Even at Princeton, a plebian dilemma

Word around the campfire is that many black '09ers, outside of the usual athletes, intend on bickering Cap & Gown this upcoming spring. As an observant member of Princeton's black community, I can confidently say that the sophomore class of black students is far more "pro-Street" than previous classes, including the Class of 2006 and 2007. There is plenty of time for things to change, but my bet is that all things being equal, this general trend will continue.

After spending last year paralyzed by Prospect Avenue horror stories and the intense awkwardness that being a freshman entails, I find myself now frequenting the Street more than ever before. I'm even considering joining one of the clubs, something I would never have seriously considered four months ago. Like most sophomores, I find myself talking with my closest friends about the dynamics of each club, the pros and cons of Bicker and how much we mutually despise those sophomores who have been quietly or not so quietly gathering allies for the coming storm of Bicker. Social climbers definitely light a fire in the bellies of those sophomores just warming up to the clubs, but there is a much larger issue that hovers over my head.

I'm one of those low-income students the kids talk about. Like every low-income student, Princeton's financial aid program caused me to look twice. Princeton's no-loan guarantee, instituted in 2001, proved to be the deciding factor in my choosing Princeton. Stanford and Yale offered sweet packages, but they just couldn't compare.

The ability for me to enroll into a good law school debt-free would be a dream for my mom, who is waiting for my brother (a junior at Cal State Los Angeles) and me to graduate before she continues working towards her own four-year degree.

As my interest in the Street grows and as I become more educated about the process, it becomes more evident that the prospects for low-income students at Princeton to join the club of their choice, without economic constraint, are slim to none. According to the Undergraduate Financial Aid Office, the University will cover whatever they currently pay for your residential college meal plan. In my case, the University would provide $4315 for my eating club costs, what they pay for my entire residential college meal plan. While there are some variations, I figure most low-income students find themselves in a similar space.

After that, it seems that we poor folks are left to fend for ourselves in a jungle of dubious loan programs. One enthusiastic friend of mine did point out that the University has a first-rate program, where students can borrow directly from the University. That doesn't make me feel any better. With University tuition increasing five percent annually, I can only imagine the amount of debt I will incur should I choose to join a club. Going independent looks a lot safer.

Executive Vice President Mark Burstein's claim that eating clubs are "an important part of the Princeton experience" leads to the question: Given the University's mission of maximizing the experience of every Princeton student, regardless of income, why continue withholding the funds that guarantee the chance for so many to be a part of a process so integral to that experience?

While rebutting Barry Caro's '09 excellent column on the administration's move to undermine the social power of the eating clubs, Burstein showed an inappropriate level of confidence in his meetings with various student leaders. Somehow, for Burstein, these discussions on how to ensure that the eating clubs were "affordable to students of all incomes" showed that the administration was on the right track. The eating clubs have been a Princeton tradition for almost 130 years. What is there to discuss? Is Princeton suffering from financial woes?

Caro's column left the University so naked that I was certain Burstein's oped would, in classic Princeton fashion, answer his legitimate claims with a powerful response. Just a month ago, the University recognized the need to eliminate our discriminatory early decision admission program, despite the obvious downside of once again appearing to follow Harvard's lead. I hoped for a similarly direct answer from Burstein, but instead he gave us six paragraphs of hot air, filled with the promises that they were "working" on the problem. Maybe by the time this article is printed Tilghman or Burstein will make another announcement on our beautiful website, but until then we plebes will have to continue weighing our options. David Smart is a sophomore from Los Angeles, Calif. He can be reached at dsmart@princeton.edu.