Staff of this year’s survey feel like ways to give feedback are less accessible than staff of the previous year. 77% of staff from the inaugural DEIB Report found avenues for feedback “Somewhat accessible” or “Very accessible,” while only 75.5% of this year’s staff did. Important to note is that no staffer responded to the inaugural survey that they believed feedback avenues were “Very inaccessible,” but 0.9% of staff from this year’s survey did. More transparency and open ways to give feedback should be priorities of the 147th board.

Of students who identify as low income, 28.6% said that having a campus job has interfered with their ability to contribute to the ‘Prince,’ whereas just 6.9% of non-low income students said the same. 55.4% of low-income students hold campus jobs, whereas 38.5% of students who are not low income hold campus jobs. The expansion of the ‘Prince’s financial stipend program may enable more low-income students to commit more time to the paper through providing financial support.

72.3% of respondents said they feel either ‘Somewhat Included’ or ‘Very Included’ at the ‘Prince,’ an increase over last year’s 66.5%.

While the number who responded ‘Somewhat Excluded’ or ‘Very Excluded’ did not change, we saw a decrease in respondents taking a neutral stance and small increases in responses of ‘Somewhat Included’ or ‘Very Included.’

Black staffers were most likely to answer ‘Neutral,’ followed by ‘Very Included.’ White staffers were most likely to report feeling ‘Somewhat Included’ or ‘Very Included.’ The most common choice for Asian staffers, Multiracial staffers, and Hispanic or Latinx staffers was ‘Somewhat Included.’

At least 70% of most sexual orientations reported feeling ‘Somewhat’ or ‘Very Included’ at the ‘Prince,’ but just 57.2% of those who identify as Asexual said the same. Given that asexuality is frequently left out of queer spaces and dialogues (in addition to allosexual or non-queer ones), this result is potentially part of a larger societal pattern.

Notably, 60% of staffers who identify as Gay selected ‘Very Included,’ the highest among the sexualities represented.

75.7% of non-first-generation staffers said they feel ‘Somewhat’ or ‘Very Included’ at the ‘Prince,’ compared to 68.3% of first-generation staffers. Specifically, more first-generation respondents said they feel ‘Somewhat Excluded’ than non-first-generation respondents.

Similar to the first-generation results, low-income staffers reported lower feelings of inclusion than non-first-generation staffers.

First-generation and low income students often face obstacles to deepening their involvement in the ‘Prince’ community, such as time-consuming campus jobs, financial strain, and less experience with (or access to) journalism before college.

Staffers at the ‘Prince’ responded similarly to the organization as a whole, with slightly fewer responding ‘Very Included’ and slightly more responding ‘Neutral.’

Those with an Editor position (or other leadership position) were much more likely to report feeling included: 82% said they are ‘Somewhat’ or ‘Very Included.’ A near-identical percentage of editors and staffers said they feel excluded at the paper.

31.5% of those working 1-2 hours per week chose ‘Very Included,’ while 77.8% of those working ten or more hours per week — a group likely to contain section editors and members of Upper Management — said the same.

It is the belief of the DEIB Board that members of the ‘Prince’ should feel included in all positions, and this finding must therefore be an area of particular attention among efforts to promote inclusion at the ‘Prince.’

Inclusion generally increases with time spent at the ‘Prince.’ Staffers with one academic year of experience felt far more included — 76.9% said they were either ‘Somewhat’ or ‘Very Included’ — than 45.5% staffers who had only been involved for a semester.

Almost 64% of respondents said that they were “Somewhat likely” or “Very likely” to spend time with a ‘Prince’ staff member in a non-‘Prince’ setting. Less than 5% reported that they were “Very unlikely” to do the same.

44.7% of staff reported feeling very supported to share their thoughts in ‘Prince’ meetings, while 27.4% reported feeling somewhat supported. 88.8% of staff reported feeling either somewhat or very supported by their section-specific leadership. And feelings of being supported seem to increase over time, with slight fluctuation. For instance, only 66.7% of staff who just joined reported feeling very supported by their section-specific leadership, while 80.8% of staff who’ve been involved with the ‘Prince’ for at least 3 years said the same.

5.2% of staff reported feeling somewhat or very unsupported to speak about their mental health and lower their responsibilities at the ‘Prince.’ While low, the ‘Prince’ should strive for this number to be 0. Princeton faced tremendous loss in 2022 due to mental health, and as one of the largest student organizations, the ‘Prince’ should strive everyday to prioritize the needs of its staff above what they are able to produce.

About two-thirds of respondents somewhat or strongly agree that the ‘Prince’ covers marginalized identities sensitively and comprehensively. Whereas about a quarter of staffers are neutral on the statement. Staff have the least favorable views of our international student coverage (less than half somewhat or strongly agree that the ‘Prince’ covers this area comprehensively, while 12% somewhat or strongly disagree) and our coverage of Princeton’s first-generation and/or low income community (about 10% somewhat or strongly disagree that the ‘Prince’ covers this community comprehensively).

In contrast, staff have the most favorable views on the ‘Prince’ coverage of LGBTQ+ identities: 77% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that coverage of these identities is sensitive and comprehensive. No respondent strongly disagreed with this statement. This survey was sent to staff five months after the publication of the ‘Prince’ queerness special issue, so there may be a correlation between devoted projects like these and staff reception. The ‘Prince’ should build on the strategies implemented in the development of special issues and disperse them throughout the year to ensure dedicated and holistic coverage.