Make discipline public

In the recent USG election, one theme dominated the discussion of the presidential candidates. From the pages of The Daily Princetonian to the candidate forum held last week, the disciplinary records of Grant Gittlin '08 and Rob Biederman '08 were the hot topics of conversation. Nevertheless, both candidates and their most ardent supporters have questioned the relevance of this information to voters. But despite protests by Gittlin and Biederman, voters have a right to know about the character of the candidates they are voting for.

Knowledge of a candidate's disciplinary record is important for determining a candidate's trustworthiness, integrity and ability to bargain with Nassau Hall on behalf of the student body. Princeton students feel the same way. If this election is any indication, whether or not a candidate has a clean enough record is incredibly important to voters. An unscientific exit poll in the 'Prince' showed that 56 percent of students thought that the disciplinary records of candidates "relevant to their voting decision."

Nevertheless, we do not believe that candidates with suspect disciplinary records should be prevented from running. It should be the responsibility of the student body to decide whether a particular infraction is severe enough to affect its choice of candidate. But if voters are to make informed decisions, information about the disciplinary records of candidates needs to be made public. For example, had the 'Prince' not reported it, the student body at large would have no idea that Gittlin was no longer allowed to live on campus due to multiple disciplinary violations — a fact which many voters may have wanted to take into consideration.

In "real life" elections, candidates' criminal records are often a matter of public record. It would be virtually impossible to go through an entire campaign without the criminal record of a candidate — if one exists — being brought to light. The disciplinary records of students at this University are confidential (as they should be). This does not mean, however, that student voters do not have a right to know the records of those running for elected office. By volunteering to run for a USG office, candidates become public figures and should forfeit that right to that privacy.

Under current USG rules, before candidates can run for election, they are required to file a set of papers proving their eligibility. The USG should require students who wish to run for office to attach a list of disciplinary infractions to these papers. These infractions should then be reported to the campus newspaper so that they can become part of the public record.

This plan may make Biederman and Gittlin unhappy, but they are not the main concern. Students have a right to know the truth about the candidates they select for campus office, and the USG should do its part to enforce this right.