<p>I think its a great decision on Princeton’s part to insist that freshmen are not recruited. Their reasoning makes perfect sense to me. D last year as a freshman had no interest in sororities and was active in her residential college, but she had a few friends who joined and spent a lot time with the Greek groups. These are not “off campus” as they meet up in dorm rooms and university installations as 98% of undergrads live on campus. Trying to encourage freshmen to stay involved with their residential colleges which are naturally much more diverse than any Greek group, broadens their horizons for at least the first year at school and gives them time to really understand the panorama. There are plenty of other groups in the form of extracurriculars that freshmen can join to find like-minded people.</p>
<p>As for the eating clubs, which you join in the second half of sophomore year and do not become a full member until junior year, at least anybody who wants to be a part of that kind of thing and avoid the downside of bicker can sign up for a non-selective one. And from the multiple discussions on these in the Princeton forum, I gather that the social relationships between members of different clubs and non-members are much more fluid, as many have been established in the previous two years.</p>
<p>As an aside, they also differ from Greek clubs in other ways: Coed, non-residential, no rituals (from what I’ve been told) and no obligation to participate in any sponsored activities.</p>
<p>There is always some danger in stating the obvious. The problem, however, is not with the people who support such activities; the problem rests entirely with the institutions and their “leaders” who refuse to challenge AND oppose the whims of a group of parents and … children.</p>
Princeton doesn’t allow it now–it’s all off-campus. My concern with this is not that a college can’t ban Greek organizations from campus–they can, and I don’t mind if they do. But I get a bit more heartburn when the college tells students what off-campus organizations they can and cannot join. Where does this stop?</p>
<p>And that is why the “new” policy of Princeton falls way short. It should not be “after one year” or “in the second semester” … it should not be earlier than the start of the junior year or never. </p>
<p>Restricting the “potential” number of years of participation makes them more irrelevant on campus --something that should be both a blessing and an OBJECTIVE. Increasing the minimum “seniority” would also increase the maturity of both leaders and followers and limit the most egregious acts that Greek Life has become known for. </p>
<p>For anyone who clings to the notion of networking or the supposedly effective community service, there were still be two years of participation. </p>
<p>No matter how the academic world gets there, it is important to curtail the importance of greek life, and eradicate its overwhelmingly negative impact in our schools.</p>
<p>That’s not true. Clearly you have no idea about how university administrations work or anything substantial about this kind of consideration in the context of Princeton. The fact is that the university does not have to worry about feeding ~2000 kids. Eliminating the clubs would mean they would.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re not off-campus. The parties are on-campus currently. Only one of the frat houses has property off-campus, which all of the frats could have now if they wanted, given that they are nationally affiliated anyway (just not recognized by the university). I doubt they could even afford houses given real estate prices. Even then, no one would go when the eating clubs are nearby.</p>
<p>I think everyone is missing the big issue here: frats would be far more destructive to the administration’s goals than the eating clubs are and will ever be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where are you getting this? Frats are on-campus at Princeton.</p>
<p>Better than asking “Where does this stop?” perhaps we should wonder why it is taking so long to bring corrective measures to the dangers brought DIRECTLY by those organizations. Colleges so far have been playing games and emulating Pontius Pilate. They believe that pushing those organizations just outside the exact school limits, all will be well. This is simply limits the school potential liabilities, but also means they abdicate their RESPONSIBILITIES. Since they cannot control those organizations very well, they SHOULD continue to explore better (and stronger) mechinisms to control the students by limiting their affiliations. Students can be expelled for entering establishments that serve liquor to underage patrons. Would it be so hard to establish that those frat house DO serve liquor and should thus be prohibited to permit anyone under 21 to … enter? If it is good enough for the state, why could not work for Greek Life? See how long a frat house would survive without anyone under 21 allowed to enter and a zero tolerance on liquor distribution! But of course, we should believe they do not serve booze to minors! </p>
<p>And to whom do they abdicated their responsibilities? A group of leaders barely older than the freshmen they expect to “welcome” every year. Are parents really thrilled to see their 18 year old being subjected to the whims of a 20 year old degenerate? Where are the protective barriers that parents could rely on? Where are the safety nets?</p>
<p>Of course, before looking for a solution, one needs to understand there is problem. The current attitude is to pray that next year will not be as lethal as the previous ones!</p>
This is why Princeton isn’t imposing rules on the frats, but rather on the students who might join them. Perhaps another way at this would be to prohibit any frat activity on campus.</p>
<p>I was struck by this quote because my nephew is a soph at P. He is an athlete in a sport that is historically played mostly at elite prep schools, not at Average Public High (the way that, say, tennis, swimming, basketball might be). By necessity, he hangs out more with his teammates by the demands of being an athlete. It strikes me that just as the charge is being made that hanging out with a Greek group is less diverse than hanging out with residential college residents, hanging out with athletes in this kind of sport is even less diverse. His fellow teammates are essentially a roster of some of the most exclusive prep schools in the country, and it’s pretty easy to tell that there is some significant wealth on this team. Honestly, it’s a team of Richie Riches. But, Princeton’s not about to stop recruiting at elite private schools and forming these teams of Richie Riches any time soon for the sake of encouraging diversity among whom freshmen hang out with. It’s not that I think they should, or that they have to – but it struck me as interesting in light of this conversation.</p>
<p>Or by prohibiting any Princeton student who is not 21 to participate (meaning be merely present) in frat activities (of or on campus) that MIGHT involve liquor. For all intents and purpose, that is about the same as prohibiting ALL frat activities. </p>
<p>PS Sorry for typos and missing words in the prior posts. No more iPad for me on CC! :)</p>
<p>Maybe they can just bring back the 18 YO drinking age. Then the problem of “illegal serving” goes away. The increasing to 21 was an hysterical response to extremist groups.</p>
<p>All the more reason that he should be prevented from joining another group early on which is not as representative of campus diversity as the residential colleges.</p>
<p>I’d like to point out that members of frats are not recruited or accepted, unlike recruited athletes, URM’s, musicians, valedictorians, Intel competition winners, and other talented students. Princeton accepts a diverse group of students, with all kinds of talents and backgrounds from all over the country and world, and it benefits all freshman, who are new to college life and often living away from home for the first time, to have a chance to settle in and not feel the need or “push” to join an exclusionary club during freshman year. Clubs like frats limit students opportunities to meet other students. As I said before,I think it can wait, and without damaging Frats. Princeton is not proposing throwing out frats, ie. the baby out with the bath water. Those who equate placing restrictions on new college freshman to eliminating frats altogether can’t see the forest for the trees…</p>
<p>Actually, specifically in Princeton’s case, I think prohibiting freshman membership in Greek organizations will have the probably intended effect of greatly weakening them as fewer students will feel the need or desire to join as a sophomore when they will soon be considering their eating club options.</p>
<p>Should that mean that freshman Jewish students should not be approached by Hillel, freshman Republican students not approached by the Young Republicans, freshman gay students not approached by the LGBT association?</p>
<p>As I said in my first post, there are plenty of opportunities for freshmen to join groups with like-minded people. But Greek organizations are different in that they form the core of weekend social life (including partying) throughout the semester, unlike most clubs, ethnic or otherwise, that have occasional social gatherings along with weekly meetings. Kids can choose not to participate in the ongoing social activities of their residential colleges, but they are more likely to stay involved there if they aren’t drawn into the sorority/fraternity social scene.</p>