On the Campus - March 11, 1998
Past editions of On the Campus, Online
EXCLUSIVELY ONLINE:
|
. . . At Princeton, both are pro-information BY MANDY TERC '99 | |
|
Around the time of the 25th anniversary of Roe V. Wade (January 22), Princeton Pro-Life distributed an informational leaflet about developmental milestones of the fetus in all campus mailboxes. The flier simply listed a series of scientific facts about the growth of a baby in the womb, rather than detailing the organization's views on abortion or giving its interpretation of these facts. This flier typifies the approach of both sides of the abortion debate at Princeton. Rather than the aggressive (even violent) of national activists, Princeton Pro-Life and Pro-Choice favor an educational approach to their campus activism. "We hope everyone has an educated opinion," Princeton Pro-Life president Kathryn Getek '99 said. "If you're pro-choice, we hope you're pro-choice incorporating all issues. We want everyone to be on the same plane with all the facts." To reach this end, the groups distribute newsletters and fliers, as well as inviting speakers to campus to promote their views. A few years ago, the groups collaborated to produce a leaflet about studentsŐ pregnancy options at Princeton. The booklet, distributed to all female undergraduates, listed doctors and services both at McCosh and off-campus. On a campus both groups see as being suspicious of strong political opinions, they aim to bring the issue of abortion to the forefront at Princeton and to inspire discussion among students. "Students are not quite apathetic," Princeton Pro-Choice Karen Welt '99 said. "It's just that Princeton is a mid-ground school. There are a lot of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans." Getek attributes the campusŐs notable silence on the issue of abortion to the fact that students are not forced to deal directly with abortion. Pregnant students at Princeton are rare; any abortions had by students are almost universally discreet. "I don't think a pregnant girl is something the university wants to have happen," Getek said. Though most students choose not to engage themselves in the abortion issue, both Getek and Welt agree that most of the student body tends to place itself on the pro-choice side. Welt remembers sharing a table at the freshman-week activities fair with Princeton Pro-Life. While her interest sheet received about 200 names, Princeton Pro-Life garnered far fewer interested students. However, when Welt held the first meeting and only a small percentage of those students attended, she realized that many "pro-choice" students are not willing to get involved in the movement. "People who are pro-life are much more active on the whole than people who are pro-choice," Welt said. "The political climate is pro-choice, especially in New Jersey . . . so they don't have to be as active." Citing Princeton students' unusual ambition and intensity, Getek attributes part of the campus' pro-choice slant as a factor of students' personal reluctance to deal with a child in the midst of college. "It would be really difficult to decide to carry a child to term here," Getek said. "There are obstacles to it inherent in the university, like the fact that everyone is career-oriented." Both Getek and Welt noted the absence of visibly pregnant female students on campus. This troubles Getek, who worries that pregnant students weighing their options do not even consider carrying the baby to term and staying enrolled in the university. To help potential mothers at Princeton both before and after the birth of the baby, Getek is organizing a support group. In addition to providing emotional support, her group will serve a more logistical need: driving to and from doctor's appointments, helping with errands and chores, even babysitting during classes. The presence of these services, Getek hopes, would help pregnant women on campus realize that one can raise a baby and finish their studies. As both groups look ahead from the Roe v. Wade anniversary into the future of their causes, they hope to increase their educational presence on the campus. Despite the fact that both groups wish Princeton students would begin to look more seriously at the issue, neither plans to resort to more aggressive tactics to accomplish that end. Instead, they will continue their task of educating those who are willing to listen.
|
|
|
Just a normal Sunday night on the Street? by Wes Tooke '98
|
|
|
Princeton students aren't so smart. In a year when students at MIT and LSU drank themselves to death, the first night of bicker was a drunken
mess. While most party nights on Prospect Avenue are filled with binge
drinking and general debauchery, on this particular night, Sunday, February
1, we really outdid ourselves. Students pelted passing cars with eggs
and beer balloons, fired bottle rockets at rival clubs, and filled Tiger
Inn's yard with vomit. The following morning, "the Street" looked
like a war zone.
What happened next remains a mystery. If you believe The Daily Princetonian, the five bicker clubs "opted" to go dry for the remainder of bicker, and Tiger Inn's president and vice-president resigned. Publicly, the bicker clubs claimed they went dry because they wanted to ensure a safe and comfortable bicker, a contention that begs the question of why those clubs decided to stop serving alcohol after the first night of bicker and not before. As I write this, just one week after the incident, the entire scene is well on its way to being forgotten. The clubs have been patting themselves on the back for their efforts to limit underage drinking all year, and are therefore willing to forgive that night as an unfortunate bump in the road toward social responsibility. But we all ought to know better. Nothing changed in the wake of that debauched night, which means that similarly repellent scenes are bound to take place in the future. |
 Illustration by Henry Payne '84 |
|
Before I get too sanctimonious, let me admit that I am certainly no saint. I drink more then I ought to, and there have been plenty of nights when I have engaged in sophomoric behavior. But people like me are not just a Princeton problem; we're a national problem. College students can be stupid and immature and experimental -- that's just the nature of the beast. You can't hold Princeton responsible for the fact that Princeton students like to party. But you can blame Princeton (and I mean the entire community, past and present) for the way students party. Drinking and irresponsible behavior are institutionalized at Princeton by the eating clubs in a way that is different from institutionalized drinking at any other school. I sometimes think the clubs are just a perverse psychology experiment: what happens when you put several hundred college kids in a mansion with unlimited quantities of free beer and bad music? Of course, the answer usually resembles a bad show on MTV. Furthermore, in the clubs, students seem to feel immune from the law. After all, why shouldn't we? Last Sunday, police cars drove up and down Prospect Avenue all day, yet no police officer ever entered a club...and you can't tell me they didn't have probable cause. Too often, Princeton seems like a consequence-free environment where students can break street lights or throw up all over their bathroom and somebody else will quietly clean up the mess. That's why the haphazard steps like the ones taken on February 1 just won't cut it anymore. Criticizing this past bicker for bottle rockets and eggs is a little like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion. Bottle rockets aren't the problem, the problem is that you can walk into McCosh Health Center after any busy night on the Street and find a group of dangerously intoxicated students. It is easy for us to turn our heads. After all, these are private clubs, and many of us are or were members. Yet the clubs are out of control, and we are the people who need to change that: students and alumni alike. If the clubs could effectively police themselves, they would have taken larger steps several years ago, after a hopelessly drunk B. J. Miller '93 climbed atop the dinky car and nearly electrocuted himself. The university's hands are also somewhat tied. Part of the blanket of security over the club system is the widespread feeling on campus that alumni support for the clubs is unconditional. Mess with the clubs, goes the argument, and you mess with alumni giving. Perhaps it's time for some alumni to write President Shapiro and explain exactly what facets of the club system they support. Until then, may we all pray for luck. Because luck is all that kept Princeton safe on this year's first night of bicker.
Wes Tooke can be reached at cwtooke@princeton.edu. |
|