Counterpoint: Should USG officials sign the pledge?

I have been a USG senator for the Class of 2010 for two years, and I decided not to sign the pledge saying I won’t ask for recommendations from administrators. You might think that this is because I’m in the hunt for a killer letter that will catapult me to success after college, so to clear the air, I will tell you that I already have a job (for which I did not receive a letter of recommendation from an administrator). The main reason I refuse to sign the pledge is because at best it reflects a total misunderstanding of how the USG operates, and at worst it posits that both elected student leaders and the administrators trusted with leading Princeton are extremely duplicitous and lack integrity.

There are technical issues with the referendum’s text (so long as it is not part of the USG Constitution, it has no enforceable value; it doesn’t stipulate how to handle demurs and refusals, etc.), but let’s leave those aside. I have two fundamental objections to the pledge: the first is to the reasoning behind it, and the second is to the consequences it will have on future USG administrations.

The idea that USG members have a conflict of interest when working with administrators is absurd. The apparent worry is that USG members will be complacent and misrepresent or even subvert student interests in ways that please administrators so as to secure positive recommendations. This concern is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between the administration and the USG: In reality, the USG has no power to determine administration policy. USG input only has an effect to the extent that policymakers respect and value it. The USG is most effective not when the USG members antagonize the administration, but when they work with the administration constructively, building good relationships of mutual trust and respect. Without such relationships, the USG is impotent.

Underlying the referendum’s reasoning is a misguided, perverse and pathetic judgment not only of USG members but also of administrators. Do you really think that the people who have been tasked with running this University would use recommendations as a tool to secure student approval? Or that they couldn’t distinguish between those worthy of a recommendation and those who are sucking up? If this is the case, we have infinitely greater problems than the ones outlined in the referendum. Fortunately there is no evidence that this is the case. To my knowledge, there has not been a single instance of a conflict of interest brought to the USG’s attention. If you know of one, please let us know so we can investigate.

Also, what makes the USG different from other organizations in which students and administrators work together closely? By the referendum’s argument, everything from the Honor Committee to the Priorities Committee, from the ACC to the Campus Club Advisory Board, should adopt similar rules, which to me seems fairly ridiculous. And what makes Princeton different from all of our peer institutions, none of which have taken similar action? Is it because our USG is structured differently or is it because our students, stricken as they are by grade deflation, have seized an opportunity to take away a perceived competitive advantage that USG members have? I would hope it’s not the latter.

If the referendum gains traction, it will create an insidious atmosphere in which candidates are forced to sign to prove the purity of their intentions. This won’t affect most USG members — admittedly, many never do anything that would deserve a recommendation. But some do. The ones that will actually be disadvantaged by the referendum are the students that are really deserving of administrator recommendations. For someone like Connor Diemand-Yauman ’10 — who spends pretty much all of his free time working on USG issues — the referendum would leave him with no one to speak to his strengths and work outside of class.

I would be happy to sign a pledge saying, “I promise to represent the student interests to the best of my ability in all cases and not to kiss ass for recommendations.” But I will not sign a referendum that so grossly misunderstands the role the USG plays in policy-making. I will not sign a pledge that will compel future USG members to disadvantage themselves to prove their intentions. And I will not sign a pledge that implies that USG members and administrators cannot set aside their personal ambitions when they work together. Having worked with people dedicated to improving this University, I know better.

Cole Morris is a Class of 2010 senator. He can be reached at ckmorris@princeton.edu