Quote:
Originally Posted by tld221
See, if i was the administration trying to reach parents with the message of "greeks bad, other social clubs good," i would use hard numbers and stats of these risk management incidents, not "greeks exclude people and only provide social comfort."
because like greek orgs (and referring to Munchkin03), some eating clubs are pretty exclusive/selective, and others are more all-encompassing. so in that respect they go hand in hand.
|
I believe there is a lot of misconception floating around about Princeton and Greeks. The school is not promoting a message of Greeks bad Social clubs good." The school essentially wants to marginalize and possibly eliminate both systems. The creation of a 4 year college was one step the school is taking in that direction. For the most part many of the eating clubs and certain Greek letter organizations are loosely associated with each other.
I personally think the exclusive argument is kind of inane coming from an exclusive institution but that is another story altogether.
The administration has been pressed before on the policy and the letter sent out is the closest I've seen to a formal stance from the University. Because the policy has been nebulous when GLOs first came to campus approval may have been tacit. As years went by the administration and in particular the Board of Trustees began to disapprove of Greeks and formed a decidedly non-recognition stance. By then many organizations had already been chartered or did not require the University's approval to establish a new charter. Since then, that stance has been held as a tradition. Furthermore, some groups on campus were in favor of deferred rush while others were not but then that created a scenario in which the school would recognize some groups and not others. They did not want to do that.
Bottom line some groups cared more about recognition than others. However, the administration has the perspective of all or nothing. So unless a compromise can be reached or all parties get on the same page, I don't see recognition happening soon. Moreover, since the Trustees (aka pursestrings) are behind the non-recognition and view it as a tradition, it will be very difficult to overturn.
On the topic of socio-economic representation: There is a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds at Princeton. Approximately half pay the full tuition and the other half receive some form of aid. Princeton pioneered the "no-loan" student policy in 2002. Harvard and others followed suit. Because of the no-loan policy many are able to afford Princeton and even graduate virtually debt-free. The eating clubs however are not covered by financial aid and thus students have to take out loans for the cost.
This may be one of the many reasons why some students do not pledge the NPC organizations. Many minorities already don't join eating clubs because of the prohibitively high costs so financing the cost of a sorority as well may discourage them or be viewed as an unnecessary expense. Furthermore, many students may be concerned with balancing the academic stress and sorority responsibilities. The academics are ridiculously rigorous for no apparent reason, so many students especially first generation college students and minorities focus on adjusting to the campus.
Sorry for the long post. Hope that answered many of the questions.
Hybrid Mode
