Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner (/thread-12138.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner (/thread-12138.html)
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - Jskass - 06-10-2016
People often exaggerate the rate of false accusations -- the real stats are in line with false accusation of other crimes -- from 2-8%.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - winflop - 06-11-2016
(06-10-2016, 11:15 PM)Jskass link Wrote:People often exaggerate the rate of false accusations -- the real stats are in line with false accusation of other crimes -- from 2-8%.
Perhaps, but his larger point is that the solution to the problem of rape in college lies in middle school & high school years and the most important thing is parenting that teaches boys to value & respect women.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - Mick - 06-11-2016
(06-11-2016, 02:48 AM)winflop link Wrote:Perhaps, but his larger point is that the solution to the problem of rape in college lies in middle school & high school years and the most important thing is parenting that teaches boys to value & respect women.
I'd say that's the solution to a lot of things. Is the reverse true as well? If we mandate one but not the other, does that frame the other as less important?
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - winflop - 06-11-2016
How in the world do you "mandate" good parenting? I actually think the only kind of policy that would work is putting "broken window" into high schools & middle schools. Yeah good luck with that. OK venturing too far off Stanford and into politics. Enough.
BTW, did you see new reports that this isn't the first time Judge Persky has gone light on sexual assault cases
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - CTcard - 06-11-2016
(06-10-2016, 11:15 PM)Jskass link Wrote:People often exaggerate the rate of false accusations -- the real stats are in line with false accusation of other crimes -- from 2-8%.
There are a bunch of studies that try to guess at this, but it is worth remembering that this is both an unknown, and probably unknowable, number.
In fact in that plagues the whole issue of sexual assault. If you read around enough, it's clear that the prevalence of such problems is way too high, but also pretty clear that nobody knows reliable numbers.
It probably doesn't matter because there is certainly enough of a problem that society needs to take corrective action, but some humility about what is really known seems worthwhile to me.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - robin - 06-11-2016
So what has changed socially for women since I was at Stanford? Sororities have returned to campus, more girls get "blackout" from excessive alcohol intake, and most students have a camera with them at all times they can use to communicate with virtual immediacy and -- due to software advances of which I was not aware until yesterday when I read this post's replies, apparently with anonymity. A photo of the breast of a girl who has "blacked out" circulated among male swim team members using the digital network that is the Internet? The availability of Internet porn may be the single most important change that has occurred since the mid-1970s. Like Justice Potter Stewart we all know obscenity when we see it; a photo of the breast of a girl who may have been unconscious upon exposure is obscene.
If women cannot be dissuaded from drinking themselves to unconsciousness maybe at least our university can eliminate easy means and opportunity for sexual violence by male students. When on-campus sexual violence is alleged and/or observed by Stanford students who are not in a position to "press charges" the university needs to investigate means and opportunity by expanding its definition of victim.
"Emily Doe's" rescuers should not have had to witness the tragic scene they witnessed outside an on-campus, all-male organization that apparently makes handles available to female party attendees. While I was at Stanford I lived in Lambda Nu (now "Jerry"), the house that is next door to Kappa Alpha. 2015 was not the first year this fraternity has hosted such a party. I do not believe recalling judges who rely on reports of trained probation departments will not restore the balance needed to cope with recent social changes. Ending Stanford's Greek System might. Mark Bessen sounded the warning in 2014; I think Stanford's board needs to show it can listen to concerned students, not just alumni who threaten to depledge funds.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - dabigv13 - 06-11-2016
Stanford students' voices were heard....they voted in favor of booze. Sounds like you're pushing for alumni voices to be heard, but just your side.
And FWIW I was not involved with, or even knew many folks in the Greek system. Just think if students want to join them, let 'em. Their decision.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - 81alum - 06-12-2016
I looked for a university that was not heavily influenced by the Greek system, and in 1977 chose Stanford. At that time I found the whole idea of exclusive clubs of any kind revolting--and especially so clubs that had a reputation for being all-white, wealthy, and filled with kids who saw college primarily as a place to network. (As a grad student I had the same reaction to Princeton's eating clubs. They were much worse, though, given that virtually everyone who was a member was white, and nearly all the employees were Black. The one time I was invited to attend dinner I was appalled. Rich white kids in designer clothes bossing around poor black waiters and maids. And the "clubs" were in mansions that looked like Tara. It was a little bit of antebellum America.) Perhaps my perception of fraternities was unjust, but that is what I thought at the time. I convinced myself that Stanford was more egalitarian than the Ivies--there was some evidence to think so, given that it refused to give preference to legacies, it had the best middle-class financial aid, and it had a very small Greek system that was kept on a short leash. (My future wife actually lived in the Delt house--the year after the Delts were kicked off campus and their house confiscated and turned back into general use.) So Stanford's lack of a Greek system was a real attraction to me--and I know other students who felt the same way.Â
As far as drinking, yes there was drinking. Then again, my home state's drinking age was 18 at that time. But I do not remember much binge drinking. My roommates had a liquor cabinet but it was more for show than for consumption. The frats seemed to be fairly sedate--then again I only saw the inside of them on Casino night. Perhaps the crackdown on the Delts provoked more responsible behavior.
So, my question is whether there has been a shift at Stanford (nationally?) toward more of a binge-drinking frat culture? Has the frat system strengthened over the decades, and has the drinking culture worsened? Or are things about the same, except that our attention has focused on an old problem because of the Brock Turner case?
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - Mick - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 12:17 AM)81alum link Wrote:Iin 1977 chose Stanford. At that time I found the whole idea of exclusive clubs of any kind revolting--and especially so clubs that had a reputation for being all-white, wealthy, and filled with kids who saw college primarily as a place to network. As a grad student I had the same reaction to Princeton's eating clubs. They were much worse, though, given that virtually everyone who was a member was white, and nearly all the employees were Black. The one time I was invited to attend dinner I was appalled. Rich white kids in designer clothes bossing around poor black waiters and maids. And the "clubs" were in mansions that looked like Tara. It was a little bit of antebellum America.) Perhaps my perception of fraternities was unjust, but that is what I thought at the time. I convinced myself that Stanford was more egalitarian than the Ivies--there was some evidence to think so, given that it refused to give preference to legacies, it had the best middle-class financial aid, and it had a very small Greek system that was kept on a short leash. (My future wife actually lived in the Delt house--the year after the Delts were kicked off campus and their house confiscated and turned back into general use.) So Stanford's lack of a Greek system was a real attraction to me--and I know other students who felt the same way.Â
Your comments on Princeton's eating clubs are interesting. It's changed a smidge in the 35+/- years since your experience. There are 11 clubs with differing degrees of exclusiveness. Five are sign in--you sign up and you're in. As for the waiters you reference, only one club has ever had them, the other ten dine cafeteria-style. As for the antebellum nature of the mansions, well...one of them has the architectural style of the antebellum south, the other ten do not. And since each has over 100 members, well, they're going to be large structures, since they have large common dining areas. And all of them have been co-ed for at least 25 years, unlike fraternities and sororities, which -- by definition -- are not. And 3/4 of Princeton undergraduate juniors and seniors (the only classes eligible for membership) are members of the eating clubs. I don't think 75% of the student body constitutes horrible exclusion. And unlike fraternities, very few members -- just the officers -- actually live in the buildings. Most live in dorms.
Anyway, one of my sons was in Tiger Inn, the other was in Ivy. Why those elitist institutions accepted a couple of middle-class Catholic kids, I'll never know.
And let's face it, if you're in at Princeton or Harvard or Stanford...you're already a member of an exclusive club, revolting or not.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - robin - 06-12-2016
Stanford abolished sororities, but not fraternities, for decades. (The university possibly brought back sororities because of Title IX, which I think was sorely-needed legislation.) Dabigv, I doubt "Emily Doe" and her sister would vote for booze. Oh but wait, these Does do not have a voice, but were girls able to gain admission to a Stanford fraternity party where booze apparently was provided. And based I what I hear from my daughters (and have seen myself), the culture toward binge drinking has shifted. And certainly it is not just fraternities and their guests that binge drink on campus. But fraternities seem to have the biggest problem with regulation. Mob culture perhaps? Kind of like male sports teams? Can't speak too much to Princeton -- just saw the school when our older daughter was considering choosing it over Stanford and our younger daughter was playing an Ivy sport. But based on what I did see and hear I share "81alum's impression that some balance may be needed at Princeton too. Maybe the KKG Stanford alum mother (and Stanford alum father) of the Princeton daughter our younger daughter played volleyball against would like to comment?
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - DC 86 - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 12:17 AM)81alum link Wrote:I convinced myself that Stanford was more egalitarian than the Ivies--there was some evidence to think so, given that it refused to give preference to legacies
Not true, although historically Stanford has weighed legacies less than its Ivy counterparts.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - 2006alum - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 02:24 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=15166.msg164883#msg164883 date=1465715867]
Iin 1977 chose Stanford. At that time I found the whole idea of exclusive clubs of any kind revolting--and especially so clubs that had a reputation for being all-white, wealthy, and filled with kids who saw college primarily as a place to network. As a grad student I had the same reaction to Princeton's eating clubs. They were much worse, though, given that virtually everyone who was a member was white, and nearly all the employees were Black. The one time I was invited to attend dinner I was appalled. Rich white kids in designer clothes bossing around poor black waiters and maids. And the "clubs" were in mansions that looked like Tara. It was a little bit of antebellum America.) Perhaps my perception of fraternities was unjust, but that is what I thought at the time. I convinced myself that Stanford was more egalitarian than the Ivies--there was some evidence to think so, given that it refused to give preference to legacies, it had the best middle-class financial aid, and it had a very small Greek system that was kept on a short leash. (My future wife actually lived in the Delt house--the year after the Delts were kicked off campus and their house confiscated and turned back into general use.) So Stanford's lack of a Greek system was a real attraction to me--and I know other students who felt the same way.Â
Your comments on Princeton's eating clubs are interesting. It's changed a smidge in the 35+/- years since your experience. There are 11 clubs with differing degrees of exclusiveness. Five are sign in--you sign up and you're in. As for the waiters you reference, only one club has ever had them, the other ten dine cafeteria-style. As for the antebellum nature of the mansions, well...one of them has the architectural style of the antebellum south, the other ten do not. And since each has over 100 members, well, they're going to be large structures, since they have large common dining areas. And all of them have been co-ed for at least 25 years, unlike fraternities and sororities, which -- by definition -- are not. And 3/4 of Princeton undergraduate juniors and seniors (the only classes eligible for membership) are members of the eating clubs. I don't think 75% of the student body constitutes horrible exclusion. And unlike fraternities, very few members -- just the officers -- actually live in the buildings. Most live in dorms.
Anyway, one of my sons was in Tiger Inn, the other was in Ivy. Why those elitist institutions accepted a couple of middle-class Catholic kids, I'll never know.
And let's face it, if you're in at Princeton or Harvard or Stanford...you're already a member of an exclusive club, revolting or not.
[/quote]
I have a number of friends who went to Princeton in the mid to late 2000s. I've heard from several of them that for some of the more exclusive eating clubs, it was common for sexual acts to be traded for admission from the handful of (almost always male) student officers who ran the admissions process. I wonder if that's still happening today given how much more attention is given to sexual assault on campus?Â
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - Mick - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 08:49 AM)2006alum link Wrote:I have a number of friends who went to Princeton in the mid to late 2000s. I've heard from several of them that for some of the more exclusive eating clubs, it was common for sexual acts to be traded for admission from the handful of (almost always male) student officers who ran the admissions process. I wonder if that's still happening today given how much more attention is given to sexual assault on campus?
Sounds like the c.al meme, whereby if you just donate enough, your kid is admitted to Stanford.
I wasn't going to dignify this idiotic comment with a response, but let's just say it would be impossible to do, because officers don't have that power and a majority of existing members, male and female, must approve new members.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - 2006alum - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 09:27 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=2006alum link=topic=15166.msg164890#msg164890 date=1465746571]
I have a number of friends who went to Princeton in the mid to late 2000s. I've heard from several of them that for some of the more exclusive eating clubs, it was common for sexual acts to be traded for admission from the handful of (almost always male) student officers who ran the admissions process. I wonder if that's still happening today given how much more attention is given to sexual assault on campus?
Sounds like the c.al meme, whereby if you just donate enough, your kid is admitted to Stanford.
I wasn't going to dignify this idiotic comment with a response, but let's just say it would be impossible to do, because officers don't have that power and a majority of existing members, male and female, must approve new members.
[/quote]
...Except that my friends were in those eating clubs they were talking about. Maybe they were making it up to sound edgy, but it wasn't even said in a disparaging way. It was just stated as a common practice, rather matter-of-factly. And my understanding is that at that time the leaders of the eating clubs had a disproportionate influence over who the clubs deigned to admit. Maybe it's changed since then - I think the university-operated dining halls have all opened since my friends were at Princeton.
This, by the way, is the description of the "bickering" (admissions) process, from wikipedia:
Quote:The bicker process varies widely by club, ranging from staid interviews conducted by club members to raucous games designed to foster competition among potential inductees. Following two or three evenings of bicker activities, the club membership selects new members in closed sessions, the conduct of which varies from club to club.
And this 1998 article, from the Daily Princetonian, more or less confirms the existence of such a practice, apparently known then as a "third floor bicker" at the time:
Quote:Assistant Dean of Student Life Sandra Silverman explained that her office was aware of past instances of sexual harassment.
"Every year, practically, students who are seniors come in and talk about their experiences two years ago, but they dont feel comfortable reporting them," Silverman said. "People are not willing to come forward as witnesses."
"We hear stories about things like third-floor Bicker taking place. People dont feel comfortable having a sexual encounter with a member that they hadnt planned on or that would not have happened in different circumstances," she said.
Shanahan explained "third-floor Bicker" as an instance in which "a member offers to take a sophomore on a tour of the club. Then they take them into the room, lock the door, and say something like, Youre not going to be let in unless you hook up with me. "
"Weve heard about third-floor Bicker (and) people passed down the stairs naked," Silverman said. "People are intending it to be fun, but sometimes the people involved find it horrible, terrible, embarrassing, etc."
"If we hear rumors, we talk to the presidents about the complaints during the pre-Bicker and sign-in meetings, or as they arise," she said. "Without fact that substantiates a rumor, the University cannot take definitive action."
"The proctors cant just go in and do a spot check because they are private clubs," Silverman explained.
SHARE director Janet Waronker said many times people prefer not to make official complaints and instead remain anonymous. "I cant file a report without the permission of the person involved," she said.
Power dynamic
"There is a sort of power dynamic during Bicker. People have been concerned about instances when members somehow take advantage of prospective members," Kira Gnesdiloff 98 said.
And edited to add: it also doesn't surprise me, because variations on the same behavior happened at Stanford when I was an undergraduate. See this article, for example, documenting how some Tri-Delt pledges were taken as part of a pledging event to drink with football players, and at least one of the pledges was coerced into performing sexual acts during the pledge event.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - Stymie - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 08:16 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=15166.msg164883#msg164883 date=1465715867]
I convinced myself that Stanford was more egalitarian than the Ivies--there was some evidence to think so, given that it refused to give preference to legacies
Not true, although historically Stanford has weighed legacies less than its Ivy counterparts.
[/quote]
The latest info I've seen (from an ex-Stanford Admissions person) says that these days Stanford weighs legacy significantly more than the Ivies.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - DC 86 - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 10:55 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=15166.msg164888#msg164888 date=1465744579]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=15166.msg164883#msg164883 date=1465715867]
I convinced myself that Stanford was more egalitarian than the Ivies--there was some evidence to think so, given that it refused to give preference to legacies
Not true, although historically Stanford has weighed legacies less than its Ivy counterparts.
[/quote]
The latest info I've seen (from an ex-Stanford Admissions person) says that these days Stanford weighs legacy significantly more than the Ivies.
[/quote]
Stanford does not release statistics but several articles in the Daily have estimated that 10-15% of legacy applicants are admitted, and that legacy applicants have historically been admitted at double the rate of non-legacy applicants. Ivies admit a higher percentage (usually at a rate of 2x - 5x compared to non-legacies), ranging up to 41.7% for Princeton (source: Daniel Golden, "An Analytic Survey of Legacy Preference".)
Having said that, Ivies generally have larger entering classes (i.e. easier to accommodate legacies) and comparing gross data doesn't account for the attributes of individual candidates, but you can find lots of data that supports the fact that Ivies admit legacies at a higher rate than Stanford. My initial post was merely refuting the statement that Stanford did not consider legacy status; to my knowledge it always has been a factor in admissions.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - Mick - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 09:42 AM)2006alum link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=15166.msg164892#msg164892 date=1465748839]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=15166.msg164890#msg164890 date=1465746571]
I have a number of friends who went to Princeton in the mid to late 2000s. I've heard from several of them that for some of the more exclusive eating clubs, it was common for sexual acts to be traded for admission from the handful of (almost always male) student officers who ran the admissions process. I wonder if that's still happening today given how much more attention is given to sexual assault on campus?
Sounds like the c.al meme, whereby if you just donate enough, your kid is admitted to Stanford.
I wasn't going to dignify this idiotic comment with a response, but let's just say it would be impossible to do, because officers don't have that power and a majority of existing members, male and female, must approve new members.
[/quote]
...Except that my friends were in those eating clubs they were talking about. Maybe they were making it up to sound edgy, but it wasn't even said in a disparaging way. It was just stated as a common practice, rather matter-of-factly. And my understanding is that at that time the leaders of the eating clubs had a disproportionate influence over who the clubs deigned to admit. Maybe it's changed since then - I think the university-operated dining halls have all opened since my friends were at Princeton.
This, by the way, is the description of the "bickering" (admissions) process, from wikipedia:
Quote:The bicker process varies widely by club, ranging from staid interviews conducted by club members to raucous games designed to foster competition among potential inductees. Following two or three evenings of bicker activities, the club membership selects new members in closed sessions, the conduct of which varies from club to club.
And this 1998 article, from the Daily Princetonian, more or less confirms the existence of such a practice, apparently known then as a "third floor bicker" at the time:
Quote:Assistant Dean of Student Life Sandra Silverman explained that her office was aware of past instances of sexual harassment.
"Every year, practically, students who are seniors come in and talk about their experiences two years ago, but they dont feel comfortable reporting them," Silverman said. "People are not willing to come forward as witnesses."
"We hear stories about things like third-floor Bicker taking place. People dont feel comfortable having a sexual encounter with a member that they hadnt planned on or that would not have happened in different circumstances," she said.
Shanahan explained "third-floor Bicker" as an instance in which "a member offers to take a sophomore on a tour of the club. Then they take them into the room, lock the door, and say something like, Youre not going to be let in unless you hook up with me. "
"Weve heard about third-floor Bicker (and) people passed down the stairs naked," Silverman said. "People are intending it to be fun, but sometimes the people involved find it horrible, terrible, embarrassing, etc."
"If we hear rumors, we talk to the presidents about the complaints during the pre-Bicker and sign-in meetings, or as they arise," she said. "Without fact that substantiates a rumor, the University cannot take definitive action."
"The proctors cant just go in and do a spot check because they are private clubs," Silverman explained.
SHARE director Janet Waronker said many times people prefer not to make official complaints and instead remain anonymous. "I cant file a report without the permission of the person involved," she said.
Power dynamic
"There is a sort of power dynamic during Bicker. People have been concerned about instances when members somehow take advantage of prospective members," Kira Gnesdiloff 98 said.
And edited to add: it also doesn't surprise me, because variations on the same behavior happened at Stanford when I was an undergraduate. See this article, for example, documenting how some Tri-Delt pledges were taken as part of a pledging event to drink with football players, and at least one of the pledges was coerced into performing sexual acts during the pledge event.
[/quote]
I spoke with both of my sons about it separately. The older one hadn't heard of it. The younger one said he supposed it could have happened, but he thinks it's a myth. He bickered this year, and none of his fellow female soph friends mentioned anything like that. The older one (who was in the rowdiest club, Tiger Inn) said he doubted it for three reasons; first, because the administration kept close tabs on the clubs and a student would get expelled and go to prison for doing that. Second, no single member has enough influence to guarantee membership. Every sophomore is explained the selection process, and there are checks and balances. And third, most importantly...the clubs have an equal number of women as men and the people who engaged in such an act would be ostracized. So if it happens -- if -- it appears to be extremely rare.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - stupac2 - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 12:17 AM)81alum link Wrote:So, my question is whether there has been a shift at Stanford (nationally?) toward more of a binge-drinking frat culture? Has the frat system strengthened over the decades, and has the drinking culture worsened? Or are things about the same, except that our attention has focused on an old problem because of the Brock Turner case?
I think my time at Stanford was more recent than a lot of the people posting here, so I'll just weigh in on this question. I think frats are a red herring here. And I don't like frats, I think they're a bad idea for a host of reasons. But frats aren't that important to campus drinking culture, I was only in one a handful of times and still managed to get rip-roarin' drunk just fine. Between the co-ops, other houses, dorms, common spaces, and apartments there are plenty of places to party. Would shutting down frats improve the drinking culture? Maybe, but my suspicion is that whatever kids ended up in the house would still host boozy parties. It's what kids want to do.
Changing the campus binge drinking culture (which is very real, though very much not to blame for Turner's actions) would be hard. Someone elsewhere asked if other countries with more liberal drinking attitudes have these problems, and the answer is that they do, very much so. I don't know what the answer is here, as far as I'm aware the only societies that have no problems with alcohol have religious prohibitions against it (and that's probably not even a failsafe). Making it really expensive is probably the only thing you could do, but even that has its limits as homebrewing is legal, inexpensive, and not particularly difficult (even in college, a buddy of mine brewed his own beer for parties). Like most tricky problems, there aren't any easy solutions here.
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - 81alum - 06-12-2016
(06-12-2016, 10:55 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=15166.msg164888#msg164888 date=1465744579]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=15166.msg164883#msg164883 date=1465715867]
I convinced myself that Stanford was more egalitarian than the Ivies--there was some evidence to think so, given that it refused to give preference to legacies
Not true, although historically Stanford has weighed legacies less than its Ivy counterparts.
[/quote]
The latest info I've seen (from an ex-Stanford Admissions person) says that these days Stanford weighs legacy significantly more than the Ivies.
[/quote]
In the mid 1970s Stanford claimed not to give preference to legacies. One of many of the reforms that emerged from the 1960s that have since been abandoned. Princeton states that its legacies are admitted at about a 35% rate, while its overall admissions is closer to 7%. At least that is what they put in their letter to me earlier this year.
With regard to the eating clubs, times may well have changed. They were the subject of a lawsuit in the 1990s to force them to go coed, so they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century after I departed. Their history is interesting. They were established because Princeton had the good sense to ban fraternities in the 19th C, so this was the next best thing that could pass muster within the rules. Even so, Woodrow Wilson was disgusted with their influence and had enormous friction with them during his tenure as university President. Today, the eating clubs cost an extra $2000 or so beyond a normal Princeton eating plan, and I am not at all surprised that 3/4 of the students feel the need to pay the premium to join them.Â
One of my students invited me to the Ivy Club. Perhaps I over generalized from my experience there. The antebellum comment was more about the racial relations than the architecture, but many of those "clubs" were incredible buildings. I naively remembered the Toyon eating club at Stanford--which looked like a hovel compared with the Princeton clubs, and was an entirely different kind of establishment. It was probably that contrast that set me up for such a shock.
I'm still wondering if Stanford's Greek life has also changed over the last 35 years, or its drinking scene. It seemed tame, benign when I was there despite my misgivings about the concept of exclusive clubs.Â
Re: Larger question re. sexual violence and Brock Turner - dabigv13 - 06-12-2016
My sister is going to be a senior at Princeton and I think things are pretty similar to when I visited and went to some parties at eating clubs over 15 years ago. There are many different clubs, some are more exclusive, some are more boozy and "fratty"....seems like people generally find a place that fits them.