Before agreeing to take any action regarding the pledge, I believed that it was important to examine the referendum in the realm of textual and structural analysis. One of the first questions is: Must one sign the pledge to either campaign for USG office or serve in any particular capacity? Section I of the referendum explicitly states, “It is the official policy of the USG for its elected members to neither seek nor accept letters of recommendation from administrators before whom they should represent student interests.” Though Section I does claim that the concept is the “official policy of the USG,” there is nothing in the remainder of the referendum to mandate that USG members sign the pledge as part of their duties, nor are there any obvious penalties evident when the pledge is not signed. Though members of the USG are not obligated to sign the pledge according to this construction, there is nothing in its phrasing to indicate that USG members should take into account their agreement or disagreement with the purpose of the pledge when signing it. The pledge asks only for a statement: whether individuals intend to seek letters of recommendation.
Connor Diemand-Yauman ’10 has previously stated that in signing the pledge he would be “indirectly subscribing” to a view of the USG that he deems to be “patently false.” Whether this view of an inherent conflict of interest is accurate or not, it is irrelevant in considering signing the pledge. The student body, by a large majority, has endorsed a particular view of the USG’s relationship with the administration. Students’ say on the referendum and conception of the USG’s interests are final, as far as “official policy of the USG” is concerned. There is no power inherent in the representative arm of the student body, the USG, to doubt that policy. While opponents of the pledge within the USG might take every step to persuade the student body that conflicts of interest between the USG and administration are either negligible or nonexistent, that is an argument that cannot be made within the confines of their official capacity.
Though I may have doubts as to the wisdom of the policy chosen by the student body, I do not believe that my role allows me to doubt that policy as a member of the USG. My role only allows me to read the pledge and ask myself whether or not I intend to seek or accept the letters to which it refers. In my case, the answer was a resounding “No,” and therefore I signed the pledge. In no way to do I feel as if I’ve indirectly subscribed to any particular view except that of the student body, whose reasons I may certainly disagree with on a personal level. But my conception of the USG’s relationship with the administration cannot override the will of the students, and therefore I need not, and should not, look toward any policy considerations in choosing whether or not to sign the pledge. Likewise, no matter their personal feelings, members of the USG should accept the legitimacy of the majority’s will and look only to their personal situations when considering whether or not to sign the pledge. Any other method of reasoning would only serve to undermine the finality of the referendum process and elevate the USG above the student body.
The purpose of the USG is to represent the student body and its interests. Even if a majority of the USG’s members believe that the referendum acts against the interest of the student body, USG officers are in no position to insert their own policy preferences following its passage. While members of the USG have every right to make their opposition known in the channels of political expression on campus, the pledge itself does not require that one agree with its assumptions or reasoning. We cannot afford to abandon the principles of democracy and accountability to forward a policy choice in which people of equal good will may reasonably disagree. To do so would be an affront to our student body and is an unacceptable display of legislative power over the will of the people.
Steven J. Lindsay is a U-Councilor. He can be reached at sjlindsa@princeton.edu
counterpoint columnRead 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.
