To the Editor:
I downloaded the report and read it over the weekend. Frankly I was appalled (and I was NOT a member of a fraternity.) It is an unbelievably shoddy piece of work. Its biases are blatant, its myopia nearly blinding. What purports to be analysis is largely anecdote; what analysis there is does not support the extraordinary recommendations made; to the contrary, it undermines them.
Under the guise of a review of the residential and social environment at Dartmouth, it promotes s a full-scale assault on the CFS system. It alleges that the CFS is the root cause of a poor social environment; a culture that fosters alcohol abuse; a lack of concern for diversity; and host of other problems -- including the fact that the Upper Valley lacks the amenities of an urban environment. To address these problems, the report recommends a massive capital investment in bricks and mortar to create residence clusters and a standards-driven dismantling of the fraternity/sorority system.
My first car was a well preserved 6 year-old Volvo with the original battery, distributor, and generator intact in a dirty engine compartment. I decided to steam-clean it to improve the appearance. Later, as I replaced these parts at Hackers Haven (the origin of the Cartalk empire), one of the Magliozzi brothers gave me a wonderful bit of advice which has repeatedly proved its worth: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
According to the report, 70% of students report their social life is excellent or good. Almost 90% of alumni have overwhelmingly positive attitudes about their College experience. So, the possible cognitive dissonance (http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/festinge.html) of a $30,000 annual investment aside, the problem is...?
For the 30% of students who report their social life is mediocre or poor, their reasons include: the lack of alternatives to the CFS"... and limited off-campus outlets in Hanover and its environs. For example, a large percentage of the 30% of students who were not happy with their social lives came to Dartmouth from urban settings" (emphasis added)
As those noted philosophers the Rolling Stones point out, "you can always get what you want". (And that includes lighted jogging paths!) If you want an urban environment and its amenities, you don't belong in the Upper Valley.
As to the prospective students who choose not to attend Dartmouth, the reports recommendations do nothing to address the first two reasons cited by Dean Furstenberg: (1) location and relative isolation and (2) financial concerns regarding the cost of a Dartmouth education. With regard to their third concern about the "social system", no evidence is presented as to the weight of this factor versus the other two.
I do not know if alcohol use/abuse is any worse a problem at Dartmouth than its peer schools; some comparative data would have been nice, rather than the comparison of CFS and non-CFS members. (I was surprised to see the report did not cite the "perception" that Dartmouth alumni have much higher rates of alcoholism than other Ivy schools; does it?). To the extent alcohol abuse is a social and/or health problem, it should certainly be addressed. But the draconian responses to violations of the proposed alcohol code belies a puritanical, not a public health, response to those who do not conform. (It also raises the question of why the College does not rely on the existing state authorities to monitor and enforce public laws regarding alcohol and social order.)
And then the report recommends the College should go into the business of selling booze! If alcohol is such a scourge at Dartmouth, this would be the height of hypocrisy! One can only assume that it was late, the report's authors tired, and no one caught this while editing.
Finally, the report identifies lack of community and of stability as problems but, curiously, nowhere examines the impact of either the Dartmouth plan or year-round-operation as contributing factors. Nor does it consider any changes to these two possible causative elements.
In my opinion, the report simply does not make its case that there is a huge problem -- whether perceived or real -- which will be solved by eliminating the CFS and embarking on a massive construction program. Nor would they address the alleged lack of community and stability, let alone the Colleges location. (My other criticisms are too numerous and too detailed to list here.)
I am more than a bit skeptical about the "town meetings" to discuss the recommendations. The Presidents own prior pronouncements indicate a mind made up; the report is a mockery of the principles of freedom of choice and of association.
