Dueling referenda may be on USG ballot

The proposed referendum states that “it would undermine the integrity of the community’s intellectual freedom for the University itself to officially take sides on profound questions about which its members reasonably disagree.” It then asks that “University officials … refrain from ... associating the University with particular points of view on disputed questions of morality, law, and policy.”

If the University were to take such positions, it would be telling dissenting students and faculty that they are wrong, Anscombe public relations chair Brandon McGinley ’10 said. McGinley is also a columnist for The Daily Princetonian.

The referendum is a response to the Equality Action Network’s (EAN) petition for a 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.

“[Our] referendum is not mutually exclusive with support for gay marriage,” Anscombe vice president Shivani Radhakrishnan ’11 said in an e-mail. “Some may believe gay marriage to be a good course of action, but still not believe it’s the University’s place to take a stance on such an issue.”

Jacob Candelaria ’09, founder of EAN and sponsor of its petition, said he disagrees with the aim of the CIL petition.

“Narrowly defined, the ability of the University to comment is inherently a good thing,” he said. “Restricting that is just irresponsible.”

That one referendum directly opposes the other raises questions about what will happen in the event that both pass.

“Although, indeed, the Coalition for Intellectual Liberty’s referendum is in direct response to [EAN’s] referendum, both could pass,” USG president Josh Weinstein ’09 said in an e-mail.

“I’m not sure how much teeth the Coalition for Intellectual Liberty’s referendum has with regard to action from the Board of Trustees, but the intention is to make a statement on behalf of the student body,” Weinstein added.

Questioning the referendum

USG members are debating whether the CIL referendum is frivolous. If it is declared to be frivolous by a five-sixths majority vote of the USG Senate, the USG will not place it on the ballot.

“Referenda are used to compel the [USG] Senate to do something on behalf of the students, and are in this sense distinct from polls,” USG vice president Mike Wang ’10 said in an e-mail.

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

“A major question that will be discussed … is whether the referendum in question can indeed be acted upon by the USG, or should it instead come in the form of a poll later on,” he added.

Wang sent an e-mail to the members of the USG Senate stating that five voting members “have requested that a special meeting be called in regards to the referenda on the ballot.” The Senate will convene Thursday evening to take action on the referendum.

The CIL maintains that its referendum holds merit. McGinley said that the USG is in a better position to ask the University to refrain from making a statement than to compel it to make one.

Radhakrishnan added that “the USG executive committee suggested that a small addendum to our referendum would suffice to make it actionable, and further steps have been taken to ensure its actionability.”

The last referendum to be included on a USG election ballot was sponsored by Kyle Smith ’09 and assessed students’ views regarding the current University administration and the University’s future direction.