The necessity of the move to end the Greek system at Dartmouth 'as we know it' in order to establish a foreign system of social and residential life is sure to be debated in the weeks to come. This exchange of ideas is a welcome one. However, this week's announcement represents a much deeper issue which I address here. The subversion of Dartmouth ideals and the political maneuvering that this act represents is shameful to this school and offensive to those who come here for an education.
First, a little history. In the winter of 1998, almost one year ago to the day, a representative of the Trustees came to speak to the house presidents of the CFS system at Dartmouth. He informed the group that a review of the Greek system and social life at the College was imminent. He promised that the opinions of all students, Greek and non-Greek, would be solicited and considered by the Trustees in its review.
Following the announcement of the resignation of President Freedman, the Trustee reported back to the CFS presidents and told them that the review of the system had been postponed. He said that no action would be taken until a new president of the College was chosen, and that the group would be contacted as soon as the review process began.
The Trustees never followed up on this promise, and clearly such a review has indeed taken place in some form. The Feb. 6 "Statement from the Board of the Trustees" which was received by all students hypocritically "invite[s] community discussion on how we can enhance the residential and social experience at Dartmouth." In view of the Trustees' broken promises to take such discussion seriously in the past, I am fatally skeptical of its intentions to do so this time around.
Perhaps more disappointing is the failure of the President to live up to his words regarding his commitment to the community and the Dartmouth spirit, thereby critically violating the trust of the students. In his Feb. 9 letter, President Wright claims to take "pride in the sense of community that draws in and touches those of us who are privileged to study, to teach, and to work here." Fundamental to any community is respect for the opinions of those who live in it. This requires enthusiastic interaction and genuine compromise between different groups and interests. To keep this plan secret until Wednesday, and then to defiantly suggest that this is not a "referendum" while soliciting student input, is truly demeaning to those of us who have put time and effort into leading the various organizations of this school.
At last year's inauguration, I stood along with classmates, teachers and alumni to congratulate President Wright on his achievement. I listened to his promise to take my concerns and opinions seriously. This is something that I did not hear or see once in the three years that I was a student under Freedman's administration. I thought that Dartmouth would change -- that we could return to the days when the President was visible and as approachable as any good friend or colleague. Indeed, I felt that way in the fall when I was invited, along with a number of other Greek and non-Greek leaders, to have dinner at the President's house to discuss the nature of residential and social life at the College. And, now that I have spoken and essentially been told that my opinion will have no bearing on the future of this campus, I feel betrayed by and isolated from those who run this school.
Upon reflection, this plan seems much more about addressing the criticisms of individuals outside Dartmouth than changing the lives of those who are students here. The concerns identified by the Trustees and the President are common to all of us. Gender relations, alcohol use, and the lack of social options are things that affect each of us and affect students at other schools in the country as well. Given that there has been no serious attempt by the Administration to solve these issues from within the current system, it seems obtuse to go ahead and propose a completely different social structure with no concrete plan of action. It must be that other invisible factors, such as difficulty in admissions and recruiting and the national trend of opposition to fraternities and sororities, are forcing the administration to make drastic changes under the guise of doing good for the students. "Solve our PR problems now, and deal with the opposition later," they say. This is what has h
appened so far.
The trade of community discussion and cooperative action for national reputation and politics is unacceptable for a school of this nature. Students and faculty come here for a reason: to live with others who respect them, their beliefs and their intellect. For the administration to perpetuate this expectation, and then to completely disregard it when setting policy for the future of the College, is abhorrent.
