With squirming delight we read the New York Observer's Princeton bicker takedown this morning, thrilling to each student's oblivious elitism, each eating club's repugnant practices, each Shermanesque detail.

To be honest, we weren't sure what we could possibly add to Spencer Morgan's exquisitely unsourced piece -- just go take it in now -- but readers at Princeton have filled us in on how the campus is reacting to a story that makes the social/cultural scene feel as friendly as Fallujah. One level-headed tipster reports:

Princetonian parents everywhere are probably hyperventilating, but all in all, it's a lot tamer than it could have been. ... Many of us are surprised that the reporter was able to attend several of the parties and get students to talk on the record. To my knowledge, most clubs make members sign an agreement saying they will never, ever, ever talk to the press, on pain of expulsion. When we heard the NYT was doing a story on bicker, for example, my club called a meeting where we were reminded to keep our big traps shut. But for the most part this article has elicited a minor shrug, since it's all old news to us. 

Another student, belonging to Ivy, messaged the club's listserv to joke that the misnamed Tamara "Watson" was in deep trouble:

In light of the dirty bicker that obviously took place, you have been retrohosed effective immediately.

To all the other new members, I love you despite any dirty bickering (which would NEVER happen in ivy anyway). You are all wonderful, and Spencer Morgan can stuff his own dick (if he has one) up his ass.

Naturally, not everyone took it as well. After the jump, read one outraged Tiger's email to Morgan. With critics like this, who needs supporters?

[Photo stolen from New York Observer's Melanie Flood until they make us take it down]

From: [redacted]
Date: February 21, 2007 12:04:23 PM EST
To: Spencer Morgan
Subject: Re: Undercover at Princeton's Eating Clubs

Dear Mr. Morgan,

I have just finished reading your piece on Princeton University's
eating clubs and have to vehemently disagree with your
characterisation of the clubs to which you refer. I have read finer
pieces of reporting in high school newspapers. Your article, which I
can only assume was meant to be a titillating gossip piece rather than
a devastating expose of the university eating clubs, relied on very
few facts but rather depended heavily on innuendo, hearsay, and
questionable sources.

Perhaps your recent discovery that the the New York Times were looking
at writing a piece on the clubs (see
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/02/12/news/17279.shtml)
led you to run down to Princeton for the weekend and construct this
hastily written piece, demonstrating the lack of journalistic
integrity for which the New York Observer is justifiably known.
Perhaps you were just the sad kid in high school who kept to himself,
but occupied his time ranting about what all the other kids were doing
that was so wrong. I'm not quite sure as to what makes an alumnus from
the class of 1996 a credible source for providing information on the
current drug use at the clubs, but perhaps you are the kind of
journalist who does not question the reliability of sources.

Amongst your paragraphs of tasteless and pointless name-dropping you
appear to claim that connections are the be-all and end-all of an in
at The Ivy Club, yet then provide examples of people with significant
connections who were not accepted to membership. You then also
bizarrely imply that Ms. Watson was accepted due to her helping Ms.
Adekunle for a few minutes, while stating that a close friend of the
club president did not get in. This is a shining example of the
objectivity with which the clubs approach bicker, as clearly neither
of these two facts played a role in their admission or lack thereof.
The fact that Ms. Adekunle was helped by Ms. Watson if anything just
displays the strength of Ms. Watson's character. Showing good
character would provide a reason to elect her to membership, but if
Mr. Rockefeller does not have the sway to get his close friend into
the club, then you can rest assured that Ms. Adekunle certainly does
not have the sway to get a person who helped her for a few minutes in.
Even simple facts such as when the decisions were announced (February
9th, not 16th as is stated in your article), or the correct spelling
of names, have clearly gone unchecked.

I could go on pointing out poor reasoning, false logic, and general
absurdities in your article, but I think my point is clear. I suggest
you return to Princeton, not to check your facts, or do more stellar
investigative reporting, but rather to sit in on JRN 448 (taught by
Prof. Mendoza of the Associated Press, 2000 Pulitzer Prize winner for
investigative reporting). You clearly still have much you need to
learn.

Yours sincerely,

[redacted]