Entering my final year at Dartmouth, I have serious questions about the role the College plays in the social and private lives of its students. I feel that the administration thinks it must shape not only our intellects, but the manner in which we interact with one another.
Masked as the champions of liberal views, I often wonder whether these administrators simply have the ancient desire of the older generation to control and manipulate the minds of the young. I get a feeling that the army of deans in Parkhurst Administration building all are trying to re-educate the students in social issues, forcing on us their biases on what is right and wrong.
What is most dangerous about their social stand, is that in its total political correctness, it is put forth as an absolute moral right. The freedom of expression and dissent so encouraged by the liberal arts tradition is thereby stifled and killed by the very people who are meant to champion it.
A personal experience that I had with this attempt to dictate and curtail student interaction came during the orientation for D.O.C. Trips. After spending all morning learning how to splint broken bones, dress cuts and light stoves, two deans from the Freshman Office came to speak with us.
They wanted to discuss "social issues" and talk about topics we might discuss with our trippees. I was interested to hear what they had to say and was hoping to engage in a two way dialogue with them. What was labelled by them "social issues" I soon realized was a list of what they deemed appropriate and inappropriate topics.
We were discouraged from voicing our opinions on academic classes, professors or the Greek system on our trips. Dissent and free expression on our part was not encouraged by the deans during this "discussion." The whole episode enraged me. That these 35-year-old men would dare to tell a 21- year-old woman what she ought and ought not say to members of her generation, her own peers, was both demeaning and belittling.
My own father, who at 65 has 30 years' wisdom and experience over these men, would never dare to extend his power to this aspect of my life, to my interaction with people of my own age. During the entire session, I felt as if I was experiencing an Orwellian nightmare, and that during my trip "big brother" would be looking over my shoulder, passing judgement on my opinions and the experiences of Dartmouth that I would relate to my trippees.
Two weeks ago, I learned that the building of the traditional bonfire had been curtailed by the administration. The building was delayed until late in the week and the size of the structure was limited to about 60 tiers, a portion of what it had been my first year. I was told that this had occurred because the administration felt it needed to better protect the students from the hazards of defending the bonfire.
On the Thursday, when the wooden beams finally began to rise on the Green, I urged my trippees to spend as much time as they could building and defending their bonfire. To my astonishment they replied that each UGA group had been assigned specific times during which to come and build.
I wonder what would have happened had the administration left all the details, from building to wood purchase and delivery, entirely in the hands of the freshmen. But instead one has to admire the thoroughness with which the administration, in its relentless pursuit of control over students' lives, has effectively killed the spontaneity, unity, and sense of collective purpose that once came about as a result of this Homecoming tradition.
I have become critical of our administration's role after an alternative experience I had studying in England under the administration of Oxford University. This institution takes a radically different approach toward its students than does Dartmouth. It treats them as adults who are capable of running the social life of the university.
Oxford has the fewer students per faculty member than any University in the world, has very little administration, and is virtually dean-free. Students control everything from first year orientation, to the forming of support groups for women and minorities, to the hiring of coaches for the varsity rugby, cricket and rowing teams.
Certain professors would advise on social undertakings, but their role was minimal. The professors saw their role as educators within their field, and this narrow approach really gave the students a more equal footing with them. They didn't pretend to have answers to broad social issues outside their own field.
There is a feeling of unity between students and faculty that they are engaging together on a great educational experience. The administration does not try to put a moral stamp on political and social debate and as a result the expression of a wide variety of views is encouraged on campus.
Given those freedoms and possibilities, the students rose to the challenge of forming their own society on campus and while I studied there I saw and participated in initiatives on a scale that I have never witnessed on the Dartmouth campus.
Through our own effort we created an entire week of orientation activities for the first-year students; we convinced Margaret Thatcher and Henry Kissinger to come and speak in open forums; my college boat club won the sponsorship of a major London business firm; my college financed and put on the largest and most lavish college ball in recent memory; and we successfully took on the bursary office and reversed a decision by the college to raise housing rents by 10-20 percent.
This control and responsibility over our own affairs, and the feeling that anything was possible and that different views were accepted and encouraged, fostered an atmosphere of liberation, power and unity unlike anything else I have ever experienced.
