Dodgeball: An AI success

Hoards of Princeton students flocked to Dillon Gym to participate in what was undoubtedly the most successful event funded by the Alcohol Initiative (AI) this academic year: The Dodgeball Tournament. In the past, the University has devoted substantial AI resources to sparsely attended events. Some have commended these events despite their low attendance, arguing that they have provided social alternatives for students who do not drink alcohol even if they have not lured regular drinkers away from the Street. It is important, however, that the University encourage the planning of AI events that unite the entire campus community in the same way that the dodgeball tournament has done so. A successful AI event can transcend drinking preferences, club and residential college membership, and campus cliques to bring all Princetonians together.

The reasons for the dodgeball tournament's success should serve as criteria by which to judge events seeking AI funding. The "dodgeball formula" for attracting Princeton students is not very complicated. First, there should be competition, as Princeton students are hyper-competitive. The Dodgeball Tournament unabashedly feeds on this competitiveness, throwing in large monetary prizes and a limited number of quality T-shirts for which students scramble. Second, the location should be central and neutral. The Dodgeball Tournament was in Dillon, central to campus, and linked to any of the residential colleges and therefore not immediately suspicious to almost half of the undergraduate population — upperclassmen. Third, students should be encouraged not only to participate in events as disparate individuals but as interlocking social networks. Student groups, the residential colleges and eating clubs enter the dodgeball tournament as peer-pressuring communities, creating a much higher participation rate than if students were left to their own devices. Lastly, it is imperative that the organizers of high-profile events be connected to a variety of social networks on campus.

For these recommendations to pay off, there should be structural reform of the AI funding system. First, there should be more undergraduates on the AI committee that chooses which events get sponsorship. When students see more of their peers helping to plan, organize, and approve AI events, they are more likely to attend those events. Second, the University should not automatically dispense AI funds to the residential colleges for a certain number of programs every semester. This incentivizes bad programs. Rather, AI funding should reward students and staff for the quality of their proposals, not simply for being part of an already-existent campus institution.