Editorial: Binary ethics

For this part of the referendum to pass, both questions must garner a majority of the votes cast. While students may fall on either side of the first question, they should vote “no” on the second.

In light of students’ lack of faith in the USG after the latest election drama, this referendum is a well-intentioned measure designed to allay student fear that USG members are representing personal — rather than collective — interests.

But there are legitimate arguments to both support and oppose the idea of administrators writing such recommendation letters. Many USG members pour much, if not most, of their extracurricular time into representing the student body and forgo other opportunities on campus to do so. Certainly, much of their time is spent collaborating with administrators — time that could be spent collaborating with the professors who write reccomendations for other students.

It is also possible that recommendation letters do not inherently pose a threat to the ability of USG members to advocate student interests. USG officials are already elected to champion students, and whether or not they vow to forgo recommendations, we still hold them to this standard.

Nonetheless, despite their best efforts, USG members may find it difficult to maintain the same relationships with administrators who are writing them recommendations for important jobs or coveted spots at graduate schools. To the extent that the prospect of a recommendation influences a USG member to back off in a contentious negotiation with Nassau Hall, it could represent a significant conflict of interest.

Regardless of whether or not recommendations are inherently problematic, the second provision of the proposed referendum, which would incorporate the pledge into the ballot, is an ineffective and unfair measure. Many students make election choices with little prior knowledge of the candidates. Indicating which candidates had signed the pledge on the ballot may disproportionately affect the way a student votes, as it could provide an easily digestible binary indicator of something much more vague — ethical accountability. It could very well become a de facto requirement for all candidates to sign the pledge to win votes and actually drive the recommendation process underground rather than enforce compliance.

If USG candidates really want to demonstrate their commitment to student interest above personal gain, they could include such promises in their campaign literature. Doing so would cast a genuine focus on accountability rather than on an inadequate binary measure.