The twenty-first century is increasingly one of transparency and access to information. Thanks to technological and cultural developments, secrecy is becoming a thing of the past. On the Dartmouth campus, however, this trend is not in evidence. While College President James Wright must be commended for his strong commitment to free speech on campus, such a commitment must extend to policy as well as to academics. The College's handling of diversity chief Ozzie Harris's resignation this past month is just one in a series of incidents in which Parkhurst has acted under a veil of secrecy. The disconnect between Harris' statements to The Dartmouth and the official press release shows the administration in a negative light, and does little to increase student trust of the College's higher-ups.
Harris should be commended for his honesty in contradicting a misleading press release while talking to reporters. His admission that he was leaving because of "philosophical differences" with the administration is more in keeping with the type of openness that should be expected of administrators. The press release, which attributed Harris' resignation to his desire to spend more time with his ill father, was just one example of how tight-lipped the College can be. This sense was reinforced by the timing of the announcement, which, although Harris' resignation was tendered in the fall, came the day after College President Emeritus James Freedman's death. Carol Folt's selection as Dean of the Faculty is another example of the secrecy surrounding recent personnel issues. While we understand that some circumstances necessitate confidentially, at some point there needs to be public discourse.
This move to keep personnel issues quiet is harmful to the College on a number of levels. First, while we want to believe that there is no metaphorical smoking gun, the College's secrecy makes it appear as if there may be non-existent problems or conflicts in circumstances, and removes the administration's ability to defend itself. Second, it undermines the message of free speech on campus that was part of Freedman's legacy, and that Wright has made an important issue during his tenure. Finally and most importantly, it undermines student trust of the administration and reinforces the perceived disconnect between Parkhurst and the students on the Green down below.
The one caveat to criticizing the College for their secrecy is to recognize that in instances where personnel appointments are not confidential, students do not always take advantage of adding input. If we as students want this to be the last instance in which facts are obscured, we need to be more vocal in holding the administration accountable, and more active when given the chance. Otherwise, there will continue to be secret, perhaps double secret resignations.
