I write in response to the article of Feb. 19, “New TI membership almost 60 percent male,” by Ruby Shao. I commend The Daily Princetonian for paying attention to the important issue of gender dynamics in the eating clubs, which play a significant role in the social lives of most students. However, the article indirectly quotes the Cap & Gown president as describing “Cap as the first club to open up to women.” It should be corrected that Cap was not in fact the first club to admit women. While Cap played an important role in gender equality on the Street, its efforts were not as significant as those of the truly progressive clubs when it came to the early coeducation.
The most progressive club was Colonial Club, and to a lesser extent, Terrace Club. Campus Club and Charter Club were also among the leaders in embracing gender equality. In its article of Dec. 4, 1970, “Five Clubs to Admit Women” by Al Campi, The Daily Princetonian published that while a number of other clubs already had female members, Cap, despite support for coeducation among its members, had not yet admitted women.
The late 1960s were a turbulent time on the Street, and it is important to remember how much the eating clubs have changed since then. Today gender equality is a goal of every eating club, but I hope your readers will recognize that some clubs were on the leading edge much more than others.
Yours sincerely,
Julian Dean ’13
New York, NY
Clarification from the editor
The article referenced in this Letter to the Editor originally said that Cap was"the first club to open up to women in 1972" and attributed this information to outgoing club president Justin Perez '14. Although Perez did say that Cap was the first club to open up to women, he did not provide the 1972 date, and this information should not have been attributed to him. The 1972 date could not be independently verified.According toa timelineprepared by the Task Force on Relationships between the University and the Eating Clubs, Cap admitted women starting in 1970.
Read More
Calls for VP Calhoun's resignation mislead on free expression
Bill Hewitt“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
