I really appreciate Stephanie Greenberg's column about the ugliness of Bicker. The eating clubs in general make me a bit uncomfortable because of the social elitism that comes simply from their being so expensive, but I still decided to sign in to Campus Club my sophomore year. I was lucky enough to be able to afford it, and it would make mealtime easy for me and let me eat with friends, the majority of whom were members. Further, Campus appealed to me because it was known for its laidback, accepting atmosphere.
But since then, the Graduate Board and the Campus Club officers have decided that the club must be more elitist in order to seem more desirable to potential members. Over the objections of most of the current members and many alumni, the club went Bicker this year.
I had to struggle to decide what to do. My contract for the year, most of it nonrefundable, had already been paid. I still had a lot of friends in the club. I tried to tell myself that I would only have to put up with the changed social situation for one year. As the date for Bicker selection approached, however, I became more and more uncomfortable.
I have no problems with elitism when it serves a constructive purpose — determining which students will best fit the goals of a university, say, or determining which candidate is most qualified for a job. But social elitism dedicated to determining which people are worthy of one's company repels me. We all do make constant judgments about each other, and we all prefer to spend more time with certain people than others. That's only natural — and a far cry from submitting oneself or requiring others to submit to an institutionalized system that is designed to reject undesirables just as much as it is to accept desirables. I wanted no part in it.
I left the club at the end of the fall semester, before bicker season started. The fees associated with meals were refunded to me, so I could afford to eat this semester — I just spend that meal money elsewhere. But it stung to lose so much money (the fees that go toward staff, social activities and the maintenance of a huge mansion), given that I no longer partake in the services offered by the club. And I resent that money's going toward a club that, in my eyes, has taken large steps in the wrong direction. All the same, I am much happier for having left and not participating in a process I object to on principle.
I still have a lot of friends in Campus, and I hope they're not upset I've written this. But as glad as I am that we're friends, I am disappointed that, of the many people who objected to Bicker, so few chose to leave. Knowing that Campus would be switching to Bicker this school year, I made a mistake in signing the contract in the fall — a big, expensive mistake — but I feel better that I've corrected it for myself rather than tried to ignore it. Caroline Baker '04 is a former member of Campus Club.
Read More
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.”
We must dispel the myth of Princeton’s economic diversity
Raf Basas“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
Pathologizing men is unproductive. We should invest in better men-focused spaces
Nicholas Manetas“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
