Love It/Hate It Special Edition (Hate It/Hate It): Demise of the UC Party Fund Grants

So I am sorry to burst the bubbles of all you tyrannical Theresas, but Dean Pilbeam’s letter hits too close to home. At the very least, his three-pronged take on why the party grant program needed to be axed is grounded in undeniably sound logic.

First, Dean Pilbeam rightly notes that the UC has not taken the necessary initiative to prevent the use of UC funds for underage drinking. I had a party when I turned 20, and even though I invited Ryan Petersen, he didn’t come. Had he or one of his peers had the time to come to my party, I would have spent the evening engaged in meaningful conversation. Instead, I chugged boxed wine in the back of the room and wondered how he fits into such tight pants on a daily basis.

It is equally hard to slip into and zip up the fly of the idea that large, overcrowded events should be the focus of student social life. Why congregate in I-22 when there are perfectly good public house spaces available for socializing? Who doesn’t want to spend their weekends downing forties in the senior common room? Answer: no one. And Pilbeam hits the nail square on it head: underage drinking will be rendered IMPOSSIBLE with the introduction of BAT teams to Stein Clubs. Would you like some cheese with that grape juice, Quincy sophomore?

I left Dean Pilbeam’s second point until the end because it is the strongest, truest thing I have ever read: “it is quite apparent that the UC Party Grant program, in practice, has funded parties where the focus is on drinking.” Zounds! Dios mio! What a revelation! How narrow-minded our focus has been! Have you ever been to a super Euro-club where there is an open bar where no one is drinking but everyone has dilated pupils and is covered in sweat and somehow has energy to dance all night? Clearly, Pilbeam thinks that is what a Harvard party should be like, and Daisy be damned, I agree with him.