Geeks bearing gifts

The administration's first mistake was assuming that they would be greeted as liberators and not occupiers. How could the average man or woman on the Street not cheer the overthrow of his or her misogynistic, elitist overlords? The planners, from President Tilghman on down, thought they knew the nature of the ancient regime, seeing only a tyrannical oligarchy of rich white men stuck in the 1950s. So with ideological blinders firmly affixed, they set out on a mission of regime change and undergraduate liberation. Of course inconvenient truths like the real nature of the eating clubs would have to be ignored; the neo-Princetonians wanted and needed to usher in a new utopia of diverse sobriety, and what are mere facts in the face of such an opportunity?

The Tilghman administration's recent actions demonstrate beyond any doubt an alarming focus on undermining the eating clubs and propping up the residential colleges at any cost. What is most surprising and disturbing about this clandestine crusade is that it has overlooked or disregarded any opposing points of view. The end goal here is not up for debate: a Princeton with either no eating clubs or a fatally wounded club system. In the administration's eyes, the only question is how to get there.

This sentiment never directly sees the light of day. The eating clubs are far too popular among current students and alumni for any direct challenge. Indeed, any attempt to abolish the eating clubs outright would invite an institutional civil war. We are therefore constantly soothed by pleas that "nobody's eliminating anything, we're just adding options."

Let's examine that. In a July 17 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Tilghman said that she supported the residential colleges because some eating clubs are selective, and she does not like who they select. Even if this did suggest a need for radical change, her proposed solution would exacerbate the problem. If the eating clubs really are too homogenous, another set of options would primarily draw students who don't fit into that largely homogenous mix. This would make the clubs into exactly what our president feels they already are.

Since current circumstances offer little direct support for insinuations of intolerance, the administration chooses to fight in other ways, primarily by shaping the relatively malleable opinions of pre-frosh and frosh. My tour of Princeton glossed over the eating clubs. OA leaders are told to "debunk the myth that there is one social life at Princeton which revolves around the Street and alcohol." They are also told to avoid talking about the Street unless they give the frosh an "awareness of classism."

Additionally, a captive audience of Rockefeller sophomores was subjected to a 15 minute reeducation video regarding the Bicker process and clubs last night. Students were told to "think critically" about the current social structure as long as they reached the right conclusion; the more dehumanizing elements of Bicker were highlighted, rejection emphasized and broken friendships abounded. Administration propaganda, therefore, paints the Street as little more than a hotbed of drunken elitism and unhappiness, and the administration is acting on this belief and attacking the clubs.

Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel's statement that she's "just adding options" takes on a whole new meaning when one considers what the administration thinks about the current options. It no longer seems like an innocent desire to improve student life but instead appears to be a Trojan horse, a means to a club-free end. Indeed, the undergraduate experience has consistently lagged behind this agenda recently.

The most disappointing change for me was the elimination of late breakfast. Last year, I ate breakfast at Frist three times a week. Now I can't, though the dining hall is open later. I ate at Frist, however, not because of its hours but because of its selection and location: the food is better and closer to class. The ability to grab food and snacks through the morning, as opposed to eating a sit-down meal, added flexibility to my schedule. Now I no longer have that option, all in an effort to "convince (students) to 'stay home' in the colleges."

Where does this leave us on the first day of a new year? It leaves us with a war between the proponents of the residential colleges and the two best dining options at Princeton. Unfortunately, I fear that we undergraduates will be the ones who have to deal with the effects of the administration's fixation on changing the foundation of a Princeton education and suffer as Princeton is unnecessarily rebuilt. Barry Caro is a sophomore from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.