Debaters take on referendum

Correction appended

Whig-Clio hosted a debate Thursday afternoon on this weekend's referendum on whether the USG should sign on to a Princeton Justice Project amicus brief supporting same-sex marriage. Following the debate, audience members voted to oppose the referendum by a vote of 26 to 9.

The debate took place hours before a USG meeting on whether the referendum should be rescinded or amended. PJP president Thomas Bohnett '07 said he repeatedly asked Whig-Clio to reschedule the debate until after the meeting, but he was unsuccessful. Bohnett, who is also a Daily Princetonian columnist, said he would not participate in the debate.

Whig-Clio Senate President Aaron Spolin '08 said that PJP did not ask for a time change until it was too late. Whig Hall is also already booked for a debate tournament today. He also said that PJP did not want to debate members of the Anscombe Society, who were originally scheduled to participate but were later replaced.

Spolin added that even if the referendum were withdrawn altogether, "as an intellectual institution, we still want to debate issues that are important to the student body and hear others' viewpoints."

Arguing in favor of the referendum, Dan Greco '06 said the issue addressed by the brief directly affects students because "many of our great instructors ... may choose to relocate for lifetime appointments to states that allow marriage rights to same-sex couples." He said that this referendum "does not set a precedent that USG must take on national issues."

Mike Reilly '07 added that students do not necessarily need to understand the brief in order to vote on the referendum. Rather, as in national elections, leaders must "trust people to make the decision" based on what they have heard during the campus-wide controversy.

In opposition, Class of 2006 Senator Mike Murray '06 said that "the debate is about the USG, not same-sex marriage" and the "USG shouldn't be in the business of taking political positions on national events." He concluded that "this sets a scary precedent and will radically change the nature of USG elections," leading to the "absurd consequence" of candidates having to identify themselves along political party lines.

Glen Weyl '07 argued that the issue "affects Princeton students as citizens strongly, but only as citizens, not as students." Weyl, who is a Daily Princetonian writer, ended his speech by suggesting that Bohnett did not appear at the debate "because he was not qualified" to defend the brief against legal questions.

In the audience comment period, Caroline Chopko '07, who is running unopposed for USG Undergraduate Life Chair, tried to "put the referendum into perspective," warning that "USG support can have a really negative impact on the campus and the community."

Another student, Sara Piaskowy '07, asked, "What's to stop people from putting [in] briefs that support the other side as well? Party lines, even just about this issue, are definitely working against the sense of community on campus."

Annie Varner '07 said that the debate was "a good idea, in that they debated an issue as it stands. Many consider tonight's meeting to be more important, but this kind of forum shows both sides so brilliantly."

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

The amicus brief in question will be submitted to the New Jersey Supreme Court for consideration in the case of Lewis v. Harris.

Correction

This article originally mischaracterized Whig-Clio Senate President Aaron Spolin's comments about why PJP did not participate in the debate. He said that PJP did not request a time change until it was too late. Also, Anscombe members were originally scheduled to participate but were later replaced.