The Leading Princeton Publication of Conservative Thought

USG hears appeal to BDS-aligned referendum

 

On Monday, April 18, Princeton University Student Government (USG) met to discuss a formal appeal filed by Adam Hoffman ’23 against the results of Referendum 3. The referendum called on the University to boycott construction contractors who use Caterpillar equipment, citing, among other reasons, “the violent role that Caterpillar machinery has played in the mass demolition of Palestinian homes.” The referendum is aligned with the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which opposes the existence of the State of Israel. 

The results of the BDS-affiliated referendum election found 44% of the student body in favor, with 40% against, and 16% abstaining. 

The appeal, co-signed by USG Sustainability Chair Audrey Zhang ’25, USG Senate Members Carlisle Imperial ’25 and Class of 2025 Senator Ned Dockery ’25, came on the heels of controversy concerning the status of the abstentions in USG votes. If abstentions were not counted as votes cast, the referendum would have passed. However, if abstentions were counted, the referendum would have failed. 

Myles McKnight ’23, Jacob Katz ’23, and official opposition leader Reid Zlotky ’23 all filed complaints shortly after the voting finished on April 13.

These complaints contend that Chief Elections Manager (CEM) Brian Li ’24 “confirmed in written communication with Jared Stone, president of Tigers for Israel (TFI) and a leader in the opposition effort to Referendum 3, that ‘abstain’ votes would be counted towards the total vote count.” 

Opposition groups had formed their strategy based on this guidance, advocating for a “vote no or abstain” position. According to the appeal, “several hours after voting closed and the results were made available, the CEM wrote to Stone to reverse his previous position and share that he was now taking the position that the representations he made were incorrect.” 

Hoffman and his co-signers argue that “the conduct and decision of the CEM are unfair and incorrect” and advocate one of the following three steps forward: USG should “a) abide by the representations made by the CEM during the course of the campaign and on the basis of which the campaign was conducted, b) void the referendum, or c) hold a revote with clearly communicated rules and guidelines.”

Though the CEM’s comments have called the election’s integrity into question, all appellees have emphasized their confidence in Li’s personal integrity and that the mistake was honest. 

Hoffman made the opening remarks at the public USG hearing, reiterating the reasoning behind his appeal and arguing that if Li had clarified from the outset that abstentions would not have been counted, many of those who chose to abstain might have voted against the referendum. He noted that the number of abstentions was roughly four times greater than the margin between “yes” and “no” votes. 

Hoffman said that “the best and only way for USG to support student voices and reflect student will” is to find a remedy for the election confusion and pointed to a compromise drafted by USG President Mayu Takeuchi ’23 and Vice President Kapoor ’23 that would forward the referendum numbers to the administration without declaring a winning side.

Hoffman’s co-signers emphasized the importance of accurately representing students’ voices. Imperial called the election “flawed,” since the CEM’s miscommunication was “misleading and impacted the integrity of the voting process,” and Dockery told listeners that the result “is not a perfect representation of the student body’s opinions and perspectives.” Like Hoffman, Dockery supported the compromise.

Li stood before the Senate to speak in his own defense, highlighting his neutrality. “An honest mistake was made,” he admitted. “I misspoke, and I take full responsibility for this lack of clarity.” Still, Li argued, his “binding guidance” on the status of abstentions must stand, per the USG Handbook and Constitution. “You must not overturn my subsequent finding,” he told the Senate. 

“I did not explicitly indicate that abstentions would count against,” he claimed. He further stated that because he gave his original guidance regarding abstentions to Jared Stone ’24 via text, not email, he did not consider it an “official correspondence.” Li also asserted that Stone was “unaffiliated with the official opposition.” Stone is the President of Tigers for Israel (TFI), which hosted events and led one-on-one conversations with students against Referendum 3. Stone explained to The Tory that TFI and the official opposition “were technically distinct entities, but our prerogatives and our goals were intertwined as members of the opposition efforts.” 

In opposition to the appeal, Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP) President and referendum sponsor Eric Periman ’23 called the appeal a “ludicrous” effort to “challenge the democratic will of the undergraduate student body.” He charged that the appellees provided “absolutely no proof” that enough voting students believed their abstentions would count against the referendum.

Periman claimed that the referendum’s opposition had never directly urged students to abstain, whether by email, social media, or posters. “In every article, GroupMe message, and tabling conversation in Frist the call by the opposition party to convince students to abstain on this election was never mentioned, not once.” 

Rebecca Roth, a member of the opposition campaign, recounted that the vast majority of her campaign work during the election was in the format of private, one-on-one dialogue. While her primary goal was to convince people to vote against, “Recognizing the complexity of the topic, I urged people to vote abstain if they felt uncomfortable voting no, rather than simply not voting at all,” Roth said.

In campaign strategy meetings for TFI, Jared Stone instructed other opposition campaigners that the best strategy was to urge voters to abstain if they were hesitant to vote no on the referendum. For instance, when TFI tabled at Frist, it “did make it verbally clear to them that they could vote to abstain,” according to Stone. Stone explained that TFI did so on the basis of “prior, and documented, information that abstentions would count towards the total vote,” namely the text messages exchanged between Stone and Li, as mentioned in the appeal.

Myles McKnight, speaking on behalf of Reid Zlotky, the formal opposition leader, reiterated his colleagues’ points and re-emphasized their argument regarding the fair representation of student perspectives. “Hundreds of students learned by proxy that it was better to abstain than not to vote at all,” McKnight stated. Hence, the “very narrow margin of the election” makes it possible, if not likely, that the outcome would have been different had students been properly informed.

Like Hoffman and his appeal co-signers, McKnight encouraged the USG to adopt a “fair and reasonable compromise” that accounts for “the procedural injustice” of the election. He supported a resolution drafted by USG President Takeuchi and Vice President Kapoor that does not assign a “winning” or “losing” result to the referendum vote. 

Since the referendum was always intended to be advisory to the administration, McKnight argued, it could be submitted as is, with no declared winner. He urged the USG that, if they voted against the appeal, “such a victory would have been won by fiat, and your [USG’s] legitimacy would disintegrate.”

As McKnight spoke, members of PCP disrupted the audience’s silence with peels of laughter. “I heard laughing and sneering from some members of the audience in the back of the room. I was kind of taken aback because I thought everyone would be more professional than that,” USG Director of Communications Sarah Sharma ’25 told The Tory. “It was also quite distracting, and I missed a couple sentences of Myles’ speech because of it.”

McKnight’s speech closed the portion of the Senate hearing open to the community. A public resolution has not been announced as of publication.

 

The Tory also obtained a recording of the meeting, which can be listened to here.

 

The Tory strongly condemns all harassment or personal attacks directed towards Brian Li.

Comments

comments