Alumni Council bans words

In a controversial move that Carter Center election monitors have already condemned as "alarming," the Princeton Alumni Council announced yesterday a new ban related to the already-suspect young alumni trustee election. Just days after the initial ban on campaigning was announced, Alumni Council Director Margaret Miller '80 released a statement that detailed an even more restrictive policy on campaigning.

Said Miller's press release, "After a few rebel candidates legally changed their names to 'Student Housing Reform,' 'Free Pequods' and 'Socially Responsible Investing' in a last-ditch attempt to campaign on actual issues, the Alumni Council had no choice but to ban all words, including names, from the voters' ballot."

Eligible voters will therefore only see photographs of the candidates and nothing more, though the report left open the possibility that a police sketch artist or the Wall Street Journal guy may be brought in to provide drawings of each candidate to ensure that they are not able to communicate any ideas to voters by way of facial expressions or last minute tattoos.

Student reaction to the new policy has been mixed. Said Lazy Nobility '06, "I couldn't be happier about this policy. It takes long enough to read all those uninteresting bios. I don't want to start thinking about complicated campaign platforms while I'm trying to start my thesis!"

Junior Juan Barrie had a different take on the announcement: "Don't all those guys vote against campaigning every year anyway? Now at least we don't have to hate them for doing it themselves."

While candidates did not have a say on campaigning this year, plenty have come out in support of the ban. Said an unnamed former USG vice president and failed presidential candidate, "I'd compare the process to the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Did you catch those sly devils? Elusiveness is so hot right now."

Another former USG politico weighed in on the controversy in an exclusive interview with the 'Prince.' "If we allowed campaigning, even if limited to five words or less, candidates will promise things they can't possibly deliver on, and we all know how dangerous that can be," said former USG president and current Young Alumni Trustee Matt Margolin '05 with a knowing wink.

"This is especially so since the trustee position is so mysterious. You can't campaign for a position if you don't know what you'll be doing in it."

Though the operations of the University Board of Trustees are basically transparent and access to other young alumni trustees is not at all obstructed, candidates do not seem to know much about the trustee position nor do they seem interested in finding out. When asked if those running could take the time out to educate themselves about the position in an effort to understand what a trusteeship would mean (besides the obvious resume boost), another current candidate seemed skeptical. "We're all pretty busy, which is another reason I like the campaign ban. You just vote for who you know."

Margolin later mentioned that, in his own experience, "Seniors who run are told why alumni candidates cannot campaign, and after hearing that [explanation], are more likely to vote against campaigning."

When asked if the mysterious explanation included a magic show featuring the song "The Final Countdown," Margolin replied solemnly, "No comment."

The underdog in this story is hard-hitting firebrand Ira Leeds '06, former publisher of the Princeton Tory, who has found support for his campaign to be able to campaign in the unlikeliest of places. Dirty Liberal '07 has come out strongly in favor of Leeds' petition effort to allow trustee candidates to campaign. When asked why, Liberal replied, "I disagree with Ira on every issue you could think of and I want every single voter to know just how crazy he is. If this wordless ballot is put to the students, I fear that too many unknowing students will vote for him based solely on his devastating good looks."

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

In another show of support for the establishment, one candidate argued that "allowing people to campaign opens the election up to a whole different set of evils."

Among those evils are an open exchange of ideas, a mechanism for some degree of accountability and a fighting chance for a dark horse candidate who could do more with the position than 10 stale USG bureaucrats combined, all clearly negative consequences of mob rule.

It is unlikely that students will get to hear much from candidates this election season, but what the future holds for the election process is still up in the air. In reference to his fellow candidates' tepid response to his ambitious campaign, Leeds shared some final words of wisdom. "It's always going to be a popularity contest in some form. I guess ideas just aren't so popular this year." Freddie LaFemina is a history major from North Massapequa, New York. He can be reached at lafemina@princeton.edu.