From April 11-13, the Jewish people and the world’s only Jewish state were put on trial before Princeton University’s student body, which was called upon to vote in a referendum uniquely targeting Israel (via Caterpillar Inc., a construction company with which Israel does business, as do the Palestinians and many Arab nations). No such referendum was proposed over Russia, with its unjustifiable aggression against weaker neighbors like Georgia and Ukraine, nor China, with its oppression of the Uighurs and Tibetans; instead, the lone democracy in the Middle East was called out for special sanction. This was done despite the fact that a similar referendum in 2015 (which failed) led to a surge in antisemitic activity reported on campus.

Ultimately, this year’s referendum failed to gather the required majority of the votes, with only 44% of the student body voting in favor of the referendum, compared to 40% against and 16% abstaining. This is clear from the guidance provided by the Princeton student government’s elections manager, Brian Li, to Tigers for Israel president Jared Stone on March 28, to the effect that if “10 ppl vote, 4 in favor, 3 against, 3 abstain[,] That’s 40% in favor.” Based on this guidance, students leading the opposition to the resolution have asserted to the student government that they “told student after student that it was better to abstain rather than not vote at all.” In fact, the 56% majority of students who did not support the resolution was greater than the 52.5% who opposed the BDS referendum in 2015.

Certify Princeton BDS Referendum Results

Tell Princeton to Certify the BDS Referendum Results

CERTIFY THE RESULTS

PRINCETON

Nevertheless, hours after voting had already ended on April 13, Brian Li abruptly changed course, telling pro-Israel student leaders that abstentions wouldn't be counted after all. As Stone said: “I was assured explicitly in writing, and repeatedly throughout the campaign in verbal form, that abstention votes would count toward the total number of votes cast. To witness this pledge being amended ex post facto, following the conclusion of student voting, is deeply troubling.” This is especially true given that the Princeton Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Constitution provides for a referendum resolution to be binding only if “a majority of the votes cast in the referendum are in the affirmative.” (Sec. 1003(a)(2)). Under Robert’s Rules of Order, the traditional basis of parliamentary procedure at U.S. institutions, “if the rules explicitly require a majority… an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote.”

For these reasons, we call on the Princeton USG to clarify that under the rules of the constitution, and especially govern the guidance provided by the official administering the referendum, the question has failed. To do otherwise would not only betray any semblance of democracy, but lend credence to the appearance that the USG administration had its “thumb on the scale” and was determined to demonize the Jewish state, regardless of the wishes of the student body. This would recall the dark days before World War II when Princeton had strict quotas on Jewish students, and later refused to admit Jewish students to eating clubs in what is known as the “dirty bicker” of 1958. Princeton must act now to show that the era of antisemitism and differential treatment of Jewish students in its hallowed halls has not returned.