Spring term usually means an end to the chilly temperatures — but this year it also appears to signal a chilling of relations between administrators and students. With the rollout of some of the “Moving Dartmouth Forward” plan’s less popular policies, it appears administrators face a choice: work with students to effect cultural change or force this change through top-down policy adjustments and scare tactics. We all know that change must come, and many — myself included — believe that College President Phil Hanlon’s vision has potential. In order to be effective, however, this change must come through cooperation rather than administrative edicts.
Administrators certainly seem tempted to send a clear message to students through disciplinary action. I have heard, for example, chatter of the potential derecognition of a certain fraternity for an incident which — though a juvenile and harmful incident that has no place on this campus — does not definitively amount to hazing. Though I am not arguing in defense of institutionalized branding in any way, labeling it hazing and floating the possibility of such strong disciplinary action strikes me as more of a witch hunt than a legitimate and necessary action taken to protect and serve the student body — which should be the ultimate goal of any administrative policy or sanction.
Perhaps a clearer, if less controversial, example of this disciplinarian attitude has yet to happen — to my knowledge, at least — but cannot be far off. According to the judicial affairs office’s website, any student or organization who provides hard alcohol to any other student — regardless of age, quantity or location — will fall prey to the “likely conduct responses,” including suspension. It’s all too conceivable that someone this term will not be well-versed in the consequences, not take the College for their word or simply will believe they won’t get caught. If they are caught, they will be suspended for something that four weeks ago would have, in all likelihood, resulted in a slap on the wrist. Organizations that misstep are headed for suspension and eventually derecognition — though I have very little pity for any organization so careless as to screw up the three times required to incur this punishment.
My question is somewhat of a philosophical one. Whom and how are such strict policies helping? Perhaps some believe these policies help all students by encouraging a reduction of harmful behaviors, but what about those students who are caught early and made into examples? Surely the crime of providing some friends in a dorm room any alcohol with an alcohol proof greater than 30 does not warrant a term of suspension. The College cannot deny that these policies will disproportionately harm a few students in order to get a message across to everybody else. It’s possible this message will ultimately be beneficial. In my view, however, such a response is flawed, deeply unfair and indicative of a surprising disregard for individual students. Instead, we are being treated as a misbehaved herd that needs to be kept in line — a few of our members are apparently expendable for the good of the many.
It is also worth mentioning the dangers of policies that sow mistrust between students and administrators. While administrators have assured that the Good Samaritan policy is not affected by the ban, few of the students I have talked with seem to know this. Of those that do, fewer still can unequivocally affirm that they would not hesitate to use the policy for a hard alcohol-related incident now that the ban is in effect. This sort of uncertainty alone should concern administrators enough for them to reconsider or alter the current enforcement of this policy. The biggest tragedy possible would be the preventable death of a member of our community because their peers were too afraid of the possible disciplinary consequences of asking for help.
Administrators have drawn a line in the sand, and they seem to be waiting for someone to put their toe across it. While I don’t disagree that this method will be effective in the end, I find it unfortunate that students caught violating the hard alcohol ban will receive a punishment that I can only see as disproportionate — one that has the potential to cause long-term damage to their futures.
