I'd like to congratulate the Committee on the Student Life Initiative for producing an answer to the questions the Dartmouth student body has been asking since last February. I firmly believe that the Trustees have only the best of intentions for this College, and that whatever comes out of this term's discussion, it can only improve upon an already superlative system of higher learning. The student body should welcome major sections of this initiative, as there is a clear need for more beds on-campus, and problems such as sexual and alcohol abuse must be tackled head-on.
However, being a term for discussion, we are shortchanging ourselves if we think these recommendations cannot be refined. Simply, many of the procedures outlined in this report fundamentally contradict the goals the College is claiming to pursue. The recommendations can be improved upon by removing regulations financially and materially crippling to off-campus houses, in conjunction with an expanded cluster system and an overhaul of alcohol regulations on campus.
Let me be clear about this. This is only about our social lives to the extent that it is about the social climate of the College over the next 20 years. This term is about a fight for student control and student choice in residential life, a fight to establish the best collegiate community possible. Students must recognize that when the report's "Values and Vision" argues that Dartmouth "should be a place where learning is paramount," or that Dartmouth "should . . . afford students a rich array of social and residential options and broad freedom to associate with groups and individuals of their choosing," this is fundamentally inconsistent with the residential restrictions outlined in Recommendation 4 of this report.
The College must recognize that a student-controlled environment often provides a more genuine learning experience than anything a "cluster" might replicate. Additional and improved on-campus housing is a valuable goal to pursue. But the idea of creating a "rich array" of options for students has a tragically hollow sound to it, when the College proposes a system that limits or eliminates many of the choices currently available to the Dartmouth Community, supplanting most any form of off-campus housing. As much as the Principle of Community charges me to consider the rights and interests of students decidedly uncomfortable with the current way of life, it applies to students and administrators who marginalize those who choose to associate with one another in this off-campus housing.
I am deadly serious when I state that students and administrators who propose to dictate residential options have violated this Principle of Community, and I challenge them to be "personally honest" with themselves when they look at the recommendations outlined in this report and cannot find a net increase in continuity, residential options, or student choice. There is merely a shift towards greater College control, and that is unacceptable to students whose choices become so limited that off-campus housing will no longer be viable in Hanover. I am profoundly saddened that students and administrators can invoke a Principle of Community while advancing recommendations that are deeply insensitive to the rights and interests of a number of students that have found their "Dartmouth Experience" and are fighting to keep that option open for the benefit of the College as a whole. I am profoundly saddened that these students and administrators cannot see that they have violated the interests and independence of a large section of the student body, and I hope the Trustees can recognize this fact.
If the College is truly serious about providing complementary social options, truly committed to enhancing on-campus life without destroying off-campus options, then they must eliminate many of the proposed changes that simply bankrupt smaller houses and make it impossible for larger houses or college-owned houses to continue. I am specifically referring to the residence and membership requirements of the recommendations; to the provision that houses become non-residential in the summer, or at any point in time, and the provisions that privately owned and operated houses must pay for any repairs the College deems necessary for the organizations to continue. The current proposal demands much from off-campus organizations and privately owned houses, and does not guarantee recognition even in the event that organizations jump through all the hoops placed before them and surprise the most cynical and hardened members of the opposition.
This is not about alcohol. I propose that the campus remove tap systems, and find alternatives to beer pong in basements. If given a choice between that option and a loss of independence in where I choose to live, I would rather have the rights that happen to be in the Constitution than the social privileges, which the College has allowed us to have. However, I think the College needs to more closely examine whether the current social environment is better or worse than what could be, with the replacement of beer with hard liquor, the replacement of nonselective open parties with invite-only room parties that further elitism, inviting unsafe, less controllable environments for women, and the elimination of choice in where and in what manner students wish to live.
I feel sad for the Class of 2003, a class that didn't ask for four years of construction and upheaval on campus. I would probably consider transferring. I feel even worse for the classes yet to reach Dartmouth, who know nothing of the current system and will be precluded from understanding the choices they missed out on. As a "low ability" student that didn't even manage to break 1400 on my SAT, perhaps I should have considered other options than Dartmouth. Perhaps the administration doesn't want the contributions I've made to the diversity of this community or to the pursuit of an intellectual atmosphere on campus, because of my test scores.
I will say this now and argue it to anyone who cares to listen: We can make this college better, partly through the recommendations released a few days ago. But if the College attempts to destroy residential choice to make way for their vision, legal action is on the way, along with hardship for the next 5 or 6 classes as the transition is undertaken, by a set of recommendations with a flawed philosophy. Admissions, quality of life, student happiness, and competitiveness in the national rankings can only fall through a rocky transition. It will come to this, if the College pursues the balance of these recommendations. Think about the Principle of Community. Be personally honest with yourselves. Preserve student choice and independence in residential life.
