Pursuing a Greater Mission:
Three years after its announcement, the Student Life Initiative has fizzled into a series of minor policy shifts. Among these is the current drive to revise the College's mission statement. Rather than just encouraging the initial creation of diversity, the new statement would emphasize making the campus experience more pluralistic.
Such a revision would be admirable if it were reflective of Dartmouth's practices. Since the majority of the Dartmouth community is largely unaware of the mission statement's content, changing its wording would not represent a material step towards the stated goal. If the College does not sufficiently support and encourage diversity awareness after recruiting students, faculty and staff, then the effort campus leaders expend revising words on paper could be better applied.
Even the chair of the Board of Trustees, Susan Dentzer '77, said, "Mission statements are important, but the proof of the pudding is, do you actually as an institution do what you say you're going to do in the mission statement."
We remind the College to ensure that changing its statement of goals does not take priority over accomplishing those goals.
A Conflict of Interests:
Yesterday, in reaction to the ongoing investigation of Enron Corp., Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt proposed significant changes to current accounting practices. It is clear that in light of the largest bankruptcy case in United States history, the accounting industry must be changed. The revelation that accounting firm Arthur Andersen shredded documents and deleted emails shows that the auditing industry lacks the accountability that could have averted this fiasco.
Andersen and other accounting firms have every incentive to look the other way in their auditing divisions so as not to lose business from their profitable consulting divisions -- Andersen earned about $52 million from its dealings with Enron in 2000 alone, with much of that coming from its consulting fees.
In order to prevent another Enron, the SEC must institute regulatory changes that force accounting firms to pay serious repercussions if they permit accounting fraud because of financial incentives. The government must set a new course and place ethics ahead of economics.
Higher Salaries, Higher Expectations:
This week's announcement by the Department of Transportation that airport security directors will receive some of the highest salaries in the public sector is a welcome one. As we learned on the tragic morning of Sept. 11, we need the most qualified people to protect against the dangers of flying. For that same reason, the Transportation Department should require airport screeners to hold high school degrees.
Salary raises for airport security directors make sense. The Department's $150,000 per year offer will prompt people with experience and expertise to apply for the 81 positions at major airports and help end lax oversight.
The events of the past few months also revealed the security gaps at the screening level. People making life-and-death decisions often earned less money than fast food workers inside the terminal, and sometimes received comparable training. The government has taken steps to improve the situation. By federalizing the 28,000 airport screening jobs and offering both better job training and $35,000 annual salaries, the Department correctly recognized that public safety depends on those screeners.
But the Department has refused to take the next logical step and require airport screeners to hold high school diplomas. Officials contend that it is important to keep the screeners who are already employed in their positions because of the experience they bring to the job. That might make sense for the interim period , but by offering $35,000 salaries and government benefits, airports can easily hire more qualified individuals who will better prevent security lapses and save innocent lives.
