Vote Fox ’26 for President: Your guide to the winter 2024 USG ballot

The following piece represents the views of the undersigned Editorial Board members alone.

For the second time this month, election season has arrived at Princeton University. Starting at noon on Monday, Nov. 25, undergraduate students will vote for offices a little closer to campus: the next President, Vice President, and Treasurer of Princeton’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG), as well as the chairs of seven different committees that are part of the USG Senate and Senators for the classes of ’26, ’27, and ’28.

Unlike last year, every race is contested, with 50 candidates running for the 16 seats up for grabs. To better understand candidates’ platforms, policy positions, and perspectives, The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board sent questions to all declared USG Senate candidates and co-hosted the USG presidential debate on Nov. 20 with the American Whig-Cliosophic Society. Below are our endorsements in every race in which the entire student body can vote.

We are not endorsing any referendums, due to time constraints.

President & Vice President: Uma Fox ’26 & Aishwarya Swamidurai ’26

Both candidates for USG President are dedicated leaders who have contributed immensely to the University community. Enzo Kho ’26 has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to serving every undergraduate by gratifying diverse music tastes through his two-headliners approach to Lawnparties this fall as Social Committee Chair, and by forming a new multicultural festival. Meanwhile, Fox’s advocacy for reducing the mental health copay and piloting of USG-sponsored trips to New York City has certainly improved student wellbeing.

Kho and Fox deserve gratitude and admiration for their prior work. However, for her intention to use USG as a platform to place student voices in the room with University administration, the Editorial Board believes that Fox deserves your vote.

At the USG presidential debate held on Nov. 20, Fox clearly articulated an innovative vision of USG becoming a community advocate, rather than simply operating as a go-between. In response to a question about handling student demands for Princeton to divest the endowment from various markets, Fox noted her belief that USG should act as an “independent, neutral facilitator of dialogue on campus.”

Her policy platform, co-sponsored by Aishwarya Swamidurai ’26, a candidate for USG Vice President, expands on this belief, with promises to ensure that students from across campus have the chance to directly interact with people who can make change. The two candidates promise to use USG to “support affinity groups” and to fight “for the inclusion of student voices in University decision-making.”

At the debate, Fox noted that her goal as President would be to never meet with administrators alone, but to always bring another student or affinity group representative to both hold her accountable and to directly represent their specific needs.

To be sure, both presidential candidates forwarded proposals that are unlikely to be fulfilled: Kho hopes to bring halal meat to eating clubs, spaces which USG cannot hold accountable, and Fox wants to bring late meal to upperclassmen, even though the University seems to be moving away from, instead of towards, flexibly accommodating students without University meal plans.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

When asked by the audience about how they will implement changes to prevent students from experiencing deteriorating mental health as a result of University life, neither could give concrete suggestions for future changes. Fox’s comments at the debate, as well as her policy platform, were centered around expanding existing Counseling and Psychological Services (CPS) offerings, while Kho’s platform discussed revamping resource advertisement and his remarks referenced vague plans to increase faculty willingness to allow academic flexibility.

The biggest and most important difference between the two candidates is not in their specific ideas, but in their general approach to changing University culture. Critical to Kho’s campaign is his goal of reforming parliamentary processes within USG — and almost all his responses to issues raised at the debate included the creation of a working group. But increased bureaucracy is rarely beneficial, nor does it allow for the possibility of out-of-the box thinking. Fox, instead, aims to prevent USG from becoming a gatekeeper to the University administration, and she intends to platform a range of ideas by allowing students to speak for themselves.

These differences are echoed in the race for Vice President, where both candidates have joined a presidential ticket. In an email to the ‘Prince,’ Swamidurai expressed an intention to “elevate student voices” by hosting USG coffee chats and taking student feedback into consideration when charting future policy.

Karen Villanueva ’27, running in partnership with Kho, consistently cited a desire to implement lapsed sections of the USG Constitution in her response to questions posed by the ‘Prince.’ While her suggestions to “open Senate working group membership to all undergraduates” by implementing Appendix E, Method 2, and to “reinstitute the Campus Leadership Group,” according to Section 707, may well improve USG’s functioning, her and Kho’s focus on increasing working groups and procedural fidelity comes across as uninspired.

Because the Fox-Swamidurai ticket suggests a strategy of constant, direct interaction to get administrators and students of varying opinions and interests on the same page, rather than the same-old of working groups that purport to speak for all with a “single voice,” we recommend that they get your vote.

Treasurer: Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27

The Editorial Board endorses Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27 over Hemant Sharma ’28 for USG Treasurer.

Both candidates support increasing the “student activities” fee, but while Colón Roosevelt supports a raise in all students’ fees, as the 2023 raise mandated, Sharma says he would advocate for a staggered approach, where only upperclassmen pay the increase. Although Sharma reasons that this staggered approach is fairer — since he argues that juniors and seniors have seen more of the benefits of USG — this does not seem accurate to us, as, on a year-by-year basis, upperclassmen do not get any more resources than underclassmen.

Further, Sharma does not give his own suggestions for what the increase might cover, but it appears likely that it would go towards activities like Lawnparties and the Projects Board, which benefit all students. Colón Roosevelt, however, does suggest what the increase would go towards under his proposals, observing that the fall Lawnparties budget was unsustainable and noting that the increase could ensure that expansions to include kosher, halal, and vegan food options at events this past fall could become permanent.

When asked about how they would manage the USG budget, Colón Roosevelt pointed out that money from what used to be the Dean’s Date celebration can be reallocated starting in the spring, as Dean’s Date has been changed and is no longer as large of a milestone to mark the end of the semester. He suggested reallocating this money to the USG Social, Undergraduate Student Life, Mental Health, and Movies Committees.

Colón Roosevelt also cited “maintaining steady funding for Projects Board” in his candidate statement. This, we believe, is a high priority, because the Projects Board provides the most student-engaged USG spending (i.e., students themselves propose activities to the Board) and ran out of funding last spring.

On the other hand, Sharma recommends taking money from USG’s operating expenses and redirecting it to “mental health, extracurricular and wellness programs and other social events including Tiger Trek and Student Clubs.” It is unclear what Sharma means by “operating expenses,” but perhaps it is the $15,000 that was last year allocated to the USG Office.

Academics Committee Chair: Candidates must do better next year, Connor Romberg ’27 satisfies

The Academics Committee is one of the most important USG committees — it was involved in decisions about adjusting semester deadlines like Dean’s Date, and covers a key, unavoidable topic on which University administrators must hear students’ voices. The Academics Committee therefore needs a strong voice at its helm to shape changes major and minor (both current and future).

Last year, the Editorial Board found that Vivian Bui ’26 possessed this strength — she was a strong advocate for academic life, as evidenced by the recent referendum she had sponsored. But even Bui, however, found herself unable to incorporate sufficient student voice in the decision-making that administrators subsequently doled out. And unfortunately, this year, none among the pool stand out as candidates worthy of endorsement.

Connor Romberg ’27 does stand apart from his competitors in one respect — he is the only one to have previously served on the Academics Committee. He has also served as a student representative on the Faculty Committee on the Course of Study.

Yet experience alone does not make a perfect candidate. His goals of integrating more student voices into academic policy decisions and opening up channels for feedback are noteworthy. However, Romberg offers little in terms of hard power to advocate for student interests. His measures are primarily aimed at improving USG’s internal transparency, rather than USG’s efficacy with the administration.

While Philip Tziamtzis ’27 conveyed several goals, including a delayed P/D/F deadline and a referendum on the banning of “rounding down” grades, these ideas seemed less feasible and effective. Theo Kim ’27 did not respond to a request to send in his platform to the ‘Prince.’ With that in mind, we did not consider his candidacy. Ultimately, none of the candidates stood out as someone ready to forcefully advocate for students on academics.

Romberg is an assistant Prospect editor for the ‘Prince.’

Campus & Community Affairs Committee Chair: Marvel Jem Roth ’28

The Editorial Board endorses Marvel Jem Roth ’28 to chair the Campus & Community Affairs (CCA) Committee. Not only does she have CCA experience through her present service as a Committee member, but she also has specific, creative plans for increasing students’ engagement with resources on Nassau Street and beyond.

For instance, Roth has a compelling idea for a “Taste of the Tri-State” series of trips to nearby cities across New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, emphasizing immersion in “eclectic … culture, cuisine, and artistry.” In addition, she “firmly” supports expanding the popular Pay With Points Program, which contributed $397,295 to local Princeton restaurants in 2023 alone, to cover juniors and seniors not on an unlimited meal plan.

The Board is also glad to see Roth recognize the financial burdens posed by regional travel with her proposal to implement a 25 percent “discount for undergraduates to use New Jersey Transit” through reimbursements. Although the University already offers, in conjunction with NJ Transit, a 25 percent discount on monthly train, light rail, and bus passes, these monthly passes are less attractive for students’ irregular travel needs. We applaud Roth’s aggressive stance on improving the affordability of transportation for students.

The other candidate is Oscar Barrios ’27, a current class Senator. In broad strokes, his platform is quite similar to Roth’s, but the Board takes fault with his desire to focus on visiting “destinations requiring private transportation” and his conception of the Committee as being merely a passive “bridge” for “[connecting] organizations,” rather than as an active, pivotal player with agency to spearhead initiatives.

The CCA Chair demands a person with a bold vision for encouraging us to break out of the Orange Bubble — and Roth fulfills that criterion.

DEI Committee Chair: Brian Mhando ’26

The Editorial Board endorses Brian Mhando ’26 for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee Chair, given his push for academic reform. Mhando proposes working with the McGraw Center for Teaching & Learning to carve out a space where students can share their equity and inclusion concerns. While departments such as Chemistry and Molecular Biology have those channels through DEI chairs, many others do not — Computer Science, for example, is the only engineering department to have publicized DEI efforts.

In addition to academics, Mhando promises to meet with the AccessAbility Center and to reinstate meetings with affinity group leaders to better understand their needs. Mhando would be an advocate for paramount inclusivity in academics, social life, and residential life.

Meanwhile, many of the other candidates — Olivia Gonzalez ’28, Morgan Hoang ’27, Irene Kim ’28, Abby Lu ’26, Bedros Vartavar-Maldjian ’26, and Evelyn Opara ’28 — proposed clever ideas to improve inclusion and diversity, such as leadership training for student leaders, a DEI fair to promote student organizations, and mentorship programs. However, many of these are already being implemented: The Carl A. Fields (CAF) Center hosts a cultural fair called Fields Day at the beginning of the year, student organizations often host Big-Little programs, and the Office of Diversity & Inclusion (ODI) has an annual leadership training.

As for the incumbent DEI Chair, Lu responded to the Editorial Board’s questionnaire two days past its deadline. She, however, was the only candidate to seriously contend with a limitation of the Committee — that it does not have a clear, explicit mandate. Her intended focus on campus protest includes working with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to develop speech guidelines. But while attractive, its impact on changing University policy is unclear.

For a DEI candidate with new, Princeton-based ideas, vote for Mhando.

Kim is a contributing News writer and Mhando is a former assistant Sports editor at the ‘Prince.’

Mental Health Committee Chair: Allen Nieva ’26

The Editorial Board endorses Allen Nieva ’26 over Aanya Kasera ’28 for Mental Health Committee Chair. Nieva’s outlook is that barriers to mental health are problems of accessibility. This is an excellent paradigm for positive change, as the University has a lot of room to improve the accessibility of its mental health services.

Nieva also cites the services Princeton already has, and emphasizes the importance of students learning both about them and their limitations. In his responses to our questions, Nieva displayed his detailed knowledge of the University’s mental health resources, including the External Provider Network and the limitations of the Student Health Plan.

One question where the two candidates clearly differed was that of naming one effective step that the University has taken on mental health. Nieva offered the recent reduction in copays for mental health services as an effective means of increasing accessibility, noting that this was also a productive use of a USG working group.

Kasera, on the other hand, cited the end of Dean’s Date as a beneficial change for mental health. Although Kasera rightfully attributed the stress of Dean’s Date to having multiple assignments due on one date, its discontinuation does not guarantee staggered deadlines. For an advocate who understands how positive change on mental health has been made within USG, vote for Nieva.

Social Committee Chair: Aum Dhruv ’27

The Editorial Board endorses Aum Dhruv ’27 for Social Committee Chair, because of his previous experience and concrete, creative goals for the position. Dhruv has served as a Social Committee Project Lead for Dean’s Date activities, helped with planning and promoting Lawnparties, and participated in other efforts on the Social Committee. His platform and answers to the ‘Prince’ emphasized safety at events, accommodating dietary restrictions through careful selection of local vendors, holding events in more accessible spaces, and collaborating with the AccessAbility Center for Allies for Access training. Alicia Mohli ’28, by contrast, lacks this experience — and her responses to our questions lack specificity and feasibility.

Both candidates do align in support of an increase in the “student activities” fee. Dhruv prioritizes ensuring that any increase would not affect students on financial aid, and would work with other groups on campus to increase resources for event planning. He has concrete ideas to institute if funds are available.

Mohli’s goals are slightly less specific — she hopes to use any increased funds to support student affinity groups, give out more merchandise, create more day trips, and bolster events like Tigers in Town. Her platform also features less feasible plans (such as inviting Olivia Rodrigo to perform at Lawnparties). For those reasons, Dhruv’s prior Social Committee experience and specific, yet achievable, goals make him the stronger of the two candidates.

Dhruv is a staff Audience creator for the ‘Prince.’

Sustainability Committee Chair: Sastha Tripathi ’28

Sastha Tripathi ’28’s comprehensive platform and fluency in advocating for sustainability on campus earned her this Editorial Board’s endorsement. In her time here at Princeton, Tripathi has garnered significant experience in environmental advocacy through her involvement in student climate justice groups.

Tripathi plans to work with the Center for Career Development to create “Green Career” programming culminating in a Green Career Fair, establishing sustainability as a credible career goal. Although ambitious, she foresees inviting companies and non-profit organizations from diverse sectors. If successful, the Fair could serve to propel Princeton as a leader on this front and truly sustain campus sustainability efforts beyond graduation.

Tripathi also would push for the University to reorient its composting efforts. She notes that the majority of food waste produced in dining halls and Frist Campus Center goes to Trenton Renewables, a biofuel company. Although biofuels are a renewable energy alternative, their end product is the greenhouse gas methane, undermining the University’s goal to be “Net Zero” by 2046. Finally, Tripathi aims to elevate the visibility of Eco Reps and sustainability groups on campus.

Despite being one of the younger candidates, Tripathi has proven in her responses that she will seek transparency and accountability from the University. This objective is in line with Fox’s platform, and Tripathi is a member of the Fox-Swamidurai ticket. While there were many other strong candidates with ample experience and intriguing ideas — and, indeed, significant overlap between all of them — Tripathi’s comprehensive, ambitious platform elevate her above the rest: Evan Callas ’27, Hannah Riggins ’27, Nile White ’27, Anaya Willabus ’28, and Angelina Ye ’26.

Tripathi is a contributing Features writer for the ‘Prince.’

Undergraduate Student Life Committee Chair: Anuj Krishnan ’27

The Editorial Board endorses Anuj Krishnan ’27 over Jenny Davis ’28, Sevastian Venegas ’28, and Nam Adam Vu ’28 for Undergraduate Student Life Committee (USLC) Chair. Krishnan brings with him myriad feasible ideas for his tenure, as well as past experience to provide a solid foundation on which he can thrive. As a current U-Councilor, Krishnan worked to improve TigerTransit and provide additional support for student clubs amid Princeton’s class expansion.

Krishnan and Vu both commit to reform efforts to expand student input. Krishnan, specifically, proposes a “Campus Life Liaison,” who would serve as a bottom-up line of communication to student groups and campus offices. Meanwhile, Vu noted his intention to to “meet as many of the 5,727 undergraduates as possible through authentic conversation over coffee.” Although maintaining direct communication with communities that the USLC Chair serves is an admirable goal, it is infeasible to expect that the desires of the entire student body can be grasped simply via caffeinated conversations.

Krishnan is also in touch with a few of the most pressing issues for students, including calls to reduce and eventually eliminate the “international student tax” on grant aid exceeding tuition costs. Meanwhile, Vu’s policy proposals include a 50 percent subsidy on a charter bus from campus to New York City funded by a 1,900 percent increase in the USLC budget — from $250 to at least $5,000 — and the transformation of the C-Store area in Frist Campus Center into a wellness center.

Due to a lack of experience and clear policy vision with feasible action plans, Vu failed to receive our endorsement. Davis and Venegas did not respond to requests from the Editorial Board for comment.

148th Editorial Board

Members

Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26

Davis Hobley ’27

Henry Hsiao ’26

Sarah Park ’27

Abigail Rabieh ’25

Christofer Robles ’25

Naisha Sylvestre ’25

Lucia Wetherill ’25

Leo Yu ’27

The 148th Editorial Board is the institutional voice of The Daily Princetonian and consists of nine members: two managing editors, the public editor, and a group of six Opinion section editors and columnists. It convenes on an ad hoc basis to discuss issues and current events of interest to the Princeton University community, as well as collectively write signed editorials addressing them, which reflect the consensus of a majority of the Board’s membership. To ensure independence, the Board works separately from the newsroom of the ‘Prince,’ and its members do not cover the topics of their editorials in that capacity for the paper.

Thursday, December 26

Previous Issues

Donate now

Submit a tip

Subscribe

Vote Fox ’26 for President: Your guide to the winter 2024 USG ballot

Uma Fox ’26, candidate for USG president.

Sameer A. Khan / Fotobuddy, Courtesy of Uma Fox ’26