In 1982, the New Jersey drinking age was raised to 21, and the University-operated pub located in Chancellor Green was forced to close its doors. In the spring of 2006, an attempt to recreate this vibrant and welcoming atmosphere through a series of pub nights was shut down after the first night, when Princeton Borough and the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control withdrew their approval. Today, it is clear that there is a valuable role to be played by an on-campus pub, and the University should aggressively seek Borough approval to reopen a pub.
Princeton social life is often criticized for its exclusivity and its emphasis on high-risk drinking. A campus pub would provide an excellent alternative by emphasizing inclusivity and moderated alcohol consumption in a casual social environment. Though access would likely be limited to the 21-and-over crowd, a pub would enable a wide variety of members of the Princeton community to drink and socialize together. Such a shared social environment could facilitate greater and richer interactions between students and their professors, undergraduate and graduate students, and students who would not otherwise find themselves in the same room on a Friday night.
While it is unclear whether a campus pub would reduce or eliminate binge drinking in dorms or on the Street, it would provide a valuable alternative model for casual alcohol consumption that could shift drinking attitudes among students. The University community has long needed and asked for a new model of low-risk drinking as a means to socialize. Last spring’s findings of the Task Force on Relationships between the University and the Eating Clubs included a recommendation for the establishment of a campus pub, and in 2008, both the Undergraduate Student Government’s Committee on Background and Opportunity and the Alcohol Coalition Committee proposed that the University re-examine the feasibility of this option. Tilghman said that attendance at the 2006 pub night suggested that there would be “significant participation” in a campus pub and that it would be “an opportunity to bring together the entire drinking-age community — students, faculty, and staff — in a casual setting.”
A University-operated pub would provide a welcome and necessary alternative to the current on- and off-campus social options. By establishing a venue for responsible casual drinking, the University can facilitate a campus social scene that is more welcoming, safe and accessible to all members of the Princeton community. In the coming months, the working group should lend its support to the re-establishment of a campus pub and open dialogue with the Borough to gain its approval.
Want to join the Editorial Board? Apply by October 1. Visit dailyprincetonian.com/join/opinion.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
