Several of this year's young alumni trustee candidates are decrying a University decision that was made without their input to ban campaigning for the post, a departure from past practice.
Though alumni trustee candidates are not allowed to campaign for their positions, young alumni candidates have previously voted on whether to campaign or not. One candidate from the senior class is elected each year to serve a four-year term on the University Board of Trustees.
"It's been a long tradition here at Princeton that candidates for any trustee position do not campaign," Alumni Council Director Margaret Miller '80 said in an interview Tuesday. "The young alumni trustees tend to discuss [campaigning], but we really wanted to make sure that the practices are the same for all candidates."
Senior class president Christopher Lloyd, a candidate in the race, said that students played no role in establishing the election regulations. "The candidates have zero say in the rules of the trustee election. The Board of Trustees decides all of the election rules," Lloyd said in an email.
Three other candidates interviewed by The Daily Princetonian said that they were told in a meeting with Associate Alumni Council Director Adrienne Rubin '88 that campaigning was "disallowed." These candidates spoke on the condition of anonymity fearing, as one of them said, "repercussions" and possible "disqualification" for their comments.
Rubin did not respond to repeated phone calls and emails requesting comment.
"I think the no campaigning rule really hurts the voting public," Lloyd said. "It doesn't make sense that we let students campaign on why they are the best people to plan a study break or a formal but we don't let them campaign on why they are the best people to make decisions about University policy."
Another candidate criticized the ban in stronger terms, calling it "ridiculous."
"It seems quite clear to me that the University uses measures like this in order to ensure that the young alumni trustee is someone they can handle and make into a lame duck trustee," the candidate said in an email. "The current campaign ban supports the status quo by making the election into a matter of name recognition."
"The decision to campaign should not even be on the table. We, as a class, have the right to know who we're voting for, and previous policies to ban campaigning have been an embarrassment to this democratic process," the candidate added.
Other candidates, however, support the no campaigning policy.
Former USG vice president Shaun Callaghan '06 likened the election process to U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings, arguing that a trustee ideally should not have to enter trusteeship with an established agenda.
"Every prospective Trustee ought to be committed to ensuring Princeton remains preeminent among American Universities," he said in an email, adding, "but somehow I don't find it appropriate for someone to campaign saying, 'When I become Trustee I'll do A and B.' It seems contrary to the spirit of a position — one that ought to be above petty politicking."
Callaghan said he supports the ban despite the fact that it may give an advantage to candidates with greater "name recognition."
"The truth is, seniors ought to be voting for classmates who have made an impact on their student life at Princeton," he said. "You're voting for someone you trust will steer Princeton in the right direction; if a candidate hasn't done anything to that effect by senior year, on what basis can you place your trust in him or her?"
Matt Margolin '05, a former USG president who was elected a young alumni trustee last year, backed the Alumni Council's position on campaigning. "Seniors who run are told why alumni candidates cannot campaign, and after hearing that [explanation], are more likely to vote against campaigning," he said.
Margolin and Corey Sanders '04, who was a young alumni trustee candidate and is a former chair of the Interclub Council, confirmed that in their respective senior years, the candidates had voted on the issue of campaigning. Candidates in both years voted not to campaign with generally little dissent, Margolin and Sanders said.
Miller noted that due to the lack of a precedent, the Alumni Council does not have a set punishment for candidates who campaign. "Since there's never been campaigning before, it would be very unusual, but since it's never happened, there wouldn't be a punishment," Miller said.
Original URL: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/02/23/14580/