Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

CPUC continues to discuss private prison divestment, renaming of campus spaces

Divestment from private prisons was again a main topic at the Council of the Princeton University Community meeting on Monday. University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 said at the meeting that the Trustees had envisioned that discussions about divestment may take multiple years, and regard this as a virtue of the process.

At the final CPUC meeting of this academic year, University architect Ronald McCoy GS ’80 discussed the University’s Campus Plan for architecture and expansion, the Naming Committee gave updates on their work, and the Resources Committee discussed divestment from private prisons.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mechanical and aerospace engineering professor Michael Littman spoke about the standards for divestment adopted by University Trustees in 1997, in a follow-up to the CPUC meeting where Princeton Private Prison Divest held a walk-out of the CPUC meeting.

Littman explained that the guidelines maintain that divestment requires “considerable, thoughtful, and sustained interest on campus” and “consensus on how the University should respond to the situation,” while taking into account “the magnitude, scope, and representativeness of the expressions of campus opinion.” He further explained that the guidelines also require that the investment contradicts core University values, and state that divestment implies dissociation. A proposal by PPPD called for divestment from 11 companies associated with private prisons.

According to Littman, the CPUC Resources Committee met with the proposers in March 2016, November 2016, December 2016, and March 2017. The Committee decided in a March 10 meeting that “the current proposal did not meet the high bar to recommend action,” Littman said. At the March 27 CPUC meeting, the Committee gave an interim update, during which PPPD held a walkout.

In a new development since the last CPUC meeting, the Committee met with African American studies professor Naomi Murakawa on April 17 to discuss divestment.

“[The meeting with Murakawa] encouraged us to go further in the area of fact finding,” and the issue of private prisons in general, Littman said, adding that the issue remains under active consideration by the Committee.

“Fact-finding, review, and deliberation will continue next year,” he said. “A final report for feedback to PPPD, which they had requested, will come later this month.”

ADVERTISEMENT

In a heated question and answer period lasting about a half hour with the chair of the Resources Committee, students sought more detail about the divestment process. One student asked Littman to clarify what the fact-finding process refers to.

“There’s plenty of examples,” Littman said. “I’ll give you one off the top of my head, which is the proposal has to do with private prisons and organizations that support private prisons, it doesn’t have to do with employers of private prisons and legislators.”

Littman added that the Committee would meet with experts to gain a broader understanding of the issue.

“One example is the issue of campus consensus,” Littman said, citing the ‘Prince’ editorial arguing against divestment. He added that the distinction between private and public prisons must be considered.

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

Another audience member asked what an appropriate method of demonstrating student consensus would be, noting that the ‘Prince’ Editorial Board consists of far fewer students than the number that voted in favor of divestment in a 2016 USG referendum.

Littman responded that consensus should include alumni input.

“The Resources Committee also involves alumni,” he said. “This involves the endowment, which alumni contribute to very generously.” Littman asked if that clarified the student’s concern, and she responded it did not.

“I don’t know what constitutes consensus [among undergraduates],” Littman then said.

He noted that the USG referendum received about 30 percent participation, while a formal resolution requires one-third of the student body to support the change.

Another audience member asked if Littman had faith in the Committee’s ability to reach a resolution if it continues its current decision-making process. Littman responded in the affirmative, adding that the examination has caused him to rethink the process of divestment, and made him better informed on the issue.

“The Committee meets rarely and it meets for an hour and a half behind closed doors,” the audience member said. “What ends up happening is you have PPPD on one hand saying this is what happened, this is what we provided, and then on the other hand you have the Resources Committee defending itself, saying ‘no,’ we’re very reasonable.”

Littman added that the Committee is neutral on the issue, with no advocates for either side serving as members. One Committee member suggested that the Committee should have a comment period in the future when issues are brought to its attention.

“The referendum need not be a be-all and end-all discussion,” Eisgruber noted in response to an audience member’s concern about students being deterred from voting in the referendum.

Littman added that since divestment implies dissociation, divesting might prevent Students for Prison Education And Reform from volunteering at private prisons such as through the Petey Greene Program. However, Eisgruber stated that he does not believe dissociation would preclude students from volunteering at private prisons because such volunteer work would not entail supporting the organizations.

The CPUC meeting also highlighted recent administrative changes such as the naming of campus spaces. Chair of the CPUC Naming Committee, history professor Angela Creager, began the meeting with a report on the committee’s work over the past year, highlighting the renaming of two buildings on campus.

After receiving proposals from over 210 individuals and meeting three times, the Committee renamed West College after University Professor Emerita Toni Morrison and Dodds Auditorium of the Wilson School after former University Professor Sir Arthur Lewis.

“We wanted to focus on individuals with an eminent connection to the University and who would diversify the range of eminent individuals recognized on campus,” Creager said.

Creager added that the Committee sought to recognize figures whose contributions to the University had generally come to a close and who weren’t in the midst of building a career.

“We also considered if the figure’s name and accomplishments were suited to the spaces being considered,” Creager added. She said that the committee will continue to welcome opportunities to name other buildings in the next few years.

McCoy also presented the proposed 2026 Campus Plan. McCoy said that the proposal for campus expansion is still in its planning stages and is taking place under long-term considerations. He explained that there is an intermediate horizon of 10 years and longer-term horizon of 30 or more years.

“We want to make sure we don’t realize later we have a better use for the land we pick,” McCoy he added. He McCoy also stressed that the Campus Plan is intended to serve the University’s larger strategic framework, and has required input from many components of the campus community and the communities surrounding the University.

“Throughout all of these phases we’ve had a variety of touchpoints,” McCoy said, explaining that this included the undergraduate and graduate student body, all academic departments, the town of Princeton and neighboring towns, and local and state agencies.

The process included an online survey with over 1,900 total responses targeting each of these groups.

The survey found, among other conclusions, that the most popular places on campus for social activity and serendipity are Frist Campus Center, Dillon Gym, Prospect House, Firestone Library, Small World Coffee, the Engineering Quad, and the Carl Icahn Laboratory.

“The results also reinforced the sense of how important the lake is,” McCoy said. He identified land south of Lake Carnegie and north of Tiger Lane as an area with capacity for graduate housing expansion and potentially other buildings such as athletic facilities.

McCoy also detailed plans for a new residential college, potentially located south of Poe Field and east of Elm Drive.

“We have tested the site against the criteria that makes the residential experience so valuable,” McCoy said, mentioning building height, courtyards, vistas, views, and pathways as some of the architectural features that make the residential colleges unique.

Finally, McCoy identified an area between Prospect Street and Ivy Lane, adjacent to Washington Road, as a usable land for buildings in the School of Engineering and Applied Science and for Environmental Studies.

“We want to promote a bicycling and walking culture on campus,” McCoy added, stressing the plan’s focus on connectivity.

McCoy and his team, who are nearing the end of a three-year research and analysis process, will begin compiling their campus plan this month and continue into the fall of 2017.

The Council of the Princeton University Community meeting was held on May 1 at 4:30 p.m. in Friend Center 101.