Vote Colón Roosevelt ’27 for president: your guide to the winter 2025 USG ballot

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

This year hasn’t been USG’s finest. From the pages of this paper to Fizz and Instagram, discourse about this student government has been dominated by controversy and widespread discontent. This election has been no exception. On a range of issues, from disciplinary procedure to grading, the University has disappointed — its proposed changes to dining policy, in particular, engendered near-ubiquitous backlash from the student body and alumni community.  Some of this year’s USG candidates are more qualified than others, providing the specific policy visions, bold proposals, and willingness to negotiate with the administration and advocate for student needs that this unprecedented moment in national and campus politics demands. Starting at noon on Monday, students can vote for the next president, vice president, and treasurer of USG, as well as the chairs of seven different committees. 

This year, every race is contested. To determine our positions on the candidates’ platforms, the Editorial Board sent questions to all of the candidates, attended the USG presidential debate, and deliberated for over 14 hours. Some USG hopefuls underwhelmed us, some overwhelmed us, and some just plain whelmed us. Below are our endorsements for every race in which the entire student body can vote.

President: Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27

Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27 and Aum Dhruv ’27 entered this year’s presidential election with USG experience and vastly different visions. Colón Roosevelt currently serves as USG treasurer, managing the budget and overseeing increases to funding initiatives and programming. Dhruv currently serves as the Social Committee chair, highlighting improvements to the safety and accessibility of major programming, like Lawnparties and Dean’s Date celebrations, as accomplishments of his this year. 

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

Colón Roosevelt and Dhruv merit recognition for their shared commitment to a more transparent and forceful USG. But we find Dhruv’s platform to be too managerial and insufficiently policy-focused to truly tackle the issues of USG accountability and the need for strong USG advocacy on behalf of the student body. By contrast, Colón Roosevelt presents a cohesive platform of fluent policies we believe will materially improve both USG’s engagement in University policymaking and the student experience at Princeton. We do have concerns about his divisiveness and hope that this does not hinder his ability to be a leader for all students who will be able to help execute his compelling policy goals. With all of this in mind, though, the Editorial Board endorses Colón Roosevelt.

In his platform and responses to our questions, Colón Roosevelt focused on relevant issues and pathways through which USG can exercise power — both in ways that address inefficiencies and leverage existing structures and in ways that expand the current role of undergraduate student representation. 

He highlighted maximizing USG’s use of its budget, meaningful disciplinary process reform, and restoring independent dining as his three most important priorities. All three are areas where USG has particular leverage. There is the USG budget, of course, but the student government also has a special voice in academic discipline and has recently been looped in to dining conversations. Colón Roosevelt has prioritized policy throughout his time on USG and has gained important fluency with undergraduate students’ levers of power through it. 

As the current treasurer, he brings expertise in how to leverage USG funding to address student needs. He suggests ways that USG could overcome past frictions, proposing quarterly rather than semesterly reallocations of the budget to fix the problem of money being given to committees that do not spend it, which has led to a budget surplus. He also proposed an increase in Projects Board funding, likely to be taken from the Campus and Community Affairs and Social Committees, which he noted fulfill similar community-building roles for students but give individual students less discretion over how funds are used. 

The Honor Committee and academic discipline is an area of notable strength. Colón Roosevelt highlights the current faculty majority on the Committee on Discipline, noting that it does not comport with Rights, Rules, Responsibilities, another example of an actionable change. He also proposed greater transparency in Honor Committee investigations, ensuring that students are informed about their rights and the accusations for which they’re being investigated. 

He has strongly argued for necessary transparency in USG, proposing that USG record and make publicly available attendance records and roll call voting and standing against Executive Session, which closes USG meetings to the public and allows elected representatives to speak without accountability for their positions. We strongly support both of these. 

Dhruv has supported the continuation of executive session, citing privacy concerns. However, this is misguided. USG’s opacity facilitates its current dysfunction; our elected representatives shouldn’t be able to hide behind closed doors at will. Transparent deliberation and public voting are required to ensure the body serves as a reliable advocate for student needs. 

Colón Roosevelt is also thinking boldly about how to build power within the most influential University structures, writing to the Editorial Board that he would work to build a student bloc on the CPUC, uniting the 12 undergraduates with the seven graduate student representatives for more sway. 

Dhruv’s platform contains notable strengths, particularly its emphasis on securing the right to a Peer Representative for students facing Committee on Discipline cases. Whichever candidate wins the election should push for this proposal. 

Dhruv does make strides towards greater transparency in his platform, proposing the publishing of weekly updates on USG procedures. We also appreciated his expressive support for international students.  

But on his own, Dhruv’s candidacy is lackluster. His strength lies in his slate, and when considered as an individual candidate, Dhruv lacks the necessary track record and vision to earn our support.  

We are concerned by Dhruv’s inability to identify significant concrete achievements from his tenure on USG. While his implementation of new fencing procedures and water stations at Lawnparties is commendable, these aren’t major wins — especially given that he’s spent two years on USG. 

Both candidates entered this race having spent much time in USG. Between them, they have drafted resolutions, led standing committees, and spoken with countless undergraduates and administrators. However, certain details about their experience gave us pause.

Colón Roosevelt is no stranger to activism at Princeton. He’s earned a reputation for his commitment to left-wing movements on campus. These views, while not inherently problematic, are hotly contested among the student population. We are hopeful, however, that Colón Roosevelt would set aside any unrepresentative convictions if they interfere with serving his constituents. Additionally, his tenure would be likely to attract unwelcome and distracting attention from tabloids beyond FitzRandolph Gate, as it has in the past. 

While we commend Colón Roosevelt for his commitment to causes he believes in, these positions do not promote him as a unifier, a desirable quality for a USG president bent on reform. 

We have serious concerns about his ability to govern effectively, given his self-identified struggles to collaborate on issues that he is passionate about. We are excited to realize the policy proposals in his platform, but we are concerned that pressures or perceptions from University administrators and student collaborators could threaten his ability to unify and advocate for the student body. 

Furthermore, we noticed a relative freewheeling with the truth across both campaigns, with both garnering allegations of self-aggrandizement from USG insiders. We appreciate that to represent oneself utterly as they are is an impossible task — but we also find it disheartening that truth and honesty were occasionally missing from this round of campaigning. Even though, after careful consideration, we decided no misleading statement was strong enough to be called a lie, that’s not the standard to which we’d like to hold our fellow Princetonians. 

A USG win is one of the high points of a career at this university, yet no win can be perfect if it’s built on a questionable foundation. We charge Colón Roosevelt, Dhruv, and future USG hopefuls with nothing more than the imperfect truth.

Still, our concerns about Colón Roosevelt do not outweigh our excitement about the vigor, dedication, and expertise we believe he would bring to the office. We are excited for the proposals in Colón Roosevelt’s platform and hopeful that the mechanisms he has identified will be effective in implementing them. 

Vice President: Anuj Krishnan ’27

The Editorial Board endorses Anuj Krishnan ’27 for USG vice president.

Krishnan has demonstrated a capability to advocate for students and manage unforeseen challenges through his strong working relationship with the University and constructive interactions with the rest of USG. Additionally, Krishnan has taken seriously the Editorial Board’s qualms about USG effectiveness and advocacy. He describes the benefit of one policy proposal as getting “students in the room; they can be more open and frank than sometimes USG can be, and it gets University administration out of the habit of assuming members of USG are equal to the student body.” 

However, we strongly disagree with Krishnan’s use of unnecessarily qualified formulations that  demonstrate too much willingness to concede in important negotiations with University administrators. We believe it takes an unnecessary step back before deliberations on the merits of policies even begin. If he wins, we will be watching Krishnan to see if he truly facilitates a more open meeting structure with a greater focus on advocating for students through his tenure.

While we appreciate the intent Nathan VanAlstine ’28 has to further connect the administration, USG, and the University community, we believe his lack of experience makes him better suited to a different position.

The third candidate, Arjun Menon ’27, proposed many policies that are either unrealistic, such as lab funding through USG, or that have already been initiated, such as “securing housing for select students over breaks.” Hence, Menon has not earned our endorsement.

We hope to see Krishnan implement the changes necessary to make a more effective USG.

Treasurer: Marvel Jem Roth ’28

The Editorial Board endorses Marvel Jem Roth ’28 for USG treasurer. Roth exhibits a comprehensive understanding of the USG budget and its limitations, and brings productive ideas for future budget allocations. Her impressive experience will enable her to assume the role of treasurer with an informed understanding of how the USG budget works.

Roth’s proposals are specific and demonstrate her clear expertise on USG’s finances. For instance, she supports reimagining funding paths to center on Projects Board, which would maintain both the quantity and quality of events open to the entire student body despite budget constraints from departmental funds.

Roth’s platform is not without flaws. She promotes the creation of an “itemized policy tracker” for USG actions, but her “Policy x Programming tracker” that was established this spring was not maintained — in fact, it has been blank this entire semester. This casts some doubt on her promise to routinely publish line-by-line budget allocations, but we expect that she will follow through with this promise if she has the privilege of serving as treasurer.

Her opponent, Charlie Yang ’27, ultimately failed to demonstrate that he fully understood the responsibilities of the treasurer position. For this reason, and due to their vastly different qualifications, Roth earned our endorsement.

Undergraduate Chair of the University Student Life Committee: Oscar Barrios ’27

The Editorial Board endorses Oscar Barrios ’27 for Undergraduate chair of the USLC.

Barrios touts impressive experience, having served as Campus and Community Affairs chair and on the CPUC Priorities Committee, where he gained a keen eye for the practical and bureaucratic demands of budgeting and compromise. He demonstrates understanding of the importance and institutional capabilities of USLC chair. We hope to see Barrios leverage his institutional knowledge to strongly advocate for student needs. 

Barrios presented impressive ideas on how to use and revamp existing working groups to better serve the changing needs of international and independent students. We expect to see him prioritize student needs and expand avenues for students to directly express their interests to University administrators. 

We were also impressed with the understanding of current issues in USLC that Rushil Chetty ’28 displayed. He conceived of the USLC role as an active convener, rather than a mere liaison between the student body and University administration. Nonetheless, Barrios’ extensive experience and institutional knowledge make him more qualified for the role. If elected, Barrios should prioritize the role of USLC Chair to bring students and administrators together to discuss important issues. His platform, which includes subsuming fragmented working groups more tightly into the USLC umbrella, holds some promise on this front.

Ultimately, we hope to see Barrios’ institutional knowledge, enthusiasm, and wide range of issue-focused goals implemented in a way that gives students a platform to advocate for themselves with University administrators. 

Academics Committee Chair: Isaac Bernstein ’28

The Editorial Board endorses Isaac Bernstein ’28 for Academics Committee Chair.

Bernstein offers astute diagnoses of significant academic hurdles that students face. We are particularly impressed by his experience as a Peer Representative and his suggestions for promoting the standardization of evidence requirements for Honor Committee proceedings through meetings with key administrators. His measured proposals for reforming Writing Seminar grading indicate both an understanding of the issues that students value most and an ambitious vision that still acknowledges the constraints of the role. Ultimately, his emphasis on the most relevant academics priorities make him the most qualified candidate for Academics Committee Chair.

We appreciate the focus Daniel Torres ’27 has on underclass students and his experience on the Academics Committee. However, his other priorities felt misplaced, and although he also identified the need for Honor Code reform, he failed to outline a specific solution. 

Bernstein’s more comprehensive and detailed platform makes him the better choice for the Academics Committee Chair position.

Bernstein is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’

Social Committee Chair: Vivian Chang ’28

The Editorial Board endorses Vivian Chang ’28 for Social Committee Chair.

Chang prioritized functions of the Social Committee beyond Lawnparties. She articulated a thorough plan to institutionalize and expand TigerTies, in order to “guarantee that Princeton’s international community has a consistent, campus-supported space to share and showcase their traditions.”

Both Chang and Misa Mims ’27 supported incorporating student input into the headliner selection process for Lawnparties. However, Chang offers a more specific and actionable vision for accomplishing this by proposing a “ranked-choice feedback system.”

Chang laid out a comprehensive plan to “strengthen Dean’s Date programming by focusing the budget on restorative, supportive events.” Mims also mentioned a Dean’s Date plan, but her ideas were more vague than Chang’s.

We appreciate Mims’ goal to “curate a lineup that reflects multiple genres and identities,” and we hope that whoever wins the election will continue to prioritize diverse Lawnparties selections.

While Mims’ experience on the Social Committee is notable, we believe that the Social Committee could use a capable change of pace following the last few disappointing iterations of Lawnparties. Thus, we believe that Chang is the person for the job.

Campus and Community Affairs Chair: Anaya Willabus ’28

The Editorial Board endorses Anaya Willabus ’28 for Campus and Community Affairs Committee (CCA) Chair. 

Willabus clearly understands that the CCA has failed to make events accessible to wide swaths of the campus community. Her proposal to fix this by “transitioning from high-ticket, single-student offerings to more community-centered activities that offer more slots” is actionable and reasonable.

Furthermore, Willabus’s platform centers the local community, proposing a local rewards card and partnerships with small businesses in order to strengthen ties between campus and community. While we appreciate the idea candidate Amy Tran ’29 has for an annual Taste of Princeton festival to highlight local culture and history, Willabus’s proposals are more comprehensive, more local, and more accessible.

The third candidate in this race, Jenny Davis ’28, did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the ‘Prince.’

Willabus is a staff Copy editor for the ‘Prince.’

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee Chair: No candidate satisfies, Morgan Hoang ’27 suffices

The Editorial Board suggests Morgan Hoang ’27 for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chair due to her substantive commitment to serving Princeton’s vulnerable international community. 

Not all candidates identified this as a priority. As the federal government seeks to limit Ivy League universities’ ability to admit and protect international students, Hoang’s platform advocates strengthening the International Student Working Group that addresses “employment pathways and visa processes.” Her consideration of how to maneuver within federal regulations about curricular practical training (CPT) and acknowledgement of the limitations placed by federal law show a creative approach that, while more sophisticated than those offered by other candidates, is logistically misguided. 

Hoang’s time with the Carl A. Fields Center and the RISE fellowship bring experience, while her discussion of the “deeply discouraging” preparation gap between private school and FGLI public school students when entering academic life at Princeton shows a broad, thoughtful vision for the role. We appreciated the support Nastasia Philip ’29 expresses for disabled communities on campus. We hope that Hoang will consider prioritizing advocacy for disabled members of our community if elected. 

In a pool which also includes Michelle Hernandez ’29 and Matthew Phillips ’28, no candidate for DEI chair entirely rises to meet the demands of the current moment. Institutionalized diversity, equity, and inclusion is facing serious hostility from the federal government, necessitating a forceful argument justifying the position’s goals and existence. When prompted to address critics, candidate responses ranged from perfunctory to paternalistic, and none appeared to grasp the existential nature of current popular DEI condemnations. We hope that whoever wins the role will consider more deeply how to build bridges with those that feel excluded and marginalized by what they view as favoritism disguised as diversity. Regardless of our views on DEI, by the nature of their role, the DEI chair is obligated to effectively defend diversity and inclusion against critiques. Only by committing to honest dialogue can they serve all members of the campus community.

Mental Health Committee Chair: David Wagenblast ’28

The Editorial Board endorses David Wagenblast ’28 for Mental Health Chair because of his precise diagnosis of some of the biggest holes in Princeton’s current mental health system, and his substantive prior experience with mental health advocacy. 

Wagenblast’s priorities focused on institutional approaches to care, including increasing CPS provider ability to provide longer-term care and decreasing pressure for students to take gap years after experiencing mental health crises. We preferred this approach to other platforms, which emphasized a connection between academics and mental health and excessively blurred the lines between the two topics. We also found Wagenblast’s proposal to establish orientation programming about peer support both actionable and worthwhile. 

Wagenblast brings concrete experience responding to mental health challenges as a peer mental health responder and representative — through the Mental Health First Aid program and in his U.S. Air Force unit. As a veteran transfer student, he also brings a less represented and valuable student experience to the committee. 

Although we are confident in the research he has done to come up with his priorities, USG committees benefit from a wealth of experience with internal advocacy, and we hope to see people with more experience on the Mental Health committee serve alongside him. 

Another candidate, Aakansh Yerpude ’27, had a good idea about training faculty on the early signs of distress and proposed a task force to document stress points throughout the Princeton experience that might have some merit. However, his platform conflated academic stress with mental health outcomes, which has been an unproductive conversation in the past few years. 

Meanwhile, Luke Cho ’27, who has been on the mental health committee for two years, did not present any novel ideas, simply representing a continuation of current mental health committee priorities. Therefore, Wagenblast earned our endorsement over both other candidates.

Sustainability Committee Chair: Gianna Maltbie ’29

The Editorial Board endorses Gianna Maltbie ’29 for Sustainability Committee Chair. 

Maltbie proposes practical ideas that better align with the purpose and role of the Sustainability Committee on campus. Her ideas to combat overconsumption — including a clothing swap and campus closet — alongside cross-University competitions to reduce waste in dining, electricity, and garbage, are actionable ways to incentivize sustainable practices on campus.

Maltbie exhibits a greater facility in discussing relevant climate policy than Kiran Bhatia ’29. She demonstrates knowledge about the University’s suite of fossil fuel investments beyond PetroTiger, the fact that 15 percent of emissions reductions in the 2046 Sustainability Plan are allotted to “TBD” solutions, and the climate research funding cuts the University has experienced. We believe that this knowledge will make her an effective advocate on these fronts.

Both candidates support increasing access to environmental careers through a Green Career Hub and hosting a climate symposium that would elevate climate research. We hope that whichever candidate wins this race will pursue these ideas.

Although we appreciated Bhatia’s thorough and ambitious approach to his policy proposals, we believe that introducing a bicycle and e-bike sharing system would be an attempt to meet a need that should be addressed by restarting the Princeton Bike Library. 

As a result of both ambitious yet feasible programming proposals and policy knowledge, Maltbie wins our endorsement.

149th Editorial Board

Isaac Barsoum ’28

Raf Basas ’28  

Frances Brogan ’27

Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26

Preston Ferraiuolo ’26

Anna Ferris ’26

Ava Johnson ’27

Christofer Robles ’26

Bryan Zhang ’26

The Editorial Board is the institutional voice of The Daily Princetonian and consists of nine members: two managing editors, the head Opinion editor, and a group of six Opinion section editors, columnists, and contributing writers. It convenes to discuss issues and current events of interest to the Princeton University community, as well as collectively write signed editorials addressing them, which reflect the consensus of a majority of the Board’s membership. The Editorial Board operates independently of the newsroom of the ‘Prince.’