Editorial: The case for YAT campaigning

The editorial board’s criticism of the Young Alumni Trustee (YAT) elections process has become an annual tradition, and this year is no different. Under the current system, candidates for YAT may not campaign or accept others’ campaigning on their behalf. This prohibition impedes students’ abilities to make informed decisions about who would best serve as YAT, and it should be eliminated.

YAT candidates should be selected based on their competence and their ideas for how to improve the University. Without campaigning, voters have no idea how their interests will be represented and are forced to rely on other criteria — like visibility and name recognition — when voting. Certain students, notably USG members, have traditionally performed well in the election because they have greater visibility, despite the fact that a number of other candidates could be just as effective trustees.

There is a fear that campaigning would encourage YAT candidates to appeal to specific constituencies without considering what is in the best interest of the University as a whole. We find this argument unconvincing. The Board of Trustees makes decisions about long-range financial planning, new capital investments and other decisions with broad implications to the University. These are not the sorts of issues that lend themselves to hollow campaign promises. And because YATs are elected for a single term, they are not beholden to their electorate, making them free to reevaluate their positions once in office.

While we believe that YAT campaigning should have as few restrictions as possible, even an elections process with limited campaigning would be a vast improvement over the current one. A good first step would be to organize panel discussions in which candidates could discuss why they are running, what relevant experience they have and their long-term vision for the University. That said, we see nothing wrong with candidates taking positions on specific issues. After four years at the University, YAT candidates are likely to have strong, informed views on how to improve the Princeton experience, and it is entirely appropriate for them to express these views to voters.

Previous YAT candidates have noted that if campaigning were made a part of the YAT elections process, students less committed to the position would be deterred from running. This is a good thing. Candidates should be willing to put in the necessary time and effort in order to demonstrate their commitment. Given the current low barrier to entry, students not fully committed to the position may enter the race on a whim.

We encourage the University to allow campaigning in the next YAT election so that voters can make a well-informed decision as to who will best represent their interests.