Princeton Archives Preserve Women’s Activism

By Deniana Clemente

On the lowest level of Princeton University’s Firestone Library, you don’t gaze upon history through a glass case. You hold it. After washing your hands, of course. Each artifact introduces another unexpected character from women’s history. 

Thick papers, scratched with erratic penmanship and bruised with typewriter clicks, spill from one binder. They are the arrest records and fingerprints of a 29-year-old Judith Arcana. Behind them are a pair of vibrant booklets with block print cover art. On the 1958 June cover of The Ladder, a well-manicured hand reaches out to stroke a bramble of garden leaves, gently grasped within the hand of another — perhaps a friend?

Women make vital change in their communities through defiant journalism and activism, yet many of these stories sit unvisited in archival collections rather than the public memory. 

Judith was a Jane. Or a part of it, rather. Jane was an underground abortion service of over 100 people, operating in Chicago from 1969 to 1973 to provide nearly 11,000 affordable and discreet abortions. Jane functioned as a community network, where volunteers answered phone calls, counseled women, arranged their appointments and performed abortions themselves. On the arrest documents meticulously preserved by Princeton archivists, “Judith H. Pildes” stares defiantly back, pressing her ink-coated fingers into the rigid boxes long before she became Judith Arcana, writer, poet, and educator.

Sara Howard, Librarian for Gender and Sexuality Studies, invited visitors to study the artifacts with their bare hands, signalling that this history is meant to be interacted with. Arcana’s fingerprints capture the high stakes of her mission, and the extent she was willing to go for it. They are tangible evidence of what many women endured for reproductive freedom, highlighting how they showed up for one another — not just in makeshift operating rooms, but in jail cells, too. Arcana’s arrest records sit in archives while debates over reproductive rights return to state legislatures, reminding visitors that the questions surrounding bodily autonomy remain unresolved. 

In addition to reproductive rights being threatened, queer women and individuals have been targeted by recent policies regarding ID documents and parental recognition. A pattern arises where women’s rights that are under threat today have already been defended by generations of activists dating back to the 1950s. The Ladder magazine, which ran from 1956 through 1972, a time of normalized homophobia, was distributed by the Daughters of Bilitis to educate the public about lesbian women and advocate for their acceptance into mainstream society. In a piece titled “Lesbian Marriage” published in The Ladder in August 1958, a commenter going by the pseudonym of “Ms. Gene Damon” writes that lesbian marriage need not be perceived as a “problem.” She argues that lesbian couples face the same challenges and share the same joys as heterosexual couples, pointing out that most domestic problems regardless of sexuality “are almost always overcome if the people involved really are in love.”

This endearing, almost old-fashioned take reminds people today that many queer people have the same goals of marriage and family as others, yet are disregarded at the policymaking table. As inclusive healthcare is actively being shot down and anti-LGBTQ+ bills targeting same-sex couples and trans people are continuously introduced, artifacts like The Ladder help visitors to question lawmakers. They remind the public that laws should be tailored to the needs of every American, and not only to Americans with identities that are viewed as the “default.”

The struggles of today are the same struggles of yesterday, and the work of these women remains to be studied. They remind visitors of a responsibility to fight for their rights and the rights of all women, and that the most empowering and impactful acts are often ones of defiance.

Make Your Own Mamdani

By Alona Sanchez

When my sociology teacher included an article about Zohran Mamdani in a news rundown at the start of class, it raised questions. Why should I, a woman from a small town in Ohio, care about the politics of New York City? 

When it comes to Mamdani, there’s plenty to talk about. 

Mamdani’s campaign promises, among them a free bus system, free childcare and rent freezes, have put him at the forefront of many Americans’ minds. Gen Z voters have been especially taken with the young mayor. He is known for his active social media presence, which he regularly uses to interface with young people in New York City and beyond. 

It is a known fact that voter turnout for local elections is lower than voter turnout for federal elections in the United States. According to a study by the University of Chicago, voter turnout across all ages in local elections averages around 20 percent. In contrast, the estimated youth turnout for the New York City mayoral race was as high as 28 percent. 

Those who say that Mamdani is one-of-a-kind or that he can only exist in New York City are ignoring the role of higher voter turnout in Mamdani’s win. When elections aren’t well attended, voters let people who do not share their priorities make decisions for them. The more voters turn out in a local election, the more power they have to elect exciting candidates who share their values and concerns. 

The New York City mayoral election showed that engaging youth voters in local elections is possible, but young people elsewhere in the country can’t just wait around longing for a mayor like Mamdani to appear. Gen Zers should be turning their attention not to Mamdani, but to their own local government. If they want change, they need to head to the polls and vote.

Mamdani may not be your mayor, but that doesn’t mean he should be forgotten or ignored. Vote for the people you want to see in office. Make a Mamdani of your own. 

Charlotte FC Beats Red Bull New York 2-0

By Raquel Laskowski

The match between Charlotte FC and Red Bull New York came down to which goalkeeper was the better passer, a difference that helped separate the visiting team from their New Jersey-based opponents in a 2-0 victory on July 25. 

Keepers Ethan Horvath (Red Bull New York) and Kristijan Kahlina (Charlotte) each stood at their post, ready to block the shots that would soon encroach on the net behind them. They watched and waited. With both teams sharing the same 6-6-4 (win-loss-draw) record, the anticipation was high.

Charlotte started strong, but by minute three, New York had majority possession, nearly scoring from a corner kick. However, defender Matthew Dos Santos miscalculated a pass from a later set piece, handing Charlotte possession of the ball. At minute six, Horvath broke and Charlotte midfielder Pep Biel scored the team’s opening goal. 

At the ten minute mark, Kahlina painted a rainbow above the field with a goal kick to Horvath, who smashed the ball out of bounds. Two minutes later, Charlotte midfielder Ashley Westwood scored off a low shot at goal after forward Kerwin Vargas found him from the left side. 

Unfortunately for their fans, New York couldn’t get the ball past Kahlina. The major difference between the teams’ strategies was the use of their respective keepers. While Charlotte utilized their keeper’s strong kicks and ability to find openings, New York wasn’t using Horvath in its passing game. This was evident in the first half, where Kahlina continuously helped Charlotte stretch their passing lanes from one side of the field, back to him, and then back to the other side with a quick ambush towards the home team’s goal. 

In contrast, New York’s offense relied on passing between midfielders and wings with high crosses. That strategy allowed Charlotte to knock the ball away with ease and regain possession. Horvath received only his second pass in the 39th minute of the game. He kicked it down the field, where Charlotte players again stole possession and passed the ball downfield towards the goal. 

When the whistle blew and the second half began, Red Bull New York adopted Charlotte’s formula: using their keeper to add to the team’s on-field passing dynamic. With both teams passing from keeper to keeper, the gameplay turned from formations and passing plays to aggressive blocks and steals. New York’s new strategy worked. They held possession for the majority of the second half, taking 23 shots on their way. 

Unfortunately for New York, their late shift in strategy could not make up for their performance in the first half of the game. Kahlina made 47 pass attempts, nearly doubling Horvath’s 19. It makes sense that the final score followed suit.

Frustration and the Future: New York Red Bulls Disappoint

By Ahmad Elhassan

Blasting fireworks, rolling out talented young players and hosting an oddly large Elmo, Red Bull New York seemed poised to make an explosive return to Sports Illustrated Stadium after the MLS World Cup break. But at the sound of the final whistle, fans looked up at a 0-2 score against Charlotte FC asking a single question: “Was the crown too heavy for our Red Bulls?” 

Within twelve minutes of kickoff, Charlotte midfielders Pep Biel and Ashley Westwood spoiled New York’s first home in over two months, silencing fans with what would be the only two goals of the game. At the start of the game, all eyes were on Red Bull New York’s eighteen-year-old phenom striker Julian Hall, but attention was quickly diverted to Charlotte’s mastery of the midfield and rapid counterattacks. Both goals came on the end of low-swung crosses from wingers Liel Adaba and Kerwin Vargas. New York’s midfield was being carved up. 

New York responded in the second half with a poor performance by midfielder Ronald Donkor and missed chances by captain Emil Forsberg. The crowd was in utter shock. Charlotte keeper Kristijan Kahlina made incredible saves, winning him the respect of a hostile crowd, though New York’s 16 attempted shots were more often directed at the crowd than the net. 

A showdown between Red Bull winger Cade Cowell and Charlotte defender Harry Toffolo displayed how challenging yet wholesome a physical battle of speed and precision can be. The two hugged after each slide tackle, quietly acknowledging one another’s skill and sound tactics.

A series of fouls led to a red card for Adri Mehmeti near the end of the game. The seventeen-year-old’s sendoff gave New York a reason to utilize the veterans and experienced transfer players who serve as mentors for their younger teammates.  Fosberg commented on the situation after the game. “Like I said, it’s always easy to blame everybody after you lose,” he said. 

All-Star Hall appeared particularly upset with the lack of pressing by his fellow attackers. His visible pouting captured the sorrow New York felt in the final half of the game, and the frustration that Hall, specifically, may have felt with the tactics of his team. 

As the crowd booed the home team off the pitch, a Charlotte crown loomed over soccer’s biggest untapped market: U.S. fans. The energy in the stadium was high, but not high enough to carry Red Bull New York to a win. Home-field advantage proved less useful to the team than a midfield that could execute. 

But maybe it was just the Jersey summer air.

Red Bull New York’s Defensive Drought Continues

By Yeisbel Peña

Charlotte FC needed just twelve minutes to decide their July 25 match at Sports Illustrated Stadium, beating Red Bull New York, 2-0, in a match decided not by sustained pressure, but by consistent defensive lapses. 

Both goals came in the opening stretch of the game, with Charlotte’s Pep Biel striking in the seventh minute and Ashley Westwood scoring another in the twelfth. On the other end of the field, Charlotte Keeper Kristijan Kahlina finished with five saves to close out the shutout in front of a home crowd that had barely settled in their seats before the deficit hit two. 

The early Red Bull collapse reflected a season-long struggle for the team’s back line. Dylan Nealis, Justin Che, Julián Bazán and Matthew Dos Santos have rotated through the defense amid injuries and inconsistent form. Neither of the team’s centerbacks closed in on Biel in time to stop his opener. Charlotte worked the ball through the midfield unchallenged, landing a low finish from just inside the box. Westwood found even more room on the second goal, arriving at the back post without a Red Bull defender in sight. 

Charlotte’s defense had its shaky stretches, too. The visiting team conceded chances late in first-half stoppage time and again after the break as New York’s Cade Cowell, Emil Forsberg and Adri Mehmeti pushed forward, looking for a way back into the match. Mehmeti forced a save in the closing minutes of the game, but Charlotte’s back line, marshaled by Kahlina’s five stops, held on comfortably enough that the outcome was rarely in doubt. 

The loss dropped the Red Bulls to 6-4-7 on the season, 22 points, while Charlotte improved to 7-4-6, 25 points, tightening the race in a crowded Eastern Conference table. Neither club sits comfortably in its conference standing, a detail that fits a broader trend across the league this year. MLS teams have generally found it easier to score than to stop opponents from scoring.

Roster turnover, congested fixture lists tied to international windows, and league-wide spending that favors attackers over centerbacks have left many clubs cycling through back-line combinations without ever settling on a consistent unit. Saturday’s match compressed that trend into a dozen minutes, as two early defensive breakdowns decided a game that otherwise stayed competitive from end to end.

For Red Bull New York, the result renews questions about whether the roster has kept pace with a division growing more direct in the final third at a time when reliable defensive options remain difficult to find across the MLS.

Clean Up on the BULLevard

By Kamiyah Hill

As thousands of fans took their seats at Sports Illustrated Stadium, Red Bull New York was not the only focus of the crowd. The stadium, which holds over 20,000 people, leaves a lasting impression on anyone who has ever stepped inside. During Saturday’s game against Charlotte FC, fans filled the stadium hoping to see a win. But would that excitement hold? 

One reason for the excitement: Game day, July 25, was the birthday of the team’s mascot, REDD. A party for REDD was held at a fan event called The BULLevard, where the well-known cast of Sesame Street welcomed young Red Bull fans to celebrate with meet-and-greets with Elmo, coloring stations, face painting, and games. The Red Bull logo was everywhere. Fans were encouraged to arrive early to receive a limited edition REDD bobble head.

After making it past security, the majority of the crowd went up a large staircase to the stadium’s concourse, where food vendors lined the walkway. The smell of the greasy chicken tenders, fries and pizzas was striking. Fans searched for their seats in sections labeled above staircases, which made the area easy to navigate. 

The stadium appeared to be freshly cleaned; the floors were wet and shiny, presumably mopped and pedestrians navigated the paths without much foot traffic. In a women’s bathroom near third story Section 224, the floor was clear save for a few tiny ants marching between the stalls. The bathroom was accessible, fully stocked and welcoming to all, with many stalls and sinks available. 

The rows in the upper stands were close together, forcing fans to stand from their seats to allow others to pass or turn vertically to slip through, which made it hard for others to get to their seats. The stands were trash-free and the seats left no residue.

Fireworks went off before the game began, leaving behind a thick grey smoke that made it hard to see the action. As the smoke cleared, children and adults walked onto the pitch holding a New York Red Bull banner during the national anthem, which was followed by another firework display. The game began shortly after. 

At halftime, youth teams took the field while Elmo helped REDD celebrate his birthday with a cake. If the environment was supposed to be family friendly, many fans did not receive the message. Older fans yelled out profanities and degrading chants, disappointed by their team’s poor performance in a 0-2 loss to Charlotte FC. 

Despite the loss and the inconsiderate behavior of some of those present, the fans had fun and the stands were clean. For some, that’s enough. But for others, the bathroom conditions, lingering fireworks smoke and lack of space in the stands might be a dealbreaker. 

Question: Is Single-Issue Voting the Right Way to Go?

By Therese Agbetiafa and Jorge Rodriguez

Certain identities come with certain social advantages. Not just small everyday privileges, but deeper ones that determine the risks people face when political decisions are made. The impact of a decision like the reversal of Roe v. Wade or the launch of a mass deportation campaign can depend on a person’s demographic. 

Single-issue voting is when a voter casts a ballot for a politician based on their feelings on one particular political issue or idea. For some, a single issue does not define their way of voting, while others reject partisan loyalty. 

In interviews with nearly a dozen people in Princeton, New Jersey, it became clear that a voter’s identity heavily influences their voting behavior, and their incentive to be a single-issue voter. 

“My background belies what people would think my voting ways are,” said Jordan Denning, a white man. “There are many elections where I do not like anybody running. So I don’t touch it… [I] just do my own thing.” Denning’s voting decisions reflect how he doesn’t always feel personally engaged in politics. 

Carolyn Galayda and Becca Goldman feel that as members of the LGBTQ community, their rights are particularly vulnerable. The couple votes with one goal in mind: Whichever candidate represents the underrepresented wins their vote.  

“We do look a lot at the opinions of the League of Women’s Voters… We’re gay, so we also have a lot of concern about that issue,” Goldman said. She and Galaya favor candidates who consider the rights of vulnerable voters in most, if not all, contexts. 

“So often I feel like I’m voting to not have the bad choice… I don’t want to lose my vote,” Goldman said. 

The sense of obligation to vote for the “lesser evil” was widespread amongst interviewees. 

Zain Shahabuddih, 26, brought a new perspective to the conversation, one of a young person who feels their impact is limited. Like Denning, Shahabuddih is not always motivated to vote. Not necessarily because he isn’t a vulnerable voter, but because he’s demotivated by the candidates. 

“If I were to vote, I would like to vote for one who was the lesser evil,” he said. “I [have] kind of been disenchanted with a lot of options.” 

Shahabuddih is not a single-issue voter by definition; in fact, he’s barely a voter at all. “I vote when it makes an impact,” he says. But he acknowledged that his background influences his values and how he votes. Shahabuddih may not vote in every election, but when he chooses to vote, he votes for candidates he believes can uplift his community. 

Ultimately, the question isn’t whether or not single-issue voting is the right way to go, but whether U.S. voters can unite across identity lines.

Single-Issue Voting Misses the Mark

By Ximena Garcia and Max Rosenthal

Candidates run on multi-policy platforms, but “single-issue” voters cast their ballots for one. In Princeton, New Jersey, most voters base their decisions on the issues that affect them and their community the most.

“I think that, with the world, there are so many issues that we need to focus on that it’s really hard to narrow down a candidate on their single issue platforms,” said Gwynne Frischmann, 55, of Newtown, Pennsylvania. 

Even so, as a mother who works alongside young women, Frischmann acknowledged that female-centered issues influence her vote.

“It’s hard not to get caught up on platforms of abortion and just all the rights that are being taken away from women, especially young women in today’s world,” Frischmann said, but she feels that single-issue voting misses the bigger picture. 

“You have to step back and see what is best for the majority of people in the world, in your life, and your communities,” she said.

Kylie Gibson, 16, cares about other issues but will vote on what affects her the most: the economy. “Yeah, I mean it’s selfish, but [other issues] wouldn’t be my problem. I care more about my money,” she said.

The general consensus was that single-issue voting is ineffective in upholding democracy, but community members were conflicted about whether the problem is the single-issue ballot or the influence that sways it.  

Valrya Vega, 28, from Mexico City, feels that single-issue voting has failed to promote democracy because of bribery in her country. The Mexican government faced backlash after they unveiled new “scholarship” cards in 2021 that provided 1.2 million preschool, elementary, and high school kids with up to $24 a month for meals and supplies. These “Claudia Cards” resulted in accusations that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has used welfare programs to illegally gain votes and get ahead of future presidential opponents. 

“It’s like selling their votes for a little bit for scholarships,” said Vega. “They’re given money so [politicians] can buy their votes. So that’s a really bad issue.”

When it comes to deciding how to vote, interviewees said that political conversations don’t change the issues they vote on. But for Frischmann, discussing politics with her community is a way to share more about the issues she cares about. 

“I don’t think [these conversations] have impacted my issues,” she said. “It’s just changed how you can either be open or not open about discussing what’s important to you as an individual.”

With midterm elections around the corner, single-issue voting on abortion, the economy, and corruption is not going away. The question is: Will it sway the balance of power this fall? 

One Person, One Vote

By Aryana Berhand and Joslyn King

How much of one’s personal values can be sacrificed for the sake of their country? In today’s political climate, many voters find themselves having to choose between the lesser of two evils. 

According to U.S. News & World Report, New Jersey is one of the most politically engaged states in the country. This is doubly true of Princeton, New Jersey, where residents spoke candidly about the influence of their values on their voting habits.

Several Princetonians rejected the philosophy of single-issue voting, keeping in mind the myriad of issues that affect not only our country, but the rest of the world, too.

“If the candidate’s gonna be in office, then their decisions will affect everything,” said Emma Cichone. “So you have to look at everything.”

This belief is held even among those who are not yet eligible to vote. “I’d have to look at the person’s values, not necessarily just their opinion on that one issue,” said Maddie Fowler, a local high school student. 

However, there is some recognition that single-issue voting is a prevalent practice in current times. Andrew Guo, who does not single-issue vote, believes that it is important to understand others’ views, especially in politics. He approached the conversation with empathy, understanding that voting can be difficult. 

“I think ideally you would judge a candidate’s worth based off of what he believes on all sorts of issues, not just one issue,” he said. Still, Guo could see why some people might gravitate towards single-issue voting. 

During the 2024 presidential election, the conflict between Palestine and Israel divided voters, though both candidates held pro-Israel ideals. Some people felt so strongly about this issue that they chose not to vote at all. 

For many Princetonians, voting is an important part of the civic responsibility they feel at the local and national level. While some people look at candidates holistically, others vote on the specific issues that are important to them. 

Whatever the case may be, one vote comes down to one person’s values. Sometimes, it comes down to one of those values alone.

One Vote is Rarely About One Thing

By Aeryn Bautista and Yeisbel Peña

Sixty-six percent of Americans say they’re worried about global warming, according to Yale’s Program on Climate Change Communication. Forty-two percent believe that we’re heading toward a total economic collapse, a YouGov survey found.

For single-issue voters, just one of these concerns can determine their vote. 

Single-issue voting, or the practice of voting for a candidate based on their position on a single issue, has always been a part of American politics. According to some Princeton area residents, that approach is not the path to progress.

“I think you’re selling yourself short if you would vote on a single issue, right?” said Steven A., 31. In his opinion, single-issue voters are “basic.” 

Interviewees from Kingston, NJ, who voted in 2012 were happy to vote for Obama purely based on his handling of unemployment in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Nothing else felt nearly as pressing for them. Today, the same voters describe a more complicated, yet necessary, calculation involving abortion, war, immigration and all else that President Trump’s administration brought to the forefront of American politics. 

Robert Schmidt, 19, voted for Harris in 2024. “I just didn’t like Trump and any of his ideas,” he said. “I didn’t agree with a lot of what Kamala Harris was saying, but I just didn’t agree with Trump as a whole.”

Decades ago, voters relied on print media, speeches and debates for candidate information. Now, they can track aspiring officials’ every word on every policy through short-form content on Instagram, X and TikTok. 

Young people, in particular, find themselves worrying about all aspects of a candidate’s platform that social media draws into the limelight. Many identify themselves completely with positions raised by the left side of the aisle, highlighting how daily political content encourages polarization. 

Reese Eigenbauer, 14, expressed this sentiment in simple terms. “I just don’t really like Trump and what he stands for, and what he was planning on doing when he got into office,” she said.

Residents unfamiliar with the term “single-issue voting” rejected the label immediately once it was explained. 

“Absolutely not,” said Claudine Collins. Her support for Harris, she added, rested on “every reason under the sun.” 

If there was ever a time when a single issue decided an election, the people of Princeton suggest that it is long gone. 

“Life’s a lot more complicated than that,” said Steven A. “Society’s a lot more complicated than that. So why make your vote cast on a single issue?”