I must admit I am somewhat perplexed by the recent controversy about our 'Street.' As an avowed fan of the eating clubs, I cannot understand why anyone would propose bulldozing them, or even weakening their position as Princeton's primary source of entertainment. They are, after all, not so strange or demonic a phenomenon that they require such a negative outcry as has arisen. In casting the eating clubs as bugaboos of all that is wrong with Princeton, such critics commit two fallacies when they fail to actually see the clubs for what they are: big houses.
While such an observation may seem banal, it underscores the fundamental fact that the eating clubs are places of congregation, offering the perfect venue and opportunity for students from all over campus to gather and socialize. In this regard, the eating clubs are no different from bars or nightclubs in any city. They all fulfill the same need for people to go out and party with their friends in a boisterous and relaxed environment. Critics of the clubs fail to realize that the clubs are products of this desire rather than causes of it.
Remove the clubs and students will find other places to have parties, which, incidentally, would not be nearly as good as the existing clubs. Furthermore, there is no true competition with the 'Street' in terms of social life, not because alternatives do not exist, but because people actually enjoy going out to the 'Street' more than they do going to the alternatives. I am not sure why anyone who dislikes such social atmospheres — and it can be intimidating for some — should feel drawn to them on Thursday and Saturday nights. There are plenty of other activities on campus — from museum exhibits, to concerts, to movies, to plays — to occupy one's time if one does not want to hit the 'Street.' That the role of the eating clubs would be diminished if greater alternatives — non-alcoholic alternatives, mind you — were provided, is simply the first fallacy committed by the critics.
But of course I have not treated the subject of alcohol yet, except to mention the word at the end of the previous paragraph. In fact, alcohol has little to do with the entire subject of the eating clubs, for it is not particular to the 'Street,' nor is it the main attraction. The second fallacy committed by the critics is that they assume that, like flies to sugar, students are attracted to the clubs by the copious amounts of free beer. The truth is far subtler; students go to the 'Street' and drink, not to drink — that is, the main purpose of our going out is not to drink or to get drunk, but to socialize. Drinking is but a happy coincidence. After all, it is far easier to get drunk in one's room off of hard liquor than to get drunk off of the clubs' watery beer. Furthermore, that virtually any social venue in New York, the place of infinite alternatives, serves alcohol, testifies to the fact that alcohol and socialization are fundamentally mixed. It therefore seems logical — and a cursory glance at the social scenes of any college will inform us in this regard — that alcohol and socialization should be fundamentally mixed on campus. This is not to condone or accept binge drinking but rather to explain that any drinking at the eating clubs is a product of students' desire to socialize, rather than a cause.
Unfortunately I have run out of space and can not address the issue of diversity and elitism in this column. However, if we consider the conjunction of the two mentioned fallacies into one — that the eating clubs are products rather than causes of students' social desires — then the issue becomes rather clear.
(Dan Ostrow is a politics major from New York. He can be reached at dtostrow@princeton.edu)
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.