The problem with the current referendum is that it is too vague to serve as an effective guide for the USG. For example, the referendum states that the rule should be incorporated into official policy. This is problematic, as the USG does not have any “official policy” documents outside of its constitution. To rectify this, the referendum could be reworded as a constitutional amendment that conditions the right to run on signing the pledge. The other issue with the referendum is that it can be interpreted as prohibiting USG members from seeking recommendations from all individuals with whom they consulted pursuant to their official duties. While we do not believe this is the intention behind the policy, the vagueness of the clause in question leaves it open to abuse and has made some reluctant to sign on. The new version should be more explicit in barring recommendations solely from University administrators, not all people involved in USG work.
With some basic reworking, this amendment represents a very important step towards increasing transparency and trust in the USG. Many USG members might reasonably feel less willing to voice dissent on various issues if they are hoping for a recommendation from an administrator.
One additional problem that current USG members cite with the referendum is that it seems unfair to be barred from seeking recommendations from administrators despite the amount of time and dedication it takes to be a member of the USG. Ultimately, this concern is not very compelling. Most students devote a large amount of their time to extracurricular activities — be it a sports team, a club, the newspaper or an eating club. Yet the majority of these student organizations don’t regularly interact with professors or University administrators. Students make time for these activities in spite of the fact that they will not get a recommendation.
A clearly worded amendment is a low-cost and simple way to maintain the integrity of the USG’s relationship with the administration, and the student body should reiterate its overwhelming support of such a rule.
Dissent
USG members devote large amounts of time to their duties and actively work toward making the Princeton experience better for all students. Administrators are often the only people who are capable of speaking to these students’ leadership skills, dedication and accomplishments. The proposed amendment effectively denies USG members the chance to highlight the skills they brought to their roles to prospective employers and graduate schools. For this reason, we disagree that this amendment should be passed as a binding referendum.
The majority’s argument that there is a conflict of interest inherent in representing students while receiving recommendations from administrators is unconvincing. University administrators understand that the USG’s first priority is to promote the will of the student body, and there will inevitably be some differences of opinion between students and the administration. If a USG member fights for the students’ interests in a professional way, it is highly unlikely that administrators would be petty enough to refuse to write a good letter of recommendation for that student. Banning recommendations will not affect the USG’s performance or prevent USG members from representing students.
Since the supposed conflict of interest is not a serious concern, there is no reason to prevent USG members from seeking recommendations just as other students who work with administrators do. A student working with the Pace Center could ask for a recommendation from an administrator there, just as an RCA could receive one from a residential college dean. Creating a double standard for USG members is unfair.
— Joshua Abbuhl ’10, Matthew Butler ’12, Justin Cahill ’11, Jessica Lanney ’10, Shivani Radhakrishnan ’11, Jonathan Sarnoff ’12
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
