I am the reason my friend almost did not get to see “The Lion King” on Broadway last night. She had joined the line at the Whitman College Office an hour early; I joined 10 minutes after her. We were among the first 25 to stake a claim in line, and the office had 45 tickets to sell. We were set.
Five minutes before the office opened, we weren’t quite set anymore. Inexplicably, we had moved back several places in line. A good handful of those ahead of us had not been there waiting at any point in the last hour. Days later, I voiced concern to a member of the office staff, who assured me that no cutting had taken place: These students were simply handing their proxes to friends who had held their place in line, and because each student is allowed to buy one ticket for a friend, everyone had played by the rules. I might grant my peers this favorable judgment, except that I know it’s not true. I saw a friend from my zee group let another friend join her, and the pair walked away not with two tickets but with three. Surely we all realize that cutting to the front like this will get us a ticket only at the expense of someone else who has been waiting longer. Why good people brazenly rob other students of tickets, I cannot say.
But I can say that I feel like a robber, too. Nervous that tickets would run out, I passed my prox up the line to a roommate who had arrived earlier. What I did was okay, technically — the college office allowed my roommate to buy two tickets. I didn’t give it a second thought until I texted my friend who had joined line ten minutes sooner. When I asked if she had gotten a ticket, the answer came with four wailing emoji. She told me she was the first person turned away. Had I stayed in line behind her, I would not have gotten a ticket — but she would have. Although my sleight of prox might have complied with rules, it was unfair to my friend.
The staff member with whom I spoke told me that, in light of this logistic fiasco, Whitman will distribute tickets via a lottery system in the future. Winners’ tickets will be withheld until they board the bus, in order to prevent reselling. The office’s quick response delights me, and I really do believe that a lottery system will be better (as the Editorial Board recently suggested). Still, scores of students who want to go will be denied. The mission of the residential colleges’ Broadway trips is to provide students with the opportunity to experience world-class art and turning away interested students is fundamentally at odds with that mission.
I think there’s an easy solution to this, which is to encourage students to buy their own tickets. Residential colleges currently pay around $120 per seat after a paltry group discount is applied; however, student tickets to “The Phantom of the Opera” and other big-name Broadway shows can be had for $34 online. They’re in the rear mezzanine, sure, but I’d rather see two shows from there than see only one show from the orchestra. Students who independently buy tickets should be allowed to ride on the college trip bus, and colleges should explore their options further to see if they can buy student-rate tickets themselves. If so, they will be able to afford two or three times as many tickets; then, students won’t be left out anymore.
This story has a happy ending. My friend ultimately snagged a ticket when someone sold theirs back to the office, so she was, in fact, present for “The Lion King.” Plus, the speedy action taken by the Whitman College Office in reforming ticket distribution shows they are able and willing to respond to students’ concerns. They are a heartwarming example for the rest of the University to follow when distributing high-demand tickets. Hopefully, they continue to lead by exploring options to purchase higher quantities of heavily discounted tickets. Until broader reform takes place, I implore you: Don’t cut in line. If it’s benefiting you, it’s hurting someone else.Newby Parton is a freshman fromMcMinnville, Tenn. He can be reached at newby@princeton.edu.
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."
