Open parties: Making eating clubs slightly less restrictive

Let me just put this out there: I’m not a fan of the eating club system. I’m especially not a fan of Bicker. I would prefer not to segregate people in any manner for the social functions of eating and partying. I think we should allow people to eat and party with whomever they want, whenever they want without having to jump through any hoops. I simply don’t approve of any system that unnecessarily divides and excludes people, especially when the criteria for entrance are based on subjective reasons rather than legitimate merit. Whether we intend or not, such exclusivity breeds elitism, and it unquestionably creates real divisions among the student population.

I also recognize that the eating clubs aren’t going away — at least not in the short term. One issue is that the University’s dining system wouldn’t be able to handle the influx of additional students. Plus, it takes time to dismantle a system so ingrained in our college culture. However, there is one change that could happen almost immediately that would exact a huge impact on the exclusive nature of eating clubs were students to agree to it. We can and should move eating clubs to an open party system.

Currently eating clubs allow people in for parties based on one of four systems. The parties are either open to anyone with a Princeton ID, anyone with a pass, anyone on a guest list established by members or open to members only. I propose we get rid of passes and lists. They are unnecessary and create more harm than good.

As I mentioned before, I’m against unnecessary exclusion. Lists and passes fit under that category. They continue to divide upperclassmen among the clubs just to drink and dance. Though going out with friends should just be fun, passes and lists force friends to plan ahead and jump through an unnecessary hoop or two to spend an evening together.

The existence of lists and passes not only divides upperclassmen in different clubs from each other, but it also has a huge impact on underclassmen. Since many club parties are often based on lists or passes, rather than just being open to any Princeton student, underclassmen have to find an upperclassman friend to help them get in. Granted, perhaps this works fine for someone active in some club where they know juniors and seniors, but those without those connections are unfairly left out.

One might claim networking is a useful skill to learn and this is simply one way of teaching freshmen how to do it. However, there are ways to learn to network without having an unfair balance of power and your supposed social life and reputation depend on it. Moreover, these relationships can become exploitable since underclassmen can’t particularly offer anything in return. This tension is only heightened in a situation where the “cool,” or even just “normal,” social activity is to go and party at certain clubs. Especially since a website that allowed trading passes for late meal credit was taken down in spring 2014, the relationship relies more on generosity and is potentially more exploitable as there are fewer options available for the outsider to offer in return.

Getting rid of passes and lists avoids this additional need of having to know someone on the inside to get in. Open parties knock down one layer of exclusivity. Anyone can party with anyone, no matter who you know.

One might argue that this change will overwhelm the system. Everyone will crowd one or two clubs and no one will have an enjoyable evening. However, this speculation appears unfounded. Other schools have significantly more open systems without any backlash. Dartmouth, for example, has about 70 percent of its eligible students involved in Greek life (students can’t rush until their sophomore year). That number is roughly representative of eligible Princetonians in eating clubs. They have three types of parties: their organization only, a mixer between one fraternity and one sorority, or parties open to anyone with a Dartmouth student ID. There are no lists or passes.

Parties that are open to more than just one fraternity and sorority are published to all Dartmouth students on a weekly basis (and apparently, according to my sister who just graduated from there, if someone came to one of those smaller mixers who wasn’t from one of the hosting groups, they’d still be allowed in. It’s just rare because those mixers aren’t published to the entire student body). And Dartmouth parties don’t get flooded; the student body naturally divides itself up among open events, probably because people go out to have fun and if one place is crammed wall-to-wall, people leave. Equilibrium is achieved naturally; feasibility arguments simply aren’t substantiated.

Of course, some limitations might still be justified. Certainly limiting parties to Princeton students for liability concerns is important; one wouldn’t want an entirely open party where local high-schoolers can attend. And though I don’t support the eating club divisions at all, one can argue that since they do exist, perhaps club-only events are justified. However, creating a social scene that largely relies on who you know simply to participate at all is unjust; it unnecessarily punishes outsiders without giving them a real opportunity to change their circumstances.

Whether you support the existence of Bicker and/or the existence of the eating clubs, I hope we can all agree that unnecessary division hurts our community as a whole more than it helps any subset of individuals. In that vein, I think that those who oppose and those who support eating clubs alike can agree that a more open party system can only benefit our student body. By dismantling one unnecessary barrier, we can go a long way to creating a fairer, happier, more united student body.