Referendum sponsors, poll the University before you poll us

You’ve probably seen the emails from the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) about referenda. If you’re confused about what exactly referenda are and what power — if any — they have, you wouldn’t be alone. Once a semester, USG polls the undergraduate population about proposed University policy changes, often pertaining to sweeping and controversial topics. For instance, the most recent referenda called for improved employment terms for undergraduate student workers, divesting the endowment from fossil fuels, and pass/D/fail (PDF) options for language classes.

Many of these referenda garner overwhelming support from the student body — for instance, the 2024 referendum on fossil fuel divestment passed with 77 percent support, and improving employment standards for student workers passed with 94 percent support. But none of them went anywhere with the administration.

That’s because USG’s power is limited to a few small areas, and the referenda on their ballots, as University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 explained at a Council of the Princeton University Community meeting last spring, aren’t binding at all.

Many referenda seem to have been written with negotiation in mind: The referendum backed by Students for Justice in Palestine and other pro-Palestine groups was about divesting from weapons manufacturing, and the fossil fuel dissociation referendum made a nod to a University faculty report that recommended dissociation from certain companies. But none have been accepted by the University. In light of this, both USG members and outside referendum organizers should take a new tack: Negotiate with the administration before you put it on the ballot — and calibrate the proposals you sell to the student body accordingly.

Taking the results of each referendum to the administration and expecting corresponding action is naive: The University bears no responsibility to conform its policy to the results of USG referenda. Prior negotiation with the administration is the best vehicle for increasing the likelihood that the University takes student opinions into account. Instead of expecting unrealistically rapid action or compliance with student wishes, granting the administration advance notice of USG priorities offers the University time to reflect, prepare, and even respond to the democratic will of the student body.

This is especially true of referenda sponsored by USG members themselves, like the one promoting the PDF option for language classes from last winter. In the best form of student government, USG members should be our trusted delegates to negotiate with the University, coming out with a proposal that both the administration and students might agree on.

Precedent for this exists at our peer institutions. UC Berkeley has an official fee referendum system, in which changes to compulsory campus-based fees (campus-specific fees applied to all enrolled students) must be included in referenda. Representatives from the student government meet with administrators and negotiate the terms of these fee adjustments extensively. Following negotiations, a vote from the student body is conducted, during which the students are able to have a direct say on whether or not the change is passed. Although the Chancellor does have the final say over whether or not a fee modification goes into effect, the proposed change must always first be approved during negotiations between undergraduate representatives and University administration. This structure offers a promising model for Princeton.

This might mean setting more modest goals for policy requests, but it would likely create a more collaborative relationship between USG and the administration that could prompt the University to sign onto modest policy changes on issues that the student body feels passionate about. And if USG referenda actually made a demonstrable difference, even on a small scale, it would increase students’ sense that the voices of their representatives — as proxies for their own voices — are effective.

It would also commit USG more thoroughly to the referenda before they are passed, which could bolster advocacy post-passage. Currently, referenda often come to a halt in the transition from USG to the administration — something that is probably not helped by the transition between elected USG administrations right after winter referenda pass.

Although USG means well by polling student opinion on important issues on campus and presenting the results to the University, this structure is both unlikely to result in substantial policy change and sets a misleading expectation for University responses to student concerns.

But by negotiating with the University administration before each referendum, USG representatives may be able to establish terms to which the University will agree if a proposed policy is endorsed by enough of the student body, vastly increasing the potential for student voices to impact policy changes. If students are polled on the referenda they might actually see implemented rather than endorsing ideals doomed to dismissal, they will necessarily become better acquainted with how the University works, and better understand its capacity to evolve.

Davis Hobley is a staff Opinion writer for the ‘Prince’ and a member of the Class of 2027 in the Princeton Neuroscience Institute. He can be reached at dh2172[at]princeton.edu or his personal Instagram @davis_20.23.