Reactions: What should USG candidates focus on?

Princeton’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) has announced the list of this year’s USG candidates. Our Opinion staff weigh in on what they would like to see from the candidates as they begin campaigning over the next two weeks.

USG Candidates, let’s be vocal advocates for trans students

By Lillian Paterson, Contributing Opinion Writer

One of USG’s seven committees is dedicated to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The committee’s goals include: instituting permanent positions for the committee in USG, providing additional support for students with disabilities, uplifting the concerns of students regarding sexual misconduct, and speaking in favor of the expansion of financial aid programs. It is great that USG is prioritizing these goals, but one essential equity concern needs more emphasis: advocating for the wellbeing of transgender students.

Earlier this academic year, the USG Senate heard from Aster Haviland, a facilitator from Princeton’s Gender Affinity Group, about the transgender student experience on campus. Haviland mentioned a 2022 survey in which only 9 percent of all students disagreed with the statement, “I feel like I belong to the Princeton campus community,” but 31 percent of transgender and non-binary students disagreed. To solve this problem, Haviland proposed additional education for individuals in leadership positions who are often in contact with students.

In the wake of frequent attacks on LGBTQ+ students, many of which have and will come from America’s next president, USG candidates must devote more resources to supporting transgender students in order to make Princeton a truly inclusive community. A good way to start this is by considering Haviland’s proposal, and using that education to take a more active role in speaking out about trans issues in order to create a campus community where all students feel like they belong.

Lillian Paterson is a first-year from Silver Spring, Md. She can be reached at lp3095[at]princeton.edu.

Help Students Travel Outside of the Orange Bubble

By Juan Fajardo, Contributing Opinion Writer

“Of the real world we are in the dark,” [1:51] is a line from the Triangle Club Frosh Week Show, which satirizes Princeton student’s lack of engagement with life outside of the “Orange Bubble.” In line with the Campus and Community Affairs Committee (CCAC) goal to “encourage students to leave the orange bubble,” USG could address this blindness to the world outside of campus by promoting and increasing subsidized travel to nearby cities like New York and Philadelphia.

For those who close their eyes and only see today’s lecture in McCosh and tomorrow’s job offer at McKinsey, independent exploration may be a subtle way to add variety to the grind. There’s already University and USG precedent for using subsidies to incentivize recreational activities on and off campus — think Tigers in Town and dining points. Also, there’s already a program that subsidizes transit passes for commuting faculty and Graduate students.

The USG could build on this existing infrastructure to design a recreational travel program for undergrads. Similarly to how the CCA currently offers $5 vouchers for the University Farmers market on a rotating basis, a set amount of NJ Transit tickets could be made available for students to use. This would hopefully at least cover the round-trip cost of the Dinky, the last point of contact to the Orange Bubble.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

While it is a privilege to have four years of prox access to East Pyne, a world exists beyond Princeton. Amid growing frustration with the Orange Bubble, the next CCAC chair will have to make an effort to bridge this gap. Subsidizing travel to the “real world” may be the way to do it.

Juan Fajardo is a first-year from Miami, Fla. He can be reached at jf0214[at]princeton.edu

USG Candidates: Champion endowment justice

By Alex Norbrook, Staff Writer

USG candidates must publicly support the referenda that demand the University move towards higher ethical investment standards. Princeton profits from oil and war. Beyond holding approximately $700 million in private fossil fuel companies as of 2022, Princeton also outright owns a private oil company called PetroTiger, earning approximately $40 million last year from the Texas-based firm from investment income and direct financial contributions. These corporations evade accountability and fuel the climate crisis that has made the wildfires and droughts currently plaguing New Jersey more common.

At the same time, a recent Princeton Israel Apartheid Divest (PIAD) report finds that Princeton has exposure to companies that profit off of Israel’s destruction of Gaza, although the extent of this exposure is unclear because Princeton refuses to disclose its specific investment holdings.

Two USG referenda were presented to the University launched today to address these alarming facts, calling on Princeton to divest and dissociate from dangerous fossil fuel companies and five weapons manufacturers with documented ties to human rights violations: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX (formerly Raytheon), and General Dynamics. All USG candidates must publicly support these referenda and call on the University to adopt stronger ethical and transparency standards for its investments. They must also lend their support to movements on campus calling for Princeton’s endowment to accord with its values.

Alex Norbrook (he/him) is a junior Opinion writer in the history department pursuing minors in Environmental Studies and Values and Public Life. He can be reached at alexnorbrook[at]princeton.edu.

USG candidates should support policies that combat the University’s pre-professional and competitive culture

By Shane McCauley, Contributing Opinion Writer

It’s commonly asserted that Princeton students are too focused on future job prospects rather than academic and extracurricular exploration. But this doesn’t have to be the case — non-professionalist exploration and professional success aren’t mutually exclusive.

The USG can help students balance these considerations through policies that promote low-stakes academic and extracurricular exploration. One evergreen proposal is expanding the pass/D/fail option. If students were allowed to take six or eight — rather than four — classes on a PDF basis, they would feel more encouraged to explore subjects they might not perform as well in because of lack of previous experience or knowledge.

Similarly, students may be dissuaded from joining competitive clubs with overly layered application processes if they lack familiarity with the club’s focus. While recent improvements have been made to the process of joining these kinds of clubs, USG candidates should call for further regulations to decrease selective clubs’ barriers to entry. For example, requiring more transparency about the application process to these clubs or calling on clubs to increase their membership could be a good start.

Even if these proposals prove difficult to implement, USG candidates should publicly support them to help highlight problems within campus culture.

Shane McCauley (he/him) is a first-year contributing Opinion writer intending to major in the social sciences. He can be reached at sm8000[at]princeton.edu.

Increase activities fees, but a lot more this time

By Raf Basas, Contributing Opinion Writer

USG revenue comes almost exclusively from the activities fee, a part of students’ University bill. n Spring 2023, USG increased this fee from $45.50 to $95.50 per semester.

However, as USG candidates consider ambitious proposals, they must consider the cost of funding these proposals. To increase USG revenue, I suggest a sharp increase in the activities fee, setting it at one percent of Princeton’s tuition, housing, and food costs. The University would shoulder most of the cost through financial aid.

This would lead to increases for students without financial aid, who would contribute $413.25 per semester based on this year’s attendance costs. Most of these students are from households making over $300,000 per year. Therefore, activities fees would comprise less than 0.3 percent of their household incomes.

Meanwhile, overall costs would remain the same for students on financial aid. The household contributions of students on aid are fixed to certain percentages of their household’s incomes and assets: therefore, even if the cost of attendance increases from raising the activities fee, their household contributions would not. Thus, the 71.5 percent of students on financial aid would see no changes in their Princeton bill.

Looking ahead, we can see the benefits of a well-funded student government: Stanford’s annual activities fee is $681, allowing its student government to provide free legal counseling for its students. This increased activities fee would create massive increases in USG revenue: around an additional $1,800,000 per semester. Doing so would allow the USG to finally fulfill more ambitious proposals to improve student life.

Raf Basas (he/him/his) is a first-year student from Elk Grove, Calif. intending to major in English/Politics/SPIA. He can be reached at rb4078[at]princeton.edu or @raf.basas on Instagram.

USG, it is time to call for changes to the RRR

By Jorge Reyes, Contributing Opinion Writer

Over the past year, the need for advocacy and support from the USG for the arrested Clio protesters has become clearer than ever. The newly announced USG candidates should publicly affirm their fellow students’ rights to peacefully protest the war in Gaza and call on the University to change Rights, Rules, Responsibilities (RRR) to reflect the specific policies on student protest.

The University frequently cites the RRR as justification for their disciplinary decisions. But the right of students to peacefully protest the war in Gaza has been infringed upon in various instances because of inconsistent applications of the University’s own “time, place, and manner” policies. For example, this fall, the University announced that the space in front of Nassau lawn would be off-limits to students hoping to assemble in an “organized” manner — a policy most certainly in response to last spring’s protests — just to reverse their decision not long after.

If USG candidates really hope to make permanent changes that protect the freedoms of the student body, they should call for the rules explained in the Princeton’s Protests and Free Expression website to be published in RRR. Making RRR clearer would prevent future University switch-ups on policy by concretely spelling out protest policy in Princeton’s most important rulebook. It is time for USG candidates to speak out in support of the rights of student protesters from what the administration can capriciously interpret as unreasonable violations of “time, place, [or] manner.”

Jorge Reyes is a first-year student intending to major in Chemistry and is from Louisville (Loo-uh-vul), Ky. He can be reached at jr7982[at]princeton.edu