In Matt Hoberg '09's column, "Princeton's 100-Year War," the author suggests a three-point proposal that he believes will resolve the "tensions" between the clubs, the University and the Borough. I apologize to Hoberg for my initial skepticism at such a grandiose claim, but greater minds have worked far longer on figuring out the proper relationship between all three factions. After reading and rereading the column, I found Hoberg relied on factual inaccuracies and flawed logic to support his contentions.
Hoberg's first claim is that if club presidents took full legal responsibility for incidents at their clubs, club officers would work harder to keep the Street safe and would stop embodying "sheltered naivete." To begin dismantling this thesis, club presidents are, in fact, legally liable for what happens at their clubs, and initial charges are almost always levied against the individual president. Within the past five years, police investigators have often concluded that the club president did everything conceivable to provide a safe and lawful environment, and therefore, should not be held personally responsible. Hoberg is wrong to suggest this constitutes a "legal loophole," as each case is different and prone to assessment by law officers and the club's graduate board.
During the past decade, club officers have made tremendous strides in the name of safety. I ask the author, when was the last time he attended a room party where professional security checked IDs and wristbanded at the door, where alternative beverages were visible and available, where up to four CPRtrained club officers patrolled and monitored and where hard liquor was forbidden? I think that before hastily spouting off views, Hoberg should have spoken with the staff at McCosh Health Center the staff at CornerHouse rehabilitation facility, and anyone who has ever had contact with the Interclub Council. Had the columnist done this, he would have realized just how hard club officers work to maintain safety and what success the clubs are having when compared with dangerous and unmonitored on-campus drinking. We do this not out of fear of legal liability, but out of basic moral conscience. Legal records can be ignored or expunged, but if someone were to get hurt or assaulted at my club, it would stay with my heart and mind forever. I would ask Hoberg to imagine what the scene on the Street would be like if the impetus for safety precautions was fear of legal liability. If McCosh investigated every incident involving alcohol to the point of criminal prosecution, students, whether on campus or on the Street, would be less likely to get their friends help, and the dangers of this would be unthinkable. If eating club presidents really are so simpleminded that they can only be motivated by fear, I am surprised that Hoberg did not consider the notion that an eating club president might cover up or hide a case of alcohol poising in order to avoid prosecution. Fortunately, 10 of us on Prospect are governed by logic and our consciences, not selfish fear.
Hoberg's proposal also includes demanding that the University increase its financial board allotment to cover the full cost of the clubs and that each club increase the number of shared meal plans. I'm sure a majority of the student body would love to see financial aid cover the total cost of club membership. I, however, understand Nassau Hall's hesitation about financial aid covering social and clubhouse fees. Conversely, if the clubs were to offer an unlimited number of shared meal plans, some clubs might fail to maintain financial solvency, as there is a minimum number of paid full-meal contracts that each club needs to break even each year. Tower has been fortunate to have had wonderful bicker classes in the past few years, but popularity on the Street tends to fluctuate, and the clubs need to protect themselves as best as possible. If not, a club will close within the next decade, making the Street a less egalitarian place and giving students fewer choices.
How do you solve a problem that Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879, failed to solve? Not with hasty, unsubstantiated solutions, but with gradual progress. In the past five years we've seen such progress in the right direction, and that's the important part in maintaining a healthy relationship between the Street and Nassau Hall. Jonathan Fernandez is the president of Tower Club. He can be reached at jcfernan@princeton.edu.
Read More
Public service still serves the public
Guest ContributorsIt is sometimes difficult to see the value of service in times of instability, disinvestment in public services, eroding public trust in government, and an uncertain job market. But even in times of massive turmoil, public service is still able to drive initiatives that aren’t sufficiently politicized to make newspaper headlines.
As academia and the federal workforce have adapted to rapid policy changes, the SINSI program and the students it supports have had to adapt. We are the first generation of SINSI Scholars, the SINSI program’s graduate fellows, to contend with this new era of uncertainty.
Charlie Kirk died for ideals the left has ignored
Maximillian MeyerKirk’s killing will mark a turning point. The question is whether it leads America and those who diverge from the prevailing orthodoxy on its college campuses into fear and silence, or towards courage and conviction.
Kirk’s killing will mark a turning point. The question is whether it leads America and those who diverge from the prevailing orthodoxy on its college campuses into fear and silence, or towards courage and conviction.
Why did we go to see Ketanji Brown Jackson, anyway?
Shane McCauleyAs a community, though, we should honestly acknowledge our bleak feelings on the Trump administration and look for genuine coping mechanisms, rather than compartmentalizing our anxiety into ceremonial events like these.
As a community, though, we should honestly acknowledge our bleak feelings on the Trump administration and look for genuine coping mechanisms, rather than compartmentalizing our anxiety into ceremonial events like these.