Politicizing the University

Since USG elections went live yesterday morning, I’ve had a tab open to Helios on my Internet browser, reminding me to vote. It’s not that I’m afraid I’ll forget — I have faithfully voted in every election available to me, as a citizen of the United States, a student of Princeton University and a threadless.com T-shirt enthusiast. The reason that I need to be reminded to vote is that this election contains a referendum I wish I didn’t have to vote for, and I still don’t know how I’m going to vote.

The USG constitution does not say anything general about the content of a referendum, only how referenda are proposed and passed. This lack of guidelines has led to a whole host of referenda, some specific to Princeton’s campus, like referenda regarding the Honor Code, and others that take a much wider scope like a 2005 referendum in support of same-sex marriage. These broader referenda seemingly have a basis in the first clause of the “Purposes” section of Article I of the USG constitution, which states the USG should “serve as the representative of the undergraduates of Princeton University to the Faculty, Administration, and Trustees of the University.” Such referenda, however, require that said representation be an expressly political one.

The Princeton Equality Project, with support from Princeton ACLU and Pride Alliance, has sponsored a referendum in support of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Firstly, I support these organizations in their mission on campus and, full disclosure, am a card-carrying member of the parent organization of the Princeton ACLU. Secondly, in light of Andrew Blumenfeld’s impassioned column (We need more LGBT activism) I want to take this opportunity to express my complete support of ENDA. With the issue of marriage often held up as the ultimate goal of LGBT activism, it is sometimes easy to forget the issues that affect queer people on a daily basis, and ENDA rightfully brings the issue of discriminatory hiring and firing practices to the forefront.

And yet I am torn about how I’m going to vote on this amendment. My main issue is that I do not think it should be the role of the USG to take an opinion about a national political debate. The text of the referendum says that the USG will make a formal request to the Board of Trustees to officially endorse ENDA. This is made under the pretense of “preparing the next generation of leaders in the workforce,” but the fact is that this referendum requests the University to take a political stance.

The main problem I have with this and other similar referendums is the implicitly added political content to the referendum outside the actual text. For example, during the hummus debate, I felt like my vote on whether or not an alternative to Sabra hummus should be offered at University stores was going to be mapped, one-to-one, on my support of Palestine or Israel, respectively. Instead of deciding whether or not, literally, a non-Sabra hummus should be available, I was forced to weigh in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don’t think the USG has any reason or right to know what my position on the Middle East or gay rights is, and that is implicitly what I provide them by voting for these referenda.

Ballard Metcalfe’s column in favor of the referendum in today’s paper says, “This complacency with the status quo on such a pertinent topic must be considered a quiet endorsement of it.” This is false and unfair to all those who believe that this is not the role of universities, and whose reservations for Princeton publicly supporting ENDA are borne not of homophobia but of deeply rooted notions about the nature of a university. Though I personally believe ENDA is a very simple issue that should be non-political, many people strongly disagree, making this a political question. Thus, if the University were to weigh in, it would ostensibly make a political statement. Universities should be as politically neutral as possible in their mission to provide a comprehensive eduction that gives students tools to answer political and other questions, not answer these questions for them. Furthermore, the University itself should not exist as a lobbyist group for the employment prospects of Princeton alumni, which is in effect what this referendum is proposing.

Before the polls close tomorrow, I will have to choose between my qualms about the politicization of the University and my support of LGBT rights. I believe ENDA and a whole host of other issues need more attention and support, but the USG should not be in the business of deciding what the politics of the campus community are and then requesting, based on that analysis, that the University take an explicitly political action. In the end, there are many avenues, both on this campus and in general, to promote a political campaign, and I wish people stopped trying to go about this through the University itself by means of a USG referendum.

Luke Massa is a sophomore from Ridley Park, Pa. He can be reached at lmassa@princeton.edu.