High student apathy in admission policy referendum

The upcoming Supreme Court decision over the University of Michigan's admission policy — one that is dividing the Presidential cabinet, rousing zealous political debates and questioning the principles on which our society is grounded — was recently the subject of an undergraduate-wide USG referendum. And yet at Princeton, a University praised for the very vitality and diversity of its opinions, all that the student body could muster for this issue was a 45 percent voter turnout. To call it weak would be appropriate, but frankly it's simply disappointing. The decision of whether or not to uphold the Regents of University of California vs. Bakke will effect not only collegiate admissions for the future, but the social implications of the decision will be felt for generations to come: Yet paradoxically 55 percent of Princeton's student body have chosen indifference over action, even though a response required minimal effort. I have heard the phrase "high voter turnout" used to describe this recent referendum, but while this may be a fantastic voter turnout for a United States presidential election, for a Princeton University referendum it simply isn't good enough.

In a presidential election the act of physically going to a voting booth deters many constituents from making it to the polls, yet here at Princeton, all we had to do was click on an Internet link; the whole process took no more than 10 seconds. The student voter turnout out should have been teetering on 100 percent, not wallowing below 50. There is simply no excuse for this kind of apathy. I can accept arguments that papers supercede attending lectures and midterms take precedence over crafting editorials, but the fact that voting for the referendum involved no more energy than flicking your finger silences any justifiable excuse. We were given the chance to be the voice of the university, one not muffled by administrators, and the student body essentially chose to pass. In Monday's 'Prince,' USG President Pettus Randall said, "We were thrilled to give this voice to the student body." Sadly however 55% chose to remain mute. Is this really the image that we as a student body should be sending to the IVY Council, one of apathy and disinterest?

Yet this referendum is not the only example of collegiate apathy that has been filtering amidst New Jersey's finest. The visible student interest over the war in Iraq has ranged from meager to nonexistent. One big demonstration was held on Nassau Street and a couple of smaller efforts were staged in front of Frist, but nothing of the magnitude that should be expected from one of the most revered intellectual communities in the world.

In September 2002, the Council of the Princeton University Community addressed this growing problem by writing a letter to President Tilghman. "There seems to be widespread belief that intellectual life in the classroom and in the dorms, colleges, and clubs is not what is should be," they wrote. While I don't entirely agree with notion of "anti-intellectualism" — a phrase that has been adopted in the past to characterize the student body — I must admit to being somewhat disappointed by our indifference to the outside world. Have we really created our own little campus universe, a Princeton bubble so insular we can't see out of it?

We are living in tumultuous and confusing times. Let us not recede within our ivy walls and immerse ourselves in our daily routines, but let us rise to the challenge that has, whether we welcome it or not, permeated the quiet safety of our dormitories. Vote; Protest; let us shake off the fetters of apathy that seem to grip our campus. How can we travel the world espousing the principles of democracy when we take so many of its innate rights for granted?

Chris Berger is a freshman from London.