The College's faculty voted 82-0 at a special meeting yesterday to support the controversial social and residential life initiative announced last week by the Board of Trustees which, among other things, threatens the existence of the single-sex Greek system at Dartmouth.
In the two-hour meeting characterized by one faculty member as "utterly confused" and another as "all twisted up," numerous drafts, motions and amendments of resolutions to support the five guiding principles were proposed and debatedf seemingly simultaneously and with little order.
While College President James Wright began the meeting by joking that only three parts of the plan have been criticized -- "the process, the substance and the way in which it was communicated" -- little of that criticism was seen yesterday, although some members of the faculty expressed concern that they were not made more a part of the decision making process.
Most of the disagreement during the meeting centered not on the principles themselves but instead on how strong the support they give the Trustees' initiative should be and how active the faculty should be in assisting the goals' implementation.
So limited was the discussion on the five guiding principles or their obvious Greek implications that when one professor rose and said, "can we have a discussion on the principles themselves?" cries of "no" could be heard throughout the faculty.
Instead of a voice of support, Director of the Rockefeller Center Linda Fowler suggested the resolution express that "the faculty welcomes the opportunity to engage" the students in discussions on the initiatives because she said she felt "the students already feel besieged" by the initiatives and their underlying meanings.
She said having their own faculty voice strong support for the same goals would look like they were "ganging up on the students."
Associate Professor of Religion Susan Ackerman said she disagreed with Fowler's assertion that students feel besieged, and said she has spoken with students who support the Trustees' announcement.
"Some students are beleaguered and others are not," Ackerman said. "I'd like to send the students who are not a statement of our support."
And support they got. The faculty soundly voted down Fowler's motion by a voice vote and unanimously voted in favor of a stronger worded proposal offered by Government Professor Ann Sa'adah.
Directly preceding the faculty's ultimate vote, Associate English Professor Thomas Luxon gave Wright some personal support, passionately thanking him for his "bravery" in presenting the monumental plan which is unpopular amongst most of the student body.
"We have not had this leadership in the 11 years I've been here and it makes me feel good," Luxon said, eliciting strong applause by the other faculty members.
Mathematics Research Instructor John Mackey expressed vocal and strong opposition to the elimination of the single-sex Greek system, and was one of the very few who mentioned the subject at all.
Mackey said the current state of the College's Greek system is far different than the popular "Animal House" stereotype and said the College should "offer something before mandating in an Orwellian fashion" that the system be overhauled.
Instead Mackey said the Trustees should be interested in "permitting choices" to the students in greater magnitude, not taking them away.
He said the way the administration and Trustees have handled the process is like telling students on exactly what street, in what building and in what room they are going to live and then telling them "now we'll engage you in a splendid discussion on what color you should paint your room."
The original motion of support, which would have created a subcommittee of students, faculty, administrators and Trustees to explore the options available, was quickly replaced by the substitute resolution proposed by Sa'adah.
This resolution, which was ultimately adopted, directly focused the faculty's support on the Trustees' five principles and expressed their trust in the president and the Trustees to appoint the proper bodies to facilitate discussion themselves.
In introductory comments before the debate began, Wright attempted to explain the reasons behind the Trustees' bold initiative and the manner in which it was announced.
Wright quoted speeches he made at the time of his inauguration in September and at the announcement of his selection as the College's 16th president as indications these changes would be coming.
He said "these are things that require faculty action" and tried to smooth over ripples created by what many members of the Dartmouth community, including both students and faculty, have criticized as a poorly handled announcement.
Wright met with the faculty in a general meeting one day before the Trustees' letter was released to the community and did not mention it -- touching a nerve the next day when the faculty learned of the plan.
He said he was not concealing but was "delaying" it as he said he was determined the principles reach all members of the community simultaneously and that students be among the first to hear.
The faculty anger over the announcement was expressed in a proposed amendment to the resolution which added regret about the way the community was informed of the landmark initiative, although few focused on that in debate and the amendment was not included in the resolution's final wording.
Wright indicated in his remarks for the first time that the Trustees were more likely planning on announcing the five principles after their April meeting but were encouraged by Wright to do so following this month's meeting so the Class of 1999 could partake in the ensuing discussions on how the social and residential life changes should occur in accordance with the Trustees' five guiding principles:
-- There should be greater choice and continuity in residential living and improved residential space.
-- There should be additional and improved social spaces controlled by students.
-- The system should be substantially coeducational and provide opportunities for greater interaction among all Dartmouth students.
-- The number of students living off-campus should be reduced.
-- The abuse and unsafe use of alcohol should be eliminated.
