While the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement continues to gain momentum on college campuses, Princeton bucks the trend.
Background
For the second time in its history, Princeton University undergraduate students faced a BDS-aligned referendum for the Undergraduate Student Government (USG). Despite a close race, it did not win support from a majority of the student body and University President Eisgruber ruled against enacting it.
In March 2022, the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP), a campus organization that has been embroiled in numerous antisemitic controversies, held a protest outside the Center for Jewish Life (CJL) on campus. Protestors’ signs included phrases such as “From the River to the Sea,” an antisemitic slogan that calls for an end to the Jewish State. At the event, PCP President Eric Periman ’23 insinuated that the Jewish community at Princeton is complicit in human rights violations. As PCP chanted, pro-Israel students formed a counter-protest and waved Israeli flags.
Protestors Gathering Outside the Center for Jewish Life (CJL) in March 2022
Later that month, Periman introduced an anti-Israel referendum to USG. Citing “the violent role that Caterpillar machinery has played in the mass demolition of Palestinian homes,” the referendum called on the University to permanently terminate all contracts with companies that use Caterpillar construction equipment, or to renegotiate with contractors in ongoing campus development projects.
The explanatory section of the referendum, which explains the motion’s reasoning to voters, cited BDS as a precedent for divesting from Caterpillar. The co-founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, has advocated for the eradication of the Jewish State.
Once proponents secured the requisite 500 signatures, the referendum was included on the ballot for a campus-wide vote. As PCP began to promote the referendum, groups organized in opposition, among them Tigers for Israel (TFI) and Tigers United, an ad hoc body of anti-BDS students, faculty, and alumni. Both sides created flyers, promoted awareness on social media, and mobilized students to discuss Israel one-on-one with their peers and sway their vote on the referendum.
At one panel, PCP collaborated with the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP) and the Pride Alliance to discuss Masafer Yatta, a populated area in the West Bank where Israel conducts military drills. PCP also hosted a “Caterpillar Referendum Teach-In” with the parents of Rachel Corrie, an American who was killed by a Caterpillar machine while protesting in a closed, active military zone in Gaza in 2003.
TFI hosted its own panel, called “The Case Against BDS.” The panel featured former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, who discussed the role of diplomacy in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The panel also featured Palestinian peace advocate Bassam Eid, public intellectual Michael Walzer, and Ethiopian-Israeli activist Ashager Araro.
“Stop talking about bulldozers—I don’t think the conflict is founded on bulldozers,” Eid urged. He argued that boycotts of companies like Caterpillar would actually harm, rather than help, Palestinians, such as “the 150,000 Palestinian workers from the West Bank that go into Israel to work, everyday, mainly on tractors and bulldozers.”
Referendum Results Disputed; USG Upholds Objections
Soon after voting ended on April 13, the referendum’s results were leaked, revealing that the referendum failed to receive majority student support. The voting breakdown was 44% in favor, 40% against, and 16% abstaining. Confusion erupted over the meaning of abstentions, and thus the outcome of the voting process.
Leaked Referendum Results from April 13
Two weeks before the vote, USG’s Chief Elections Manager (CEM) Brian Li ’24 advised Jared Stone ’24, President of TFI, that abstentions would be included in the total of all votes cast, meaning that a majority of all votes cast had to be in the affirmative for the referendum to pass. Since 44% of cast votes were in favor, by this metric, “yes” votes would not meet the threshold for a majority, and the referendum would fail.
However, several hours after voting concluded, the CEM changed course, telling Stone that “in consultation with the parliamentarian, the handbook indicates that abstentions do *not* count against votes in the affirmative.”
The Chief Elections Manager’s Texts with Jared Stone ’24 Discussing Abstentions
By April 14th, USG Treasurer Adam Hoffman ’23 filed a formal appeal to USG, co-signed by USG Sustainability Chair Audrey Zhang ’25 and USG Senators Carlisle Imperial ’25 and Ned Dockery ’25. In addition to the appeal, a slew of complaints were filed by Myles McKnight ’23, Jacob Katz ’23, official opposition leader Reid Zlotky ’23, and others.
USG met on April 18 to hear the appellants and other complainants. According to USG Senator Imperial, official guidance was “misleading, and impacted the integrity of the voting process.” Hoffman claimed that passing the referendum would not “fairly represent the will of the students,” and recommended several remedies: failing the referendum in accord with the CEM’s prior guidance, holding a revote, or voiding the referendum. Alternatively, he and Dockery supported writing a reconciliation paper in which USG declared neither side winner.
“Hundreds of students learned by proxy that it was better to abstain than not to vote at all,” McKnight told the USG Senate, speaking on behalf of Zlotky. Many opposition activists corroborated the fact that Li’s communication shaped their campaigning strategies. Rebecca Roth, a member of the opposition, participated in private, one-on-one discussions with students during the campaign. “I urged people to vote abstain if they felt uncomfortable voting no, rather than simply not voting at all,” said Roth.
At the hearing, the CEM apologized for his mistaken guidance, but maintained that his latter interpretation of the status of abstentions must stand, per USG constitutional rules. Eric Periman, PCP President and sponsor of the referendum, also spoke before USG, calling the appeals as “ludicrous” and undemocratic.
Chief Elections Manager Brian Li ’24 Addresses USG at a Special Hearing of Appeals to Referendum 3
USG overwhelmingly voted in favor of the appeals: 15 in favor, 4 against, and 4 abstaining. USG settled on a compromise drafted by USG President Mayu Takeuchi ’23 and Vice President Hannah Kapoor ’23, which was openly supported by Hoffman and McKnight. Rather than declaring a “pass” or “fail” outcome, USG wrote an official reconciliation paper to the Princeton administration. The paper details the procedural complexity of the election, including the appeals process and the numerical results. The USG’s paper only “seeks to provide context as to how the student body engaged with Referendum No. 3,” and the USG “will not make a statement on behalf of the student body in favor of or against the referendum.”
Reactions to this outcome were mixed. Since opposition groups had mainly wanted to prevent the referendum’s passage, the pro-Israel side celebrated. “We are incredibly encouraged by the outcome of our efforts,” TFI wrote to its members. “BDS has failed.” On Instagram, Tigers United thanked the Princeton community for not voting in favor of the referendum.
Tigers United Instagram Post
Despite the fact that USG clearly stated that “it will not make a statement on behalf of the student body in favor of or against the referendum,” PCP left up its post which had declared victory after the voting breakdown leaked.
President Eisgruber Responds, Criticizes USG for Considering Referendum
There is reason to believe student motions aligned with BDS and against Israel will continue to find little purchase on an institutional level. On April 22, Princeton University President Eisgruber wrote to USG President Takeuchi and USG Secretary Charlotte Selover ’25 that in order to divest, the Board of Trustees must perceive that there is lasting, campus-wide consensus on an issue, and the Board declared that this consensus is unquestionably lacking on Israel issues.
“There is quite obviously no consensus on campus or in the broader University community about issues of Middle Eastern politics or what to do about them,” Eisgruber wrote. In the absence of unanimity, “which side ‘won’ a contested student election [is] not material to Princeton’s decision-making.”
This is just as true now as it was in 2014, when Princeton faculty circulated anti-Israel petitions, which Trustees rejected on the same grounds.
Eisgruber further criticized USG for allowing the referendum to reach a vote, and to think carefully about “when and why a referendum would be desirable” in the future. “Some issues are ill-suited to decision by referenda… the student body might be better served if USG’s processes allowed for more deliberation about when and why a referendum would be desirable.” Whether or not future divestors heed this advice, BDS promises to continue to be a flash point in campus politics.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.