The USG and real world politics: Not so well isolated

Recently, there has been fervent discussion of the possibility of the USG taking political or partisan stands. Understandably, some have voiced concern over this prospect. For example, in an "open letter" last week in the Tory, that publication's Editor-in-Chief and some USG members suggested that no mandate exists for such "partisan" stands and that engaging political issues would distract the USG from its fundamental mission of improving student life "on campus." I share the concern that at present no mandate exists for the USG to speak for students on political issues. However, contrary to the expressed views of the Tory, I also think the nature of certain political issues — for example, affirmative action —necessitates the development of a process whereby students can express and advance their interests in an organized and thoughtful way, i.e. through student government deliberations.

There is no question in my mind that a vote today of USG representatives on the issue of affirmative action, if it were to reflect the true sentiments of the student body, would do so only by coincidence. (Contrary to the implicit fears conveyed in the Tory, I think that the USG has a disproportionate number of conservatives).

The student body elected us without any knowledge of where we stand on certain divisive political issues, because such issues are traditionally not thought to be within the scope of the USG. We were not entrusted with the responsibility of speaking for the students on political issues — at least, not knowingly — and therefore chances are that our vote simply would be unrepresentative. For this reason, I believe it would be inappropriate for the present USG to vote on any political issue.

While it seems inappropriate for the USG to take such political stands today, this would have been a foreign idea to the ratifiers of the USG Constitution in 1995. The first line of this document asserts, "The Undergraduate Student Government is dedicated to the proposition that students must be included in the making of decisions that affect them." Further down, in Article I, Section C, it states that the purpose of the USG shall be (among other things): (1) "to represent the undergraduates of Princeton University to persons or groups outside of the University whenever such representation is called for"; (2) "to exercise leadership in all activities affecting the life of the undergraduates of Princeton University"; and, (3) "to discuss, deliberate, and vote on any question relating to or affecting undergraduate life at Princeton University, or any other question of interest to the undergraduates." The unmistakably clear intent of this document was to set up the USG as the voice of the students on all issues affecting them. To suggest that certain political issues today, such as affirmative action, do not affect us is a troubling assertion.

Although the Tory staff as well as others would have you believe that life at Princeton is unaffected by policy decisions beyond our walls, I submit to you that this is simply false. If the Supreme Court overturns the principles of Bakke in its upcoming decision on the admissions policies of the University of Michigan, it will have a profound affect on our own admissions policies and the subsequent makeup of Princeton classes. The fact that we are a private institution does not mean that we won't be affected by this — we get huge grants from the federal government every year and presumably these grants come with certain conditions. It makes no sense to me that we should be voiceless on such vitally important issues that will affect life on campus simply because they are political. All of our Ivy League peers have processes that allow them to take stances on political issues, in part, because they recognize that life on campus is not completely divorced from life beyond the ivory tower, and as a result most of the other Ivy League student governments have already taken stands on affirmative action. At Princeton, the student body and specifically the USG need to adapt to the reality that the walls of the Princeton bubble are highly porous.

So, what do we do now? My suggestion for the time-being in light of the problem of not having a mandate was to have a referendum on the issue. In the future, however, we should expect that the USG will engage political issues, but only those that directly affect the life of students on our campus. Developing criteria for discerning which political issues we should engage is the next step — this will be difficult, as there is no hard and fast distinction that immediately presents itself. In the process of tackling political issues, the USG must never lose its focus on campus issues, for that is what makes our student government more effective and relevant than those at our peer institutions.

Josh Anderson is a Wilson School major from Chicago, Ill.