Editorial: Problems with multi-club Bicker

Though it found much to support, the report also drew attention to a number of problems with the eating club system. The task force pointed out that Bicker is often divisive, both because it rejects people and because it reinforces the exclusivity that results from the importance of affiliations. To help remedy these problems, the task force recommended a return to a multi-club Bicker system, in which students could bicker multiple clubs and then be placed into their top choice among clubs that accept them. While it seems that this would be a positive development, multi-club Bicker would do little to eliminate the problems of the current Bicker system, many of which could be addressed through much less disruptive measures.

The biggest problem with multi-club Bicker is that it would likely increase the relevance of affiliations. With more students bickering each club, students would have less time to spend in the Bicker process at each club, making it much less likely that students without close connections to current members would get in. Club members would need to either spend less time considering each bickeree or increase the time allotted for what is an already lengthy discussions process. The task force also argues that multi-club Bicker would afford students a higher degree of privacy since they could join a sign-in club without the stigma of admitting they were not accepted by their first-choice bicker club. However, this system would make students feel compelled to prove that a club is their top choice; most students would spend a significant portion of Bicker at just one club, making it quite apparent that those students who were matched elsewhere did not get into their first-choice club.

The problems posed by the current Bicker process are serious, but there are better ways to address them than by instituting multi-club Bicker. Clubs should make more of an effort to reach out to all sophomores throughout the year, especially by increasing the number and accessibility of sophomore dinners. Bicker clubs that are on pass every weekend should consider hosting a few nights during the year when sophomores can be admitted without a pass; limiting PUID entry to just sophomores and ensuring that several clubs participate should allay concerns about overcrowding. Sign-in clubs should move pickups to coincide with announcements from bicker clubs, so that students who are hosed can still participate in pickups at their second-choice sign-in club.

Despite the shortcomings of the multi-club Bicker proposal, the eating club task force was an important step forward in improving relations between the University and the eating clubs, and all members of the community should join the discussion prompted by the report’s release.