Editorial: This week's referenda

The ENDA referendum asks the the trustees to endorse the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This act would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Board believes that ENDA has no direct impact on the University’s operations, and the University has no any special expertise to offer in this situation; therefore, the trustees should not take an official position. The trustees represent the entire Princeton community, including students, faculty and alumni. This diverse group holds a wide variety of opinions and beliefs, and any policy endorsement will prove unpopular among some members of the Princeton community. When the University has no strong interest in an issue or special expertise to offer, it should avoid dividing the community by taking an official position.

However, the University should take a position when it has a compelling interest in an issue of public policy. For example, the University publicly supports affirmative action because legislation and judicial decisions in this area directly affect the University’s mission. But the University already has a private policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and any change in the law would have no direct effect on the University. This editorial is not a statement of opposition to the legislation, and we encourage students who support ENDA to organize and campaign for its passage. A statement from the board, however, is not an appropriate tool for such political advocacy. The University is not a platform for political statements.

The Editorial Board endorses the proposed changes to the Honor Code. Currently, all class presidents serve on the Honor Committee. This referendum would replace the freshman class president with a freshman appointee selected by four members of the Honor Committee and the USG president. As Dan May ’11 explained in his column supporting the referendum, voters in the freshman class election have minimal knowledge of both the candidates and the Honor Committee, making it difficult to cast a well-reasoned vote. Honor Committee chair Alex Rosen ’11 and Honor Committee clerk Pauline Nguyen '12 voiced the argument that class presidents are easily approachable figures for students who have concerns or questions about the committee. While this argument has some merit, the freshman class president would still be able to forward questions and comments to members of the committee, and students can still contact their freshman representative directly.

The Editorial Board previously called for an end to the policy of giving class president seats on the Honor Committee ex officio, and we continue to believe that the skills required to be a class officer are wholly distinct from those required to sit on the committee. Even if this reform does not solve the problem entirely, it does represent a step in the right direction and should be adopted.