Students split on YAT campaigning

After an hour of impassioned debate Monday night on the issue of campaigns by young alumni trustee candidates, audience members left Whig Hall split on whether the University should lift its ban on campaigning by candidates.

In a post-debate vote, 12 audience members supported campaigning, eight came down against it and three abstained.

Aaron Spolin '08, co-president of Whig-Clio, which sponsored the debate, said that they had initially planned to have young alumni trustee (YAT) candidates debate each side, "but realized that probably wouldn't be allowed." He said before the debate that "if it does turn out strongly one way or the other" it might "affect future administration decisions." He was later surprised that the vote turned out so balanced.

After years of leaving candidates with the impression that they would vote on whether to campaign or not, this year the administration disallowed campaigning without the usual vote. Ira Leeds '06, a YAT candidate, started a drive called "Princeton Matters" to garner support for campaigning.

Spolin said David Baumgarten '06, a former Daily Princetonian managing editor and Princeton Matters member, and Jon Fernandez '08 were recruited to support the pro side because they had been "vocal to us about this issue." Mike Reilly '07, president of the senate for Whig-Clio, "usually takes the side we don't have a debater for," Spolin said. Reilly's partner, Phil Kidd '06, said after the debate that while he agreed with most of what he argued, he did not feel very strongly about the issue.

In support of campaigning, Fernandez argued that little known but successful candidates will be disadvantaged by a popularity contest, saying, "we'll all be able to recognize a USG president, but what about someone who sits on the Honor Committee?" He emphasized the importance of open dialogue in the University setting and said that within a large electorate, "it's impossible to know the character and values a candidate stands for [without campaigning]."

Reilly contended that candidates will campaign on the wrong issues, picking ones that are "likely to stir up" the campus rather than relevant ones. He said that "the general group of people voting in most elections are interested in simple issues" like Frist Campus Center being open 24 hours a day, and the kind of high-minded debate Fernandez spoke of is unlikely to occur.

Baumgarten responded that he has "faith in the average Princeton voter" to make decisions on relevant issues and general principles espoused by the candidates. "Perhaps they will make a mistake," he said, "but right now, there is no chance they will be voting on the right issues."

Kidd supported Reilly's position, saying that issues likely to come before the Board of Trustees are unlikely to capture the campus' interest. To back up his claim, he offered the hypothetical example of "how much money [the University] is giving to the new neuroscience center."

There was discussion throughout the round about whether campaigning would be fair, since some candidates might have less time to campaign and thus be put at a disadvantage. Candidates who care about Princeton, Baumgarten said, "will care enough to emerge from their carrels."