Princeton freezes most faculty and staff hiring in response to political uncertainty
By Elisabeth Stewart & Luke Grippo
Senior News Writers
Princeton will freeze most faculty and staff hiring, citing uncertainty around federal funding and a potential increased endowment tax, according to a memo released Wednesday morning. The letter, from Provost Jennifer Rexford and Executive Vice President Katie CallowWright, follows many other universities adopting hiring freezes in response to funding uncertainty. It represents the University’s most significant response to date to recent federal actions.
Rexford and CallowWright’s memo begins by acknowledging federal cutting of research funding, the possible expansion of the government endowment tax, and further restrictions on higher education that have put Princeton’s “longstanding compact” with the federal government “under profound stress.”
The memo lays out four actions to respond to further budget challenges in the coming months: avoiding staff growth except in “mission-critical” circumstances, postponing faculty searches in early stages, evaluating changes to “major projects
… in early planning stages,” and returning the annual employee merit increase pool to “the pre-pandemic norm.” The faculty salary increase pool refers to a percentage of the salary budget dedicated to cover “merit and inflationary increases,” as well as increases for promotions and other special adjustments.
“This is not a comprehensive list and more serious actions may be required as the external environment changes,” the memo continues. “However, we believe that our best defense against more
Opinion
Universities are scared of Trump. Princeton should step up.
The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board
In an alarming grab of executive power, President Donald Trump and his administration have targeted education, including universities.
The administration has frozen billions of dollars in research funding. It has revoked millions more. It has gutted the Education Department. This is an assault on knowledge and on the ability to produce research that betters the nation and the world.
In the past two weeks, the federal government has turned its attacks on education to one of our peer institutions, Columbia University. On March 7, Trump cut $400 million in Columbia’s federal funding. Last week, the State Department revoked a Columbia doctoral student’s visa because she allegedly participated in proPalestine protests on campus. Just a few hours later, Columbia graduate and activist Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement — an agency without precedent to act in cases like these — reflecting the weaponization of federal force against university students.
These actions will not stop in Morningside Heights. They are an attack on the principles of knowledge seeking and First Amend-
ment-protected free expression on every university campus. Nonetheless, Princeton cannot be scared into submission. The University must push back.
As an institution relatively insulated from financial shocks from the federal government, we have a unique responsibility to speak out — and doing so will encourage others to join us.
Other institutions have been cowed by threats from the federal government. Northwestern University erased mentions of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) from most of its websites. The University of Pennsylvania rescinded graduate school acceptances despite the NIH funding freeze still being under litigation. This acquiescence is dangerous.
Complying with constitutionally-contested directives before judges rule on their legality normalizes them. Princeton has rightly stood behind its values by refusing to unnecessarily comply in advance. But it has also kept its head down, likely in hopes that the eye of the federal government will not turn to them.
Laying low will not protect the University from federal ire. As Columbia’s example has taught
Please send any corrections requests to corrections@dailyprincetonian.com.
Preview: Women’s basketball takes on Iowa State in the First Four
By Max Hines Senior Sports writer
After making it into March Madness by the skin of their teeth, the Tigers won’t be wasting any time getting started in the Big Dance. Princeton women’s basketball (21–7 overall, 12–2 Ivy League) will play in the first play-in game of the tournament, facing off against Iowa State (22–11, 12–6 Big 12) at 7 p.m. in South Bend, Indiana. After the bracket was revealed on Sunday, NCAA selection committee chair Derita Dawkins revealed that Princeton was the last team in the field.
“We’ve certainly been knee deep in Iowa State Cyclones,” Head Coach Carla Berube told The Daily Princetonian. “They have a talented team.”
Princeton will be playing on an accelerated timeline, with just four days of rest between the Ivy semifinal and their First Four matchup. On the other hand, Iowa State has not played since March 7.
“We like that we’re playing [in the Ivy tournament] right towards the end of the season,” Berube said.
The Cyclones also had to wait on the edge of their seats. Starting the season ranked eighth in the country, Iowa State had a topsy-turvy season before winning seven of their last nine games. The Cyclones finished 12–6 in conference play, but notably, they haven’t lost to an unranked opponent since early January.
Iowa State is led by sophomore center Audi Crooks, a unanimous first-team All-Big 12 se-
lection. On the outside, the Cyclones have a corps of sharpshooters, with their four other starters all averaging over 35 percent from three-point range.
The ‘Prince’ previewed the matchup, focusing on three critical storylines that will run through the game.
Similar season narratives
Both Iowa State and Princeton have one senior starter and four sophomores to round out the starting five. Iowa State’s senior guard Emily Ryan has excellent vision on the court, averaging over six assists per game. She is joined by Crooks, forward Addy Brown, and guards Arianna Jackson and Kelsey Joens in Iowa State’s starting five.
While experience will likely not be a major factor given this age balance, Princeton’s sophomore corps still has come a long way since the beginning of the season, when they still were learning how to play with each other.
“Chemistry … when you don’t have your most experienced leader, your leader on the court, just takes some time,” Berube said, referencing junior Madison St. Rose’s seasonending injury four games into the season.
“Our sophomores are becoming great leaders.”
Also like the Tigers, the Cyclones had no bad losses in conference play. In the Big 12, they had a defined floor and a defined ceiling,
In 1987, Princeton almost banned freshmen from Prospect Avenue for an entire year in an attempt to curb campus drinking. But thanks to one bold class president, the proposal was shot down. Was he right? What would Princeton’s social scene look like today if things had gone the other way?
ZOE MONTAGUE / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN Princeton is the latest school to freeze hiring amid federal actions.
‘we believe that our best defense against more serious actions in the future is campus-wide exercise of financial prudence now’
FREEZE
Continued from page 1
serious actions in the future is campus-wide exercise of financial prudence now.”
“Our planning is driven by a core principle, which is that in times of financial uncertainty and stress, we must protect our core mission and ongoing commitments before making new commitments,” the memo reads, in reference to the University’s obligations to undergraduate and graduate students, early-career academics, and the “strategic initiatives necessary to maintain Princeton’s global leadership in education, science, and society.”
Like many of the University’s announcements in response to actions by the Trump administration, Wednesday’s memo indicated that guidance would continually be updated as potential political changes continue to impact higher education.
“We recognize this is an unsettling and stressful moment in our community, and that there is a hunger for de -
ON CAMPUS
tailed information and specifics,” it reads. “As external circumstances develop, you can expect to hear directly from leaders in your unit about additional information or changes that affect you.”
In the memo, Rexford and Callow-Wright also asked for departments and units to be prudent with spending.
“On that front, we need everyone’s help. Please look for ways big and small to restrain non-critical spending, which will give us flexibility down the road. Please be attentive and supportive of cost-saving measures implemented in your unit and in other areas,” they wrote. “And most importantly, please stay focused on your work, which is critical to Princeton’s mission of service to the nation and to humanity.”
Until now, Princeton’s response has centered around reassuring the community and providing pre-existing information on topics relevant to higher education. For example, in a January email, President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 assured the campus community that while “there
is much that we do not know,” the University is working to “ensure continuity of operations and programs should temporary interruptions to funding occur.” Later, at the February Council of the Princeton University Community meeting, he directed the audience to “Keep Calm and Carry On” in the face of executive orders.
The University also launched a website titled “Campus Resources on Federal Actions,” which connects users to web pages that mostly reiterate Princeton’s existing policies about federal research funding, community members’ legal status, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
The letter also highlights that much of the “uncertainty” facing the University is “not directly tied to federal research funding,” but also tax changes under consideration in Congress that could “threaten” the endowment, and mass layoffs at federal agencies that could disrupt services such as financial aid and visa processing.
Princeton is the fifth of the
eight Ivy League schools to institute protective financial measures in the wake of actions by the Trump administration.
Alan M. Garber, president of Harvard University, announced on Mar. 10 that the university would be implementing a temporary hiring pause of both faculty and staff to “limit significant new long-term commitments that would increase our financial exposure and make further adjustments more disruptive.”
Also on Mar. 10, The University of Pennsylvania announced a freeze on almost all faculty hiring and all staff hiring.
Other universities have also had varied responses to possible funding cuts. Stanford, MIT, and Notre Dame announced staff hiring freezes, but did not freeze faculty hiring. Cornell froze all hiring, and Emory froze most hiring. A common thread between these statements was the preservation of university programs and people critical to their core values.
The memo ends by reiterating some of the language from Eisgruber’s January email to
the community: it states that the University is monitoring federal changes, will comply with the law while advocating for the University’s rights, and directs community members to the Campus Resources webpage.
“Please be assured that we have established systems for monitoring and planning against uncertainties and are working hard to be as prepared as we can,” the memo states. “We will comply with the law, stand up for our rights under the law, and use our influence to advocate with lawmakers and policymakers for support of higher education.”
Elisabeth Stewart is a senior News writer and assistant News editor emeritus for the ‘Prince.’ She typically covers religious life, student identity and campus life, and eating clubs and co-ops.
Luke Grippo is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’ He is from South Jersey and usually covers administrative issues, including Undergraduate Student Government, the CPUC, and institutional legacy.
The ‘Prince’ tested campus water levels. Here’s what we found.
By Maya Mukherjee News Contributor
Water on campus may have changed taste and color this winter, according to a series of announcements by New Jersey American Water (NJAW) between December and February. NJAW supplies water to all of campus and most of the town of Princeton.
According to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill, during this period, there was an “uptick in water quality complaints” on campus. In response to the numerous notices, The Daily Princetonian conducted an independent water analysis across 15 water fountains in all seven residential colleges over the last two weeks of February.
The ‘Prince’ tested a variety of factors, including salt concentration, pH, and water hardness. Using water testing strips, we sampled two water fountains in at least two halls of each residential college. Each fountain was retested once, unless
values appeared high, in which case it was retested twice. Results were obtained by matching the strips to the kit’s color key, which rounded to the nearest 10.
Water generally fell within the EPA’s legally enforceable National Primary Regulations, which limit the levels of contaminants in drinking water.
However, in some residential college halls — Whitman’s 1981, Butler’s Bloomberg, and Rockefeller’s Witherspoon — the water was at the upper limit for some of the EPA’s secondary guidelines, which are meant to ensure good water taste rather than safety.
“They’re mainly there to make sure people drink tap water and don’t move to other water sources,” Peter Jaffé, a civil engineering professor, said in an interview with the ’Prince.’
The ‘Prince’ found that 1981 Hall had 5 ppm zinc, a concentration that puts it on the upper bound of the EPA Secondary guideline. In interviews with the ‘Prince,’ 1981 residents indeed described a strange
taste in their hall’s water.
Camryn Crump ’27 said that the water has a “tang” and that she “boils it to take the taste away.” In general, she avoids getting water in 1981.
“You can definitely taste the difference,” Allan Wasonga ’26 said of the water in Whitman versus Frist. “The Frist water tastes more pure.”
Bloomberg and Witherspoon had salt concentrations of 250 ppm. While the EPA doesn’t have a set guideline for salt in drinking water, state governments like New York and Vermont recommend salt content of 250 ppm or below for “taste considerations.”
Witherspoon resident Sophie Feinblatt ’27 spoke to the ‘Prince’ about her experience with her hall’s water.
“The water here is a little odd,” she said. “Sometimes I don’t drink anything, so I’m definitely not drinking as much as I should.” She added that her roommate buys her own water and drinks that instead of the water fountain supply.
Meera Kochhar ’25, a Residential College Advisor in Witherspoon, also shared her thoughts on the water.
“I’m suspicious of the water fountains because all of them have warmish water and the spouts are blue or brown,” she wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ “The water quality doesn’t feel the same as other places on campus.”
“Sometimes I will go to Buyers Hall for fresh, filtered water from one of the newer machines,” she wrote. Kochhar added that many students in her Advisee Group also avoid the water in Witherspoon.
Aicha Diakite ’25, who lives in Bloomberg, said that she noticed that the third floor water was “cloudy” and that “something about the taste was a bit off.”
All water fountains had a pH of around 6, which is below the recommended 6.58.5. pH is measured using a base ten logarithmic scale; a difference of 0.5 units corresponds to about 3.16 times more acidity than recommended. It appears that these pH levels are lower than those found in a 2023 water analysis by the ‘Prince.’
Jaffé said that lower pH is not cause for concern.
All colleges — except for Forbes — had calcium and magnesium content that corresponded to either “hard” or “very hard” water. Witherspoon had the hardest water of the fountains tested, with 300 ppm of dissolved calcium and magnesium. This is within the EPA’s hardness recommendation, up to 500 ppm.
Some students in affected halls told the ‘Prince’ that they are generally content with the water fountains.
Marceline Myronoff ’28, a Witherspoon resident, said that to him, the water “doesn’t taste too off.”
Wasonga also said that although he prefers the water in Frist, “I don’t really mind [the 1981 water taste] because I drink eight glasses a day.”
But for Kochhar, “at the end of the day, how good your water is will influence your hydration levels which will influence your health, productivity, and sense of feeling good.”
Maya Mukherjee is a News contributor and the head Podcast editor for the ‘Prince.’
Princeton alumni in federal agencies speak out after being fired by DOGE
By Charlie Roth & Abby Leibowitz Senior News Writers
Nick Hand ’11 was making pasta for his 3-year-old daughter when he received a notification on his work phone. It said that he had been logged out of his government Microsoft account. Twenty minutes later, he was sent an email saying that he had been terminated.
“I saw the message, and the juxtaposition was very odd … because a 3-year-old doesn’t care if you just got fired illegally. She was sort of happily playing and being her happy self,” Hand said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.
Hand worked at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the Enforcement Division. He helped attorneys at the CFPB better understand the companies they would be investigating. Hand told the ‘Prince’ that he was likely going to be on the team monitoring Elon Musk’s proposed digital wallet and payment X Money. According to Hand, nearly all of his co-workers were also laid off.
Hand is one of over 750 Princeton alumni who TigerNet records as working in federal agencies. Tens of thousands of federal employees were laid off when Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) swept through federal agencies.
The alumni that the ‘Prince’ interviewed described the mass firings as illegal, echoing lawsuits from fired federal employees demanding their reinstatement.
“They’re supposed to give us, by law, 30 days notice, and by our union contract, 60 days notice, but they gave us no notice. They just said: You’re fired immediately,” Jacob Essig ’22, who was terminated from the CFPB, told the ‘Prince.’
Larry Handerhan GS ’12 added that “what is happening is so blatantly illegal.”
In 2023, Handerhan was appointed to be Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which oversees the federal government’s Head Start program and states’ child welfare programs on adoption and foster care. At the ACF, a number of people who were fired before their security clearances were checked have been reinstated. Federal law holds more stringent termination standards for positions of higher security clearance.
Handerhan echoed that these firings are “just so cruel … you hear stories about federal employees who are losing their jobs, people who have newborn kids that they’re not sure how they’re gonna … survive economically.”
Handerhan also explained that the government is losing many of its most knowledgeable employees. “All the best people, people who are the most efficient and the most knowledgeable about the subject, they’re the ones who are most mobile and can go take jobs elsewhere, and they’re the ones that are doing that because of this chaos,” he said.
Some former government employees have begun to fight the layoffs.
Charlotte Burrows ’92 was the Chair and Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Her term was originally supposed to expire in 2028, but she was fired a week into President Donald Trump’s term. She retained lawyers the day after her termination.
“I strongly disagree with the President’s actions, and will explore all legal options available to me,” she wrote in a statement. “I will continue
to do all I can to fight for the rights of American workers and to support the efforts of others who do the same.” Her lawyers declined to provide further comment to the ‘Prince.’
Lisa Brown ’82 was nominated in 2021 to be the general counsel of the Department of Education, and ran a team of about 100 lawyers focusing on Title I, Title IX, and student loan repayment programs. After her term as a political appointee ended in January, Brown referred to the layoffs as “heartbreaking.”
“DOGE has come in like a wrecking ball,” she said. “They have come in and somewhat randomly … put on administrative leave anybody who had worked on or gone to any type of DEI training.”
Over the past two months, several federal agencies have laid off many probationary employees — those in their first year or two of employment or first year after a promotion, demotion, or reassignment. More recent court rulings have ordered the reinstatement of these employees, but confusion regarding the employment status for many remains.
Cameron McKenzie ’19 worked as a community engagement specialist and a Presidential Management Fellow for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and was one of the affected probationary employees. He told the ‘Prince’ that he is going to have to sell his house after being fired because he and his husband can no longer afford the mortgage.
“I’m entering the job market along with 30,000 or 40,000 other people who are engaged in environmental work with the federal government, in an already tight job market for the environmental sector,” McKenzie said in an interview before the court’s reinstatement ruling. “I feel like I have two full-time jobs now. One is getting my house ready to sell, and another is just applying to jobs. So I’m trying to stay sane and upbeat as much as I can, juggling those two things.”
Even with the court-ordered reinstatement of probationary employees, McKenzie explained that there is confusion about if and for how long he can return to work.
Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA) has actively offered to help its alumni navigate the job market. According to Essig, SPIA has tried to connect alumni out of a job with those who might
have job opportunities.
“I have noticed, as the new administration has started, that SPIA has been sending emails trying to help connect the alumni who have job opportunities with newer graduates and younger graduates, who are probably going to have a lot of trouble finding [jobs] under the new environment,” he told the ‘Prince.’
In a newsletter on the SPIA website, Dean Amaney Jamal wrote that there are “many ways” that the department is “assisting those affected by recent changes at the federal level.”
“This includes career-focused programming, in-person networking for students and alumni, and events where students can engage with SPIA faculty for insights on navigating change,” the statement explains.
SPIA did not respond to multiple requests for comment in time for publication.
For those who are still working in government agencies, the chaos has meant that any day could be their last at work.
“I think everything just feels very uncertain and unpredictable with the people we have in charge at the agency and in the White House,” said one Princeton alum working in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), speaking anonymously for fear of losing their job.
“I think probably every other conversation that I’ve had over the past six weeks has been some version of ‘well, if I’m here next week,’ or ‘if I still have a job,’” another Princeton alum at the State Department, speaking anonymously for fear of losing their job, told the ‘Prince.’
The current employees also expressed that morale is low among those still with jobs.
“When I go to work, everyone around me just seems dispirited because the goals of this administration are so against the goals of a lot of our programs,” said the HHS employee. “During the Biden administration, I feel like our agency had really high job satisfaction. I think people really feel that we’re making a difference in the lives of Americans and all these changes are definitely going to plummet job satisfaction and job security.”
In January, federal employees across almost all branches received an email with the subject line “A Fork in the Road,” offering employees a choice to resign in return for eight
months of pay. Employees more recently received another email from Musk, asking them to list five things they had done on the job that week and threatening dismissal if they did not comply.
Handerhan said that it is “incredibly condescending” to “have some other person who doesn’t understand your job” assess your work. He noted how unusual these emails are, as performance is typically determined at the agency level.
Beyond impact on individuals, alumni emphasized dire impact on agency functioning, and on daily public services benefiting Americans.
“The fabric of government is one thing, but the fabric of America is what people don’t realize is changing: things like national parks, like the social safety net, that you are brought up to believe will exist because they are based on the values of our country,” Handerhan told the ‘Prince.’
The first agencies targeted by DOGE included the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provides global aid, and the CFPB, where Hand and Essig worked.
On Tuesday, March 11, the Department of Education announced it was cutting its workforce in half, terminating 1,300 employees in the name of efficiency and eliminating “bureaucratic bloat.”
Among these terminated employees is Caroline Chang ’95, whose job was focused on efficiently administering Department of Education services such as the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), federal student aid, and loan repayment.
Chang told the ‘Prince’ that she asked multiple officials for an explanation for her termination, but received none.
“I could only infer that the main likely reason was because I was in the physical space that the DOGE team chose to use for their operations at the Department of Education. And so to put it bluntly, I think I was in their way, or maybe just an annoyance,” Chang said. “That is obviously my interpretation, not what anybody ever told me, because nobody told me anything.”
Chang was given only 60 minutes to pack her things and leave after being terminated.
“A security guard knocked on my door and said, ‘You have to leave now’
... I’ve revisited that 60 minutes in my head a number of times,” she told the ‘Prince.’ “It seemed a little, at the time, excessive and unnecessary to be escorted out of the building. It felt very weird, like out of a movie, or a dystopian story or something.”
The alumni referred to Princeton and its informal motto, “in the nation’s service and the service of humanity,” as one of the reasons for their commitment to public service, and expressed that these cuts would hinder the government’s ability to help Americans.
Handerhan expressed that the “drying up of the resources that are going directly into communities” is particularly worrying. “ACF is a grant maker. The vast majority of our money goes directly into the pockets of families and communities who need it. And I think once people see the impact of that, they’re going to be pretty pissed,” he said.
“Education is an opportunity driver, and the cuts will hurt those who can least afford it. That is what is devastating,” Brown said in an interview with the ‘Prince.’
“My Princeton experience is why I’m in government service in the first place and why I have any of the opportunities that I’ve ever had in my life,” McKenzie explained.
“I’ve always very much internalized the ‘Princeton in the nation’s service’ motto,” Chang said. “I hope that the University continues to be a space for encouraging service, democracy, [and] free speech.”
“It definitely helped [that] Princeton [instilled] a need to use your skills for good,” Hand expressed. “I wanted to use the education and the knowledge that I had to kind of make an impact for others.”
“My immediate hope is that people who are students now don’t get discouraged or dissuaded from pursuing public service in one form or another,” Chang said. “Because that would be really detrimental to the future, if people just give up.”
Were you affected by DOGE? Send your story to news[at]dailyprincetonian.com
Charlie Roth is a senior News writer and editor emeritus focusing on local, state, and national politics.
Abby Leibowitz is a senior News writer for the ‘Prince’ from Silver Spring, Md.
Who joins Princeton’s eating clubs? Breaking down eating club trends.
By Danna Duarte staff Data writer
All eleven eating clubs on Prospect Ave. are known for their distinctive communities. As sophomores find their fit in terms of the eating and social community they choose to join for their final two years on campus, they must weigh out different aspects of each club that give them their identity. Interested in diversity? Look no further than Cap and Gown, where seniors report the most racial diversity of all the clubs. If your main concern is booze, Tiger Inn is the place.
These clubs have historically been a large part of Princeton’s social scene, with approximately three-quarters of Princeton seniors reporting they have paid dues to at least one eating club during their undergraduate career. With bicker season concluded and hundreds of sophomores settling into their new clubs, the Daily Princetonian broke down the senior respondents aggregated from the 2022, 2023, and 2024 senior surveys, looking at the most interesting trends on the Street. Every club had a sample size of at least 45 students, with five clubs having a sample size of at least 150 over the three years.
According to the past three senior surveys, 76.7 percent of seniors reported having paid dues to at least one eating club during their time at Princeton.
Across all 3 years, sixteen percent of respondents report being firstgeneration college students. Cloister Inn and non-club students had the highest percentage of first-generation college students, at 22.92 percent and 26.43 percent, respectively.
In contrast, Cannon Dial Elm Club and Tiger Inn had the lowest percentages, with 7.94 percent and 7.69 percent, respectively. Overall, sign-in clubs — Colonial, Cloister, Quadrangle, Terrace, and Charter — had slightly higher percentages of first-generation students compared to bicker clubs, including Cannon, Cap and Gown, Cottage, Ivy, Tiger Inn, and Tower.
Cottage and Ivy Clubs had the highest percentage of members who reported a household income above $500k, with 29.17 percent and 26.92 percent, respectively.
Overall, 18.6 percent of students who never joined an eating club reported having a household income below $40k, the highest percentage of any category analyzed. Among the eating clubs, Terrace and Quadrangle had the highest percentages of members who reported having a household income below $40K, with 16.56 percent and 16.15 percent,
respectively. 71.32 percent of respondents who have been members of Colonial Club identified themselves as Asian. Cottage Club and Tiger Inn had the highest percentage of members who identified as white, with 77.36 percent and 74.44 percent, respectively.
Politically, 43.36 percent of Terrace members identified as leftists/socialists, closely followed by Quadrangle Club, with 32.43 percent of members. Cottage Club and Cloister Inn had the highest percentages of members identifying as very conservative, with 11.11 percent and 7.41 percent, respectively. Out of the respondents from Cap and Gown Club that reported leaning towards one specific side, around 96 percent leaned left.
Terrace and Quadrangle clubs had the highest percentage of LGTBQIA+ identifying members. In comparison, Cannon, Cottage, and Tiger Inn had the lowest percentages.
44.9 percent of students who never joined an eating club had not had sex. Among eating clubs, Colonial (33.8 percent) and Quadrangle (33.3 percent) had the lowest percentage of respondent members who haven’t had sex. In contrast, Cap and Gown (93.4 percent) and Ivy Club (93.5 percent) had the highest percentage of members who reported having had sex.
Students who did not join an eating club reported the lowest average drinking frequency (2.42 on a 7-point scale), with approximately 27.6 percent reporting they have never consumed alcohol in a nonreligious context, significantly lower than any club-affiliated group, suggesting that club membership may correlate with higher alcohol consumption.
Terrace and Ivy Club members reported the highest levels of marijuana use, with average scores of 2.99 and 2.67 on a 7-point scale, where a score of 3 corresponds to using marijuana “once a month.” In contrast, Colonial Club members reported the lowest frequency of marijuana use.
It is commonly said that there is a club for everyone on the Street. As class sizes expand and new classes join the eating club system, will Princeton’s eating club communities continue to evolve, or will their identities remain?
Danna Duarte is a staff Data writer for the ‘Prince.’
Hum r
Princeton should play its Trump card and DOGE the funding attacks
By Tarun Iyengar Associate Humor Editor
The following content is purely satirical and entirely fictional.
The recent news that the Trump Administration cut $400 million of federal grants from Columbia University has shaken higher education institutions across the country. Our very own University has vowed to “Keep Calm” amidst this changing federal policy, but it can be very hard to do so when an angry DOGE is barking at your front door.
However, much of this fear across the University comes from trying to resist and fight these policies. We sure as heck would not be scared if we just joined hands with President Trump and the Masterful Musk and sang kumbaya. As the saying goes, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”
We have the chance to create a valuable partnership with the powers that be and avoid the fate of some of our more naïve friends across the Ivy League. Nevertheless, it will require us to do more than just remove the DEI from our motto “Dei sub numine
viget.” Using the following steps below, we can ensure Old Nassau lives as long as those 300 year old geezers who are still collecting Social Security checks.
1. Stop playing “Immigrant Song” at sporting events
While this step may sadden our hardworking University Marching Band and DJs who bring the vibes to our various athletic events, it is a much needed one. Led Zeppelin’s “Immigrant Song” is frankly an insult to this administration’s agenda and should not be played around this campus. We can easily replace such a tune with Homeland Security’s “Deportation Tune,” which appropriately addresses the current attitude we’re going for. It is a small change, but remember, it is an impactful one when we currently lie on the border between being seen as friends or enemies of the state.
2. Change the building names across campus
Although wokeness is not as pervasive in our University’s marketing (imagine being Brown University, your name is a cry for diversity), we can still take some steps to impress our overlords. The easiest change we can make
is to resurrect Woodrow Wilson from the depths of cancel culture and return him to the throne of the SPIA building. Likewise, we should allow New College West to be renamed to the Residential College of America.
3. Replace the James Madison Program with the Vladimir Putin Program
Even though I would be disappointed to see the esteemed James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions end, it is a necessary step to correct the indoctrination of our college youth into American democratic and constitutional principles. By replacing it with the Vladimir Putin Program in Manchurian Candidates, Global Influence, and Annexation, we will share with the University the very ideals that drive every one of President Trump’s actions. We can grow the next generation of leaders who will bully the Zelensky’s of the world and allow America to be puppetered by our adversaries. Princeton students are already great at selling out — we just need them to choose Moscow instead of McKinsey.
4. Teach the “Common Sense” curriculum instead of liberal arts Because we still utilize an explic-
Dates
By Eliana Du Head Cartoon editor
itly “liberal” arts curriculum, we are more vulnerable than ever to attacks from the Trump administration. Thus, we must bend to the whims of the government and install a conservative arts curriculum, which will be based on our glorious leader’s vision for the “Era of Common Sense.” First and foremost, we must make the A.B. language requirement the English language and all evidence for writing seminar papers must come from Truth Social. Additionally, every senior thesis and junior paper must have an explicit “America First” theme in order for students to pass. If students are not willing to comply, they’ll be on thin ICE. We have always been told that beautiful friendships and partnerships have been born out of Princeton, and this situation is no different. It is time that the University finally plays their Trump card.
Tarun Iyengar is an associate Humor Editor. If the glorious, charismatic, and ingenious Sir Elon is reading this, Tarun can be reached for that Summer 2026 DOGE Internship at ti7371[at]princeton.edu.
Princeton’s Russian program doesn’t belong in Estonia
Veronika Kitsul guest contributor
The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine triggered an immediate reexamination of Western universities’ academic ties with Russia. A number of institutions rightly responded by suspending their programs in Russia due to safety concerns and to avoid financially supporting the Russian state. In the wake of the invasion, Princeton, among other universities, decided to relocate their programs to other post-Soviet states, such as Estonia. But this decision ignores the complex histories of these host countries.
Princeton’s Russian Summer Program should not be run in any post-Soviet state, rather than merely being transplanted outside of Russia. The program’s presence in Estonia represents a troubling continuation of academic colonialism rather than a thoughtful response to Russia’s ongoing imperial ambitions in the region. In fact, this relocation perpetuates further ethical problems of cultural erasure by treating Estonia as a substitute for Russian immersion.
William Aepli & Astor Lu guest contributors
The following is a guest contribution and reflects the authors’ views alone.
The pursuit of moral purity often drives more unjust actions. We strongly disagree with Veronika Kitsul’s recent Opinion piece, in which she argues that the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures must end its Russian language program in Estonia and refrain from sponsoring programs in any post-Soviet states.
To our knowledge, she has no first-hand experience with the program. As members of the Estonia program’s first cohort and students of Slavic studies, we believe that Princeton’s Russian Summer Program in Tallinn is worth preserving.
Kitsul touts Estonia as a unique nation with its own cultural identity. We certainly agree with her sentiment. But how do we know that?
Upon our return, a family friend asked one of us if Estonia was part of Russia. Surely, we could have answered “no” even before our stay, and perhaps even elaborated on some Wikipedia history.
But for Americans with no Eastern European background, it would have been impossible to articulate further on Estonia’s unique cultural quirks, how the two nations differ in practice, and what life was like on the ground. That is something we learned by actually going to Estonia. Ironically, studying the language of Estonia’s former occupiers gave us a deep appreciation of the nation itself, beyond anything that a Baltic Studies 101 class could teach.
The program promises “full linguistic and cultural immersion” and promotes Estonia’s large Russian-speaking population, noting that “almost one third of Estonia’s population are native Russians.”
Yet this framing glosses over a deeply fraught history: those Russian-speaking communities are, in large part, the product of forced Soviet-era Russification, a policy that repressed local languages and identities across Estonia and other Baltic states.
Estonia is a distinctly FinnoUgric nation with a unique linguistic heritage entirely separate from Slavic languages. When educational institutions market the country’s “Russian side,” they diminish Estonia’s independent cultural identity. Estonia’s official language is Estonian, not Russian. By advertising Estonia as an alternative location to practice Russian, the University fails to treat Estonia as it is: a sovereign nation with its own cultural identity and historical trauma related to Russian domination. Princeton is not taking a stand against Russian imperialism — it’s simply finding a more palatable way to continue supporting it.
When Estonia is leveraged solely as a vessel for Russian practice, student participants develop a distorted perception of the country in
which they are studying and miss out on the opportunity for a more nuanced cultural education.
The consequences of this cultural misinterpretation extend beyond student experiences. The presence of Russian speakers in Estonia isn’t merely a convenient cultural feature — it’s the lingering result of policies deliberately designed to suppress Estonian national identity. Estonia’s recent decision to phase out Russian as a language of instruction in its schools makes Princeton’s programs an obstacle to the country’s goals for their own future: the strengthening national identity.
In discussions on an Estonian Reddit community, commenters have expressed concerns about foreign universities using their country as a surrogate Russianlanguage environment, and their discomfort is justified. Estonia itself is actively ramping up fortifications along its border with Russia. Its citizens are immersed in the lived reality of a nation defending itself against potential Russian aggression, while Princeton’s academic programs treat Estonia as a convenient Russian language laboratory.
So what should Princeton’s Slavic languages department do instead? For institutions genuinely committed to ethical en-
gagement with the region, the answer isn’t to find new locations for Russian immersion — it’s to fundamentally reconsider the existence of these programs altogether, perhaps by developing alternatives that center Estonian culture and history or, at the very least, offering courses in any of the languages of the Baltic states (Princeton doesn’t offer Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian). Such offerings would acknowledge these nations as cultures worth studying in their own right, not merely as venues for Russian practice. Until then, these repackaged programs remain what they always were: vestiges of linguistic colonialism.
While Russian language immersion has legitimate academic value, universities should make a clean break with the practice of operating Russian immersion programs in post-Soviet states. No amount of acknowledgment of Estonia’s colonial history or incorporation of Estonian cultural education would be sufficient while Russian language instruction is imposed onto the nation.
Some institutions, like Columbia and Penn, distance themselves from the responsibility of running such programs, merely listing external options for students seeking Russian immersion —
Keep Princeton in Estonia
Contrary to Kitsul’s claims, the program is run by Tallinn University and not Princeton — it is a collaborative partnership, not a one-sided initiative. Next summer’s calendar indicates Estonian movie nights, food workshops, and trips across the country. Princeton supplements these excursions with trips to Tartu, Estonia, and Riga, Latvia — bastions of Baltic culture — and students almost certainly pursue further cultural exploration.
The learning from those formal experiences pales next to the lessons of simple day-in-day-out existence in-country: the sunset concert full of reminiscing retirees, the nights with a host brother’s high school dropout friends, the tight-knit community of local “hardcore” weightlifters. If there exists an ethical responsibility to learn from our hosts, Princeton’s partnership in Estonia meets it.
Kitsul implicitly assumes that Estonian culture is monolithic and singular; a nation of Estonian speakers of Estonian ethnicity. She claims that marketing Estonia’s “Russian side” diminishes “Estonia’s independent cultural identity.” The situation is more complex. Estonian identity does not exist as an isolated singularity. Estonia is a small state, and it has grappled with larger powers since its birth. Germans conquered Estonia in 1227, both Christianizing and enserfing the native peoples. By 1625, Estonia came entirely under Swedish rule, and from 1721 until the early 1990s, it was occupied by the Russians. For better or worse, Estonian culture requires us to grapple with its fragile existence. To remove “Russian” from Baltic culture is to pick out dissolved salt from water.
Culture aside, Princeton’s program in Estonia is crucial for the study of the Russian language. The U.S. Department of State classifies Russian as a language “critical to our national security and prosperity.” Russia dominates the headlines, and not enough people speak its language. If we desire a just peace in Ukraine, Estonia, and other former Soviet states, we need informed thinkers with experience in Russian language and culture.
We know from a wealth of studies that studying abroad does just that. Students have a summer away from the typical responsibilities of school with the best possible resources. Tallinn, the capital of Estonia and host of Princeton’s Russian program, is undeniably a suitable location.
Data shows that about 44 percent of Tallinn speaks Russian as a mother tongue. What some may denigrate as “linguistic colonial-
ism” from afar is, for the locals, simply the melange of cultures that makes up their real life. Interacting with these people — the majority of whom consider themselves Estonian — is real language and cultural learning.
Finally, Kitsul argues that we should replace Russian language courses with instruction in Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian. This, of course, would be welcome, but is similarly impractical. Princeton has only two students currently enrolled in each of its Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian, Polish, and Ukrainian language classes.
If the goal is increasing interest in Baltic cultures, Princeton’s Estonia partnership is an excellent way to raise awareness of the region by funneling students from the Slavic Department’s largest language group.
We can certainly contemplate the broader ethics of how to pre-
both domestic and international. While this approach might appear to abdicate educational responsibility, it represents a more ethical stance than directly perpetuating harmful academic practices.
For students who require intensive language experience, Princeton can, like its peer institutions, simply provide information about existing programs without the University’s direct involvement or endorsement. Ideally, this would be accompanied by a more comprehensive approach that centers scholars from the region, incorporates diverse linguistic perspectives, and amplifies voices from all Eastern European and Baltic countries, not just Russia.
Princeton’s Slavic Languages department has the opportunity to take a principled stance by refraining from operating programs that exploit post-Soviet states as Russian language laboratories. Until then, its summer program will remain what it is now: an uncomfortable remnant of academic colonialism poorly disguised as cultural immersion.
Veronika Kitsul is a junior in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Dolishnie Zaluchchia, Ukraine.
cisely engage with the Russian language without further polarization or entrenchment of conflict. But on the topic of the language program in Tallinn, our opinion is simple: The culture of a small nation should not be inaccessible to students merely to prevent association with its former oppressors. Kitsul is letting perfect be the enemy of the good. In attempting to cancel Princeton in Estonia, we damage access to Baltic culture, Russian language study, and ultimately, the world’s chances for peace in the region. Princeton in Estonia must go on.
William Aepli ’26 and Astor Lu ’26 attended Princeton’s Russian Summer Program in Tallinn in Summer 2023 as Monty Raiser ’92 scholars. Aepli is minoring in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies. Lu is minoring in Slavic Languages and Literatures.
‘We have a unique responsibility to speak out — and doing so will encourage others to join us.’
us, even repeated concessions to the Trump administration won’t protect you.
“Universities are independent centers of ideas and often prominent centers of dissent,” professors Ryan Enos and Steven Levitsky wrote last week in The Harvard Crimson. “Autocrats are allergic to sources of dissent, so they almost invariably seek to silence, weaken, or control them.”
The Trump administration is targeting universities — and will continue doing so — because the free pursuit of knowledge threatens its power.
And among institutions of higher education, Princeton has a particular obligation to speak out. Even among the Ivy League, Princeton’s wealth, prestige, and historical reputation as the most conservative Ivy give the University unique influence.
Princeton is also less vulnerable to financial threats from the federal government. Lacking a medical school, we receive the least NIH funding of any Ivy, and our total federal grants and contracts add up to the third-least. An exceptionally engaged alumni and donor base (the University raised $166 million in pri-
vate gifts, grants, and contracts in 2024), the largest per-student endowment of any university, and an experienced University administration suggest temporary protection.
Another useful tool is Princeton’s policy of “institutional restraint,” rather than institutional neutrality. As President Eisgruber has explained, institutional restraint is a “presumption against commenting on social, moral, or political topics” that acknowledges that some moments call for the “reaffirm[ation] or elaborat[ion]” of “values that are fundamental to our community or mission.” Maintaining the latitude to speak out in moments like our current one is precisely the point of institutional restraint.
But Princeton’s response thus far is weak: their message today announcing an effective hiring freeze exposes its fear. Although the University views this action as necessary, it should have acknowledged that this is an extreme measure necessitated by the Trump administration’s extreme, targeted acts. Instead, Provost Jen Rexford’s statement characterizes the Trump administration’s actions as a “re-evaluat[ion]” and “par[ing] back” of research priorities. This timid tone minimizes the radical nature of the federal government’s
policy change. Instead of normalizing Trump’s actions, the University should call them what they are: ideologically-driven, punitive strikes at universities.
Now is the time for Princeton to exercise its powerful institutional voice. While Eisgruber might usually prefer to be judicious with his public comments, the Trump administration is undermining not just core university values, but the entire premise of the university. If Princeton won’t speak out now, when will they?
Here’s what that looks like.
The University can stand up for its community, especially those members whom Trump is targeting. Princeton should publicly commit to defending the Carl A. Fields Center, which fosters cultural understanding, and the Emma Bloomberg Center for Access & Opportunity, which supports the needs of first-generation, low-income students. The University must protect the rights of undocumented and international students who may be unjustly singled out. Princeton must also take the fight to the courts. Other universities have already pursued lawsuits against Trump’s anti-DEI efforts and cuts to medical research funding.
Why the Resources Committee is
John T. Groves
contributor
The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Nine months ago in The Daily Princetonian, I described how the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community, which I chair, would take up a divestment and dissociation request related to the State of Israel.
I outlined our approach, promising it would include careful consideration of input from the broad University community, and cautioning that it might be a lengthy process.
That process has concluded, and the Committee has decided against forwarding a dissociation recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
Our findings are based on community input from June 2024 to January 2025. During that period, we received more than 2,000 emails and other correspondence, plus 2,300 more unique replies via an online form in response to our invitation for feedback. We offered in-person meetings and met with the dissociation petitioners as well as with a group of Princeton faculty.
A detailed summary of our work and analysis is posted on the Resources Committee website.
I want to use this opportunity to explain how the Committee arrived at its decision, and to anticipate and answer some questions members of our community may have.
First, a recap of how Princeton considers demands for divestment, which at our University is always contemplated as a question of “dissociation,” and extends beyond divestment to encompass many other financial relationships, including purchase agreements and some gifts.
Princeton has a strong presumption
We should have joined the lawsuit about the NIH funding, not just filed a declaration. And there is University precedent: Last time Trump was in office, Princeton itself led a lawsuit against the federal government’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Princeton cannot surrender ground to the Trump administration. We must campaign against cuts to research funding, which threaten critical, practical academic breakthroughs. We should reaffirm our opposition to an increase to the federal endowment tax — a punitive, not redistributive, measure. And if the Trump administration’s threats to impose an endowment tax succeed, the University must do its best to protect financial aid.
Princeton is keeping its head down because it is afraid. But if it stands up first, it can invite others to stand with it. In response to anti-democratic action, working collectively is the only way to protect democratic principles. If the Trump administration uses its Columbia playbook with other universities, one at a time, each fight will be the federal government versus one school. Each school may fall when targeted alone, but we can stand when we stand united.
Rather than watching and waiting as schools are picked off, universities should stand together to defend their shared values and contributions to society. Princeton can take the lead against the government’s authoritarian actions, an act of courage required to defend higher education.
149th Editorial Board
Isaac Barsoum ’28
Raf Basas ’28
Frances Brogan ’27
Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26
Preston Ferraiuolo ’26
Anna Ferris ’26
Ava Johnson ’27
Christofer Robles ’26
Bryan Zhang ’26
The Editorial Board is the institutional voice of The Daily Princetonian and consists of nine members: two managing editors, the Head Opinion Editor, and a group of six Opinion section editors, columnists, and contributing writers. It convenes to discuss issues and current events of interest to the Princeton University community, as well as collectively write signed editorials addressing them, which reflect the consensus of a majority of the Board’s membership. The Editorial Board operates independently of the newsroom of the ‘Prince.’
not recommending dissociation from
against dissociation. That’s because the taking of institutional stances on external controversies endangers the University’s role as a sponsor and enabler of free inquiry. The University does very rarely dissociate, but only when three demanding criteria established by the trustees are met:
There must be “considerable, thoughtful, and sustained campus interest” on the dissociation question, it must implicate a “central University value,” and a “consensus within the University community” in favor of dissociation must be plausible.
It is the Resources Committee’s job to assess whether those criteria are met, and to determine whether to make a recommendation to the trustees. Only the trustees can decide to dissociate.
Let’s take each criterion in turn.
With regard to the first, there does appear to be sustained campus interest in the question of whether to dissociate from Israel, as evidenced by the intensity of input we received and the persistence of interest over time.
As to the values criterion, this dissociation question does implicate central University values, such as ethical responsibility and academic freedom — but people on all sides of the question sincerely invoked these same values in the service of divergent and opposite positions.
This naturally leads to the third criterion: Without the possibility of consensus, there can be no divestment and dissociation at Princeton, and the feedback we received made it plain that our community is sharply and inexorably divided on this topic. Indeed, our process revealed that a lack of consensus is a defining quality of the Princeton conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Since our Committee’s recommenda-
tion hinges on the question of consensus, I can anticipate several questions: How do we define “consensus”? By what method did we calculate consensus? Will we “show our work” and release the thousands of emails, messages, and petitions we received?
In my last column, I defined consensus as “widespread deliberative agreement.” The Resources Committee did not observe what a reasonable person would call “widespread agreement” at Princeton on the question of divestment from Israel. Nor was there widespread agreement within any of the major subgroups of the Princeton community: students, faculty, staff, or alumni. How do we measure consensus? The trustee guidelines on dissociation don’t offer a distinct mechanism for determining consensus, and the Committee decided not to rely on counting methods, such as the outcomes of polls, the number of signatures on a petition, or the sheer volume of messages sent in
Israel
an email campaign. That kind of data is not by itself indicative of deliberative consideration.
It was, however, plainly evident from the comments and materials submitted to our committee that there are multiple, divergent, and strongly held views in our community about the topics raised in the dissociation petition. The committee reached the same conclusion in 2014 in response to a similar dissociation request about Israel.
Will we release the emails we received or the notes we took at in-person meetings? While our report strives for maximum transparency, we offered confidentiality to the community to encourage input, and we must respect that promise.
I want to thank the Princeton community for its participation in this process, and for doing so with consideration and thoughtfulness. The Committee’s work was never disrupted by protest, nor was anyone who wanted to speak with us shouted down. That is a testament to the civility of the Princeton community and to the respect Princetonians have for one another, even when they disagree on the most contentious of topics.
John T. (Jay) Groves is the Hugh Stott Taylor Chair of Chemistry and chair of the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community.
I can tell you that we heard no argument for or against dissociation that would be unfamiliar to anyone following this debate in public forums. Those who wish to evaluate this question on its merits — a subjective exercise that is not the role of the Resources Committee — should have no problem finding the various arguments and judging for themselves.
For Kaden Knight ’28, purple is the new orange
By Ark Bunyan
Contributing Features Writer
Within the Orange Bubble, one color stands out for Kaden Knight ’28, who dresses exclusively in shades of purple. The Daily Princetonian sat down with “The Purple Guy” to find out why.
Daily Princetonian: Why do you wear purple?
Kaden Knight: I just like the color. It reminds me of magic and creativity. It was sometime in kindergarten when I decided I liked the color, so I wore it. I kept liking the color, so I just got more purple clothes.
By third grade, I basically had all purple clothes. I had to take a step back, look at myself and decide I like this, let’s continue doing this.
DP: So since third grade you’ve been wearing purple every single day?
KK: Yeah actually, I remember the moment. It was third grade, doing a theater production of Shakespeare’s As You Like It. And for the theater production, everybody had to wear stage black ... I didn’t have a proper black shirt, so instead, I wore this black shirt that was a Minecraft periodic table of elements. I was looking at myself, and I realized, “Hey, this shirt still has purple from the obsidian’s purple flakes.” So [since] I’m still wearing purple even though I’m supposed to be wearing stage black, I should, from this day, onwards, continue to just wear at least one bit of purple in my clothing.
DP: Do you own anything that isn’t purple?
KK: At the start of the year they handed out all those Princeton TShirts. I took the white ones. I’m a very lazy person, but once I stop being lazy, I’m gonna go and dye those purple. But right now, they are just shoved in a dresser, two little white shirts. Everything else is purple. Bed sheets are purple. I’ve got my phone cases purple. Probably other stuff is purple, it’s lots of purple. People play a game where they ask me: “Do you have purple this? You have a purple that?”
DP: Do you plan on being purple forever?
KK: I don’t know. I haven’t stopped liking purple yet, so it doesn’t seem to be happening in the future. I wouldn’t mind liking purple forever. Present me has no problems with wearing purple forever. Maybe future me will come to a different decision.
DP: Have you ever found people that do a similar thing?
KK: It hasn’t happened yet. I haven’t found any other purple people. People tell me, “Kaden, did you know that in Seattle there’s a place called The Purple Store where they only sell purple things?” Someday, I want to make a pilgrimage to The Purple Store and meet other purple-obsessed people.
My friends will come tell me, “Oh my goodness, there’s this one guy who wears all purple at Oberlin and he reminds me of you,” or apparently at Stanford there is this child of one of the math professors who wears all purple and goes around Stanford on a unicycle.
I don’t have Fizz, but friends of mine will just be like, “Kaden, you’re
on Fizz again.” Somebody took a photo of you and posted it to a bunch of people anonymously. It’s all super sweet. The photo was really funny with the caption “Purple Rain.”
DP: Do you find the posts to be creepy?
KK: I don’t feel like I can really have
a problem with it because everybody is being sweet and kind. It does feel a little creepy. But they’re all really nice about it. Everything I have seen, from what people have shown me, is curiosity — well-intentioned and nice.
I’m so ‘train-of-thought-y’ that I have no idea if this interview is going
to make any sense to anybody reading it. Hi, people reading this interview! I hope this has some logical coherence to you. Hope you’re enjoying this!
Ark Bunyan is a contributing Data and Features writer for the ‘Prince.’
COURTESY OF KADEN KNIGHT Kaden Knight ’28 at Holder Hall.
Princeton hosts first ever Ivy League Wrestling Tournament, wins five automatic bids to NCAAs
By Bryant Figueroa Assistant Sports Editor
The inaugural Ivy League Wrestling Tournament was held at Jadwin Gymnasium last Sunday. Finishing fourth overall, the Princeton wrestling team (8–9 overall, 3–2 Ivy League) crowned two champions and had one secondplace finish and two third-place finishes. The Tigers also received five automatic bids to the NCAA Championships, two more than last year.
“It was truly amazing, and I’m happy that Princeton was able to host it,” wrestling Head Coach Joe Dubuque told The Daily Princetonian.
“It’s special because these guys work really hard, and our athletes are different,” he added. “Our athletes are not only busting their butt in the wrestling room, working out for, in my opinion, the hardest sport in college sports, but also, they go to the number one school in the country that requires them to be beyond that.”
Before this season, Princeton and its fellow Ivy Leaguers competed for NCAA berths at the Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association (EIWA) Tournament, a two-day competition among 17 schools. Princeton had participated in every EIWA tournament since its founding in 1905, but with the growing success of Ivy League wrestling over the last decade, the Ivy League announced in December 2023 that it would be splitting from the EIWA to form its own one-day tournament.
Two years later, this plan was realized, with 26 NCAA tickets allocated to the 2025 Ivy League Tournament, all on the line on Sunday.
McGowan and Stout make history as first-ever Princeton Ivy League champions
In the 125-pound class, first-year Marc-Anthony McGowan became the tournament’s first-ever champion. Entering as the No. 1 seed after an impres-
WOMEN’S BASKETBALL
sive 13–2 season, McGowan dominated the No. 5 seed, Columbia’s Sulayman Bah, in the semifinals. McGowan pinned down Bah within six minutes, proceeding to face the No. 2 seed, Penn’s Max Gallagher, for the title.
McGowan took down Gallagher twice for six points. The determined Gallagher fought back with reversals to get six of his own, but McGowan added another two-point reversal and held onto his 8–6 lead until time.
“I think we do a good job in the room of making sure that we’re staying composed in those tough situations,” McGowan told the ‘Prince.’ “I think coach Dubuque and our coaching staff has done a good job of pushing us through those tough moments, finding that wall, and then pushing past it.”
Princeton’s other champion was senior and captain Luke Stout, who also entered as a No. 1 seed in the 197-pound division. Unanimously selected for First Team All-Ivy, Stout pinned down Harvard’s No. 4 Max Agresti within four minutes in the semifinals. He then extended his dominance in the finals, where Cornell’s No. 2 Michael Dellagatta had no response for Stout’s persistent takedowns. Stout won 20–5 by technical fall.
“It was really cool to be part of history,” Stout said to the ‘Prince.’ “It was a home crowd too, so a lot of our families were able to come out, lots of local New Jersey wrestling fans. I thought Jadwin was a great place for it — we had a great turnout.”
Although McGowan will be competing in his first NCAAs, Stout is no stranger to the competition, having qualified each of his last three years.
“The theme of this season for me was just having no regrets with the way I’m competing and going out with a bang,” Stout commented. “So I really want this to be the tournament that I remember once everything’s said and done.”
Rivera wins silver after highly competitive matchup
In the 141-pound class, sophomore Eligh Rivera entered as the No. 3 seed and breezed past his quarterfinal against Harvard’s No. 6 Dante Frinzi, 15–2. But his semifinal against Cornell’s No. 2 Josh Saunders became one of the most intense battles of the day, going into overtime. Rivera completed the upset with a sudden-victory takedown, setting the Orange and Black crowd ablaze.
“I love those moments,” Rivera told the ‘Prince.’ “I’ve been in those moments a lot, so I’m pretty confident when a match goes to [overtime].”
“As far as what it’s like in Jadwin, I mean, there’s nothing better [than] … to just put on a show for them and get[ting] that done in front of the home crowd is something special,” he added.
Although Rivera fell in the final to Penn’s CJ Composto, the No. 1 seed, his silver was more than enough to secure his spot in the NCAAs with four allocated to his division. It will be his first national tournament too.
“I feel good. I feel confident,” Rivera said. “I think every guy here has been in a big match at some point in their career, so you kind of figure out how to zone [the pressure] out.”
Whalen and Mulhauser punch their tickets to nationals
The last two Tigers to get automatic bids to the NCAA tournament were sophomores Ty Whalen and Kole Mulhauser, who each lost their respective semifinals by narrow two-point margins.
Whalen, competing in the 149-pound bracket as the No. 3 seed, struck bronze in a dominant affair against the No. 4 seed, Columbia’s Kai Owen. Whalen achieved a 15-point lead in less than six minutes for a technical fall, 16–1.
“I mean, it definitely doesn’t feel good to lose in the semis, but we had to come back,” Whalen told the ‘Prince.’
“You have to forget a little bit about what happened and just move forward.”
The No. 3 seeded Mulhauser got past Brown’s No. 5 Andrew Reall in the 184-pound consolation bracket. Despite missing out on the podium after being pinned by Columbia’s No. 4 Nick Fine in the third-place match, Mulhauser’s win against Reall booked him the fourth and final NCAA spot allocated to the Ivy League’s 184-pound division.
“It’s kind of just getting your head back in the game, knowing that you’re still able to qualify and just getting your mind ready to compete again,” Mulhauser told the ‘Prince.’ “I just felt confident going into [the consolation bracket] and wanted to punch my ticket to the NCAAs.”
Just like McGowan and Rivera, Whalen and Mulhauser will be debuting at the NCAAs this year.
While the rest of the Tigers fell short in NCAA qualifications, they all took part in a new tradition that celebrated Ivy League wrestling. First-year Daniel Jones earned another bronze medal for Princeton in the 133-pound division, but unfortunately for Princeton, the Ivy League was only granted two NCAA berths in his class. Having set-
tled down from the tournament, the Tigers now look towards their chances at nationals following a tumultuous season in Dubuque’s second year as head coach.
“This year we definitely went through a lot of adversity, dealing with injuries and sickness,” Dubuque said. “It seemed like we were always kind of sending out a different lineup than what our true, best-potential lineup would be.”
“But I think we all kind of grew from that,” he added. “We had guys who stepped up and got some really crucial experience, and then the guys who were in the lineup kind of dealing with that adversity and figuring out how to work through it and still be successful.”
On Wednesday night, the NCAA released official seeding for the tournament to take place from Thursday, March 20 to Saturday, March 22 in Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center. Princeton will open the championships with the No. 13 seeded McGowan facing off against Rutgers’ No. 12 seeded Dean Peterson. The entire event will be broadcast on ESPN+.
Bryant Figueroa is an assistant Sports editor for the ‘Prince.’
Staff & Guest Picks: Women’s basketball vs. Iowa State
By Hayk Yengibaryan & Doug Schwartz
Princeton secured the third bid from the Ivy League for the NCAA Women’s March Madness Tournament on Sunday, marking the first occasion that three Ivy League teams have qualified for the tournament.
However, the Tigers still have work to do. In order to get to the first round against six-seed Michigan, they first must get through the Iowa State Cyclones in an 11-seed, first-four battle. The Tigers will face the Cyclones led by sophomore center Audi Crooks, who is averaging 23.2 points per game on 60.2 field goal shooting, at Notre Dame’s Joyce Center Wednesday.
Guest Staff Picks:
Princeton 69, Iowa State 67 – Ellie Mitchell ’24, Former Princeton Women’s Basketball Star
I’m excited for the team, it’ll be a fun matchup and nothing we can’t handle. If we can limit Audi Crooks’ touches and force the rest of the team to have to
try to beat us, we’ll be successful. I think Iowa State will underestimate us, but the team always plays their best when they have something to prove, so I’m excited to watch them tomorrow night.
Princeton 70, Iowa State 62 – Matt Allocco ’24, Former Men’s Basketball Star
We have great guard play and I’m expecting Ashley and Skye to have big games. Also expecting our tournament experience to help us in a tight game.
Princeton 62, Iowa State 59 – Caden Pierce, Junior Men’s Basketball Player Tigers pull it out down the stretch in a defensive battle.
Princeton 61, Iowa State 54 – Dalen Davis, Sophomore Men’s Basketball Player
The women had a tough loss in the Ivy tournament and will be looking to get back on track and make a run in the NCAA tournament.
I’m a huge fan of the three bid Ivy, and I believe all three teams deserved a
bid, but it’s going to be two by Wednesday night.
Iowa State has been battle-tested all year, consistently playing the best teams in the country. It’s easy to forget that Bill Fennelly’s squad was ranked eighth in the AP preseason poll. This team has the talent but has been unable to put it together for the majority of the season. However, I believe they’re playing their best basketball of the season, going 7–2 in their last nine games. Their last regular season game was a 22-point win against No. 5 seeded Kansas State, and they went toe to toe with four-seeded Baylor in the Big 12 playoffs.
The Cyclones are led by sophomore center Audi Crooks, a force to be reckoned with, who has scored 32 and 36 in two of their last three games. I believe Princeton Head Coach Carla Berube will have a good game plan for Crooks, one that may involve consistently blitzing her in the paint. The problem lies with the fact that Iowa State shoots 36 percent from beyond the arc, good for fourth in the conference. If you double Crooks, you have to live with the fact that guards Sydney Harris and Emily Ryan are going to get their buckets.
If Princeton wants to be competitive in this game — which I think they will be — they must force turnovers. The Cyclones have struggled all year in protecting the basketball. Their 476 turnovers this season rank in the top 10 in the country. Thankfully, the Orange and Black pride themselves in “Getting Stops.”
This is going to be a great game, but give me Audi Crooks to break Princeton’s hearts with a 25+ point performance in South Bend.
After an exciting Selection Sunday, Princeton finds themselves back in March Madness for the sixth consecutive year. The at-large bid speaks volumes to not only the competitiveness of the Ivy League, but also the respect that Berube and company have garnered from the NCAA.
In order for Princeton to win, they are going to need a full team effort. Not only will Chea and Belker need to have a hot shooting night, but Tall and Hill are going to need to be efficient with their looks as well. On defense, Hill is going to have her hands full with Iowa State’s
star Audi Crooks. Crooks is going to be a challenge for the Tigers, as the sophomore is averaging 23.2 points per game on over 60 percent shooting. As a first-year, Crooks scored 40 points in an empathic win over No. 10 Maryland in last year’s NCAA Tournament. Crooks, a bonafide star who has been here before, is bound to give Princeton problems. Crooks and her squad came into the year with high expectations: the Cyclones were ranked No. 8 in the AP preseason poll. While their season did not go to plan thanks to several big losses in Big 12 play, Iowa State has collected some notable wins, including one against ranked Kansas State to end the season. The Cyclones, despite their season woes, have played against extremely high levels of competition, and that experience will ultimately be too much for the Tigers to handle.
Hayk Yengibaryan is an associate News editor, senior Sports writer, and Education Director for the ‘Prince.’
Doug Schwartz is an associate Sports editor for the ‘Prince.’
PHOTO COURTESY OF @TIGERSWRESTLING/X
First-year Marc-Anthony McGowan won the first Ivy League tournament title ever with a win over Penn at 125 pounds.
MEN’S BASKETBALL
Men’s basketball falls to Yale 59–57 in Ivy Madness semi-final heartbreaker
By Bryant Figueroa Assistant Sports Editor
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — On Saturday afternoon, Princeton men’s basketball (19–11 overall, 8–7 Ivy League) fell to Yale (22–7, 14–1), 59–57, for the third time this season in a tightly contested battle in the Ivy League Tournament semifinals. With the loss, the Tigers lose their shot at an automatic bid for March Madness.
“I’m proud to have played in a really meaningful game — they’re a really good team,” head coach Mitch Henderson ’98 said postgame. “We weren’t competitive with them in the first two games of the season. This was as resilient as we looked all season.”
Princeton entered Ivy Madness as the fourth seed, despite having been predicted to win the Ivy League preseason, a testament to the season-long difficulties the team has faced on both ends of the court. The Tigers have been plagued by turnovers and difficulty getting points in the paint.
On the other end, Yale was enjoying one of their most successful seasons in recent memory. With only one conference defeat, the Bulldogs dominated the Ivy League in many facets, led by the now three-time Ivy League Defensive Player of the Year and Player of the Year Bez Mbeng as well as the league’s top scorer John Poulakidas.
Sophomore forward Jacob Huggins and sophomore guard Dalen Davis led the Tigers in the +/- category against the Bulldogs, a statistic describing the relative points gained or lost against the opponent when the player is on the floor. Huggins and Davis had +/-’s of 12 and 13 points, respectively.
Despite these contributions, over the course of the season, both players faced troubles with time on the court.
“Gotta blame the coach on that one,” Henderson commented. “[Huggins] was really helpful all season, and you know, it was my decision at certain times to not play him but he was terrific when he did [play].”
“I always try to be prepared mentally for a game like this,” Huggins told The Daily Princetonian’. “Whenever your number gets called you got to be ready.”
“Dalen was +13,” Henderson continued. “We needed that, and it wasn’t my best year, but I thought that tonight we showed what we can be.”
The Bulldogs came onto the court with absolute intensity. Forward Nick Townsend bodied through defenders, while the Tigers simply could not make shots, taking their first timeout down 9–0.
Princeton could not muster a single point for the first five minutes, trailing a game-worst 12–0. Davis scored the first points for the Tigers with a three-pointer off the bench, before senior guard Blake Peters followed suit with a layup that cut the deficit to 12–5.
Junior standout Xavian Lee’s assist to Huggins then made history, giving Lee the Princeton single-season assist record with 162 — previously held by Tosan Evbuomwan ’23 — and bringing the Tigers to a 21–17 deficit.
Peters then energized the crowd with a triple that brought the deficit to just one point , 21–20.
But following a media timeout, the momentum once again shifted in the Bulldogs’ favor as Mbeng’s skills led Yale to a 10–0 run,giving them an 11-point lead with two minutes in the half.
The Tigers responded with Peters’ third triple of the night and Dalen’s strength under the rim for a 5–0 run cut off by the halftime buzzer.
The Tigers entered the locker room down 31–25, with six points being their lowest halftime deficit against Yale this season.
Impressively, the Tigers’ defense held Yale to zero triples from seven attempts.The Bulldog dominance in the paint was the difference in the first.
The Tigers opened the second half with two turnovers and a missed open three-pointer, before Poulakidas
drained Yale’s first two three-pointers of the night. Peters responded with another three of his own, but the Tigers continued their disastrous shooting beyond the arc, quickly trailing 39–28.
The Tigers came out of the next timeout more precise, highlighted by a Davis jumper and a third Lee-to-Pierce slam dunk. But Yale pushed back with their persistent offensive boards, leaving the Tigers down 45–35 at the second media timeout.
Henderson was constantly subbing players in and out as Peters and Happy each found themselves with three fouls, but Princeton regained momentum through Lee. Despite struggling to drive through Yale’s presence in the paint, he persisted into a layup, assisted Huggins, and then drilled a threepointer to keep the Tigers in the game, down 49–42.
Peters came back onto the court and immediately sank a triple, before Davis nailed two free throws that brought the deficit to just two points, 49–47.
A pair of Townsend free throws and an alley-oop from him to center Samson Aletan appeared to cut the Tigers’ hopes short once again, but Davis did not back down. Powering through the paint as the shortest player on the court, he managed a layup as Princeton called a timeout down 53–49.
On the other end, Pierce played excellent defense against Townsend, forcing a miss and driving to the other end for a layup, bringing the Tigers once again within two points, down 53–51.
After a Poulakidas missed free throw, the Tigers stormed down the court and found Happy for a three, sending Tiger fans into a frenzy as they took their first lead of the game, 54–53.
The remaining three minutes were crucial. Mbeng scored an and-one on Lee’s fourth foul of the game, but Lee responded with a mean crossover and a monumental triple that gave the Tigers the lead with just over a minute to go, 57–56.
Poulakidas, closely guarded by Peters, managed to nail a closely-contested three-pointer with just under a minute remaining, pulling the Bulldogs back up to 59–57.
“I was trying to influence him right, but it’s a great play.” Peters said postgame. “It’ll eat at me forever.”
On the other end, Pierce tried driving for a layup, but Yale forward Casey Simmons denied him. The Bulldogs took the ball back with 33 seconds left
Now facing a three-second shot clock differential, Poulakidas took his time. With Lee and Peters both on four fouls, there was miscommunication on the court about fouling him or not. Poulakidas calmly held onto the ball for a shot-clock violation, with Princeton quickly calling a timeout for a final shot at defying the odds.
A controversial shot-clock change did not change Henderson’s plan as the most clutch player on the team was clear. With five game winners this season, all eyes turned onto Princeton’s final hope, Xaivian Lee.
“We knew what we were doing,” Henderson said about the last play. “I
was like, ‘that’s going in, no way.’” But as the crowd held its breath, the Tigers ended their season with a heartbreaker after Lee’s shot bounced off the back rim.
“I’ve got to make that shot,” Lee reflected about the last play.
Peters was the only senior to appear on the court in Princeton’s final game of the season.
“He’s just done all he’s done to make Princeton basketball better. He personified what we are,” Henderson told the ‘Prince.’
“We’ve accomplished a lot in four years,” Peters reflected post-game. “This was my dream, my whole life,” Peters tearfully continued.
Yale will play the winner of Cornell (17–10, 9–5 Ivy League) and Dartmouth (14–13, 8–6 Ivy League) in the Ivy League Tournament final tomorrow at noon for an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament.
Bryant Figueroa is an assistant Sports editor for the ‘Prince.’
Lily Pampolina contributed reporting.
‘The Freshman Ban’: Revisiting Princeton’s 1987 Proposal to Ban Freshmen from Prospect Avenue
By Olivia Perry Archives Contribuer
Every year, freshmen eagerly anticipate their debut into Princeton’s social scene, only to find that Prospect Avenue — the home of the eating club scene — remains off-limits for the first week of classes. The Interclub Council (ICC) claimed in an email sent to the Class of 2028 before the start of school that this is to help students “fully engage with Orientation and connect with fellow classmates.” This temporary restriction often frustrates new students looking to experience college nightlife. But the freshmen of today should count themselves lucky. What if one week of abstinence became a year of Street-less fun?
This was nearly a reality in 1987.
On Mar. 3 of that year, The Daily Princetonian reported that members of the Graduate Inter-Club Council (GICC) proposed a USG ban on freshmen attending parties on Prospect
Avenue, following the death of freshman Stephen J. Marquard ’89 who fell off of Campbell Hall after drinking.
Daniel Troyka ’90, the freshman class president at the time, strongly opposed the proposal, arguing it would not address the root of the drinking problem. In the 1987 article, he said that “the death and neardeath of two students [resulted from] obtained alcohol on-campus, rather than at club parties,” emphasizing that the issue of underage irresponsible drinking extended beyond just the eating clubs. Despite the memory of Marquard’s death seeming to quickly fade, the tragic accident served as a reminder about the dangers of underage drinking.
Troyka also argued that the proposed ban would limit freshmen’s social opportunities and harm relationships with upperclassmen.
“Social options for freshmen are limited as it stands, and barring freshmen from the social life of the clubs would further limit their op-
tions,” Troyka said. He believed that restricting access to the clubs would only increase isolation and that the existing pass system — if enforced effectively — could better manage freshmen’s involvement in club life.
His proposed resolution to counter the ban passed overwhelmingly with a 29–1 vote.
In a recent interview with the ‘Prince,’ Troyka reaffirmed his position. “I was speaking for, and no doubt pandering to, my constituency — freshmen — who overwhelmingly opposed the idea,” he said.
“But 2025 me agrees with 1987 me. It was not an idea that would work in practice, and it would have deprived freshmen of important social opportunities.”
“Freshmen would still have socialized — only now in different venues, with no improvement in safety,” Troyka recently reflected. As anyone in Holder Hall can attest, Troyka was right: freshmen will always find other venues to socialize outside of the
protective walls of the Street. Troyka believed that the restriction on eating clubs wouldn’t have solved the problem of binge drinking; it might have just moved it to different, lessregulated spaces.
Troyka’s defense of freshmen’s access to social life highlights the complexities of campus policies. The 1987 proposal to ban freshmen from Prospect Avenue reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing student engagement with safety — a conversation that continues today. Princeton’s current alcohol policies aim to promote responsible drinking while mitigating risks, with regulations on underage consumption, registered events, and medical amnesty. Just as in 1987, the campus community still grapples with how best to create a social environment that fosters
connection and well-being.
Olivia Perry is a contributing Archivist for the ‘Prince.’
