Students react to USG referendum

USG president Connor Diemand-Yauman ’10 proposed the referendum at the Senate meeting on Sunday. He called for the reallocation of next fall’s USG social budget and what remains from this term’s budget to Annual Giving as a way to demonstrate students’ commitment to financial responsibility during the recession.

Diemand-Yauman explained that the reallocated money — totaling more than $60,000 — would go to Annual Giving because it is a major source of funding for the financial aid budget, which the University estimates will increase by 13 percent in the next fiscal year to more than $104 million.

Provost Christopher Eisgruber ’83 said in an e-mail that he supports the referendum. “I think that it would be a wonderful contribution to the efforts that so many Princetonians are now making to support this University’s key commitments and values,” he said.

While financial aid is not entirely dependent on Annual Giving, the referendum will make a significant impact, Eisgruber said. “We are not just relying on Annual Giving [to fund financial aid],” he said. “We are also relying on the sacrifices that the faculty and staff of this University are making all around our campus to cut costs so that the University can preserve financial aid and other core commitments.”

“In a way, [Diemand-Yauman] and the USG leadership are asking undergraduates whether they want to join forces with the alumni, friends, faculty and staff ... who are coming together to protect financial aid and other key aspects of the Princeton community,” he continued.

While some students have voiced their support of the referendum, many others said they thought it was not a wise way to spend the social budget.

Raymond Hsu ’11 called the referendum’s recommendation “circular and ineffectual,” since the funds allocated to the USG come from the student activities fee, which is covered by financial aid for many students.

“The University won’t feel the effects of this [referendum], but the student body will,” Hsu said. “It’s one of the biggest things the USG actually does in which many students participate.”

If the USG wants to reduce spending, he added, it should make cuts on the funds for less well-attended events such the frequent study breaks throughout the year. “I don’t need Chick-fil-A or Bent Spoon all the time,” Hsu said.

The entire USG budget comes from the $65 Undergraduate Activities Fee that every student pays each year, University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt ’96 explained in an e-mail, making this year’s USG budget roughly $300,000.

The USG Senate has the authority to vote to transfer the funds directly to Annual Giving without the consent of the student body, Diemand-Yauman said. But USG officials wanted students to have the opportunity to decide whether or not the reallocation would be made, he explained.

“The decision is ultimately in the hands of the student body,” U-Councilor Brian No ’10 said in an e-mail. “That’s the beauty of a referendum — it’s a democratic way to make a difference on campus.”

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

Andrew Slottje ’12 said he objected to the referendum, noting that alternative reallocations could also benefit those outside the immediate campus community.

“The money spent on Lawnparties provides wages,” he said. “After all, the University disburses funds to a diverse set of businesses to help set up the event.”

Slottje added that Lawnparties have a symbolic importance for students, but Class of 2012 senator Julie Chang defended the “strong symbolism” of the Annual Giving donation.

“Sacrificing one of the biggest social events on the calendar demonstrates that we students are aware of the economic austerity of the times, but more importantly, that we are committed and involved in our community,” she said in an e-mail. “Budget cuts, foreclosures, lay-offs and hiring freezes dominate headlines these days. Why can’t we add something positive to the mix, with a decisive move that proves the Princeton student isn’t just living in an ivory tower?”

Some other students suggested changes to the referendum that would they thought would help it garner more support among the student body.

“I think the USG’s referendum is shaped so that it is either black or white when there might be a happy medium,” Addie Lerner ’11 said, adding that eliminating the USG concert altogether would change the “shape” of Lawnparties. She suggested that a better option might be bringing in a less well-known band than usual and donating the remainder of the money to the University.

Some students are actively trying to change the referendum. Douglas Lavanture ’09 circulated an e-mail in which he praised Diemand-Yauman for the idea but opposed the reallocation to Annual Giving.

Lavanture asked that students follow the spirit of the University’s unofficial motto — “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and in the Service of all Nations” — and donate the money to charitable organizations. He encouraged students to send him ideas for organizations that could receive the money.

“We have such a unique opportunity at hand to show that we as Princeton students are not concerned just with ourselves and our institution, but with the betterment of the world and those who have been hit harder by this financial crisis than we could ever imagine,” he said in the e-mail.

No, however, said he did not think the reallocation was selfish.

“While some have a good point and say that we should contribute the funds to a charitable organization, the message we want to send with this referendum — assuming it passes — is that students are also willing to make sacrifices to help the University — even in a small way,” No explained.

It seems, however, that students would also have mixed reactions to this alternative.

Biz Forbes ’10, who sent out an e-mail to a group of friends in favor of the referendum, said she believes its impact will extend beyond the Princeton community.

“While it may not seem like a large amount [of money] compared to the Princeton University endowment, it would send a strong message beyond the ‘Orange Bubble,’ ” she said. “We are showing our appreciation and support of future generations of Princeton students.”

Other undergraduates noted that it is important for students to make financial sacrifices, as other members of the University community have already been forced to do.

“I feel like the USG concert is a luxury item. It’s not something that we need, and I guess we should’ve gotten rid of the concert before taking money from faculty and staff,” Colin Ponce ’10 said. “It feels a little dirty to go to a $60,000 concert for free when we have Princeton faculty struggling as a result of salary cuts.”

“I would be less opposed [to the referendum] if the money went to something like the World Health Organization, or even a soup kitchen or at risk or disabled youth in Trenton,” Hsu said.

But Forbes said she considers Annual Giving a better fit for the USG money, as it benefits students on financial aid, which in turn enables them to serve in the community.

“I see that there are many organizations for which $60,000 would make more of an impact, but at the same time, so many Princeton students provide so much aid and community service outside the University,” she said, adding that “without financial concerns hindering one’s educational experience, one is more able to invest oneself not only in the immediate University community, but also beyond campus grounds.”

Eisgruber noted the dual impact of the proposed referendum, which he said “would be fantastic not just because of the financial contribution ... but because of the message of appreciation it would send to alumni and others who are now working so hard to sustain the quality of the Princeton experience.”

The USG will hold an open forum on Wednesday for students to discuss the issue and to share their thoughts.