Some USG officers will not sign recommendation pledge

Last spring, the student body passed a referendum proposed by Eric Kang ‘10 requiring USG candidates to sign the pledge. It states, “In the interests of absolving any possible conflicts of interest as a representative of the student body, I will neither seek nor accept a letter of recommendation from the members of the University administration explicitly stated in Section III [president, provost, any vice president, dean of the college, any associate dean of undergraduate students], nor any with whom I have had or will have to work pursuant to my duties as a member of the USG.”

Kang is also a columnist for The Daily Princetonian.

The referendum, which passed by a 1,482-685 vote, also requires the USG to provide a list of those who have and have not signed the pledge. USG officers who have declined to sign explained that they thought it would prevent them from obtaining valuable support from their professors and faculty mentors.

“I am uncomfortable signing the pledge as written because it would prohibit me from obtaining recommendations from professors I worked with on the election reform project with whom I will also work in an academic setting,” Yaroshefsky said in an e-mail. “This current pledge goes beyond ‘absolving any possible conflicts of interest’ and encroaches on USG members’ personal and academic liberties.”

Martin said he chose to not sign the pledge because he feels it does not accomplish its intended goals.

“Such a pledge could ensure that administrators cannot hold sway over student leaders by dangling letters of recommendation in front of them or to help eliminate people from running for office solely to get recommendation letters,” Martin said in an e-mail. “It actually only hurts those that invest a lot of time and energy in USG activities, while being neutral towards those who run and are elected, but do not accomplish anything over their term.”

He added that, though he “understands the rationale behind the pledge,” he considers it to be a “knee-jerk reaction” to a nonexistent problem.

“If I invest a large portion of my time here as an undergraduate into USG, why is it wrong that the administrators I’ve worked with so much and who likely know me and my accomplishments better than others can write a recommendation letter for me?” Martin said.

Weinberg offered a more sarcastic explanation of his decision not to sign the pledge.

“I composed a fool-proof proposal to end grade deflation, but President Tilghman and [Dean of the College Nancy] Malkiel offered me letters of recommendation to end the campaign. I was also on the verge of increasing the late meal stipend and getting 2-ply toilet paper, but letters of recommendation from [Dining Services Director] Stu Orefice, Provost [Christopher] Eisgruber [’83], and [Executive Vice President Mark] Burstein convinced me to drop this plan as well,” he said in an e-mail.

“If a student government representative cannot use his office solely to gain letters of recommendation from administrators, then I don’t see the point of being in USG,” he continued.

Weinberg explained that though he has not solicited any recommendation letters from administrators and has no immediate plans to do so, he believes that USG members who work with administrators and faculty both within and outside of a USG context should be able to receive letters of recommendation from those people.

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

“Signing the pledge would not improve my ability to represent the interests of the student body and I didn’t feel the need to sign the pledge just to avoid the appearance of impropriety,” he explained. “The idea that USG officials simply kowtow to administrators in order to receive letters of recommendation or other benefits is misguided.”

Kang said he was disappointed in the officers’ decisions not to sign the pledge. “It’s not entirely clear to me what the candidates mean with their rejection of an official policy of the body they’re running for, which was officially voted on by the student body and supported by two-thirds of it,” he said. “The student body will voice its approval or disapproval with its votes.”

Daniel Humphrey ’12 is currently circulating a petition for a new referendum that would revise Kang’s referendum.

Humphrey’s referendum would remove the clause “nor any with whom I have had or will have to work pursuant to my duties as a member of the USG” from the pledge.

Humphrey said he was inspired to initiate this referendum after talking to Yaroshefsky on Saturday. Humphrey asked Yaroshefsky why he had chosen not to sign the pledge, and Yaroshefsky explained the reasons he and several other officers had for not signing.

“Their answers brought to my attention just how dangerous the clause we want removed is,” Humphrey explained. “I understand the reasons for wanting tangible proof that officers won’t sell out the student body, but the second clause of the pledge is much broader.”

Humphrey has 50 signatures so far, and he said he is confident that he will obtain the necessary 200 signatures by Wednesday, noting that 95 percent of the students he has approached have been supportive of his petition.

“Strictly interpreted, the clause [my referendum proposes to remove] would prohibit letters from members of the faculty whose relationship with the USG member was primarily academic,” Humphrey explained. “For example, if someone asked for advice on a USG project from their thesis adviser, then technically the adviser could not write a recommendation letter for grad school. It would also preclude any relationship between former USG members even after they’ve graduated.”

If the clause is removed, Humphrey said he believes the pledge will be “uncontroversial,” eliminating the “serious possibility that some candidates might try to use confusion on the issue to get a political advantage in the more competitive races.”