Ten years ago, a white Princeton student was nearly five times as likely as an Asian student to be in a selective eating club. Compared to black or Hispanic students, a white student was twice as likely to be in any eating club.
By the end of this semester, a full decade’s worth of bicker seasons and Lawnparties will have passed since these statistics came out in the USG's Committee on Background Opportunity (COMBO) Reports. Given how much has changed in this time, it’s hugely important that the University gain access to more current and in-depth information on the demographics of eating club members. For this reason, please vote yes on the referendum calling on the USG Senate to “establish a standing committee that works with the Interclub Council to annually collect and release demographic information, such as race, gender and academic major, about the members of each Eating Club, and, additionally for each selective (‘bicker’) Eating Club, its applicants (‘bickerees"’).”
It’s worth acknowledging that a lot has happened since 2007 that could have impacted the racial diversity of eating club members, whether directly or indirectly. In the fall of 2007, the University began offering students interested in joining eating clubs an additional $2,000, although this amount has proved insufficient for many students. Incidentally, the academic year of 2007-08 occurred during the largest national financial crisis since the Great Depression, an event that had an enormous long-term impact on the country’s racial wealth gap. In more recent years, individuals and groups on campus have increasingly called attention to racial disparities within the Princeton community and the experiences of students of color involving harassment and social exclusion.
Given that eating clubs count around 70 percent of juniors and seniors as members, it is safe to say they make up one of the single largest components of daily student life. It’s hardly necessary to explain to Princeton students that their influence extends not only to juniors and seniors, but underclassmen as well, by virtue of parties. Clearly, it is time not only to gather fresh data on the racial breakdown of eating clubs, but to guarantee that this information will be kept up-to-date and relevant. The referendum proposed by Leila Clark ’18 provides for the annual collection of numbers on demographics, which would make transparent the current status of diversity and inclusion within eating clubs as well as track any changes over the next few years.
A couple of eating club officers, however, have responded negatively to this proposal. President of the ICC and Colonial Club Christopher Yu '17 argues that "there's a danger in profiling" and “a lot of people won't join a particular club because they think there's too many of X or too many of Y in that club." Yu’s criticism implies that making racial disparities more visible is the problem, rather than these gaps themselves. If “X” or “Y” refers to a population of students of color, the decision by prejudiced individuals against joining a particular club seems like a positive outcome, especially for the former group. On the other hand, a predominantly white club is clearly a problem that needs addressing.
Charter Club president Lorena Grundy ’17 expresses a similar concern that collecting and releasing information on demographics could sabotage diversity. The fact that both of these officers are clearly concerned about the image of homogeneity that would emerge with accurate data seems to suggest, however, that what is at stake is more the illusion of diversity, rather than diversity itself. While statistics do not, of course, reflect the full range of identities and communities represented within a given population, they are necessary to understanding how categories like race impact social bodies. Grundy also worries about the implications of a survey on gender for non-binary people, a concern that seems well-intentioned but easily resolved. A survey should clearly be structured in a way that gives non-binary individuals the option of not responding to the question of gender.
The current proposal goes beyond the 2007 COMBO I report in an important way — it makes each eating club individually transparent and collects information on bickerees as well as members. This is a significantly positive change, but it more effectively addresses the social dynamics of the eating club system. It’s incredibly important that we look seriously into inclusivity and diversity on the Street because eating clubs form such an inescapably large part of social life on campus; we can’t do so, however, without basic information and transparency.
Max Grear is a Spanish and Portuguese major from Wakefield, R.I. He can be reached at mgrear@princeton.edu.
Read More
Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA singles run ends in Sweet 16
Hayk Yengibaryan and Tate HutchinsAfter reaching the Round of 16 in both the NCAA singles and doubles bracket, sophomore Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA run came to an end in Waco, Texas following defeats in both brackets on Thursday.
After reaching the Round of 16 in both the NCAA singles and doubles bracket, sophomore Paul Inchauspe’s NCAA run came to an end in Waco, Texas following defeats in both brackets on Thursday.
Reform first-year orientation: Less structure, stronger connections
Cathleen Balid“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
Opposition to weapons divestment referendum takes shape
Annie Rupertus and Miriam WaldvogelAs the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
As the vote on USG referenda approach, their opposition is taking shape. This is especially true of the controversial Referendum No. 5, which calls on the University to divest from weapons manufacturers.
