Some faculty members at the College are criticizing the Steering Committee on the Student Life Initiative on the purported lack of debate on the different proposals about the future of social and residential life at Dartmouth, according to interviews with several professors yesterday.
Faculty members, many of whom attended the town meeting on the status of the student life initiative committee, said that while they agreed with the spirit of the principles set forth by the Board of Trustees, they were wary of the "secrecy" of the committee process.
"I don't think there has been actual communication," Classics Professor Carla Goodnoh said. "I think students should have a much stronger voice and impact on the way they live their lives."
Goodnoh said there should be "less top-down social engineering" on the campus.
English Department Chair Bill Cook, who did not attend the meeting on Tuesday night, said he questioned how feasible the promise of discussion on issues was.
"How do you arrive at a discussion if you're told from the beginning that this thing is going to be done?" Cook said, referring to the Winter term announcement that the Greek system on campus will be substantially changed.
Linguistics Professor Lindsay Whaley said that although there have been several forums and focus groups that left "room for dialogue," he didn't feel there has been many opportunities for faculty to publicly voice their opinions on the Initiative.
"President Wright and people on the committee have been more than open to listening to faculty opinion, but there have not been that many public opportunities specifically for people like me to voice opinion."
One professor who wished to remain anonymous said that the Trustees are not being honest about where the decision on the Greek system stands. "All along, the main gist has been to replace the fraternity system with what the Trustees deem morally and socially appropriate."
The professor continued, "In retrospect, they're trying to make the process seem more open but I think it's clearly a charade. They have no intent in allowing for much student opinion."
"These people are cowards because they do not believe ideas [such as the common house system] will win if subjected to a fair evaluation by students," the professor said. "They do not have the belief that students are mature enough and adult enough to make their own decisions. To me, that's humiliating."
While Government Professor Lynn Vavreck said she feels the process seems open, she has concerns about Dentzer and Fahey commenting that they are not interested in comparing Dartmouth statistics on drinking with those of other schools.
"You have to compare what is here to what is going on around country to get an idea about what is a reasonable expectation for the changes," she said.
Vavreck said that discussion of common houses, or a system similar to Princeton's eating clubs, should include comparing drinking statistics from other schools like Princeton.
Vavreck had lived on the street where Princeton's main eating clubs are located and said she thought they were basically coeducational fraternities that threw big parties. "Let's look at Princeton and what percentage of students report blackouts. I would guess the number will be just as high [as Dartmouth]," she said.
There are many faculty on campus that expressed opinions of support matching the vote taken immediately after the announcement of the Five Principles.
English Professor Thomas Luxon praised Wright's bravery at the winter faculty meeting when the Initiative was first debated with the faculty. He said his opinion of Wright and the Initiative are still strongly positive.
"I think Wright is brave to bring this up, but he'd be foolish not to, brave to persist with it, and brave to set this out as the first order of business in his presidency."
Luxon said he thinks of the process as open and that criticism of the town meeting as otherwise, is unfair, since it is often hard to hear everyone at a forum where the entire community is welcome to attend. The alternative of smaller group meetings where everyone can be heard is also criticized, he said.
Debate broke out at the faculty meeting between government Professor Linda Fowler and religion Professor Susan Ackerman over the wording of a proposal of support and whether students were "besieged" by Wright's announcement.
Ackerman argued then "some students are beleaguered and others are not. I'd like to send the students who are not a statement of our support."
Ackerman said that she feels some students are excited and happy about the Initiative and although she said the steering committee has been "closemouthed" about its progress over the Summer term, she is not worried about access to the committee.
"I don't know if I'm happy or not with what they're doing, I'm happy they're working though," Ackerman said.
Ackerman said she assumes the Trustees will issue a public report when they come to decisions and that community members need to remember the steering committee is only an advisory board to the trustees.
The steering committee is formally known as the Committee on the Student Life Initiative.
