Last week, the Council of the Princeton University Community passed a new policy that broadly prohibits recordings in University contexts. While the policy has merits, the manner by which the policy was passed indicates a serious dysfunction in the operation of the CPUC.
By rubber-stamping a policy that is directly at odds with the purpose of the body, the members of the CPUC have failed to uphold their duties to the Council’s Charter and to faithfully represent their constituencies.
The CPUC’s Charter establishes its role in overseeing “the making and the applying of rules” and ensuring that said rules are “clear in meaning, fair, [and] enforceable.” The scope of this responsibility is extremely wide: everything in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities is subject to the CPUC’s authority, as well as any other rules “regarding the conduct of resident members of the University community.” However, the University Recording Policy, as passed, fails to clearly satisfy the aforementioned requirements of the charter.
Let’s take a closer look at the policy so hastily passed by the CPUC. As previously reported by The Daily Princetonian, the policy is shockingly broad, prohibiting “convert/secret recording” of any “conversation or meeting” occurring in many University contexts. Moreover, it displays a certain favoritism in its exceptions — “meeting chairs,” whatever that phrase should be interpreted to mean, have a special right to authorize recording for meeting minutes or notes.
To be clear, I believe that there is merit to the University making rules on prohibiting secret recordings. Most of us would not be happy to be recorded surreptitiously by a conversation partner and then have that recording publicized, which New Jersey law presently allows. Establishing a policy that prohibits recording in these contexts can potentially allow a freer exchange of ideas and help advance the research and teaching mission of the University.
But the devil is in the details when it comes to successfully proposing and implementing such policies. Many concerns about implementation details were raised at the Council meeting on Nov. 10. Community members at the meeting noted the asymmetry of the policy as it applies to conveners compared to attendees of meetings, asked whether recordings would be permitted in situations where one’s safety was threatened, and questioned how exactly the policy would be enforced.
From these questions, it should have been clear that the policy, as written, is evidently not “clear in meaning.” W. Rochelle Calhoun, the designated executive who presented the policy to the Council, proceeded to dodge specific questions about how University disciplinary bodies would interpret these specifics, instead noting that a forthcoming FAQ would address most of these concerns. Furthermore, during the meeting, it was not even clear when the policy would take effect. Yet, no CPUC member cast a vote against the policy.
The members who represent the undergraduate student body at the CPUC are the U-Councilors, who are elected annually. The president and vice president of the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) are also members. When I reached out to all U-Councilors for comment on their vote on the policy, only two of 10 responded. The fact that the majority of U-Councilors — who are supposed to represent the undergraduate population — feel comfortable ignoring the inquiries of their constituents is a damning indictment of their fitness for office.
Genevieve Shutt ’26, a U-Councilor who also sits on the Executive Committee of the Council, said in an interview with me that she abstained because “there were details of the policy that needed to be fleshed out,” but that she was “not completely opposed” to the policy. The president of USG, Enzo Kho ’26, who voted in support of the policy, wrote in an email to me that he felt the policy was “in good faith” and is “an attempt to offer needed protections.” Kho recognized, however, that “elements of the policy are not clear.”
I concur with Shutt and Kho that a recording policy can be helpful. But where I disagree is their choice not to oppose this one. If the details that Shutt and Kho have agreed are necessary are absent from a proposed policy, the only appropriate response is to vote “nay.” The University has ample opportunity to revise the policy and supply appropriate interpretation, only after which an affirmative vote would be appropriate. The FAQs are not an acceptable substitute, as they likely require no approval by the Council and thus can be composed and later edited by administrators however they see fit. The fact that none of the members of the Council voted against this vague policy should be of grave concern to us all.
The duty of members of the CPUC is ultimately to represent the interests of their constituencies. While many University members have a legitimate interest in a policy like this one, it is a dereliction of duty to allow administrators to propose an excessively vague and general policy, and then give them extremely wide latitude to interpret it. It also means that the CPUC has abdicated oversight over future changes to how the policy is construed, which could have serious and substantive effects on the standing of community members.
In this respect, the members of the CPUC have failed. They have recklessly given a blank check to administrators and forgotten their key role in the governance of our University.
The late 17th president of Princeton, William G. Bowen GS ’58, once wrote that a “key to the success of the CPUC” was the care taken in the selection of its members. If policies like these are what modern CPUC members are willing to overwhelmingly approve, I am afraid that Bowen would be turning in his grave. And when students, faculty, and staff choose their future CPUC representatives, they should keep in mind what their current representation has yielded them.
Jerry Zhu is a junior in Economics who serves as the guest Opinion editor of The Daily Princetonian. He encourages you to submit a response to this piece or write an op-ed for the ‘Prince.’ You can reach him at jfz[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton needs a first-year engineering design course
Emily Y. ZhangThe University should give students the chance to make informed academic choices. If Princeton values interdisciplinarity and genuine exploration, then its commitment shouldn’t end when the study of engineering begins.
The University should give students the chance to make informed academic choices. If Princeton values interdisciplinarity and genuine exploration, then its commitment shouldn’t end when the study of engineering begins.
‘Princeton Rise Up’ showed Princeton students aren’t apathetic, just busy
Isaac BarsoumBecoming more involved in campus activism has forced me to reckon with a simple fact: I’m not as busy as I thought I was. I had time to give. And because I find the job fulfilling, it doesn’t feel like a burden to devote that time to activism.
Becoming more involved in campus activism has forced me to reckon with a simple fact: I’m not as busy as I thought I was. I had time to give. And because I find the job fulfilling, it doesn’t feel like a burden to devote that time to activism.
AI is a bubble. So why don’t we act like it?
Shane McCauleyNone of this is to say that there aren’t genuine uses for — and genuine concerns about — AI. But to discuss these well, we must first have the right conception of the technology.
None of this is to say that there aren’t genuine uses for — and genuine concerns about — AI. But to discuss these well, we must first have the right conception of the technology.