In which I defend the working group

The place to begin reading this report is at pages 10 and 11. To quote, “When asked about social life on campus, seniors who were not in eating clubs clearly expressed less satisfaction than students in clubs.” The numbers for satisfied seniors in clubs ranged from 86 percent to 93 percent. By contrast, the numbers for non-club seniors were noticeably lower, from 71 percent (co-ops) to a mere 58 percent (residential colleges). These numbers should alarm all of us, and they definitely drew the working group’s attention.

It would be easy to write off the residential college numbers as a sign that the system has simply failed. But 71 percent of seniors in residential colleges reported being “very” or “generally” satisfied with the colleges themselves. As such, those of us who are dissatisfied seem to think the colleges are doing a good job but that the University needs to fill some other gaps on campus.

Fixing this problem will require more and better events, including what the report calls “unstructured” ones. We can easily fill the days with study breaks in the residential colleges and movie screenings, but there’s something more relaxing about unstructured and more personal events. Unfortunately, it’s hard to schedule the unscheduled. And lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I do generally believe that the government should not meddle with individual choices. But the University is not a government — it is a private association that can and should provide the opportunities for us to make healthy choices that we find “very satisfying.”

Turning to some of the recommendations, the report identifies the importance of having suitable physical spaces for expanded social activities, especially more informal ones. Second, it requires a consistent effort by staff and students to set up events like a “board game night,” to borrow an example from Mathey College. What’s more, these events ought to be on Thursdays and especially Saturdays as a direct alternative to “party hard” options.

Most of all, although the report does not mention this, improvement will require having more upperclassmen in the colleges. Only when there is a culture of the colleges will true community develop, and that is something the University must continue to foster.

Some critics might point to places like Murray-Dodge Cafe as providing these sorts of options. Murray-Dodge has had considerable success, but there is still more demand out there. No one would claim that every single student here would fit in at a particular eating club, so there’s no reason to think we shouldn’t have more alcohol-free options that vary by location and interests. There’s also no reason to stop improving on existing options whenever possible, in light of the dissatisfaction among a large minority of students.

Another good idea from the report is having “mixers,” both across and within classes and colleges. Some of the colleges already do this occasionally. The point is to have a place for students to dance, socialize and listen to music without beer-covered floors or a culture of heavy alcohol use. Dancing does not require binge drinking and neither does having fun. But it does require having somewhere to go.

One of the other significant recommendations of the working group is the re-establishment of a campus pub, where students, staff and faculty of age could enjoy responsible alcohol consumption, music and a social atmosphere. The report discusses the costs of renovating two particular locations, the Prospect House taproom and the Chancellor Green Cafe, the site of the old campus pub. We should not table this idea simply because of cost, but the University could also consider options like the Campus Club taproom.

Finally, I could not agree more with the recommendation to end freshman year rush. We cannot blame the fraternities and sororities for all, or even most, of the high-risk drinking on campus. But Greek life is undoubtedly part of the “party hard” culture. Any solution to that problem will require addressing the irresponsible and illegal drinking and hazing that occur during some rush processes, including the events reported by the Prince last spring. The working group found a reasonable compromise in recommending a ban on rush during the particularly vulnerable time of freshman year, calling for no-nonsense enforcement, and leaving the Greek organizations otherwise (and unofficially) intact.

Regardless of the particular proposals, Princeton’s dangerous culture of “work hard, party hard” must end. The University should at very least continue its program of providing alternatives to that culture. The working group’s thoughtful recommendations, even if implemented, may not entirely accomplish that crucial goal. But enacting the group’s ideas would be a clear signal that the University takes seriously the dissatisfaction of students seeking alternative, alcohol-free ways to unwind and have fun after a hard day’s work.

Brian Lipshutz is a politics major from Lafayette Hill, Pa. He can be reached at lipshutz@princeton.edu.