The Daily Princetonian: October 3, 2025

U. AXES INDEPENDENT DINING

CHANGE TO CAMPUS MEALS IN YEARS

The future of humanities teaching in the AI age, according to Princeton professors

By Nikki Han

In a memo sent to faculty this summer, Dean of the College Michael Gordin was blunt: “this is the moment to reevaluate what you do and how you do it.”

The numbers, Gordin wrote, showed sharp increases in generative AI use. According to data from entering students, more than half of the Class of 2028 said they had “rarely or never” used such products in the class year. In the Class of 2029, which had access to ChatGPT and other generative AI throughout most of high school, that figure was 28 percent.

“If students, especially the generation that’s coming in right now,

“went through high school using [AI], it’s going to be really, really hard for them to stop,” said Meredith Martin, an English professor and Faculty Director of the Center for Digital Humanities.

For many users, generative AI has revolutionized coding, automated simple tasks like emails, and outstripped Google search as a reference tool.

But for humanities professors, the new tools have generated significant anxiety. “Will the humanities survive artificial intelligence?” Professor of History D. Graham Burnett asked in The New Yorker this spring.

In interviews with The Daily Princetonian, humanities professors discussed how they have

DIOGENES’

LAMP

SEPTEMBER 30, 1930

adapted their classrooms to fit the new world of ChatGPT. Some professors are outright banning AI, turning assessments that used to be papers into in-class exams. Others are trying to work alongside AI, asking students to be transparent when they have used AI in research and writing. Others still are encouraging AI use and embracing its potential. And yet, they all expressed fears that AI could deeply impact critical thinking and writing.

“For a long, long time, writing has been a way that we’ve had of teaching thinking,” Professor of English and the English Department’s Interim Director of Undergraduate Studies Jeff Dolven told

CYNTHIA TORRES

This Week In History ”

With midterms and fall break right around the corner, the prolonged orientation experience helping to transition the newest class to Princeton continues on as Zee groups make their way to their final FYRE (First Year Residential Experience) events. This week in history, at the start of the school year in 1931, The Daily Princetonian attempted to do its part in acclimating the incoming first-year class of 1935 by printing a “Message to Our Freshman” in their humor column, “Diogenes’ Lamp.”

U. axes independent meal option, will require upperclassmen living on-campus to buy dining plan

By Hayk Yengibaryan

Head News Editor

All juniors and seniors living on campus will be required to purchase a University meal plan beginning in the Fall 2026 semester, effectively axing the “independent” dining option and eliminating the two Universitysponsored meals per week that upperclassmen previously received regardless of dining affiliation.

The decision to eliminate the free meals for upperclassmen is due to “ongoing budget reduction measures,” which most recently included the decision to discontinue Wintersession.  The wider changes to the dining landscape follow a 2024 study by the Huron Consulting Group, which proposed that the University review independent status and require campus dining plans for students

living on campus.

In an email to the Classes of 2027 and 2028, Vice President for Campus Life W. Rochelle Calhoun, Dean of the College Michael D. Gordin, and Vice President for University Services Chad L. Klaus outlined housing and dining changes that they said are meant to “promot[e] community in the residential dining halls; support students’ ability to maintain their connections during mealtimes, break periods, and late meals; and strengthen a sense of belonging.”

Notably, the Class of 2029 was not sent the memo.

Going forward, the University will offer the following three campus dining plans: Unlimited, Block 160, which will include ten meals per week, and Block 32, which is two meals per week and is only available to students in an eating club or co-op. Previously, upperclassmen had the option of

the unlimited plan or a Block 105 plan.

The cost of the Block 32 plan is not yet clear and the memo did not clarify whether guest meals were affected. The current Block 105 plan and unlimited plan both allow for 10 guest meals per semester.

Financial aid packages for juniors and seniors will be adjusted to include both the price of their eating club meal plan and Block 32, the memo said. The pricing plan will align with current per-meal rates and students will have the option to add blocks of 10 meals to non unlimited plans. In a significant change, all meal swipes will be usable during fall and spring breaks and during Late Meal and Late Dinner.

The overhaul to the dining policy is accompanied by major changes to the housing system. The University will eliminate the

“independent” status option in room draw, which normally gives students not in an eating club or co-op priority for dorms like Spelman Hall and Lockhart Hall equipped with more accessible kitchens.

The new room draw process will assign each student a single draw time during which all available rooms will appear. Students can still form groups for room draw, but will not be required to, and draw times will continue to be distributed randomly by class year.

“Ending the independent status for room draw will address challenges that independent students have reported related to food access and isolation concerns,” the memo asserted.

The new policy may significantly increase traffic in campus dining halls next academic year, as Hobson College, which will have a new dining hall, will not

yet be open.

In the Class of 2025, The Daily Princetonian’s senior survey found that 18 percent of students were independent. Around 9 percent chose one of the University meal plans.

The University will host two information sessions for students during midterms week on Tuesday, October 7 at 1 p.m. in McCosh 64 and Wednesday, October 8 at 6:30 p.m. in Frist Multipurpose Room C.

The email concluded by saying, “We believe these changes will improve your residential experience.”

Hayk Yengibaryan is a head News editor, senior Sports writer, and education director for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Glendale, Calif. and typically covers breaking news and profiles. He can be reached at hy5161[at]princeton. edu.

Independent students voice significant concerns about new meal plan policies

By Luke Grippo & Sena Chang Assistant news Editor & Senior News Writer

The University announced sweeping changes to its housing and dining policies on Monday, requiring all juniors and seniors living on campus to purchase a University meal plan starting in the fall of 2026. The move drew immediate frustration from students who currently rely on, or were planning for, fully independent dining.

The new policy eliminates the “independent” status for dining and room draw and mandates that all students in University housing select one of three dining plans: an unlimited plan, a Block 160 plan (10 meals per week), or a minimal Block 32 plan (two meals per week). The Block 32 option is only available to students who also have a plan with an eating club or co-op.

“I was very disappointed with seeing this change, because I was looking forward to continuing to cook in my senior year,” Remy Garcia-Kakebeen ’27 told the ‘Prince.’ Garcia-Kakebeen, who is currently on an independent meal plan, said that “taking away the independent meal plan would restrict [her] to very specific eating hours” that may conflict with her busy schedule.

Brianna Melanie Suliguin ’27 said that being independent helped her manage her “hectic rehearsal schedule” and late-night study sessions, which were not conducive to dining hall hours.

“Over the past two years, I found myself never actually showing up to the dining halls at the right times,” Suliguin said. “I wanted the liberty to prepare my food when all the dining halls and late meal were closed.”

Suliguin is a former staff Prospect writer for the ‘Prince.’

The University included in its announcement that the changes are designed to address a “significant drop” in student satisfaction after sophomore year, attributed to a “disruption of community” around dining habits. A 2024 dining and report from the Huron Consulting Group about din-

ing, which was among the factors guiding the University’s decision, found that co-op and eating club selection causes “social stratification” as well as “a sense of isolation” in some.

However, some students on the independent plan reported high satisfaction with their choice.

“Myself and my fellow independent friends don’t feel [lonely], and the majority of my friend group is actually in an eating club, but I don’t feel disconnected from them,” Garcia-Kakebeen said.

Chloe Chan ’27, who is currently on the Unlimited dining plan but was planning on going independent next year, shared that the dining option was “incredibly personal” to her, both “community-wise and culturally.”

“I’ll never forget the upperclassmen in Spelman who made me homemade mapo tofu or kimchi jiggae while I was a homesick freshman,” Chan said. “My dream was always to go independent with my best friends senior year and pay that forward. Especially with my Cantonese roots, food

is comfort, it’s family, and it’s home.”

Other students reported that the independent option offered flexibility, a healthier lifestyle, and cultural comfort.

“I get really homesick and the best way to remedy that is through my cultural food: Barely any of that is available at the dining halls, so I’ve been learning how to prepare the food for myself,” Suliguin said. “This is also helping me understand what is required to make healthier decisions in my food.”

Some students also expressed disappointment about the elimination of independent status in room draw. Now, students will neither be able to draw as an independent nor receive preference for upperclassmen rooms that facilitated the independent dining option — rooms that had kitchens. Students are worried that these rooms, such as the ones in Spelman, will go to waste.

“The rooms could just go to whoever gets lucky in the draw, and those kitchens might end up

sitting unused,” Suliguin said. “It feels like a missed opportunity to support students with different needs and lifestyles.”

“The potential of a Spelman quad having four eating-club students is pretty ridiculous,” Reece Lapas ’27 added.

At a meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community later that day, Vice President of University Services Chad Klaus said that the changes had been “informed significantly” by student input, including the dining pilot, a 2024 report by Huron Consulting Group, and conversations with the Student Life Committee of the Undergraduate Student Government. Monday’s memo from Klaus and other top administrators cited budget cuts as the rationale for scaling back the two University-sponsored meals offered to upperclassmen.

“With our political climate, I can understand why the University is scaling its funding structures, but this feels like a step in the wrong direction. This actively harms low income and

food insecure students. Seeing as Princeton is one of the wealthiest per capita universities, this move feels mind boggling,” Reagan said.

Mere hours following the announcement, a change.org petition calling on the University to “restore our upperclass meal swipes and fair room drawing” was started by Chan. As of Sept. 29, it has garnered 581 signatures. “I’m hoping that the University does see that a lot of undergraduates are not really supporting this change; hopefully, they’ll take that into consideration,” Garcia-Kakebeen said.

Luke Grippo is an assistant News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from South Jersey and usually covers University and town politics, on a national, regional, and local scale. He can be reached at lg5452@princeton.edu.

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.

Eating clubs, co-ops express opposition to dining plan changes

By Luke Grippo Assistant News Editor

In an unexpected move, the University will now require eating club and co-op members living on campus to purchase a University meal plan starting in the fall of 2026, effectively eliminating independent dining. In addition to drawing quick criticism from independent students, leaders of eating clubs and co-ops moved to criticize the decision.

“The Inter-Club Council (ICC) opposes the University’s decision to require all members of eating clubs to purchase an additional dining plan. Eating clubs have and will continue to provide meaningful communities to students across a wide range of campus, and we’re excited to bring new members into our clubs during Spring 2026 Street Week and beyond,” the ICC, which represents all 11 eating clubs, said in a statement. “The ICC is in discussion about the impacts of the decision and will provide additional statements as these discussions progress.”

The new dining policy offers eating club and co-op members a dining plan exclusive to students with eating club and co-op contracts — the minimal Block 32 plan, which will cover two meals per week at one of the campus dining halls.

This plan is projected to cost an approximate $1,030 per academic year, on top of the co-op or eating club plan cost, assuming the permeal rate would fall in line with the current cost on the Block 105 plan. Co-op costs can range between $1,200 and $1,500, while eating club costs can range from a bit over $9,000 to just under $13,000.

Hap Cooper ’82, the chairman of the Graduate Inter-Club Council, which comprises members of the alumni boards of the eating clubs, said he was “shocked and disappointed by the announcement.”

“We have been in discussions with the University for nearly five years, and have been steadfast in our position that club members should not be made to purchase a second dining contract that they didn’t ask for and don’t want. Students will now be required to pay twice for the same meals, making the dining experience more expensive for some and more confusing for all,” Cooper said in a statement.

“We were assured we would continue to have a seat at the table as dining decisions were being made so we could ensure any changes were in the best interests of all involved,” Cooper added. “That commitment was not kept.”

Co-op members also voiced concerns about the new dining plans. The Daily Princetonian was

able to speak with two of the four current co-ops by publication.

Jacob Jackson ’26, Keeper of the Keys for the 2 Dickinson Street co-op (2D), shared that he thinks there will be an increase in the number of students joining coops as a low-cost option. But he expressed worries that an influx of new potential members would become “an incredible logistical burden on [the co-ops] to accommodate a significant increase in interested members.”

According to Jackson, 2D is currently at “maximum capacity,” with many of the other co-ops “either near or already at capacity as well.”

“It’s worrying to consider a future where a significant portion of interested students are denied co-op membership due to space limitations,” Jackson added.

Additionally, current members of the group “do not eat at the dining hall regularly and thus would be wasting the two weekly swipes they would now have to pay for,” Jackson said.

Abdur-Raheem Idowu ’26, copresident of the International Food Co-Op (IFC), shared similar concerns about the co-op community.

“Now, you’re gonna have a lot of people that truly, actually want to just make food on their own but may join a co-op just in order to avoid having to pay for the entire meal plan, and that’s gonna weaken the real co-op community,” Idowu said.

This co-op community, Idowu said, is one that fosters communities built on common interests. “In order to actually get the benefit of [Princeton’s] diversity, you need to let people create their own communities and do things the way they want to do things,” Idowu said.

Neither 2D nor the IFC were made aware of the changes to the dining plans prior to the University announcement.

“As a co-op leader, I am wholeheartedly against the University’s decision, and I am frankly appalled at the lack of dialogue or communication with students that they claim to want the best for throughout this process,” Jackson said.

“Who you eat with and where you eat at Princeton is such an important part of your social life,” Idowu added. “They can’t just change things randomly like this, because it really uproots a lot of things.”

Luke Grippo is an assistant News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from South Jersey and usually covers University and town politics, on a national, regional, and local scale. He can be reached at lg5452@princeton.edu.

Sena Chang contributed reporting.

Dining plan changes will impact some student financial aid refunds, administrators say

By Cynthia Torres & Benedict Hooper Associate News Editor & News Contributor

Some students will see reductions to their financial aid refunds in future academic years as a result of paying for a University meal plan, Director of Financial Aid Liz Badger said at Monday’s Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) meeting. The meeting was dominated by questions on changes to campus dining announced earlier that morning.

An email sent to the Classes of 2027 and 2028 announced that all students living on campus will be required to purchase a meal plan beginning in the 2026–27 academic year, effectively eliminating independent status. The University will also institute a new Block 32 plan of two meal swipes a week, available to students on eating club or co-op plans. Students not affiliated with an eating club or co-op will have to buy either an unlimited meal plan or the new Block 160 plan of 10 meals per week.

The University will expand the financial aid allowance to account for the cost of an eating club plan plus Block 32, Badger said. However, students who receive financial aid in excess of their University bill would see changes in their refund, which some independent students put toward grocery and food costs.

“The students who will see a change are students who are independent, who are opting into a meal plan for the first time as a junior or senior, as they will see the charge for the meal plan, and because they’re not independent status anymore, they will have a

Reece Lapas ’27 said that this money was “incredibly helpful during times when we don’t have access to the dining hall, especially the winter break and summer.”

“The idea that those who have more vulnerable financial situations will essentially have to eat the meal plan rate’s relatively high price is confusing to me, especially because Princeton lends itself to be a very financially generous institution,” Lapas added.

The amount of the reduced refund was not immediately clear. University spokesperson Mike Hotchkiss told the ‘Prince’ that the pricing of the Block 32 and Block 160 plans would be “consistent per-meal pricing of current meal plans.” Based on the cost of the Block 105 plan, which is $1,690 per semester, the Block 32 plan could cost $515 per semester.

The changes immediately drew backlash from independent students.

“I also just know a lot of people have concerns about food and controlling their food and allergies, where it’s often just nicer and easier to be totally in control [of your diet], and I think it will be tough to have to resign yourself to the choices the University gives you,” Aster Haviland ’26 told the ‘Prince.’

In the first CPUC meeting of the academic year, just hours after the announcement, there were many questions regarding the dining changes.

Vice President of Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Aishwarya Swamidurai ’26 asked a question regarding the impetus behind the change and whether there was student engagement influencing this decision.

Vice President of University

these changes “are highly responsive to the set of feedback that we were receiving both in addressing affordability and access and the ability for students to move throughout those various groups in their junior and senior year.”

A proposal to expand dining options was first announced September 2022, with a dining program piloted in 2023 that gave certain upperclassmen five flexible meal swipes per week at any co-op, eating club, dining hall, or on-campus store like Late Meal. In June 2024, a study done by the Huron Consulting Group that solicited student feedback proposed the University require campus dining plans for students who live on campus.

“In addition to the Huron study, we had a dining pilot, which was done in coordination with the USG, as well as extensive conversations with the University Student Life Committee,” Klaus told The Daily Princetonian after the meeting.

Some students, however, expressed concerns that the new plan is not beneficial to everyone.

“The University is trying to put so much emphasis on dining halls and the residential college community. It’s just nice to be able to handle it yourself,” Katrin Brinkman ’26 told the ‘Prince.’

Cynthia Torres is an associate News editor, and archives contributor. She is from New Bedford, Massachusetts and typically covers University administration. She can be reached at ct3968[at]princeton.edu

Benedict Hooper is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Greenwich, Conn. and can be reached at bh3193@princeton.edu.

Princeton postdoc passes away overnight

By Hayk Yengibaryan & Nikki Han Head & Assistant News Editor

Postdoctoral researcher Haoran Li died at his home in West Windsor last night, according to an email sent to campus employees. Li recently defended his dissertation in electrical and computer engineering and was a member of the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. Li received his undergraduate

degree from Tsinghua University in 2019, where he received a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in electrical engineering. Li arrived at Princeton in August 2019 and earned his master’s in 2021. He finished his PhD in June, according to his LinkedIn.

The campus message shared that resources and support will be available through Counseling and Psychological Services (CPS), the Office of Religious Life, and

the student affairs team at the Graduate School. Students wishing to speak with a counselor can call 609-258-3141, CPS Cares Line, which is available 24/7.

“We know that every member of our community joins us in sending condolences to Haoran’s family and in wishing them strength,” concluded the email, signed by Vice President for Campus Life Rochelle Calhoun, Dean of the Faculty Gene Jarrett, and Dean

of the Graduate School Rodney Priestly.

The email did not specify a cause of death. Li’s death is at least the eighth of a current or recent student at Princeton in the last four years, including four determined to be suicides.

The ‘Prince’ will be writing an obituary for Li. Please contact news[at]dailyprincetonian.com if you have memories you’d like to share.

Hayk Yengibaryan is a head News editor, senior Sports writer, and education director for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Glendale, Calif. and typically covers breaking news and profiles. He can be reached at hy5161[at]princeton.edu.

Nikki Han is an assistant News editor and a contributing Features writer for the ‘Prince.’ She runs the Faculty, Graduate Students, and Alumni coverage area.

In ‘Terms of Respect,’ Eisgruber attempts to set the higher education record straight

By Cynthia Torres Associate News Editor

About three-quarters of the way into an interview with The Daily Princetonian, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 made a bold pronouncement: “American universities are the best that they’ve ever been.” Eisgruber has been in the business of speaking up for universities since the beginning of the Trump administration, which has put unprecedented pressure on Princeton and its peer institutions. His new book, “Terms of Respect,” argues, as the book’s subtitle reads, “how colleges get free speech right.” Despite the perception of intolerance on American college campuses, Eisgruber writes, colleges still host thriving and robust discourse.

“Today’s young people are not so different from those of preceding generations: They value free speech and want exposure to diverse viewpoints, though they sometimes misunderstand what these ideals entail and struggle with how to apply them in difficult circumstances,” Eisgruber writes in the book’s opening pages. “When it comes to getting free speech right, colleges and America’s young people deserve higher marks than they get.”

Keen observers of the University’s 20th president will notice how “Terms of Respect” draws on familiar themes and speeches — a 2023 talk at the Progressive Law Society, his experience with the Black Justice League, discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville — in a defense of free speech he’s maintained for years. In a similarly consistent manner, he remained — in his book and in an extensive conversation with the ‘Prince’ — staunchly optimistic about the challenges facing America’s universities and their students.

Released on Sept. 30, the book exists in a very different political context from when it was written. Eisgruber began working on “Terms of Respect” just over three years ago, and the manuscript was submitted in January — before the Trump administration launched its most direct attacks on the University and its peers.

In the ensuing months, Princeton lost $210 million in federal research funding, half of which has been recently restored. As one of the longestserving Ivy League presidents, the chair of the Association of American Universities, and the leader of one of America’s top-ranked universities, Eisgruber was particularly well-positioned to mount a public defense of universities. And he did, embarking on a series of media hits in The Atlantic, The New York Times, and other national outlets to defend academic freedom alongside the longstanding research relationship between universities and the federal government.

Despite Eisgruber’s public posture, however, many of Princeton’s peer institutions made deals with

the Trump administration to restore their research funding. Columbia agreed to pay the government $200 million and made a slew of changes that faculty and other observers criticized as capitulatory.

Brown paid $50 million to workforce development programs. The University of Pennsylvania paid no fee, but updated athletic policy to reflect the current administration’s interpretations of Title IX.

In his conversation with the ‘Prince,’ Eisgruber avoided criticizing any of his peers by name. But he argued that if universities felt forced to make compromises, they should be “clear and honest” about the trade-offs.

“Part of standing up for principle is being clear when circumstances require you temporarily to give up on a principle that really matters,” he said. “I don’t think you should say under those circumstances that everything is fine.”

Eisgruber added he felt empathy towards his peers who “have to make almost impossible choices under these circumstances.”

He took the opportunity to praise Harvard, which has become the Trump administration’s test case for how far a university can be pushed.

“I admire the line Harvard has taken vis-à-vis the government,” Eisgruber remarked. “Harvard has taken the positions that it has at great risk to the university. And I think Harvard has done the right thing by insisting on its rights under the law.”

On one occasion, however, Eisgruber’s disagreements with peer institutions have spilled into the open. At a meeting of the Association of American Universities in April, he confronted the presidents of Penn and Vanderbilt, “all but accusing them of carrying water for the Trump administration,” The Atlantic reported.

As universities debate about how to deal with the Trump administration, Eisgruber has found himself in the same shoes as the students he discusses in “Terms of Respect”: grappling with how to navigate disagreements between peers.

As in the book, he emphasized a need for diverse voices and opinions over making clear distinctions about what kinds of speech or actions should be permissible.

“We need lots of voices out there that are making the case for why these institutions are important to America,” Eisgruber said. “And if different universities have different contexts and want to make that fundamental case in different ways, that’s okay with me, and that’s good, right?”

“I think it’s really important to speak up for values. Different presidents may have different tactical views about that. Some may think that speaking up for values is provocative in a way, where they believe that they can pursue exactly the same goals they think I’m pur-

suing, and do it better through quieter conversations,” he said.

While attempting to offer constructive principles, “Terms of Respect” also positions itself in opposition to what Eisgruber sees as the dominant narrative on free speech. When asked why students should read his book, Eisgruber pointed to what he saw as a trend of “chastising the current generation of students.”

“Part of what I want to do here is to explain why the American tradition of free speech is something that should matter to and be proudly embraced by our students,” he said.

Certainly, part of Eisgruber’s audience is students; the book’s dedication reads, “for my students.”

“Terms of Respect” is also intended for a general public interested in understanding the story of the American university system — a story that Eisgruber sees as a slow march towards greater diversity and benefits to the country.

“Just over 50 years ago, this University still was not admitting women, and so we were ignoring the excellence of half of the human population. By virtue of taking people from all backgrounds and making sure that we are supporting people from all backgrounds, we

become much stronger than we’ve been before,” he said. “We continue to push the frontiers of science in important ways. We strengthen what it is we do in the humanities and the social sciences.”

“I think our universities, the universities that exist in the United States today, are as good as the world has ever seen, and we should be proud of that,” he said.

But even America’s most prestigious and powerful research universities have their limitations. Eisgruber admitted that he didn’t know the reason why some of Princeton’s research grants have been restored. And on issues like free speech for international students, who have feared visa revocations and deportations this past semester, universities have limited power.

“I think we would be dishonest if we said, ‘We can protect your status under all circumstances.’ There are real vulnerabilities there,” Eisgruber admitted on the issue.

“Part of what we need to do is give all of our students the tools that they need to be able to participate as fully as possible in conversations on tough subjects with full knowledge of what the risks are,” Eisgruber said. “But I can’t make the

problem go away.”

“I can make the case in Washington for the importance of our students. I can make the case for the importance of due process. I can make the case for particular changes around protections of free speech and particular changes in immigration law. But whatever I do, there are going to be risks,” he said.

On that matter, perhaps Eisgruber’s public posture is also risky for Princeton, which, compared to schools like Harvard, has avoided the Trump administration’s most aggressive attacks.

“There’s risk, whatever one does. There’s risk if you speak up, and there’s risk if you don’t speak up,” Eisgruber responded.

“The only guarantee is that if you don’t speak up, you’ve lost the opportunity to tell your story and to get it out there and to let people know what it is that you are thinking.”

Cynthia Torres is an associate News editor, and archives contributor. She is from New Bedford, Massachusetts and typically covers University administration. She can be reached at ct3968[at] princeton.edu.

Miriam Waldvogel contributed reporting.

CALVIN K. GROVER / THE

CALVIN K. GROVER / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

University President Christopher Eisgruber ‘83 signs his new book.

the ‘Prince.’

“It’s a moment of challenge to traditional ways of teaching, but it is also a moment of possibility.”

“Maybe less homework is good, but to me, if you’re not reading novels, you don’t understand the world, and you don’t understand people,” Chair of the Comparative Literature Department and Professor of African American Studies Wendy Belcher said.

Can AI produce better papers?

At this point, many professors say no.

In a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Belcher outlined “10 Ways AI Is Ruining Your Students’ Writing,” including making “banal arguments,” producing sentences that are “pretty but empty,” and, fundamentally, getting facts “flat-out wrong.”

“It cannot help you write a good paper,” Belcher told the ‘Prince.’ “It can probably do a B paper, but it’ll still be kind of an empty paper.”

Still, Belcher and her colleagues were sympathetic to the reasons students are increasingly using AI to brainstorm, outline, research, and write for them.

“I think the students are being efficient,” Belcher told the ‘Prince.’ “A lot of students in my class are in STEM. [This class] is something they have to do; they’re just trying to get through it. You cannot get through Princeton [by] prioritizing all your classes.”

“I don’t believe students are evil. Students are smart,” Belcher said. “This is a new tool. They’re trying it out.”

While AI might be helpful when it comes to tasks like summarization, professors fear that it may harm students’ ability to think for themselves if they consistently use AI to write their assignments and papers.

Professor of Literature Andrew Cole, for instance, mourned the “cognitive offloading that happens with AI.”

“There are mental tasks that our brains are too tired to do, to extract this information or process this information. It’s easier for AI to do it, and it does it in milliseconds,” Cole explained. “The more infrequent [these mental tasks are], the more detrimental it is to our brains.”

For Cole, this “cognitive offload-

ing” can be understood as a lingering consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, during which students’ educations were completed entirely online.

“Every student that I have encountered within my classes within the last five years has had this experience of intellectual challenges, intellectual dormancy,” Cole said. “AI [has] come in to fill the gap with this particular population who has experienced this very traumatic episode in our global history.”

No comprehensive policy

Currently, University policy on AI usage is broad. According to Rights, Rules, Responsibilities (RRR), students cannot directly copy AI-generated output or misrepresent it as their own work. However, “If generative AI is permitted by the instructor (for brainstorming, outlining, etc.), students must disclose its use.”

In his memo to faculty, Gordin urged professors to clearly state their policies around AI. “[I]nstructors need to articulate what is permissible within their courses,” he wrote in bold-face type. In turn, departments and instructors have created their own policies.

The English department, for example, lets faculty set their own guidelines for classes. For independent work, students must obtain written permission from their advisor and the Department of Undergraduate Studies before using generative AI tools and include a brief defense of their AI usage.

The History department’s policy, however, prohibits generative AI altogether as a text-generation tool for coursework, final examinations, and independent work. Instructors are granted exceptions to allow AI use for course assignments if a student follows the instructor’s guidelines and discloses AI use in writing.

Many faculty members said they appreciated the freedom granted to them to decide their own policies on AI, rather than an outright ban on AI.

“The question of how much you tolerate and allow is really up to you,” Assistant Professor of History Michael Brinley said. “My sense among the faculty is that they are not interested in policy guidelines that would further constrict things

that they do in the classroom.”

“My impression is that faculty in English recognize the wisdom of the current University policy: that AI is not something that should be prohibited, but that there should be a very clear case-by-case understanding on how it’s being used,” Dolven said.

Martin, a member of the 2023–24 Committee on Teaching and Learning convened by the McGraw Center, had hoped that the University would implement some of the policy recommendations that the committee came up with for a more cohesive, University-wide AI policy. “There is a Princeton-specific issue with not wanting to get into the way of departmental autonomy,” Martin explained. “I think it would have been an occasion for departments to work together, and I think they need to.”

In the meantime, individual faculty members are already changing the way they administer assessments.

Many professors have simply stopped assigning papers, especially when it’s becoming increasingly difficult to not only distinguish between AI-generated and studentgenerated work, but also to prove it.

“I don’t think plagiarism detection works,” Martin said. “And I also don’t think that citational practices are robust enough yet to cover the full range of things that one might use a model for depending on the class.”

Brinley’s class, HIS 362: The Soviet Century, used to have a required writing assignment. This semester, students will instead have a 15-minute oral midterm exam, three quizzes, and an in-person final exam, though students can opt to write a 5-page paper in lieu of the oral exam. For Brinley, this kind of assessment structure makes sense for his course which is “much more about content delivery than necessarily about methodological training,” he said.

Even in seminar settings, the future of papers is uncertain. Cole’s ENG 306: History of Criticism, which has 17 students, includes an in-class exam for the first time in his 16 years teaching at Princeton.

“It may sound weird for literature, but … there is an empirical element to literary study that can be measured in a thing that you might call an objective exam,” Cole said.

Other professors maintain that papers are valuable in their own

right and are unsure about the pedagogical implications of replacing papers with in-class essays, because writing on the spot and spending time researching, drafting, and rewriting are different skills.

“All writing is in the re-writing,” Belcher said, “To me, the first draft is terrible.” She added that she would continue to assign papers, while having students disclose their AI use — then point them to her Chronicle of Higher Education piece that said AI-generated writing was filled with “bloated emptiness.”

Some faculty have evaded the consequences of AI-generated writing by assigning more creative, imaginative papers that AI is, at least right now, unable to effectively produce. Dolven, who teaches classes on poetry, assigns exercises that “involve creative imitation and different kinds of writing, not necessarily essay writing.”

“It is a kind of assignment that makes the sentence-by-sentence business of writing, the imaginative act of it, front and center,” Dolven said.

Working alongside AI

While many faculty have balked at the use of generative AI for writing and reading, others have integrated it into their research and teaching.

In April this year, Burnett published an article in The New Yorker explaining how he integrated AI into a class he taught last spring. One assignment asked students to use AI chatbots to explore a topic they had already learned about, condense the text down to four pages, and turn it in. “That produced some extraordinary papers, co-written, in a way, by the students and the chatbots they chose because these were conversations,” Burnett told the ‘Prince.’

“Reading the results, on my living-room couch,” Burnett wrote in his article, “turned out to be the most profound experience of my teaching career.”

While some professors might disagree with Burnett’s methodology, his enthusiasm for AI made sense to Brinley, given that the class itself was about attention and media.

“It’s very appropriate in a course like that to also bring a methodological component of interacting

No deal linked to reinstated research grants, Eisgruber says

By Cynthia Torres Associate News Editor

After about half of Princeton’s suspended research grants were reinstated over the summer, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 told The Daily Princetonian in an interview that the restorations were not tied to any deal with the Trump administration.

“If the question is whether we made any deals: we did not,” he said.

In April, the federal government suspended about $210 million in federal research grants to Princeton from the Department of Energy, NASA, the Defense Department and other agencies. Eisgruber first told the Princeton Alumni Weekly in August that about half the grants and half the

funding have been restored.

Several of Princeton’s peer institutions have made varying deals with the Trump administration to have research funding restored. Columbia agreed to wide-ranging measures that included a $200 million fine and a new administrator overseeing several academic departments. The University of Pennsylvania did not pay a fine, but agreed to release a statement saying it would continue policies that reflect the Trump administration’s views on transgender athletes in women’s sports. Brown University, meanwhile, agreed to pay $50 million in local workforce development grants.

In an interview with the ‘Prince’ last week, Eisgruber said that he did not know the rationale for the restoration, nor had the federal government meaningfully com-

municated the reason for the suspensions to the University in the first place.

“In our case, the suspension of the grants came with a very, I would say, delphic communication from the government,” said Eisgruber. “It merely said that a long series of grants had been suspended in order to determine whether or not they were consistent with statute, regulation, the Constitution of the United States.”

When some research grants were then restored, Eisgruber described the communication from the Trump administration as “equally terse.”

“I can’t really speak to the causation around that. All I can say is I think that’s the right move by the government,” he said.

Eisgruber similarly admitted that he did not know whether

with [AI] and then reflecting on the value of how this changes the patterns of thought and writing,” Brinley said.

In the Center for Digital Humanities (CDH), where Martin is the Faculty Director, researchers engage with technology and computational tools as central elements of humanistic inquiry. One of the current CDH projects that Martin directs is working to develop new large language models — the same infrastructure that powers chatbots like Perplexity and ChatGPT — to help study style in existing literature.

“Humanists should at least know where and how it’s useful, so that they can say, ‘here are places that [AI] can be useful,’” Martin said.

Humanities professors, then, are in a moment of experimentation: while some, like Cole, deride the use of AI in the classroom, others are more open and optimistic about the technology’s potential. The University has largely left professors and departments to their own devices on the issue, and many are happy to have the freedom — for now.

“I think there are ethical reasons that professors can opt out of all sorts of technology that they don’t want to use,” Martin said. “I think it’s not helpful for anybody to pretend [AI] doesn’t exist.”

“It’s a moment of challenge to traditional ways of teaching, but it is also a moment of possibility,” Dolven said, “[Teaching] is no longer something we can take for granted as a vocational skill. And I think that that’s really to the good. I think it requires of us an active imagination as faculty.”

“My approach would be,” Brinley added: “we’re all in this together. Let’s think together about how to protect ourselves, continue to pursue the things we want, and sustain certain scholarly environments which are threatened, in part, because of the complete devaluation of writing that comes as a result of its ease of production.”

“From my perspective, [students] can do all the AI they want in their own time. But when they come to me, it’s going to be them,” Cole said.

Nikki Han is an assistant News editor and a contributing Features writer for the ‘Prince.’ She runs the Faculty, Graduate Students, and Alumni coverage area.

Princeton’s conversations in the White House and Capitol Hill had moved the needle on the grants.

“Whenever I was in talking, either to the administration or to people on Capitol Hill, I was talking about the fact that there are common and shared interests here,” he said. “Whether or not our advocacy and the conversations that I just mentioned had any impact, I have to say I don’t know.”

Still, he was hopeful that Princeton would be able to work with the Trump administration, pointing to the idea of “common and shared interest” as a guide in these conversations with the administration.

“They [the Trump administration] have identified quantum science, fusion energy and artificial intelligence as priorities for President Trump and his administra-

tion,” said Eisgruber. “Those are all things that we want to work on, and they are things that were affected by the suspension of these grants,” he said.

Eisgruber also asserted that shared interest and cooperation with the government apply beyond the case of Princeton. “It really matters to the future of this country and things that we should all be able to agree about: America’s health, America’s prosperity, and America’s security, that we find ways to move forward on this compact between the government and universities,” he said.

Cynthia Torres is an associate News editor, and archives contributor. She is from New Bedford, Mass. and typically covers University administration. She can be reached at ct3968[at]princeton.edu.

www.

Eisgruber eats at Olives. Why can’t I?

Jerry Zhu Community Opinion Editor

At noon on Monday, I took a stroll down Witherspoon St. to grab a simple lunch from Olives, a popular local takeout market (one that University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 is known to frequent for lunch). I ate a delicious sandwich for $9.95, much cheaper than a $16.75 swipe in a dining hall. Yet in the eyes of University administrators, my quotidian Monday lunch was emblematic of “challenges … related to food access and isolation concerns” — a “problem” they are now stamping out.

In an email on Monday, administrators announced significant changes to Princeton’s dining and housing policies, effectively making it impossible to be an “independent student” for those living in University housing.

But rather than a genuine commitment to improving student well-being, the memo and policy behind it show a continued ignorance of and disinterest in real student concerns, and a continued trend of counterproductive and paternalistic policy decisions aimed at protecting undergraduates from themselves.

Juniors and seniors have spoken about being “independent,” meaning that they do not join an eating club or purchase a University meal plan, since at least the 1960s. One student’s defense in The Daily Princetonian of opting to be independent in 1964 rings true today

— the option can be convenient, economical, and more satisfying than other choices. Yet in a blunt decision that will satisfy no one, the University has decided to make going independent impossible by forcing the purchase of a 10-mealsper-week plan if one does not have another fixed dining contract with an eating club or co-op.

The reasoning behind the change starts in the right place.

Campus administrators cited a study completed by Huron Consulting Group during the 2023–24 academic year, which showed that independent students “experience a lesser sense of inclusion and belonging” than those in a coop or eating club. The University is right to address this problem, but the “solution” it has come up with completely fails to help the students who are actually in need.

The Huron report noted that students asked for expanded options for independent dining, not for the entire option to be shut down. Responses also indicated that independent students chose the option because of cost concerns, a greater sense of choice, and a better way to address dietary restrictions — all issues left unaddressed by a dining hall plan. Instead, University decisionmakers seem to have cherrypicked the results of the report, and simply discarded any conclusions and concerns not amenable to their ultimate decision. In the memo, absolutely no mention was made of how students impacted by cost concerns or dietary restrictions would be supported after the change. Since the new 10-meals-

per-week plan will likely cost more than $5,000 per year based on current rates, this move will leave students with much less to work with. Moreover, the University has not indicated any systematic changes coming to Campus Dining that would help support those with significant dietary restrictions.

Some students in the study indicated that their choice to go independent was in response to eating club culture — either they wanted to avoid the “negative social and mental health impacts of clubs” or they were not accepted into a bicker club. It is therefore unsurprising that some may be “involuntarily independent,” and the University should seriously investigate approaches that can resolve isolation resulting from these choices.

Whatever the answer to these questions may be, it should absolutely not be to eliminate the independent option. A moment’s thought and a

modicum of common sense would result in the obvious conclusion that limiting the options of already marginalized students while imposing upon them a forced purchase would only make them worse off. I would hope that the University administrators would have recognized this; perhaps that did not matter.

The decision reveals a foolish approach to finding the root causes of the problem, and a dangerous mindset that eliminating the symptom can cure the disease. It should hopefully be clear that the social concerns or isolation that some independent students face will not go away when they are forced onto a meal plan they did not want to elect.

As an independent, I feel much more satisfied now than when I was on the Unlimited meal plan, and I am spending less money too. A campus meal plan is not the magical panacea that administrators

seem to think it is. Ultimately, the imposition of this mandate will do the exact opposite of what administrators are claiming they are concerned about — “improv[ing] your residential experience.”

I’m sure that when the responsible University administrators see Eisgruber walking from Nassau Hall to Olives, they do not think, “what a pitiable, isolated person who is struggling with food access.” If only they would apply the same respect to our decisions and ability to care for ourselves, too.

Jerry Zhu is a junior in Economics who thanks his microeconomic theory professors for teaching him that limiting the options an individual can choose from will not make them better off. He serves as the guest 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.

Princeton must practice the democracy that it preaches

Siyeon Lee Associate Opinion Editor

When students received notice yesterday that the University will be eliminating independent dining and requiring most students to purchase meal plans, many of us felt blindsided. Here was the University making a monumental decision about an issue essential to student life with minimally visible student input.

Later that day, I attended the Council of the Princeton University Committee (CPUC) meeting, one of the University’s most meaningful opportunities for students to connect with administrators who make the decisions. The meeting is held six times a year and serves as “a permanent conference of the representatives of all major groups of the University where they could raise problems that concern them and … be exposed to each other’s views.”

While its description of the event and its representative constituents implied a kind of democratic model of ideal exchange, the meeting mostly functioned as a Q&A, the decision already made, and the damage already done.

In a time of stark concern for all those with remaining hope for democratic principles, Princeton

has successfully remained a defensive bulwark — at least, that’s the kind of optimism that a plethora of Princeton students have put their faith in. The recent Frosh Survey indicated that nearly 40 percent of members of the Class of 2029 were either “somewhat” or “strongly” positively impacted by President Eisgruber’s “stance against the Trump administration and its role in higher education.” Last April, my colleagues Jerry Zhu ’27 and Preston Ferraiuolo ’26 lauded President Eisgruber’s leadership, gravitas, and defense of free speech principles amid national pressures in their column.

Upon a more critical examination of supposedly democratic processes such as the CPUC, it becomes increasingly clear that at its core lies a contrived performativity. In engaging in this performance to its students, the University clearly acknowledges that there is some value to engaging in a democratic system of governance. And yet it does not tangibly accomplish that goal. To make this performance real, it must begin by ensuring that an institutional, non-performative democracy exists at the University in the first place.

One simple way to do this is to make CPUC a decision-making body that votes on student referenda. A recent column in our section aptly describes the cur-

rent issues with student referenda, which poll the undergraduate student body on proposed University policy changes such as fossil fuel divestment and often garners overwhelming support. The piece argued that the lack of administrative power that student referendums hold should incentivize USG to set “more modest goals for policy requests.”

Of course, compromise and respectful dialogue are important tenets of any democratic system. But they exist only under the pretense of ideologically opposed groups having matched political agency. If a group’s referendum lives or dies by its acceptability to a governing body where it has little input, then that compromise is not the result of a democratic process but rather a procedural concession resulting from a lack of agency.

Others in the publication have argued that democratization is wholly unnecessary, likely more in line with University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 beliefs characterizing students’ administrative power as an unworthy goal: the “fact that [a student is] here today … doesn’t mean [their] views about [the university] should be the deciding views about what happens,” he said.

All of these perspectives fundamentally mischaracterize either the purpose of democratic

processes at a university or the dire necessity for an institution like Princeton to practice them.

To say that it shouldn’t be within a student body’s rights or interests to invest in University affairs because of their temporary stay is like saying that no citizen should be allowed to vote because nobody lives in a country forever.

Albeit for a transitory period, we all exist as stakeholders in the University community. It is within all of our interests — students, administrators, and professors alike — to participate in the creation of a better Princeton, even if we won’t be there to live its effects.

This is precisely why University democratization is important and necessary: While each class of students can’t live the everlasting effects of their administrative participation, they are still the best representatives of future students, and the future students will always be an eternally relevant stakeholder.

And such a concern, if anything, should make democratization more appealing — it can represent the evolving interests of the group that a political entity serves. And while I am deeply deferential to my professors, intellectual savvy should not be a prerequisite for political participation. And a university’s intellectual authority, which I am more than thrilled to submit to, is distin-

guishable from its administrative and procedural authority in any case.

Another method through which Princeton can assist the democratization is by abolishing the policy of submitting questions to the CPUC days in advance. If a university is systematically averse to questioning by its constituents that put them to scrutiny, it is failing to live up to its commitments to viewpoint diversity and the fostering of difficult conversations that it claims to care so much about. While the ability to ask questions alone would not be a sufficient mode of democratization, it would serve as a stepping stone to make political events and participation at Princeton more reflective of its institutional values. It is unimaginably easy to perform democracy. It is also unimaginably easy, as recent national political shifts have demonstrated, to weaponize the pretense of democracy in the service of undemocratic ends. Princeton owes it to its constituents to practice democracy not merely as performance, but as principle.

Siyeon Lee is an associate Opinion editor from Seoul, South Korea, majoring in History. She believes that she owes much of her life’s privileges to democratic movements and student activism. She can be reached at siyeonlee[at]princeton.edu.

CALVIN K. GROVER / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN A room in Spelman Hall.

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

Accessibility

Bridget O’Neill ’26

Bryan Zhang ’26

creative director Malia Gaviola ’26

strategic initiative directors

Suthi Navaratnam-Tomayko ’26

editors at large Research

Andrew Bosworth ’26

Education Hayk Yengibaryan ’26

Sections listed in alphabetical order.

head archives editor

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

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

Victoria Davies ’27

Hayk Yengibaryan ’26

associate news editors

Thomas Catalan0 ’27

Devon Rudolph ’28

Cynthia Torres ’27

head newsletter editor

Caleb Bello ’27

Chair

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

Mackenzie Hollingsworth ’26 Gavin McLoughlin ’28

associate prospect editors

Natalia Diaz ’27

Ysabella Olsen ’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 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

Raf Basas ’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

Juan Fajardo ’28

Kriste An ’28

Marley Hartnett-Cody ’28

Chengyu Fu ’28

Jose Santacruz ’28

Cassidy Critteron ’28 AND COPIED BY

Sarah Li ’28

Fuzesi ’00

A. Goldfarb ’05

Grabell ’03

Ivory ’05

Klein ’98

T. MacGregor ’66

Narayanan ’24

Sheinerman ’23

Escobedo Shepherd

Abigail Williams ’14

Tyler Woulfe ’07

trustees ex officio Miriam Waldvogel ’26 Jessica Funk ’26

Referendum sponsors, poll the University before you poll us

Davis Hobley Staff Opinion Writer

You’ve probably seen the emails from the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) about referenda. If you’re confused about what exactly referenda are and what power — if any — they have, you wouldn’t be alone. Once a semester, USG polls the undergraduate population about proposed University policy changes, often pertaining to sweeping and controversial topics. For instance, the most recent referenda called for improved employment terms for undergraduate student workers, divesting the endowment from fossil fuels, and pass/D/fail (PDF) options for language classes.

Many of these referenda garner overwhelming support from the student body — for instance, the 2024 referendum on fossil fuel divestment passed with 77 percent support, and improving employment standards for student workers passed with 94 percent support. But none of them went anywhere with the administration.

That’s because USG’s power is limited to a few small areas, and the referenda on their ballots, as University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 explained at a Council of the Princeton University Community meeting last spring, aren’t binding at all.

Many referenda seem to have been written with negotiation in mind: The referendum backed by Students for Justice in Palestine and other pro-Palestine groups was about divesting from weapons manufacturing, and the fossil fuel dissociation referendum made a nod to a University faculty report that recommended dissociation from certain companies. But none have been accepted by the University. In light of this, both USG members and outside referendum organizers should take a new tack: Negotiate with the administration before you put it on the ballot — and calibrate

the proposals you sell to the student body accordingly.

Taking the results of each referendum to the administration and expecting corresponding action is naive: The University bears no responsibility to conform its policy to the results of USG referenda. Prior negotiation with the administration is the best vehicle for increasing the likelihood that the University takes student opinions into account. Instead of expecting unrealistically rapid action or compliance with student wishes, granting the administration advance notice of USG priorities offers the University time to reflect, prepare, and even respond to the democratic will of the student body.

This is especially true of referenda sponsored by USG members themselves, like the one promoting the PDF option for language classes from last winter. In the best form of student government, USG members should be our trusted delegates to negotiate with the University, coming out with a proposal that both the administration and students might agree on.

Precedent for this exists at our peer institutions. UC Berkeley has an official fee referendum system, in which changes to compulsory campus-based fees (campus-specific fees applied to all enrolled students) must be included in referenda. Representatives from the student government meet with administrators and negotiate the terms of these fee adjustments extensively. Following negotiations, a vote from the student body is conducted, during which the students are able to have a direct say on whether or not the change is passed. Although the Chancellor does have the final say over whether or not a fee modification goes into effect, the proposed change must always first be approved during negotiations between undergraduate representatives and University administration. This structure offers a promising model for Princeton.

This might mean setting more

modest goals for policy requests, but it would likely create a more collaborative relationship between USG and the administration that could prompt the University to sign onto modest policy changes on issues that the student body feels passionate about. And if USG referenda actually made a demonstrable difference, even on a small scale, it would increase students’ sense that the voices of their representatives — as proxies for their own voices — are effective.

It would also commit USG more thoroughly to the referenda before they are passed, which could bolster advocacy post-passage. Currently, referenda often come to a halt in the transition from USG to the administration — something that is probably not helped by the transition between elected USG administrations right after winter referenda pass.

Although USG means well by polling student opinion on important issues on campus and presenting the results to the University, this structure is both unlikely to result in substantial policy change and sets a misleading expectation for University responses to student concerns.

But by negotiating with the University administration before each referendum, USG representatives may be able to establish terms to which the University will agree if a proposed policy is endorsed by enough of the student body, vastly increasing the potential for student voices to impact policy changes. If students are polled on the referenda they might actually see implemented rather than endorsing ideals doomed to dismissal, they will necessarily become better acquainted with how the University works, and better understand its capacity to evolve.

Davis Hobley is a staff Opinion writer for the ‘Prince’ and a member of the Class of 2027 in the Princeton Neuroscience Institute. He can be reached at dh2172[at]princeton. edu or his personal Instagram @davis_20.23.

the PROSPECT. ARTS & CULTURE

Having trouble orgasming? Wear socks (or maybe not)

By Amanda Hugas | Staff Prospect Wrter

Room 302 in Frist Campus Center is where Albert Einstein gave a variety of academic lectures covering topics from the theory of relativity to quantum mechanics. On Sept. 25, a new type of knowledge graced its walls. Organized by Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice and the Gender & Sexuality Resource Center, “The Big O” was unleashed to a crowded classroom of curious students.

“I Love Female Orgasm” is a sex education program presented by Sex Discussed Here!. The group brings various sex education programs to college campuses and venues, with “I Love Female Orgasm” being their most popular. A table of goodies entering the lecture hall included condoms and “I Love Female Orgasm” pins and shirts. Taking center stage, student staffers introduced the crowd to the event’s hosts, Lindsay Fram and Marshall Miller.

Fram and Miller introduced themselves as professionals in the world of sexual health. Their high energy and sexual puns broke the initial awkward tension in the room full of college students. Fram initially asked the crowd if they had ever orgasmed before. After one overly enthusiastic cheer broke the crowd, the hosts then asked the audience to fill out an anonymous survey on their prior experience. After a brief silence, the results revealed that the room had varied backgrounds, with

some not knowing where to begin and others having experienced an orgasm.

Throughout the presentation, Fram and Miller created inviting spaces to answer questions about sexual education. Topics ranged from “Tips for Cunning Linguists” to “How to get the Big O.”

A personal highlight from the presentation included the clickbait phrases used to discuss female anatomy. As Fram showed a scientific diagram of the vulva, she said, “We have a clip of a girl exploring her body right here.”

She then cut to a comedic scene from the Netflix show “Big Mouth.” In the clip, the character Jessi grabs a mirror and takes her first real look at her vulva. She’s greeted by a cartoonishly exaggerated version of her vulva. While funny, it was also a strong introduction to the female anatomy due to its clarity and medical accuracy. Another crowd favorite was when a male volunteer from the crowd was asked to point to the class where the clitoris was with a laser pointer. In this instance, he was able to find it.

The presentation also acknowledged pervasive myths and issues perpetuated in sex culture. “Orgasms are in no way a good form of birth control,” Miller said. While denying the validity of certain myths, the pair did mention an unexpected one backed by a misinterpreted study.

While promoting their new sock merchandise, Fram and Miller noted a study that found wearing socks raised

couples’ orgasm rate from 50 percent to 80 percent. While the study was an interesting side story during the presentation, don’t get your hopes up (or your socks on). The original researcher later told Vericat that the study, which was investigating brain activity during sex, had been misinterpreted and was not related to socks.

Yet, even during the jokes and sexually charged GIFs, both lecturers em -

phasized a key point: people, bodies, and experiences with sex are diverse. If there’s something many students learned, it’s that you need to “befriend your vulva” and wear socks during sex.

Amanda Hugas is a member of the Class of 2027 and a staff writer for The Prospect. She can be reached by her email at ah0942@princeton.edu.

In Graduate Hotel comedy show, Cat Cohen ’13 jokes about the holy trinity: Ivy, herpes, and therapy

By Amanda Hugas | Staff Prospect Writer

When I walked in two weeks ago, the Graduate Hotel was humming: Cat Cohen ’13 was back in Princeton and set to perform on the Graduate stage. Community members and Princeton affiliates talked animatedly as students nestled into deep-seated leather couches. The lobby maintained its regular glow and decor, but it was transformed from a familiar study spot to the site of an exclusive event. Cohen made her grand entrance to disco pop music, bright lights, and a warm welcome from the crowd. She settled herself in, thanked the Graduate for hosting her, and quipped that the Graduate was where she lost her virginity. From there, the audience was captivated by Cohen’s style, real and vulnerable, with flashy fourth wall humor and bold jokes. She was provocative, making jokes about her sex life and balancing them with self-aware humor, acknowledging the discomfort of the crowd. The eating club memorabilia on the walls of the Graduate also featured in the set: She joked about her time in Ivy, quipping that “everyone was rude.”

In addition to being a member of Ivy, Cohen was in Shere Khan and the Triangle Club. After graduating from Princeton, she moved to New York City, taking classes and performing sketches at the Upright Citizens Brigade. From

there, she eventually launched her own cabaret show called “Plot Twist…? She’s Gorgeous,” which was picked up by Netflix in 2022 as her own comedy special. Notably, Cohen recently acted in five episodes of the Hulu hit show “Only Murders in the Building.”

Onstage at the Graduate, Cohen peppered her set with many songs. This was one of the most unique elements of her show, cuing an off-stage DJ between jokes to start the next song, each one breaking up her pace and keeping the audience on their toes.

Her songs, with titles from “can u send me that??” to “BLAME IT ON THE MOON,” played on societal pressure to keep up with social media trends and featured sarcastic commentary about astrology culture. The songs teetered into millennial vibes (she is one, after all), but sprinkled in Gen Z references throughout the set.

She occasionally consulted with a random member of the crowd sitting on a nearby couch, addressing them as her “Gen Z personal trainer.” She asked the random crowd member to approve each reference to Gen Z culture, leading to my favorite quote of the night: “Labubu is ran through and my Gen Z friend told me that.”

Near the end of the night, Cohen switched the upbeat, musical pace to a more casual talk, opening her notes app and reading a small col-

lection of poems. Here, through jumbled transitions, she commented on hookup culture and the experience of being neither skinny nor fat, reminding me of those conversations with drunk girls you befriend in the women’s bathroom and swear you’ll keep in touch with, only to never see again. Her personal anecdotes were, of course, exaggerated for the sake of comedy, but grounded enough that it felt like listening to a friend share stories about their crazy life. For her last hurrah, Cohen focused on the

Princeton students in the audience, singing that they should “Do It For The Memoir,” and avoid contracting herpes while abroad. Her energetic closing wrapped up the set with an upbeat note — musically and thematically. Her closing piece of advice? “Nobody ever got that far without doing stupid shit for the memoir.”

The Prospect 11 Weekly Event Roundup

By Annika Plunkett, Staff Prospect Writer

Reading by Sinéad Gleeson

1

All My Sons by Arthur Miller

Oct. 3–4, 8 p.m.; Oct. 5, 2 p.m.

Location: Theatre Intime, Hamilton Murray Theatre

As the life he has built for himself is threatened, protagonist Joe Keller explores the cost of capitalist ambition, social responsibility, and the military-industrial complex in this classic American play. Directed by Christie Davis ’27.

2

3

4

5

Turn the Light Around: 16mm

Performative

PlantProcessed Films

Oct. 6, 7:30 p.m.

Location: James Stewart Film Theater, 185 Nassau St.

Journey with five members of the French film-making collective le Ratoire on their 2023 canoe journey down the Hudson River in their film “Asphalt Splendor,” which was processed entirely using the plants and water from the Hudson River. A conversation will follow the screening.This event is free and open to the public.

8

Oct. 3, 4:30 p.m.

Location

As a part of this year’s Fund for Irish Studies series, Sinéad Gleeson, the author of “Hagstone” and “Con- stellations,” will be reading some of her latest work. Books will be available to be signed and purchased.

at the very bottom of a body of water by Benjamin Benne

Oct. 3–4, 8 p.m.; Oct. 5, 2 p.m.

Location: Wallace Theater, Lewis Arts complex

An unexpected connection forms between a single mother and a fishmonger in this magical story of loneliness, connection, and grief. Designed by seniors Elena Milliken, Emily Yang, Annalise Schuck, Grace Wang, the show is free and open to the public. Advance tickets are required.

The Bobby Sanabria Multiverse Big Band — “West Side Story” Reimagined

Oct. 4, 7:30–9:15 p.m.

Location: Matthews Theatre, McCarter Theatre

Re-experience “West Side Story” as Grammy-nominated composer Bobby Sanabria and the Bobby Sanabria Multiverse Big Band share their take on Leonard Bernstein’s iconic score, adding Afro-Caribbean grooves, Puerto Rican bomba and plena, and fierce New York jazz. A conversation between Bobby Sanabria and Jamie Bernstein, daughter of the original “West Side Story” composer, will follow.

6

David Sedaris

Oct. 3, 7:30 p.m.

Location: Matthews Theatre, McCarter Theatre Center

Laugh and learn from David Sedaris, bestselling author of “Calypso, Me Talk Pretty One Day,” humorist, and NPR contributor at this 90-minute talk. A Q&A and book-signing will be offered at this event. Tickets cost $65–$95 and can be bought on the Princeton Ticketing website or the McCarter website. The show is eligible for the Passport to the Arts and the Princeton University faculty and staff partner code for a discounted ticket.

Mark Morris, Choreographer — “The Dance Lives On: Contemplating

Artistic Legacy”

Oct. 8, 7:30 p.m.

Location: Richardson Auditorium, Alexander Hall

Renowned choreographer Mark Morris joins Ara Guzelimian, Artistic and Executive Director of the Ojai Music Festival and former Dean and Provost of The Juilliard School, for a discussion on his nearly 200 works designed to premier after his death. The conversation will be interspersed with dances performed live by members of his company. This event is $11 for students or $27 for the general public. Tickets can be bought on the Princeton Ticketing website or the McCarter website. The event is eligible for the Passport to the Arts and the Princeton University faculty and staff partner code for a discounted ticket.

Léni

Paquet-Morante:

Extract / Abstract

On view through Nov. 9

Bainbridge House, 158 Nassau St.

Léni Paquet-Morante’s multi-media showing of “Extract / Abstract: Landscape & the Architecture of Memory” is showing at Bainbridge. It includes a collection of acrylic paintings, ink drawings, and monoprints inspired by the complexity of everyday landscapes.

7

Princeton University Orchestra: Peter T. Westergaard Concert

Oct. 4, 7:30 p.m.; Oct. 5, 3 p.m.

Location: Richardson Auditorium, Alexander Hall

Enjoy Roy Harris’s “Symphony No. 3 in One Movement” and Hector Berlioz’s “Symphonie Fantastique,” performed by the student musicians of the Princeton University Or- chestra. Tickets are $6 for students and $16 for the general public and can be bought on the Princeton University Tick- eting website or the McCarter website. The show is eligible for the Passport to the Arts and the Princeton University faculty and staff partner code for a discounted ticket.

Author Talk: Mariah Fredericks

Oct. 5, 11 a.m.–12:15 p.m.

Location: Princeton Public Library

Enjoy coffee and pastries as author Mariah Fredericks discusses her new novel, “The Girl in the Green Dress,” a historical mystery novel about the 1920 murder of the gambler Joseph Elwell. The novel features characters like Zelda Fitzgerald and New York writer Morris Markey. Admission is free with required registration.

Pink Martini All-Stars tour with Special Guest Storm Large

Oct. 5, 7:30 p.m.

Location: Matthews Theatre, McCarter Theatre Center

Enjoy an evening of classic pop and big band sound with Thomas Lauderdale’s globe-trotting orchestra on tour, featuring the voices of Ari Shapiro, Edna Vazquez, and America’s Got Talent finalist Jimmie Herrod. Tickets are $44–$104 and can be bought on the Princeton Ticketing website or the McCarter website. This concert is eligible for the Passport to the Arts and the Princeton University faculty and staff partner code for a discounted ticket.

Heroics from Ittycheria, Samuels secure 1–0 win against Harvard in Ivy League opener

By James Li Sports Contributor

During a tense match at Jordan Field in Boston, men’s soccer (6–1 overall, 1–0 Ivy League) defeated Harvard (3–2–2, 0–1) with a final score of 1–0 in the Tigers’ Ivy League opener. A goal from senior forward Daniel Ittycheria proved to be enough for Princeton in an opportunity-laden matchup, combined with penalty heroics by junior goalkeeper Andrew Samuels.

“Vibes are really high,” Ittycheria told The Daily Princetonian regarding the team’s first league win. “And [we’ll] just keep moving forward.”

Head Coach Jim Barlow ’91 entered the game with a specific focus on defensive prowess.

“We knew how important it was to keep track of their guys up the field,” Barlow told the ‘Prince’ postgame. “They’re very good dribblers, they can pass in tight spaces, and they can get dangerous without committing a ton of numbers forward.”

Barlow’s tactics immediately showed results. While Harvard’s attack was suppressed, finding it hard to even enter the box, Princeton saw good chances to score off runs down the wings. In the ninth minute, quick passes between Ittycheria and junior forward Kevin Kelley down the left of the box led to Ittycheria’s shot on goal, which was saved. Ten minutes later, a long shot outside the box by Kelley was also narrowly saved by the Crimson keeper. From the start of the game, it was Princeton knocking on Harvard’s door.

The Tigers’ breakthrough came in the 23rd minute. After Kelley picked up the ball just behind the halfway line, a pass into open space sent junior forward Bardia Hormozi running down the right side of the pitch. After beating his defender, Hormozi lifted a cross into the box, perfectly placed for Ittycheria as he leapt high to head it into the goal.

But after finding the net, Ittycheria went down, clutching his head following a heavy collision with the Harvard goalkeeper. Unable to continue, he soon left the pitch.

“We have a deep team,” Barlow told the ‘Prince’ when asked about the injury. “We’re fortunate that we have guys that we can go to pretty much in every position that we have confidence in.”

Following the goal, Harvard began to regain their footing and seek out better offensive chances. Samuels was forced into action in the 33rd minute as he made a close-range save. In the 43rd minute, Harvard’s Nicholas Nyquist placed a header just over the goal.

“I give Harvard a lot of credit for [their play],” Barlow said. “I thought they did a good job taking away some of our strengths and our ability to pass and counter press.”

Harvard’s momentum continued into the second half. Although the Tigers began with some solid chances, it looked like the Crimson were still calling the shots. In the 53rd minute, a Harvard corner led to a shot that went just above the bar.

The pivotal moment came in the 61st minute. After the referee called a foul on Princeton

for holding in the box, Nyquist stepped up to the spot. As he prepared to take the penalty, Samuels began taunting him, jumping up and down and pointing to the right as if inviting Nyquist to shoot there.

The crowd held its breath as Nyquist ran up, placing his shot low and down the middle. Samuels dived to his right, but the ball met his trailing leg and was deflected high in the air. The Princeton bench erupted in cheers and the players scrambled to clear the ball, denying Harvard the equalizer.

“You got to get in their head,

all the pressure’s on them, and I’m gonna do every little thing I can to get an advantage there,”

Samuels told the ‘Prince.’ “You always do that before penalty kicks. I’ve been doing it lately, and it’s been working, so I want to keep doing it.”

After the save, momentum shifted back to Princeton as the Tigers’ defense tightened back up and their offense came close to goal a few times. The late game also saw several fouls, with four yellow cards coming out in the last 15 minutes of play.

The match was intense until the very end. In the 89th minute, a

Princeton handball gave Harvard a free kick just outside the box. The curling shot by Harvard’s Alejandro Palacio was aimed well towards the side of the goal, but Samuels reacted with an incredible save to keep the clean sheet. The final score ended at 1–0.

The Tigers will stay on the road as they face Army on Tuesday, Sept. 30 at 6 p.m. in West Point.

“[Army’s] another good team, another tough place to play,” Barlow told the ‘Prince.’ “It should be a really good game.”

James Li is a Sports contributor for the ‘Prince.’

Women’s soccer falls 2–0 to Harvard University in competitive midday matchup

By Siena Sydenham Sports Contributor

On a clear Saturday afternoon, Princeton women’s soccer (2–4–3 overall, 1–1–0 Ivy League) faced Harvard University (3–4–2, 1–1–0) away in Cambridge, coming off their 1–0 win away at the University of Pennsylvania (4–2–3, 0–1–1) last week. The weekend game ended in a 2–0 Crimson victory.

Princeton began the game with possession and energy, taking two early shots, both flying just above the crossbar. Between the two shots, junior goalkeeper Cecilia Cerone saw her first save of the match during Harvard’s first connected offensive run. After 15 minutes of competitive play, Harvard forward Ólöf Kristinsdóttir completed the first goal of the day with an assist from Harvard midfielder Elsa Santos López. The play was the result of a quick run up the left field, a cross to the center,

and a battle in the box for Tiger junior midfielder Kayla Wong and Harvard’s Santos López.

Harvard won the contest and directed the ball further toward the goal. Kristinsdóttir met the ball and found the open space in the net to finish the run and put the Crimson on the board.

Princeton’s defense shut down the majority of Harvard’s forward runs, however. Notably, Harvard’s six total shots in the Saturday match was a season low, a downturn from the 13 shots in their prior game against Dartmouth. Of the Crimson’s two shots in the first half, both occurred within the first 16 minutes.

Harvard’s aggressive offense, typically averaging seven corner kicks per game, only saw three this matchup.

“They [Harvard] came out with a game plan that really put pressure on our back line. I think that we did a pretty good job of feeling that,” senior forward

Drew Coomans told The Daily Princetonian. “I think our problems came when putting pressure on their back line.”

As cited by Coomans, the difficulty for the Tigers this weekend manifested itself primarily in converting offensive possession into shots on goal.

“It’s been the challenge all year for us,” women’s soccer Head Coach Sean Driscoll explained. “It’s not for a lack of trying, certainly not for a lack of getting into those spaces. Sometimes it just comes down to a simple lack of execution in that moment, but the only way that changes is if we continue to work on it and create even better habits.”

Halftime marked a distinctive shift in Princeton’s approach. The team exhibited a renewed sense of urgency, capitalizing on more opportunities for offensive efforts, doubling their number of shots from the first half, and forcing two corner kicks.

Despite several good setups

from Princeton, including the work of senior midfielder Pia Beaulieu and first-year midfielder Maddie Recupero, less than five minutes into the second half, the Tigers’ struggled to score.

With a little over 30 minutes left on the clock, Harvard saw their second goal of the match.

A penalty kick was called on a handball from first-year defender Julia Johnson inside Princeton’s 18-yard box. The shot, taken by Kristinsdóttir, lodged cleanly into the top right back of the net as Cerone dove the opposite way.

In response, the Tigers maintained their energy. Coomans pushed the Tigers up the field on several occasions, including one at the 72 minute mark, giving Princeton a corner. Yet, the Tigers weren’t able to score.

“There were moments during the game where we did show what we’re capable of, but it’s going to be about turning those

moments into a full 90-minute game,” Cerone told the ‘Prince.’ Harvard, up 2–0, fended off Princeton’s remaining attacks and ended the game on top.

“Going into next week we just have to try to hit the reset button and get focus for playing at home,” Driscoll told the ‘Prince.’ “We play well in that environment, on that surface, in that stadium, and so I’m looking forward to getting back out there again.”

Next, the Tigers will take on Yale University (2–7–0, 0–2–0) on Myslik Field at Roberts Stadium on Saturday, Oct. 4, in hopes of regaining their momentum and clinching a second conference win.

“It’s a long season,” said Cerone. “We still have a chance to regroup, fix what we need to fix, and get back into the position that we want to be.”

Siena Sydenham is a Sports contributor for the ‘Prince.’

PHOTO COURTESY OF PRINCETON ATHLETICS. The Tigers began their conference season with a win and face Army next.

FOOTBALL

Princeton Football dominates first away game 38–28 against Lafayette

By Andrew Kang Sports Contributor

On an electric Saturday afternoon, Princeton Football (1–1 overall, 0–0 Ivy League) took on the Lafayette Leopards (3–2 overall, 1–0 Patriot League) away at Fisher Stadium and emerged victorious after key plays on both sides of the ball.

After a disappointing season home opener loss, the Tigers were itching for their first win of the year. Right into the first quarter, the Tigers forced a three-and-out for the Leopards, setting the opportunity for Princeton to score. In the same fashion as last game, the Tigers alternated quarterbacks throughout the game on a timed basis in order to give both the freedom to play without fear of being taken out of the game after a bad play.

Executing an aggressive passing attack, the Tigers managed to penetrate through the Leopards’ defensive line, with key efforts coming from senior quarterback Kai Colón, who hurled a dime to junior wide receiver Aidan Besselman for a clean turn catch.

After a series of successful firstdown completions, junior running back Ethan Clark crossed the oneyard line for a rushing touchdown. Coupled with a successful PAT from junior kicker Esteban Nunez Perez, the Tigers took a 7–0 lead in the first quarter.

Despite the early lead, the Leopards retaliated with several passing and rushing attacks of their own. Princeton desperately looked for effective run stoppers, with which they had struggled against the San Diego Toreros. The Leopards

pushed through the Tigers’ defense for a touchdown pass and evened the score just moments into the second quarter.

Hungry for another lead, the Tigers began their possession with a solid punt return caught at the 40yard line. Sophomore running back Kai Honda then took the reins. He consistently found open lanes and gained good yardage, generating several first downs for the Tigers. To finish it off, senior running back Dareion Murphy spun past Lafayette’s linebackers and claimed his third touchdown of the season, giving the Tigers a 14–7 lead.

Under pressure to respond, senior linebacker Marco Scarano knocked the ball loose from Lafayette running back Kente Edwards. Senior dual-threat quarterback Blaine Hipa capitalized on the fumble with a rushing touchdown of his own for the Orange and Black, giving the Tigers a 14-point lead.

With this momentum, the Tigers’ quarterback Colón tossed a clean spiral to sophomore wide receiver Paul Kuhner after a pump fake corner, leaving him wide open at the 44-yard line. However, the possession was short-lived, forcing the Tigers to a coffin-corner punt and starting Lafayette at their twoyard line.

Princeton, however, was quick to recoup their rhythm after Lafayette made a disastrous pass that junior defensive back Torian Roberts intercepted and took to the house. The 38-yard pick-six gave the Tigers a 28–7 lead.

“That pick-six play came straight from film. We’ve been preaching hitches and goes,” Roberts told The

Daily Princetonian. “Just reading the quarterbacks and watching the receivers, all that comes from film study.”

In possession once again, the Leopards scored a quick rushing touchdown, yet still struggled to narrow the score gap before the end of the first half.

Filled with high hopes and energy, the Tigers looked forward to controlling the second half as well. Yet early into the third quarter, Colón was sacked by Lafayette’s defensive linemen, forcing a punt for the Tigers.

The Leopards’ sudden change of pace initially disrupted the Tigers’ defense, but they quickly regrouped and prevented the Leopards from breaking through on their possession, forcing yet another punt.

With the adjustment, the Tigers continued to make good yardage with Perez also making a 26-yard

field goal, once again extending the lead to 31–14.

With a little over a quarter of playtime left, the Leopards pushed for a bolder playstyle, ending the third quarter on their 48-yard line. The drive ended with a much-needed touchdown, narrowing the gap to 31–21.

Even with their hard-fought effort, the Leopards struggled to maintain possession as another fumble caught by junior defensive back Kyler Ronquillo paved the way for a later touchdown pass to junior wide receiver Jackson Green, furthering Princeton’s lead to 38–21.

“Extremely gritty. Everyone is sacrificing every single rep,” said Colón when asked about the team’s performance. “The entire team trusts that whoever’s out there is going to make a play.”

Even with Lafayette’s last-minute touchdown effort, the Tigers stood

victorious, redeeming themselves from their season-opener performance.

“We did a great job executing third downs on both sides and disguising coverages to get them slightly off balance,” Head Coach Bob Surace ’90 told the ‘Prince’ postgame. The game marked Surace’s 100th career win.

The lessons carried over from the San Diego game proved effective against the Leopards, as the Tigers managed to maintain momentum into the second half this time around and adjust their defense accordingly throughout the game.

Princeton will match up against Columbia back home at Powers Field next Friday at 7:30 p.m., giving the Tigers another opportunity for their first season home game win.

Andrew Kang is a Sports contributor for the ‘Prince.’

By The Numbers: tackles, assists, and goals, oh

By Harrison Blank Head Sports Editor

Every Tuesday, Sports and Data writers analyze recent athletic competitions to provide analysis and insight on the happenings of Princeton athletics and individual players across the 38 intercollegiate teams at Princeton. Whether they are record-breaking or dayto-day, statistics deliver information in concise ways and help inform fans who might have missed the action. Read past By the Numbers coverage here.

Princeton Tigers: Sept. 18–23

Twenty-one games and matches were played across nine sports and six U.S. states over the past six days. Of the 13 games where only one team came out on top, the Tigers won 62 percent of matches, a slight increase over last edition’s 60 percent. Multiple-day meets and tournaments are counted individually for each day of the competition. Competitions with more than one event or individual results — such as golf and cross country — are not included in our win percentage analysis. This week, the Tigers won over three-fifths of their games. They were buoyed by their home field

advantage, winning 80 percent of games at Old Nassau. The Tigers also held their own on the road, splitting their eight contests.

Mighty Marco

In Princeton football’s heartbreaking loss to San Diego on Saturday, senior linebacker and captain Marco Scarano recorded an astounding 18 tackles, covering every part of the field. The Connecticut native is the first Tiger to reach that many tackles since 2014.

Spreading the wealth

In their dominant win 16–7 over Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, men’s water polo showcased their wellbalanced offense, with 10 different scorers. After losing all-time program goal leader Roko Pozaric ’25, the Tigers haven’t missed a step.

Tiger in the top 10

First-year field hockey midfielder Caitlin Thompson made her debut on SportsCenter’s Top 10 with a scintillating betweenthe-legs assist to senior midfielder Beth Yeager, giving the Tigers a win over Penn.

Draper’s Dishes

Junior setter Sydney Draper of women’s volleyball recently reached 2000 assists on Friday in

a game against Penn State, joining rarified Tiger company. Less than 10 Tigers have reached that mark, but it is unlikely any will ever touch all-time leader Melissa Ford ’00, who recorded 4,953 assists.

Reachable records

In men’s water polo, senior utility JP Ohl and junior goalie Kristóf Kovács will likely be entering the all-time assists and saves record books, respectively. Ohl, who has produced two of the top three assist seasons in Tiger history, is only 20 assists away from surpassing the current top mark of 220 set by Ryan Wilson ’19. Kovács, after making a record 376 saves last season, needs just 69 saves to be second ever in Tiger history for career saves.

Orange Crush

Like the famed Denver Broncos defense of the ’70s, men’s soccer has stifled opposing offenses. Through the first five games of the season, the unit — led by junior goalie Andrew Samuels — only conceded two goals, the fewest in that span since 2001.

From individual and team offensive feats to running away with awards, the Tigers notched many successes as they start to open Ivy League play. Check back

in next week to learn about all things Princeton Athletics

— By The Numbers.

Harrison Blank is a head Sports editor at the ‘Prince.’

my!

PHOTO COURTESY OF @PRINCETONFTBL / X

The Tigers brought their record up to 0.500 with this victory.

ATHLETE’S

The thread through it all: a letter to Kerry

By Devonne Piccaver Guest Contributor

On July 27, I woke up to a text from one of my captains asking to call. I found this unusual because it was the middle of the summer. Because of these circumstances, I knew something wasn’t right.

I picked up the phone, and on the receiving line, I heard her voice. It was blunt, numb and monotone. No words are ever good when they are spoken in this way; I had experienced loss before. I didn’t ask what happened, I asked, “Who?”

“Who” — it was Kerry. Kerry, one of the first people I met at Princeton. The kind of person who was way too good for this world. Humble, calm, shy, and beautiful. Incredibly intelligent, sporty, good at everything.

Too good for this world, so much so that she was taken away.

The day before, Kerry passed after being struck by a car while cycling near her home in Johannesburg, South Africa.

I panicked, spiraling into an immediate sense of shock. I called my parents, unable to form a coherent sentence. They were away, but traveled home to support me.

In moments like these, one never knows what to do with themselves. I turned on the TV, I played a game of Uno with my grandma hoping it might pull me away from the reality I was facing. Inevitably, when the distractions faded, the truth came to the forefront . And it hurt.

After calming myself down, I picked my phone back up — remembering this pain was not individual. I called a couple of my teammates.

We sat over the phone in shared mourning as we traveled in and out of the realization together. It came and went in waves.

I’m not a religious person, but I asked my Christian teammate, “What does God say?” desperately

seeking answers. Now, to make myself feel better, I like to think that if there is a God, he looked down on earth, saw Kerry and said, “She’s a good one, I’ll take her.”

It was tough being so far away from everyone.

But I suppose that’s the nature of an international team, which represents 10 countries. There are extraordinary people from different corners of the world who have the pleasure of meeting each other. That’s how we met Kerry.

I am impressed by our captains who, tasked with an emotionally difficult job, gracefully delivered the news to us all one by one.

A couple of days later, we had a team Zoom call where we shared memories of Kerry. It was nice seeing everyone’s faces. I desperately wanted to be back together.

In the following weeks, I tossed and turned at night. Her face was there. I turned. Her face was still there. In my dreams I met her — maybe my brain was protecting me from the nightmare reality. There, I could walk up to her, and I was able to say goodbye.

All I want to do is say goodbye to her.

I am far from alone in this experience. My teammates have expressed this endlessly, too. We knew that although we weren’t able to say goodbye, she knew how infinitely loved she was by everyone. Even though nothing will ever provide solace, it eases the pain.

For the rest of the summer, it was hard to find tranquility. Any time I was able to forget, I felt guilty. I kept asking the question: “How is it that I can still go about enjoying my summer in this way, while knowing that someone who should be, cannot?”

We all felt this way. We worried about returning to campus, knowing we had to exist in the Orange Bubble without Kerry.

When we returned to Princeton, being able to embrace and support one another physically was reliev-

ing.

The first time we went down to the boathouse, we took time to reflect. The Class of 2027’s lockers had all been newly designated to the juniors’ side of the locker room.

My locker was next to Kerry’s.

It was filled with beautiful photos that the team had collected over the summer. This idea was thoughtful. It means we see her smiling face and feel her courage every day before embarking on a training session.

But during our first week back, none of us talked about what had happened. It was a gnawing feeling, an elephant in the room. I waited and waited for somebody to talk about Kerry.

Finally, the entire boathouse gathered on Sept. 9 in Mathey Common Room. We read and listened to letters and notes for Kerry. This was the first time I felt like we had given the situation the attention it deserved. It was cathartic.

After this, we didn’t stop talking about it. A space had been opened for anyone to share when they felt inclined.

Our group chat had come to life. When someone saw a turtle they sent a picture — “Saw Kerry on my run.”  When someone repeatedly encountered the same baby deer, they shared their glimpse of Kerry. Another teammate told me they see her in the sunrise and sunsets.

During class, it was hard to concentrate. Every thought would trace back to what was missing: Kerry. I heard people say, “Hi, I am an Econ major.” I felt bad they’d never be able to study alongside Kerry. In one of my classes, the professor talked about the ‘Office.’ Kerry would have loved that class.

Her impact is immeasurable, her intelligence remarkable, and her calm, humble presence enduring. She appears in places and times you least expect. But it became very apparent that this was not the same reality for those around me. It felt like

no one outside the team said anything about our loss to any of us.

Kerry was a part of our team. I thought that anyone who knew this would say something, anything, to show that they at least read the emails or saw the social media posts about her.

But to my surprise, and disappointment, no one said anything.

Despite the busyness of Princeton life, it’s important to recognize these sad happenings and pause to check on the people around you, even if you didn’t know the person yourself.

After seeing me struggle profoundly over the summer, my dad told me something I will never forget: “Grief never goes away, but its weight begins to spread out across time.”

Living out his message, I understand that I just need to give it time, return to a normalcy parallel to pre-July 26, and find a reality where I can live peacefully alongside post-July 26, with her in my heart.

Our team has become closer in this shared experience. After all, this was the type of thing you only ever hear about; you least expect it’ll happen to you. But it did. It happened to all of us. And it is all of our responsibility to carry her memory forward.

For Princeton rowing, talent is threaded throughout the entire team — and Kerry was exceptional. There is always the question of what could have been had she still been woven in the thread.

So we weave her in. She’s the thread through it all.

When we leave the locker room, we see her smiling face. When we pick up the oar, we remember her gentleness. When we get in the boat, we find her rhythm, her harmony. When we race, we race for her through every stroke. I know she will be there with us, in spirit, and in the form of a turtle watching silently on the edges of Lake Carnegie.

Devonne Piccaver is a junior on the women’s open rowing team.

“A Message to Our Freshmen”: Tongue-in-cheek tips from The Daily Princetonian

By Jillian Ascher Associate Archives Editor

“Every Freshman is required, as a matter of courtesy, to go around and introduce himself to Mike, Frank and Harry, at some time within the first two weeks,” wrote a 1931 column titled “Message to our Freshmen.”

To welcome the “now full fledged members of that great entity called Princeton,” the ‘Prince’ in 1931 shared some key tips for success and survival on campus with the incoming class of 1935. In a satirical supplement to the “Freshman Bible,” a student handbook published by the ‘Prince,’ the author of the paper’s humor column offered essential tips on attire, transportation, and communication with classmates.

Recalling the age-old first-year experience of walking past fellow classmates on the way to class, unsure of whether to wave, say hello, or avoid

awkward eye contact, the ‘Prince’ provided some much-needed guidance to the incoming class. They wrote, “It is customary for all Freshmen to speak to other Freshmen, except (a) when you don’t know the other Freshman, (b) when it’s dark and you can’t see him very well, and (c) when you owe the other Freshman some money.”

The ‘Prince’ also advised courteousness toward upperclassmen: “seniority of class determines the possession of the sidewalk; therefore, Freshmen should get off the walk for every other class except when the duckboards [wooden paths covering puddles] are up.”

The guide also outlined standards for dress and pedestrian traffic rules, writing that “the regulation head-dress for Freshmen is a black skull-cap which should be worn all the time and on the front of the head. After the first three weeks, it should be worn on the back of the head.

When smoking cigarettes or walking on the grass, it should be worn in the back pocket.”

This tip called on the tradition of wearing a black cap. The tradition stemmed from the 1890s, when it was decided that sophomores would order first-years to wear visored black skull caps, ties, and shoes to encourage camaraderie and distinguish the newest class.

Prior to the 1938 establishment of Princeton’s first orientation committee, incoming students of yesteryear relied on the ‘Prince’ for guidance, but first-years today can expect a more structured integration into campus life. Reflecting on the over 10 days of programming and events that continue well into the year, first-year Marjia Zasra ’29 shared that going through on-campus orientation programming “showed you what was up,” and that the following small-group trips helped students meet new people. But when it came to Princeton culture,

Zasra felt “thrown in,” wishing she knew more about Princeton events at the start of the year. While today’s FYRE events educate first-years on key academic and residential living Princeton policies, the ‘Prince’ instead told the firstyears in 1931, “the riding of bicycles by Freshmen is forbidden except for the one set aside for the use of Princetonian candidates,” specifying this as an “(Advertisement Daily Princetonian).”

The Diogenes’ Lamp column closed with a helpful list of reminders, urging freshmen to respond to an enclosed questionnaire, “without delay,” checking in on the status of their transition: “(1) Have you signed up for your laundry yet? (2) How are you fixed for pressing? (3) Have you signed up for the Shoe Shop yet? (4) Have you had your trunk hauled yet? (5) Did you have a good summer?”

PHOTO COURTESY OF DEVONNE PICCAVER

Junior rower Devonne Piccaver with Kerry Grundlingh during Spring Lawnparties this past May.