Although the Greek Life Steering Committee report was targeted for release at beginning of the term, nearly halfway through May the group is still struggling to reach a consensus.
During two meetings last week, the committee worked to iron out differences that had previously led some members to declare in frustration that they would not sign the report unless it was significantly revised from internally circulated drafts before release.
However, one committee member who asked not to be identified criticized the process and said he is doubtful that the final report would be worth the time the committee put in.
"People didn't want their name on the report. It was a joke and the whole process was a joke. It was just a lot of rhetoric," the committee member said.
A new version of the report will likely be sent out to members of the committee for review this morning and is likely to be much more specific in its recommendations for implementation of the six principles -- scholarship, leadership development, service/philanthropy, brotherhood/sisterhood, inclusivity and accountability -- around which the group wants to see Greek life reorganized.
"There was a sentiment from various committee members that we hadn't completed our task, that the report didn't reflect everything that they desired to have in it," committee chairperson and Acting Assistant Dean of Residential Life Cassie Barnhardt said. "It was perceived as we needed ... to be more clear or more specific."
After discussing general principles for most of Fall term and spending a large amount of time in subcommittees during the winter, some members of the group said they did not feel the full work of the committee was reflected in the drafts of the report.
"The reason that the committee met again is ... a lot of people weren't very satisfied with the status of the report as it was. It wasn't comprehensive enough," Coed Fraternity Sorority Council President and committee member, Shihwan Chung '02, said. "A lot of people were frustrated."
"We felt in some cases that there was more rhetoric in the report than we thought would be there and less concrete initiative," said Ryan Clark '01, who said he would not have put his name to the report as it was written up after spring break.
The problems with the earlier drafts may have resulted from a rush to get the report done on a schedule that did not allow the committee time to discuss the proposals of the various subcommittees as a group.
"We all were wondering what happened to a lot of our recommendations," committee member Dean Krishna '01 said. "The bottom line is that the reason for all these problems is that no one knew the process for concluding."
Some sentiment that the report does not reflect the consensus of all committee members may be the result of poor attendance at meetings, according to faculty member Robert Binswanger.
In fact, several students on the committee who said they were very unsatisfied with the drafts of the report said they had not attended one or both of the meetings last week.
While Barnhardt said there was still no timeline for the release of the report, she did say that the current version is "pretty close" to a final draft.
Student members of the committee who spoke with The Dartmouth were noncommittal as to whether they would sign the final report, saying they would have to see how it turned out.
"If this document is weak and doesn't hold the ideals or the ideologies of the committee, then I think we'd be ill served by putting our names on it, because that's not the legacy that the committee wants to have," Chung said.
One way or the other, though, further significant revision is unlikely, Barnhardt said.
"It's the end of the year. This committee started in October so it ought to be done. Everybody's had a fair chance to comment, to participate, to make known their views," Binswanger said. "I want to see some action."
A number of ways in which dissenting opinions may be incorporated into the report have been discussed, such as including them in an appendix.
The report, which will go to Dean of the College James Larimore, should aim just to reflect the opinions of a majority of the group, Binswanger said. "Getting 31 people to agree to something tends to produce something that will be the lowest common denominator."
However, Vanessa Green '02 said that submitting a report that doesn't have the support of the entire group will reduce it's impact.
"Having everyone sign it means a lot more and goes a lot farther" she said.
Whether to recommend a general set of principles for each Greek house to apply or to present a much more specific set of proposals has been a major issue of late. Both philosophies are present in the committee.
"There's always been the discussion whether we want the report to be really specific ... or if we want to leave it more open ended," Green said.
It appears that those who wish to see a report that deals explicitly with a number of issues have won out.
Members of the committee said they expect to see a final report that is more explicit than previous versions, which required Greeks to improve performance in areas such as philanthropy and leadership but often did not describe precisely how to go about doing that.
One specific point that has been a source for debate has been a recommendation, included in drafts of the report, that students have a grade point average of at least 2.30 to join or be active in the Greek system.
Barnhardt said that some form of GPA requirement is likely to find its way into the final version of the report, despite some committee members' objections, noting that most other universities nationwide have GPA requirements for Greek membership.
"It was universally agreed upon that minimum GPA was a bad idea, but yet it was included in the report," one committee member said. "Cassie [Barnhardt], or somebody higher than Cassie, just decided that that was necessary."
Several committee members disagreed with that statement, however, saying the committee's never really reached a formal consensus on the issue.
