Campus Club will switch to Bicker system

Campus Club president Jonathan Chou '04 announced yesterday the club will abandon this year's semi-selective sign-in process in favor of Bicker. The change, initiated by the Club's graduate board, comes on the heels of three years of disappointing sign-in numbers and has drawn mixed reactions from current and prospective Campus members.

Campus Graduate Board President Lou Emanuel '51 said the change is to accommodate the increasing number of students who prefer joining bicker clubs.

"Clubs are there to perform a function for the undergraduate. The figures tell us that undergrads prefer a selective club to a non-selective club," he said.

Chou said he does not anticipate a change in the atmosphere of Campus, whose members value its inclusive environment.

"I don't feel like the club is going through this huge revolutionary change," Chou said. "It's just a different way to admit members . . . The atmosphere of the club should remain the same."

Emanuel agreed. "My frank opinion is that [Bicker] will increase and improve the club's reputation," he said.

Campus was founded in 1900, and like the others, as a bicker club. Campus became non-selective in the 1970s, Emanuel said.

Though he acknowledged the bicker system has "endured some abuses in the past," the board was acting in response to the figures.

Campus will admit prospective members in Bicker starting next spring, using "mingling sessions" to allow current members to get to know prospectives.

Chou did not seem worried that prospective and current members who enjoyed the sign-in status might turn against the club.

Campus member Patrick Miller '03 said, "I just think it's unfortunate that at Princeton we feel that in order to be viable or competitive we need to be selective."

Miller was not the only Campus fan disappointed in the change.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Laura Collins '06, who said she was strongly considering joining Campus with several friends, is now uncertain, and her group is turned off by the club's newly adopted selectivity.

"We weren't exactly thrilled to hear that they were going Bicker," Collins said. "I know a few sophomores are thinking of leaving campus because its going Bicker . . . I think it sort of goes against the spirit of why they joined the club."

But other members maintain that exclusivity has its allure.

"I think it would actually be good for the club and create an identity and a specific group of people would want to join Campus," said a junior member of Campus. As in other clubs, Campus members, except its president, are prohibited from publicly commenting on the club.

Chou said the club formed a steering committee comprising several current members to discuss the problems with their semi-selective sign-in process.

In the semi-selective process, a small committee determined whether to admit each prospective member, with a strong bent toward accepting anyone truly interested in the club.

"The steering committee realized that the majority of the members were dissatisfied with the fact that they weren't involved in member selection," Chou said. "Along with that thinking, the steering committee determined that the club was in favor of Bicker."

Chou said that with this process, Campus hopes to eschew the stereotype of the "unwelcoming" bicker club, stressing that the members will determine the atmosphere of the club in the future.