Inclusion and Belonging

Most respondents thought that avenues for feedback on the ‘Prince’ were accessible, with over 72 percent indicating that those avenues were “somewhat” or “very” accessible. Just over 22 percent felt neutral, whilst five percent found those channels “somewhat” or “very” inaccessible.

Fewer respondents have campus jobs than campus as a whole: while only 39 percent of respondents indicated that they had a campus job, over half of campus holds a job at some point during the school year. Of those who had campus jobs, about three times as many indicated that their jobs did not interfere with their ability to contribute to the ‘Prince’ than indicated that their jobs did interfere. Low-income students were overall more likely to hold campus jobs on top of their responsibilities to the ‘Prince’ than their counterparts, and those jobs were more likely to interfere with their abilities to contribute to the ‘Prince’: 16.3 percent of low-income students indicated that their campus jobs interfered with their responsibilities to the ‘Prince,’ compared to 6.7 percent of their counterparts. Students who had been on the ‘Prince’ for longer were more likely to hold jobs than those who had just joined, with 66.7 percent of those without jobs being new staffers. Editors and initiative directors were also more likely to hold campus jobs than staffers: only 39.5 percent of editors and initiative directors did not hold a campus job, and over 50 percent responded that they held campus jobs and those jobs did not interfere with their ability to contribute to the ‘Prince’.

Overall, the majority of the ‘Prince’ (73.1 percent) reported feeling included, with 34.2 percent and 38.9 percent reporting feeling very included and somewhat included, respectively. However, 25 percent of Hispanic/Latine respondents reported feeling some level of exclusion, as did 13.3 percent of Black respondents. 8.9 percent of White respondents, 3.2 percent of Asian respondents, and 2.9 percent of Mixed respondents. No Middle Eastern/North African respondents reported feelings of exclusion.

The majority of bisexual respondents (62.1 percent) reported feeling belonging, as did the majority of gay respondents (80 percent), heterosexual/straight respondents (76.7 percent), queer respondents (77 percent), and questioning respondents (85.7 percent). However, only 50 percent of asexual respondents reported feeling somewhat included, and none reported feeling very included. Just 40 percent of lesbians reported feeling somewhat included (20 percent) or very included (20 percent); 60 percent reported feeling neutral.

Slightly right wing respondents reported higher levels of exclusion, with 10 percent reporting feeling somewhat excluded. However, they also reported the highest levels of inclusion (80 percent), closely followed by very left wing respondents who reported the second highest levels of inclusion (76.8 percent), followed by slightly left wing (71.2), and then finally moderate (70.8).

Respondents who spend more time on the ‘Prince’ per week reported higher feelings of belonging, with 81.8 percent of those who spent 10+ hours per week (likely section editors and Managing Editors), 85.7 percent spending 8–10 hours, 37.5 percent spending 5–8 hours, 25 percent of those spending 3–5 hours, and 29.5 percent of those spending 1–2 hours (likely lower-level staffers) reporting feeling very included. No respondents who reported spending 10+ hours per week reported any feelings of exclusion.

Editors also report higher feelings of inclusion, with 43.5 percent feeling very included and 32.6 percent feeling somewhat included. However, while 6.5 percent of editors report feeling somewhat excluded and 4.3 percent report feeling very excluded, just 4.5 percent of staffers report feeling somewhat excluded and 0.8 percent very excluded.

Respondents who did not identify as low-income also reported higher feelings of belonging (70.8 percent), compared to 63.3 percent of low-income respondents. This also holds true for first generation students, with 69.4 percent reporting feeling included compared to 76.2 percent of respondents who did not identify as low-income.

No members of the ‘Prince’ reported feeling very uncomfortable in the newsroom, though 8.9 percent reported feeling somewhat uncomfortable. 22.1 percent reported feeling neutral, while 69 percent of the ‘Prince’ reported feeling either somewhat comfortable (29.5 percent) or very comfortable (39.5 percent). Editors and initiative directors feel more comfortable in the newsroom, with 77.8 percent reporting feeling comfortable as compared to 67.9 percent of staffers.

The level of discomfort by political views is relatively even, with 10 percent of respondents who identified as slightly right wing, 8.7 percent who identified as moderate, 10.3 percent who identified as somewhat left wing, and 4.3 percent who identified as very left wing reporting feeling somewhat uncomfortable.

Discomfort is also distributed evenly by race, with 13.3 percent of Black respondents, 6.3 percent of Asian respondents, 12.5 percent of Hispanic/Latine respondents, 8.6 percent of Mixed respondents, and 10.6 percent of White respondents reporting feeling somewhat uncomfortable. No Middle Eastern/North African respondents reported discomfort.

The largest differences are by sexuality and income status, with 10 percent of LGBTQIA+ respondents reporting discomfort compared to 6.8 percent of heterosexual/straight respondents. 10.4 percent of the ‘Prince’ who identified as low-income reported feeling somewhat uncomfortable in the newsroom, compared to just 7.5 percent of those who did not identify as such.

60 percent of ‘Prince’ members report being somewhat likely to spend time with someone from the ‘Prince’ in a non-’Prince’ setting, almost a 6-point increase from last year’s results.

Section-specific leadership is perceived as more supportive than Upper Management, with 58.3 percent of respondents feeling “very supported” by their section leaders compared to 31.0 percent for upper management. Support is notably high in the Business team and Newsletter section (100 percent each), followed by Sports (76.9 percent) and Humor (72.4 percent). Additionally, the level of support for sharing opinions in meetings increases with tenure: only 32.6 percent of members with one semester on the ‘Prince’ feel “very supported,” while this figure rises to 61.1 percent for those with 3.5 or more years of experience in the newspaper. In contrast, when it comes to discussing mental health or asking to reduce responsibilities, the percentage of respondents who feel “very supported” remains steady (between 28.1 percent and 31.6 percent) regardless of tenure, although there is a 10 percentage point increase in those who feel “somewhat supported” over time.

More than two-thirds of the ‘Prince’ had a favorable view of the paper’s coverage of race and ethnicity, and 74 percent agreed that the coverage was “comprehensive and sensitive”. More than 70 percent of members had a similarly positive view on the ‘Prince’ coverage of LGBTQ+ representation and marginalized communities.

Responses to international student coverage were more lukewarm, with 29.8 percent being neutral and only 63 percent being positive.

Staff members had the most negative view on diverse political coverage, with 16 percent more or less disagreeing with the statement that “The ‘Prince’ covers issues related to diverse political affiliations overall comprehensively and sensitively.” Overall positive views on the ‘Prince’s coverage of disability and LGBTQ+ representation are more positive among members who have been a part of the ‘Prince’ for 3.5+ academic years.