Vote no

We represent a wide range of viewpoints on the political spectrum. We hold a variety of opinions on the substantive merit of the PJP brief. Some have personally signed it, while others question it on legal or philosophical grounds. Yet, we are in complete agreement that students should vote "No" in the upcoming referendum. We think that each of the following reasons is strong enough by itself to justify a "No" vote.

First, we believe that the USG Senate acted hastily. Several years ago, the Senate spent over 15 hours discussing an affirmative action referendum, and several Senate members conducted thorough research to determine proper referendum language. But the Senate debated the current referendum for less than four hours and consequently did not make it adequately clear, fair or detailed. As a result, the referendum is flawed and unrealistically asks students to decipher and then support or reject a 65-page legal brief. Though it purports to be a referendum on a legal document criticizing New Jersey constitutional law, it will turn into a poorly crafted poll on gay marriage as long as the referendum retains its structural focus on the PJP brief.

Second, we believe that the USG should not take a stand on divisive issues of national importance that do not relate to the educational mission of the University. The referendum requires the USG to sign on to a brief that discusses issues that no USG candidate included in his or her campaign. It is true that in the past the USG took a stand on affirmative action and divestment, but these issues were relevant to students as students, who experience affirmative action and benefit from an endowment in their education. Gay marriage is an important issue, but it affects University students in the same way that abortion policy, marijuana laws or the Iraq war affect students: as citizens. If the USG should not speak on abortion, drugs or foreign policy, then it should similarly not speak on gay marriage. USG elections should not become partisan battles in which voters ask whether a candidate is a Democrat or a Republican, pro-choice or pro-life, or pro-legalization or pro-prohibition of marijuana. Nor should USG election ballots be weighed down by numerous referenda concerning controversial national issues upon which student groups center their energy.

The USG is for campus issues. It dispenses resources to a diverse array of student organizations and advances student interests on issues like dining, housing, recreation and academics. It has neither the expertise nor the electoral authority to speak on issues not intimately connected to the undergraduate experience. Students and student groups should voice their own opinions on national issues independent of USG endorsement.

Third, we note that USG endorsement of the PJP brief would affirm the argument, advanced in the brief on page 65, that there is "no rational basis" for understanding marriage as exclusively heterosexual. Should the USG then be required to treat student groups who disagree as irrational when it comes to funding speakers and events? This logically consistent result undermines the intellectual diversity that Princeton seeks to foster.

Fourth, we believe that USG endorsement of the PJP brief would misrepresent the nature of student opinion on the issue. Some undergraduates support the reasoning and the overall goal of the brief; others support one or the other; others still disagree with both; and some have not yet made up their minds. A referendum on the brief captures none of these distinctions. Consequently, USG endorsement violates the rights of all students, especially those who dissent from the brief and those who have not yet decided, by allowing a student group to mistakenly cast the Princeton student body as monolithic to the outside world. Since the student body, unlike a citizenry, was not created in order to influence this kind of political issue, USG endorsement is unnecessary and unrepresentative and is a misuse of democratic procedures.

This referendum is not about gay marriage. Rather, it is about the role of the USG and the rights of the student body. We strongly commend PJP involvement in important issues. We encourage those students who support the brief to sign it individually and those who disagree to vocalize their opposition. But these decisions should be made by individual students as citizens, and not by the student body as a collective. Michael Murray '06, Treasurer of the College Democrats and USG Senator, can be reached at mfmurray@princeton.edu. Dylan Hogarty '06, President of the College Republicans, can be reached at dhogarty@princeton.edu. Karis Gong '06, USG Senator, can be reached at kgong@princeton.edu. Scott Noveck '06, former Secretary of PJP, can be reached at snoveck@princeton.edu. Glen Weyl '07, a current PJP officer, can be reached at eweyl@princeton.edu.