The following piece represents the views of the undersigned Editorial Board members alone.
Earlier this month, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 introduced a new policy in front of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) that prohibits the “covert/secret recording” of any “conversation or meeting” occurring in many University contexts without obtaining the consent of all participants. The University omitted many important details of the policy, which, as currently written, is shockingly broad.
At the meeting, Eisgruber motioned for a vote on this policy that caught some student representatives off guard, and the motion passed overwhelmingly. The CPUC comprises 52 people, including 12 undergraduate representatives — 10 U-Councilors, elected each spring by the student body, plus the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) president and vice president. The agenda sent out to these representatives in advance of the meeting included the language of the policy, but unlike other voting items for the day, did not indicate that there would be a vote.
Despite this apparently impromptu call to vote on an ill-defined policy, and questioning from the audience that suggested objections, no U-Councilors (or any CPUC member) voted against the policy. Why would the U-Councilors deliver a rubber-stamp for this kind of administrative decision?
These events are emblematic of the biggest problems with undergraduate student representation, both on the CPUC and in USG: resignation about their ability to challenge the University, a lack of policy-focused coalition-building, and a University administration that frequently tries to stymie them.
Past and current members of USG told us that their roles are twofold: represent student voices on University policy matters and provide programming, like Lawnparties and movies at the Garden Theater. USG is generally successful at the latter, providing necessary structural and financial support to student organizations and USG-run events. But it has not recently been successful at the former.
In interviews with members of the Editorial Board, USG members expressed a reluctance to advocate for policies that receive pushback from the administration. Policy successes have been limited to priorities that present a win-win scenario for both students and the University.
When asked to identify wins from his administration, current USG president Enzo Kho ’26 offered the ability for upperclass students to bank meal swipes in the future and Princeton login protection of the University’s directory. While these changes are commendable in isolation, meal swipe banking comes in connection to a much larger loss on independent dining, and it is troubling that these were the most significant successes Kho could articulate.
USG seems to have abandoned its more ambitious goals. While it is still pursuing last year’s pass/D/fail languages referendum that the University initially rejected, it appears that the other referenda that passed last fall have stalled. Furthermore, Kho admitted that, because of budget cuts, USG has stopped pressing for the University to cover the 14 percent tax levied on some international students’ financial aid, despite the fact that it was a campaign priority for the current elected members of USG.
It is not acceptable for our representatives to simply give up, even — and especially — when obstacles to student interests feel formidable. While framing and phrasing policy as win-win for students and the University is an important and effective skill, there are also persistent mismatches between student needs and University policy. When student representatives assume their roles, they sign up to be advocates, not just figureheads. Navigating disputes with the University is part of the job.
These problems are exacerbated by a USG structure that is not conducive to creating meaningful change: while different committees can and should pursue different projects, when it comes to responding to the University — on issues like dining and the recording policy — the members of USG need to be on the same page to be effective. Turnover across years makes continuing efforts difficult, especially because University timelines are usually much longer than a single USG administration’s tenure, as many members of USG pointed out. Even within this year’s USG, interviews with various members revealed significant discrepancies in their familiarity with ongoing policies.
Furthermore, the University increasingly disregards students’ perspectives and places structural barriers in the way of effective USG advocacy — even leaving them out of the loop until certain decisions, like dining and the end of Wintersession, were already made.
Our conversations with multiple USG members indicated that the University is seeking a deferential USG. The University relies on USG to legitimize decisions they’re making, such as the elimination of independent status.
But a compliant USG fails to represent its constituents. The housing and dining changes announced earlier this semester were met with immediate backlash both on their merits and unilaterality. The proposed policy requiring upperclass students living on campus to purchase a meal plan has been softened, presumably in response to powerful alumni opposition. But would-be independent students remain without redress, and USG has not fought for independent dining as vigorously as alumni fought for the eating clubs.
So what should USG do?
Take the recording policy example that started this piece. The U-Councilors, who had four days’ notice, could have organized a coalition in time for the CPUC meeting, blocking the University’s apparent plan to push the reform through quietly — or at least publicly communicating student dissent. CPUC attendance is sparse; even a medium-sized group of student representatives voicing substantive objections to the policy and voting “no” instead of merely asking questions and accepting insufficient answers before voting “yes” would have changed the tenor of the meeting entirely.
When a proposed policy could threaten to limit student liberties, a strong justification from the University should be required to even consider a vote, followed by serious, democratic deliberation. The natural response to an insufficiently-justified repression of liberties should be a “no.” Even a more neutral and moderated reaction, like coordinated abstentions, would have hewed closer to the U-Councilors’ goal of advocacy.
These failures in responsibility and communication have the same twin drivers that we discussed before: structural USG inefficiencies and University secrecy. Both facilitated the CPUC’s enactment of suppressive policy shifts. The U-Councilors’ compliant approval of a sweeping measure without soliciting their constituencies’ opinions allowed the change to pass without resistance. This sends a message to the University that they can make policy changes that substantively affect the student experience and restrict student liberties without cooperation, and encounter no resistance.
This year, we have learned that the University is inclined to disregard student representatives on policy matters of where University policy and student interests diverge. When our representatives acquiesce to the simplest bureaucratic barriers, they neglect their basic responsibility to represent student interests. As USG elections near, we hope that future USG members and U-Councilors will better execute these responsibilities.
149th Editorial Board
Isaac Barsoum ’28
Raf Basas ’28
Frances Brogan ’27
Eleanor Clemans-Cope ’26
Preston Ferraiuolo ’26
Anna Ferris ’26
Ava Johnson ’27
Christofer Robles ’26
Bryan Zhang ’26
The Editorial Board is the institutional voice of The Daily Princetonian and consists of nine members: two managing editors, the Head Opinion Editor, and a group of six Opinion section editors, columnists, and contributing writers. It convenes to discuss issues and current events of interest to the Princeton University community, as well as collectively write signed editorials addressing them, which reflect the consensus of a majority of the Board’s membership. The Editorial Board operates independently of the newsroom of the ‘Prince.’
Read More
Searching for a partner? Swipe left on intolerance
Vitalia SpatolaYour partner’s political choices say something about their values, and their values say something about your values as the person who chose them. Opting for non-confrontation to preserve a relationship that doesn’t align with your values is dismissing the increasingly salient political future ahead of us.
Your partner’s political choices say something about their values, and their values say something about your values as the person who chose them. Opting for non-confrontation to preserve a relationship that doesn’t align with your values is dismissing the increasingly salient political future ahead of us.
Elected CPUC members must answer for their egregious dereliction of duty
Jerry ZhuWhile 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.
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.
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.