Focusing on faculty recruitment

Once we've characterized the controversy over gay marriage as an issue facing "the American public," there seems to be a prima facie case against USG involvement in the debate. Most of us think it would be inappropriate for the USG to take an official position on the war in Iraq, taxes, universal health care or free trade. So why should we be pleased to have the USG express any sort of view on same-sex marriage?

Many of us find it helpful to distinguish between issues that affect students as residents of the state and issues that affect students as members of a university community. Our intuition is that the USG should involve itself only in those cases in which the university as such has a special stake, over and above the stake that all citizens share in maintaining a just society. So unless the issue pertains to the quality of campus life or to the regulation and financing of higher education, we assume that political activism is outside the scope of USG jurisdiction.

This principle appears to preclude USG support for the Princeton Justice Project's amicus brief in Lewis v. Harris, the gay marriage case before the New Jersey Supreme Court. The outcome of that case surely has consequences for gay Princeton students — but not, apparently, in virtue of the fact that they are Princeton students. The implications of the case are the same for all New Jersey residents, regardless of their relationship to the University community. In this respect, it seems plausible to categorize same-sex marriage as a "public" — as opposed to a strictly "campus" — issue.

But in practice, our definition of what counts as a "campus" issue is bound to be much more elastic. When individuals decide to join the University community, they agree to subject themselves to the laws of the State of New Jersey. This means that state laws — including the legal definition of marriage — will inevitably play some role in determining who feels comfortable coming to Princeton. Insofar as state laws may impede our recruiting efforts, they affect not only individual Princeton students but the functioning of the University as such.

Tom Bohnett, PJP president and a 'Prince' columnist, argues in this vein that if the court upholds New Jersey's current definition of marriage, "there is a very real chance that Princeton University will no longer be a top choice of talented LGBT students." This claim may overstate the case. After all, the vast majority of undergrads don't intend to marry while living on campus. And so we might be skeptical of the suggestion that New Jersey's marriage laws will deter gay high school seniors from choosing Princeton for their undergraduate education.

It can hardly be disputed, though, that we are now at a severe competitive disadvantage in recruiting gay faculty and graduate students, who have the option of going to schools located in states (like Massachusetts) where they can legally marry. By the same token, if and when New Jersey stops discriminating against same-sex couples, Princeton will become that much more appealing to topnotch gay scholars and researchers.

It goes without saying that the quality of Princeton's undergraduate education depends above all on the talent of the professors and preceptors we attract. If we lose even one professor to Harvard because he or she can't get married in New Jersey, same-sex marriage instantly becomes a "campus" issue. If we miss out on a chance to learn from brilliant instructors who prefer to live and work in gay-marriage-friendly Cambridge, we have been adversely affected not just as citizens at large but as students at Princeton.

When the USG acts to ensure that state law is conducive to the success of the University's educational mission, it does not become irretrievably "politicized." State laws and policies that do not compromise Princeton's competitiveness would still be outside the purview of the USG. But the USG certainly has the authority — and the obligation — to help remove all unreasonable hindrances to the University's ability to hire the best teachers in the world. Signing onto the Princeton Justice Project brief is a sensible step toward removing one such hindrance. Jeremy Golubcow-Teglasi is a religion major from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at golubcow@princeton.edu.