Competing referenda to stay on election ballot

The referendum in question, sponsored by the Coalition for Intellectual Liberty (CIL), formally asks the University to refrain from taking positions on controversial issues. It is a response to the Equality Action Network’s (EAN) referendum urging the University’s Board of Trustees to file an amicus brief on behalf of the undergraduate student body condemning California’s recent ban on gay marriage.

The CIL is a partnership of the Princeton Tory, the Anscombe Society, the College Republicans and other students.

The meeting was requested by campus and community affairs chair Cindy Hong ’09 and six voting members of the USG Senate. Hong is also a columnist for The Daily Princetonian.

Hong said that the Senate should dismiss the CIL referendum in its current form as frivolous and add an amended referendum. Referenda can be overturned with a five-sixths majority vote of the Senate. Adding an additional referendum requires a one-third majority.

Hong said the wording of part of the referendum need to be changed, pointing to the section that discusses the University’s ability to have formal opinions on “profound questions about which its members reasonably disagree.” This statement is “frivolous,” she said, adding that she meant it had minimal weight or value.

It “doesn’t clearly define the scope of the ‘profound question about which members disagree,’ ” nor who decides if a question is profound, Hong said.

“[The] referendum was designed to get the University in one way or another not to get involved and speak on … gay marriage,” EAN founder and U-Councilor Jacob Candelaria ’09 said.

Hong said she believes the referendum was purposely vague in an attempt to “deliberately mislead” voters.

Joel Alicea ’10, a representative of CIL, said that this accusation was “blatantly false.”

Alicea firmly disagreed with Hong’s desire to change the wording of the referendum. The Senate’s ability to make a decision as to whether it approved of the language of the referendum would be a “profound abuse of [the] Senate’s power,” Alicea said.

“For the Senate to decide [that it doesn’t like the language] … is a very dangerous precedent … [and] beyond the power of this Senate,” Alicea added.

Candelaria countered that not taking action on the CIL referendum would also be dangerous. “The sheer, broad-sweeping language of this referendum is so all encompassing of the University’s mission,” Candelaria said. If the USG does not take action on this issue, this would send a “dangerous message to the University about our sense of judgment,” he said.

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

Though the frivolity of the language of the referendum was extensively debated, Candelaria noted that the problem of the language was more than just a problem of semantics. For the University to “give up its right to comment on issues … that itself is frivolous,” he said.

USG president Josh Weinstein ’09 said he does not believe that the referendum is frivolous, but that there is room for improvement.

“Completely stripping the referendum is a bigger damage to our credibility,” Weinstein said. “The USG’s responsibility is to the student body … and we should have faith in the student body,” he added.

Despite the heated discussion, no official motion was made to declare the referendum frivolous. The meeting ended with Class of 2009 senator Tracy Vu and Candelaria motioning to temporarily let the referendum stand. There are no plans to call another meeting before voting begins Sunday.