Senate tables amendment

The USG Senate voted Sunday to postpone discussion on a nondiscrimination amendment to its constitution, after Senate members raised concerns over the amendment's breadth and implications.

USG officers will meet with the amendment's sponsors over the next few days to discuss modifications to the amendment, which will be reintroduced at a later Senate meeting.

The amendment as it stands would add a nondiscrimination clause to the USG constitution that would prohibit the USG from funding or recognizing any group that discriminates in its membership on the basis of several factors. Those factors encompass the criteria listed in "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities," and extend also to gender identity and expression, marital status, national origin, parental status and physical appearance.

The amendment would also prohibit discriminatory groups from participating in any USG-sponsored recruiting event.

"We need this amendment because the USG is representative of the Princeton student body and the principles we believe in," said Robert Kennelley '06, a Pride Alliance officer, who presented the amendment to the Senate. "This would go a long way towards recognizing what is a very severe problem on campus."

The 90-minute meeting, which attracted about a dozen non-USG members, became heated at times, with participants questioning the wisdom of some of the amendment's provisions.

"Section A [the nondiscrimination clause] fundamentally undermines our freedom of association with people like us," Class of 2006 Senator Karis Gong said. "This is a fundamental matter of free speech and association. If this passes, it will change the kind of students who come here."

Several voting members also brought up the amendment's possible implications for campus religious groups. U-Councilor John Brunger '05 argued that these groups already restrict membership to those who "subscribe to certain beliefs." This well-established policy, he said, would conflict with the amendment if it were passed.

Beyond questions over the nondiscrimination clause itself, much of the disagreement revolved over Section D of the amendment, which would prohibit organizations that discriminate — including ROTC — from recruiting in USG-sponsored events such as the activities fair.

During discussions, ROTC member George Schwartz '07 said such a move would be a "slap in the face of those already in the battalion, or who want to be in the battalion . . . It's a knife in the back for those who want to serve and to protect."

As it became clear that a majority of the Senate members opposed the amendment as originally proposed, discussion turned to changes that would make the document more amenable to the voters.

"By 45 minutes into the discussion, there were too many crossings-out for me to feel comfortable approving it," USG President Leslie-Bernard Joseph '06 said in an interview following the meeting. "An amendment to the constitution should not look like a writing seminar draft. We're going to have to work on it."

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

Kennelly said he is "completely open" to modifying the amendment, as long as a version gets passed.

"Please leave this room not thinking, 'I disagree with this amendment' — but rather, 'What can I do to change the amendment to make it work?' " Kennelly told the Senate at the meeting.

The current nondiscrimination amendment grew out of a student effort led by Mark Salzman '07, a former 'Prince' editorial board member, to address on-campus discrimination, specifically by ROTC.

Over this weekend, Salzman decided to withdraw a petition signed by about 250 students that would have called for a referendum of the student body. The referendum, which would have been held concurrently with next week's USG elections, addressed amending the USG constitution to include a nondiscrimination clause that would explicitly urge the University to dissociate from ROTC.

Salzman also decided to withdraw a similar resolution against ROTC's presence on campus, in favor of the general nondiscrimination amendment, which makes no mention of ROTC.

After the meeting, Salzman said he was "surprised" at the opposition.

"I have trouble understanding how people can be so vehemently opposed to an antidiscrimination amendment," he said. "More discussion is certainly called for. I look forward to bringing a bill that satisfies everyone. I fully expect that an amendment with the same spirit will be passed, eventually."