Editorial: Cannon's bicker process

Cannon Dial Elm Club opened its doors to 138 new members last Saturday, increasing the number of eating clubs on Prospect Avenue to 11. Cannon, as the new club is informally called, has reopened as a bicker club: Each year, new members are selected in a competitive process by the existing body of members. While Bicker has traditionally been held at the start of the spring semester, Cannon chose to hold it partway through the fall semester instead, thereby selecting its new class before other selective clubs have even held their Bicker processes.

We oppose Cannon’s decision to bicker students at a different time from the other eating clubs. The Bicker process works best when all clubs hold the process at the same time. Under this model, students are forced to choose one club to bicker. When all the clubs start bickering students at the same time, no club is able to gain an unfair advantage over the others.

With Cannon’s premature Bicker process, students can bicker Cannon at little cost, because if they are not admitted, they can bicker another club. This will likely increase the number of students who bicker Cannon. Moreover, once students who successfully bicker are admitted to Cannon, these new members will begin to participate in the club’s community before regular Bicker starts. Their friendships with other members and time spent at the club will likely result in many of them choosing to stick with Cannon. This seems unfair to the other bicker clubs, which will still hold Bicker later in the semester. Furthermore, it creates an incentive for other clubs to move up their own Bicker process in an attempt to preempt Cannon’s, which would threaten to push the entire process of joining an eating club earlier and earlier. Bickerees would then have less time to explore the various clubs and come to a well-informed decision.

The Editorial Board recognizes that this is Cannon’s first year as an operating club, which may account for the odd Bicker timing. Still, we think it unfortunate that its early Bicker will bias students in Cannon’s favor. This isn’t a reason to wholly condemn Cannon this year, but it should change its policies in the near future. The eating club system works best when the different clubs work cooperatively, not antagonistically; that way, it promotes bonds between members of different clubs and ensures overall efficiency in the eating club system. Fairness in the Bicker process is an important step towards achieving this aim. We encourage Cannon to move its Bicker process to the spring semester in future years to avoid gaining an unfair advantage over the other bicker clubs.