
At the other end of the spectrum, Roma’s water is a different story. The water fountains here taste just like any other standard campus water source, yet with a slightly rusty undertone. When it comes to the dining hall, the water quality becomes more subjective—Roma frequently offers fruit-infused spa water, which can be a hit or miss depending on the fruit selection of the day. But for Hannah Feinberg ’28, it’s essential. “The fruit water
is the only thing that gets me out of bed,” she said.
Whitman, on the other hand, is highly unpredictable. Some water fountains appear slightly rusty and deliver a taste that raises eyebrows, while others are perfectly fine. The dining hall follows this inconsistency. Unlike Yeh or Forbes, Whitman only offers a water faucet and soda machine water that comes out of the lemonade, “As a Yeh resident, the water in Whitman, in comparison, tastes a bit more stale and recognizable than the other residential colleges,” said Abigail Jung ‘28. Forbes, much like Roma, frequently offers fruit-infused water in the dining hall, sometimes with cucumber or citrus additions. Adam Vu ‘28, a Forbes resident, gave the infused water a thumbs up. “Fruit water is all I ever known. It’s pretty good, too. Very consistent,” he said.
The water fountains at Forbes often have a taste that some students compare to Whitman’s, with a slightly metallic or tap-like flavor, making them less appealing for regular use. I also noticed this twinge of flavor when I tasted the fountains to assess my review.
Finally, Butler College offers a consistently solid water experience. “I think it tastes fine. I usually use the water bottle refill stations, but it tastes pretty filtered to me,” said Mohemeen Ahmed ‘28. Butler also shares a dining hall with Whitman, so the reviews on the cafeteria are the same as those mentioned earlier for the Whitman review.
After trying different spots around campus, I found that Yeh College and New College West con -
sistently offer clean, crisp, and reliably refreshing water. Butler College, I believe, comes as the best second option, followed by Whitman College as third. Rocky and Mathey College tie with Forbes College for the bottom tier. According to water tests conducted by the ‘Prince,’ water is generally safe around campus to drink. By comparing taste, consistency, and
student experiences, the results uncover how something as fundamental as water can influence daily life and shape the student experience at Princeton.
Cynthia Lee is a contributing writer for The Prospect. She is a member of the class of 2028 and can be reached at cl9425@princeton.edu.
WOMEN’S LACROSSE
No. 9 women’s lacrosse brings winning streak to eight against Ivy rival No. 12 Yale
By Leila Eshaghpour-Silberman
Staff Sports Writer
On a warm afternoon in New Haven, the No. 9 Princeton women’s lacrosse team (8–1 overall, 2–0 Ivy League) defeated the No. 12 Yale Bulldogs (7–3, 1–2), 13–11. While many successful free position conversions for Yale kept them in contention with Princeton for much of the game, the Tigers fought hard, ultimately beating Yale to extend their unbeaten streak in Ivy play.
“This is a game we’ve been waiting for all season,” junior attacker Haven Dora told The Daily Princetonian. “Obviously, not having won the past two years, we wanted it even more this year.”
“It really was a full team win for all 60 minutes,” Head Coach Jenn Cook said. “They really wanted this game, and it was just fun to see it all come together.”
Princeton started off the scoring early. Just over a minute and a half into the first quarter, Dora cut through from the goal line, passing the ball to sophomore attacker Meg Morrisroe, who whipped it past the Yale goalie for the first goal of the match.
“If the opening is not there for me, I’m going to feed my teammates,” Dora explained. “At the end of the day, if our team can be successful, that’s what we want.”
Good defense from both sides kept the score at 1–0 until about halfway into the quarter. The Bulldogs took advantage of a free position opportunity, squeaking the ball past junior goaltender Amelia Hughes to tie it up 1–1. While the Tigers kept Yale off the scoreboard in regular play, a foul by Roberts on Yale granted them the opportunity they needed. Yale capitalized on yet another free position play, bringing the score to
2–1 Bulldogs.
Less than a minute into the second quarter, the ball skipped from junior attacker Jami MacDonald to Dora to senior attacker McKenzie Blake, who then flicked it in to bring the score to 2–2.
“I think what was so fun about the game is that the whole team really played connected and were playing for each other,” Cook noted after the game.
The lead wouldn’t last long, as Yale scored two goals to bring it to 4–2. A minute later, Blake cheekily spun to the left, hitting a low shot into the bottom left corner to narrow the gap to one, 4–3.
With just over five minutes left before half, MacDonald spun and tipped the ball into the net for her 24th goal of the season and Princeton’s fourth goal of the game. One minute later, Dora faked her way through the Yale defense, whipping the ball to ricochet off both posts before hitting the net to give Princeton a brief 5–4 lead until Yale equalized before the end of the half.
The first half was emblematic of the whole game, which was a high-scoring, back-and-forth affair for nearly the entire 60 minutes.
Early in the second half, Yale scored to take the lead. Soon after, the Tigers went on a 4–0 run fueled by two goals by Blake and one each for Dora and MacDonald. Although Yale countered with a goal of their own, it was the Tigers’ quarter as Dora added another score to lead 10–7 with one quarter left to play.
At the onset of the fourth quarter, foul trouble for the Tigers enabled Yale to take advantage of a numbers-on advantage to even the score at 10. Having led for most of the second half, the Tigers didn’t let the tie last
for long. Junior Maggie Molhnar converted a free position chance to regain the lead for Princeton.
On a Yale counter, Hughes faced a dangerous shot and made a great save, continuing her dominant play for Princeton.
“Making a save, it’s like quick excitement,” Hughes said. “But then it’s also immediately turning back to focusing on getting it all back down the field and giving it to the defenders to move all the way back down the attack.”
With around four minutes left in the game, the Tigers earned a man-up advantage after a foul on Morrisroe. Dora passed the ball to Blake, who whipped the ball into the net for her fifth goal,
awarding Princeton a two-score lead with two seconds on the shot clock and two minutes left in the game.
Princeton pivotally won the draw, maintaining possession and putting the pressure on Yale, who called a timeout. After a score from Dora a minute later, Princeton finally put Yale away, winning 13–11.
“I think we’ve shown what we’re capable of,” Hughes reflected. She noted that going forward, the team will focus on “continuing to show up and put in the work every day at practice and continuing to play for each other and be as good as we know that we are.”
Princeton’s victory over the
Bulldogs marks the first time Yale has lost at home since the end of the regular season in 2023. With this win, Princeton remains unbeaten in the Ivy League.
The Tigers will look to continue to build on this momentous win going forward as they face Cornell on the road next weekend.
“We performed against a really tough opponent in Yale, and a really talented team,” Cook told the ‘Prince.’ “But we’ve got to have that same mentality going into Cornell.”
Leila Eshaghpour-Silberman is a staff Sports writer and contributing Features writer for the ‘Prince.’
No. 4 men’s lacrosse nets big ranked win on the road at No. 18 Dartmouth
By Lucas Nor Sports Contributor
After dropping their first Ivy League matchup against nowNo. 1 Cornell (7–1 overall, 3–0 Ivy League), No. 4 Princeton (6–2, 2–1) has righted the ship with two straight ranked wins against No. 13 Harvard (7–2, 1–1) and No. 18 Dartmouth (7–2, 1–1).
The Tigers have now faced seven ranked opponents in their first eight games of the regular season, winning five of those contests. After the win on Saturday at Dartmouth, Princeton not only re-emphasized its ability to win big games, but also notched its 10th straight victory over the Big Green to pad a 21–3 all–time record.
Despite a slow start and less than ideal weather, the Orange and Black were able to keep their poise and pull out a gritty 11–8 win in Hanover. Princeton embodied an offensive mindset,
keeping possession of the ball and limiting Dartmouth’s attacking opportunities which, paired with junior goaltender Ryan Croddick’s stellar 13 saves, propelled the Tigers to victory.
After the Big Green opened up the scoring midway into the first quarter, Princeton responded quickly. Sophomore short-stick defensive midfielder Cooper Mueller put the Tigers on the board just 21 seconds after Dartmouth’s opener, tying the score at 1–1. However, it was Dartmouth who commanded the quarter, taking a 3–1 lead as the horn sounded despite being out-shot by the Tigers 14–9 in the opening frame.
“Dartmouth was a good team, so credit to them,” sophomore attacker Colin Burns said to The Daily Princetonian. “We were especially struggling to shoot the ball.”
Although Dartmouth added to their lead early in the second
quarter, making it 4–1, it was all Princeton from that point forth. Senior attacker Coulter Mackesy scored two goals in the first five minutes of the quarter to revive the Tigers and cut the deficit to 4–3.
Mackesy’s second goal, an impressive long-distance shot, was the 147th of his collegiate career, making him the second-highest goalscorer in Princeton lacrosse history. He now only trails Princeton legend Jesse Hubbard ’98, who stands at 163 goals, a mark that Mackesy will aim to surpass by the end of the season.
“A lot of players around me made that possible,” Mackesy said. “But right now, I’m just focused on helping my team out anyway I can.”
Princeton found the back of the net yet again through sophomore attacker Nate Kabiri, tying the score for the first time since the first quarter. After two goals from first-year attacker Peter Buonna-
no and Burns, Princeton took a 6–5 advantage heading into the locker room.
The Tigers played a nearly flawless second quarter to gain their first lead of the game heading into halftime. The 15 minutes were marked with Princeton dominance that saw the Tigers outshoot the Big Green 26–6, winning twice as many ground balls and conceding zero turnovers in comparison to Dartmouth’s four.
“I think we settled in after a shaky start to the game,” Mackesy said. “We found our rhythm on offense and started burying shots.”
Princeton re-asserted its dominance in the third quarter, shutting out Dartmouth and keeping them scoreless for nearly half an hour of extended game time.
Burns scored twice during that time, putting Princeton ahead 8–5 off an assist from his high school teammate Kabiri.
“Nate’s just really been great to
play with in both high school and college,” Burns told the ‘Prince.’ “We just try to have fun when we’re out there together, and that’s what keeps us going.”
Despite a comeback attempt in the fourth, goals from Kabiri, Mackesy, and sophomore shortstick defensive midfielder Jackson Green and a crucial save from Croddick silenced the Big Green faithful as the Tigers walked away with an 11–8 victory.
“Today was definitely a gritty game,” Burns stated. “It was definitely a little scary there in the fourth [quarter], but I had no doubt our guys would rally and put forth an effort to get the win.” Ivy League play will now take a pause for the Tigers as they return home for a midweek matchup with Lehigh University (3–6, 2–2 Patriot League) on Tuesday, April 1 at Sherrerd Field.
Lucas Nor is a Sports contributor for the ‘Prince.’
PHOTO COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETICS
The Tigers were all smiles after bringing their winning streak to eight in a tightly-contested win over ranked rivals Yale.
