Regarding 'Gay Unions Brief Goes to Referendum' and 'Editorial: Urging proper restraint' (Monday, Nov. 21):
While in some respects I agree with the principle in yesterday's unsigned editorial that USG should generally restrain itself from entering the fray of national politics, I imagine that had we voted the other way your opinion would still have expressed concern at the Senate voting on an issue that no representative ever campaigned on.
No matter how we voted, there would be those students who would have preferred to decide this issue for themselves. In addition, our Constitution would have still provided Princeton Justice Project an opportunity to seek this outcome through a grassroots referendum — an issue that USG as a body seriously has to consider.
Certainly, the USG was left with no easy option on Sunday evening, no clear solution that would have truly satisfied even the vast majority of your representatives in Senate.
Based on the arguments we heard by the PJP, there is real debate as to whether the legal status of same-sex couples does in fact affect the lives of Princeton students. Some of your representatives in Senate believe that it does.
I believe that ultimately allowing students to decide this matter for themselves was the right decision.
Now that debate is about to be launched, we must focus on what students believe the role of USG should be. This shouldn't devolve into a proor anti-gay-marriage argument. Our decision in this referendum will impact how we envision the purpose of USG for generations to come.
Leslie-Bernard Joseph '06, USG president
There is a historic precedent for radical political activism on the part of the Princeton University community. In May of 1970, nearly everyone at the university went on strike in protest against the war in Vietnam; according to Princeton archives, "roughly 80 percent of the student body cut class and 10 eating clubs canceled house parties." And while the war currently raging in Iraq seems to be tragically lost to any serious opposition on the part of our university community, the contemporary culture war over same-sex marriage must not meet this same deplorable fate.
As democratically elected representatives of the undergraduate student body, the USG Senate has every right and, more importantly, an immense responsibility to present students with the opportunity to speak out in support (or in disapproval) of the Princeton Justice Project's amicus brief, which seeks to expand New Jersey's definition of marriage to allow for marriages between persons of the same sex who are of legal age. It is an issue of profound consequence for all LGBTQA people and those who love and support them. But I would argue that whether it is an issue that directly affects the campus life of the majority of students or not, Princeton, as a community of intellectuals and concerned residents of New Jersey, has a vested interest in helping to create a society that guarantees all of its members equality under the law.
Michael Cutright '08
As six of the USG's senior members, we wish to express our reservations concerning the last meeting.
The Senate acted hastily. We voted to approve a referendum that we drafted in 10 minutes on a blackboard, complete with arrows for corrections. This rush contrasts strongly with the careful consideration of an affirmative action referendum several years ago. At that time, three Senate members conducted thorough research and the Senate debated referendum language for several hours. Furthermore, the referendum asks students to consider a 65-page brief that few Senate members have read. Finally, despite the fact that the agenda is set early in the week, the Senate was notified of the 65-page brief only 31 hours before the meeting. No time constraints or other reasons were put forth to justify this expedited timetable.
Second, many Senate members have concerns about the precedent established. We doubt that there are any criteria by which the Senate can limit the deluge of potential referenda. Furthermore, is it consistent for the USG to fund all student groups if the positions of some are rejected in referenda? We need a substantive debate about what the USG is and should be.
Finally, we fear that the Senate has become so concerned with and frightened by allegations of being "ineffective" and "apathetic" that we've come to view "doing nothing," even in the name of prudence and appropriate self-restraint, as cowardice, and have allowed political motivation and fear to taint our debates.
Because we strongly disagree with the process of the last Senate meeting, we will move to rescind the motion for referenda at the start of the next meeting. We will then move to establish a process by which to evaluate referenda proposals. Only in this way will we do justice to the claims brought before the USG.
Karis Gong '06, USG Senator Elizabeth Gough '06, U-Council Co-Chair Michael Murray '06, USG Senator Brandon Parry '06, U-Councilor Lide Paterno '06, Projects Board Co-Chair Robert Wai Wong '06, Academics Chair
I was extremely alarmed to learn that the USG is considering an endorsement of same-sex marriage through an amicus brief regarding the New Jersey Supreme Court case Lewis v. Harris.
We choose our USG and class government officers based on their commitments to lowering textbook prices, improving service at Frist Campus Center, expanding library hours and providing a steady flow of Taco Bell and Papa John's. They do not — and should not — campaign for office on platforms that cover political issues beyond FitzRandolph Gate, and they certainly do not have a mandate to represent the student body on those issues.
While it is true that the endorsement of the brief is subject to approval in a referendum open to all students, that does not make it acceptable. Don't be fooled: the issue here is not same-sex marriage, but the USG's attempt to speak for the student body on a controversial topic that falls far outside its narrow scope. Let us vote against the measure and tell the USG that it needs to focus on campus issues; we all know there is plenty to be done here.
Sandeep Murthy '06
Read More
Can a bacchanal Reunions be a sustainability lab?
Darren MilmanThe path to a net-zero Reunions remains uncertain. But Earth Brands’ story proves that the same university known for beer jackets and century-old traditions can also launch the next wave of sustainable solutions.
The path to a net-zero Reunions remains uncertain. But Earth Brands’ story proves that the same university known for beer jackets and century-old traditions can also launch the next wave of sustainable solutions.
$56,000 in debt at graduation is not the financial aid Princeton advertises
Avi CheslerTake my story as an example — despite repeated evidence, both before and after taking out loans, that I would be unable to pay what Princeton asked of me — the University never set a cost that I could truly meet loan-free.
In the Garden State’s service and the service of humanity
Olivia Ragan, Lauren Aung, and Madison LintonIt is important to cultivate in students interest in local and state level change, because it is the most direct way to give back to the New Jersey community that sustains the University.