• Representatives present • Katherine Bold, ACM • Peter Locker, ANT • Jack Tinsley, CHE • Basak Surmeli, CHM • Kellam Conover, CLA • Chris DeCoro, COS • Christiane Meyer, EEB • James Bickford, ENG • Valerie Dionne, FIT • Karin Sigloch, GEO • Donna Sy, HOS • Weifeng Cheng, MAE • Thomas Horine, MAT • Shin-Yi Lin, MOL • Annika Peter, PHY • Kim Montgomery, PSY • Susan Gunasti, REL • Cori Anderson, SLA • Debbie Becher, SOC • Newsha M. Dau, WWS •
• Delegates present • Chen Wei, ACSS • Leslie Hinkson, Black Graduate Caucus (BGC) • Joshua Friess, BUT • Lior Silberman, Graduate College (GC) • Marcelline Block, Hibben-Magie (HM) • Jennifer Jordan proxy for Carolyn Mordas, LAW •
• Councilors present • Chair Nicole Esparza, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Parliamentary Secretary Jack Tinsley, CPUC • Corresponding Secretary Shin-Yi Lin • Treasurer Jeff Dwoskin • Press Secretary Christine Percheski • Social Chair Aleksandar Donev • James Bickford, CPUC • Newsha Dau, CPUC Priorities Committee • Christiane Meyer, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Annika Peter, CPUC • Lior Silberman, CPUC, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Meredith Safran, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee •
• Others present • Lisa Schreyer, Assistant Dean for Residence Life and Student Affairs • Beth McKeown, Community Programs Coordinator • Asli Bali, Princeton Committee for a Free Palestine • Nisreen Salti, Princeton Committee for a Free Palestine •
• Representatives absent • Neven Fuckar, AOS • Sinéad Mac Namara, CEE • Jonathan Vogel, ECO • Fei Sun, ELE • Michael K. House, GER • Jane Murphy, HIS • Andrew Moroz, ORF • David R. Smith, PPL •
• Delegates absent • Heather White, Women’s Center (WOC) • Weining Man, CIGS •
• Councilors absent • Sara Nephew, CPUC Governance Committee • Tauna Szymanski, CPUC Judicial Committee • Ian Parrish, CPUC Priorities Committee • Andrew Moroz, CPUC Resources Committee •
• Representative seats vacant • ARC • ART • AST • COM • EAS • MUS • NES • POL • PHI • SPO •
• Delegate seats vacant • Millstone Apartments • Off Campus •
Mr. Tinsley seated four new members to the Assembly: Leslie Hinkson (BGC), Katherine Bold (ACM), and Weifeng Cheng (MAE).
Ms. Esparza presented the minutes from the previous meeting with corrections made by Lior Silberman and Anita Adhitya. Mr. Silberman made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected and Shin-Yi Lin seconded. The motion passed.
Ms. Esparza then began a multi-part presentation on the GSG, the slides of which are available here in pdf or plain text. She proceeded to explain the history, structure and mission of the GSG. Next, Meredith Safran and James Bickford presented the Academic Affairs committee. Ms. Safran described its main goals and Mr. Bickford described some specific projects. Ms. Esparza continued the presentation with a focus on post-enrollment. She presented the history of post-enrollment and then talked about program length and the large discrepancies between departments, in particular between official program lengths and actual time-to-degree. She presented the former Provost’s committees improvements to post-enrollment, and explained the split between DCC and ETDCC students. She ended by asking if post-enrollment is indeed a good solution and presented some GSG ideas for improvements. Karin Sigloch then presented the Health & Life committee, focusing on the differences between graduate and undergraduate student life. Mr. Silberman then presented the Facilities committee, beginning with mandate and structure and then focusing on housing and parking & transportation. Ms. Esparza closed the GSG presentation by describing the goals of the Campus Relations committee. She thanked the Provost and invited questions.
The Provost began by expressing appreciation for GSG’s work and knowledge of the University’s structure. He pointed out that most issues discussed in the presentation will require long-term work, but that on some issues, progress could be made quickly. As an example for the latter, he told us about recent negotiations with University League concerning availability of more slots of subsidized childcare for graduate students and the assignment of a University Administrator, Alison Nelson in Human Resources, to handle dependents issues as one of her responsibilities. He confirmed that Princeton administration does not have data on the number of graduate student families with children and that he would appreciate it if we share our numbers with his office. Ms. Sigloch explained that our Dependents Committee counted more than 60 such families, a number larger than the official numbers, which was based on data from just nine departments. Mr. Silberman explained that Housing is also trying to collect this data but that it is difficult to do for students living off-campus. The Provost agreed such data should be collected.
Then, the Provost asked whether our primary concern was post-enrollment or housing. Ms. Esparza explained that historically post-enrollment was the most important issue, but, with the housing crisis, housing has assumed an increasing importance. The discussion then turned to post-enrollment. The Provost asked Ms. Esparza how other schools deal with post-enrollment. She reported that as discussed at last year’s Ivy Summit, other schools do not have post-enrollment, but rather a lower-tuition student status. In later years of graduate study, students do not pay tuition (and cannot take classes or loose other privileges paid by tuition) but rather a relatively small fee ($2-5,000), which pays for the things provided by being an enrolled student, such as health insurance. She then emphasized that Princeton does not properly account for the post-enrolled students since they are not counted among the students, and then suggested that money beyond administrative costs is not necessarily involved in solving many of the post-enrollment issues. The GSG has never asked the administration to provide funding for post-enrolled students. The Provost replied by pointing back to the GSG slides and saying that health care, for example, does cost money.
Ms. Hinkson pointed out that non-enrolled students often cannot apply for sources of external funding. Changing their student status would allow them to get funding without the University funding them. Mr. Silberman added that allowing post-enrolled students into the housing draw does not necessarily cost money. Students would still be paying rent. The Provost argued that housing would cost more money because the need for graduate student housing would increase if more people were eligible for housing. It was mentioned that the University claims to house more than 70% of enrolled students, so that the number would be lower if post-enrolled students were allowed to participate in the housing draw. Debbie Becher added that the official statistics need to be changed to reflect post-enrolled students.
Ms. Safran pointed out that the problem of post-enrollment is somewhat department-specific and that in the humanities more than 30% of the students are post-enrolled. She talked about increased duties of graduate students, increased academic competition and job market overflow. The Provost agreed that it is much harder to be a graduate student today than in earlier decades. Ms. Lin added that the time-to-degree is also increasing in the sciences as well. The Provost suggested that some departments may be able to lower their requirements and thus help reduce time-to-degree.
Aleksandar Donev then stressed that student status is very important because of immigrant visas as well as student loans and that these issues are not directly tied to resources. He expressed concern that the university is hurting students affected by these issues simply for the sake of appearances and distorted statistics such as Princeton supports 100% of its enrolled graduate students. The Provost agreed that indeed it would be wrong to keep post-enrollment if its only goal or benefit was appearances. He again raised the concern of costs. Mr. Silberman explained that extending the official visa status for international students would not cost money since it simply involves reporting to the INS. The Provost expressed skepticism at the no-cost arguments. However, he agreed that post-enrollment is an important issue, pointed out that Dean Russel is also very concerned with the issue, and said that the Graduate School and Office of the Provost will work together in the coming years.
The Provost then turned attention to the interaction between graduate and undergraduate students. He asked if the involvement of graduate students in the new Residential College is helpful. Several assembly members expressed an optimistic view of the proposed program, but pointed out that only small numbers (30 or so) of graduate students will actually be involved and that the interaction is unlikely to spread to the wider population. Ms. Lin then presented a positive experience from a grad-undergrad Writing Partner program at the Writing Center, and the Provost added that tutoring in science labs during the summer, senior and junior projects, etc., helps build positive interactions as well. Ms. Sigloch corroborated this with experience from her department. Christine Percheski pointed out that intramural sports also provide a venue for interactions between grads and undergrads. The Provost recalled that today there is much more interaction than when he was an undergraduate student, but agreed that there is ample room for improvement. Ms. Hinkson then talked about her experience as a student of color and that she is often asked to informally mentor undergraduates of color, a big duty not recognized by the university. She suggested that a more formal mentoring program for undergrads by grad students would help both groups in their personal and professional development and further positive relations. Ms. Safran then cautioned that while furthering social interactions between the two groups on campus is important, lines need to be drawn carefully to set appropriate boundaries that ensure that teaching/grading duties are not affected. The Provost said that integration of the two communities is also important because of the current peripheral role of graduate students on campus, but that boundaries will need to exist, not only because of academic concerns, but simply because of the life-style and age differences between the two groups. Jack Tinsley shared a personal experience with an undergrad in his lab who thought grad students were treated badly at Princeton and said he himself would not attend Princeton as a graduate student. Ms. Esparza pointed out that the lack of professional schools, which many Princeton undergrads will attend, contributes to the divide. The Provost agreed and added that the whole campus has a very inward feeling because of its structure, small size, and lack of professional schools.
The Provost then pointed out that the success of the Shuttle project is a model for the rest of the university. He explained that the faculty strongly resist the implementation of a similar shuttle service at the cost of reduced parking privileges on campus, and that the success of a similar program for graduate students is a strong argument for the administration. The Provost then left the meeting expressing his positive experience with the GSG. (It was now about 7:30pm)
Ms. Esparza then gave the Chair summary, reporting that Exec members have been busy with orientation activities and preparing for the Provost visit to Assembly. She reported that she invited the new Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs and Diversity, Danielle Gray, to come to the October meeting. Ms. Esparza reminded Assembly members that proposed changes to the election by-laws will be discussed at the next meeting and that each department or group with a delegate needs to have an election each year.
(This paragraph is out of sequence, but placed here for continuity). Mr. Silberman then raised concerns about the time to propose amendments and corrections to the proposed by-laws. Mr. Tinsley proposed that a caucus should be formed to discuss the proposal outside of Assembly and that it prepare a final proposal to be sent to Assembly at least two weeks before vote. Newhsa Dau requested that the presentation of the by-laws should be improved by clearly separating the original text from the proposed modification. Mr. Silberman asked if Leonard Pease III (one of the authors of the proposed by-laws) would be present at the caucus. Mr. Tinsley said that he would see if he was available.
Mr. Donev then gave the Social Chair report, which focused on the upcoming Wine & Cheese social. Mr. Donev stated that he would be emailing flyers to Assembly members so that they could post them up in their departments.
The Chair then recognized Ms. Lin. Ms. Lin then presented to Assembly details about the upcoming Graduate Research Symposium and handed out flyers.
Treasurer Jeff Dwoskin had sent his report in advance of the meeting.
Mr. Dwoskin explained that there were two late funding requests and that a vote is needed on whether to consider the late requests. Ms. Percheski made a motion not to hear them, arguing that the size of the budget did not permit due consideration anyway, and Ms. Becher seconded. The motion failed. Ms. Dau then made a motion to hear the requests and Chris DeCoro seconded. Mr. Silberman argued that the size of the budget does not matter. The motion passed and Assembly proceeded to discuss the requests.
The first funding request was from the Princeton Committee for a Free Palestine (PCFP). Two representatives from the group, Asli Bali and Nisreen Salti, presented details about the speaker and the poetry reading. Mr. Silberman then informed the guests that the GSG constitution does not permit funding political causes and asked them if the event was political or cultural. The representatives answered that the event was mainly cultural and that no fliers would be handed out or other activist/political activities performed. Mr. DeCoro then argued that the poetry of the speaker has very strong political messages, to which Ms. Bali replied that the guest is primarily an artist, rather than an activist. Ms. Hinkson compared the proposed event to the case of an artist like Eminem performing. Ms. Esparza proposed to have a vote on whether the event should be considered political. Mr. Tinsley spoke as Parliamentary Secretary and explained that the constitution refers to a political cause, and that he sees no direct conflict with the constitution in supporting an event of this nature.
Ms. Lin made a motion to consider the event non-political and Ms. Esparza seconded. The motion passed.
Katherine Bold then briefly presented the second funding request from the Game and pointed out that more than 100 people are expected to participate. Finally, Ms. Dau read a statement from Donna Sy presenting the third funding request, for a swing dance, and explained that the group is looking for funding but that due to regulations about funding, they cannot obtain funds from undergraduate sources, despite the large number of undergraduates who are expected to participate.
The Assembly then moved into a quasi-committee of the whole after a motion to do so was proposed by Ms. Lin, seconded by Mr. Bickford, and passed by the Assembly.
The quasi-committee came up with the following recommended amounts: $200 for the PCFP, $75 for the Game, and $90 for the Swing Club. Ms. Esparza moved Assembly into normal operation and made a motion to fund at the proposed amounts, which was seconded by Ms. Lin. The motion passed.
Ms. Esparza asked if anyone had new business. There was no new business reported. Ms. Esparza then adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:15pm.