No Comment?

By A. J. Monaco | Wednesday, May 14, 1997

Early last week, I decided to devote an entire issue to the Dartmouth bureauracracy. Overstaffed administrations are a national malady — in the past three years Republicans have repeatedly tried to reduce the shear mass of the federal government. Bureaucracies must feed upon their constituents to grow, and Dartmouth is no different. A few weeks ago we examined the issue of administrative fines and discovered that many fines were unapproved by Parkhurst; bureaucrats had simply levied them to assert their power and raise revenue. Bloated and ineffecient, the administration has become unresponsive to students' needs. So, I assigned a reporter to find out just how big the bureaucracy was, and how much it was costing us.

Well, we uncovered some facts that really shocked me. Maintaining such a large bureaucracy is costly — if tuition was the College's only revenue, 73% of it would go to pay bureaucrats' salaries. Administrative compensation accounts for over 50% of the College's annual budget when you count their total income. Even I never suspected that such a large monster was lurking in the halls of Parkhurst (and countless other administrative buildings).

However, what did not surprise me was the cold response that our reporter received from some of Dartmouth's administrators. A typical response came in an e-mail message from Dr. Jack Turco, head of the College's Medical Service:

'I heard you stopped by my office to talk with me. I don't talk to reporters from The Review because I don't trust them. I have had experiences in the past where representitives of The Review have been deceitful, unethical and nasty. Although I have never met you before, in my mind you inherit the legacy of your predecessors at The Review. Anyway, I suspect that you already know what you are going to say in your article, so why confuse the issue by doing an actual interview. By the way, you can quote me if you want... Dr. Turco.'

I've been writing news stories for The Review for three years now, and I've been stonewalled by the administration in every imaginable way. Administrators have told me that they don't talk to The Review or that they don't have the information that I need. They have told me that they can talk to me — a week or more after our press deadline. Every administrator seems to have his or her own favorite method of ducking questions.

So, when our reporter tried to obtain organizational charts from every department, he was stonewalled on nearly every occasion (The Dean of the College's Office, and the Office of Residential Life were actually helpful). When he tried to obtain interviews with the department heads, he was summarily denied. Dr. Turco's rather flippant reply is typical for a Dartmouth administrator.

What Dr. Turco really means when he says that he has had bad experiences with The Review, is that, in the past, The Review has reported the truth. The truth about Dartmouth's infamous sex kits and the outrageous Dick's House fine — both instituted by the Health Service — are only two examples. And Dr. Turco doesn't want to see the truth in print, because the truth angers alumni. Dr. Turco would rather call the reporters from The Daily Dartmouth, whom he can count on to spin any story in his favor. But can you really blame Dr. Turco? He's just following the example of President Freedman, who has continued to refuse interview requests.

I doubt that Dr. Turco has actually read an issue of The Review lately. If he had picked up last week's issue, he would have noticed our treatment of Lee Pelton, Dean of the College. Dean Pelton wasn't scared to grant us an interview — and what followed was a meaningful dialogue that was well received on campus. If Dr. Turco (or numerous other administrators) had any confidence in his convictions, he wouldn't be scared to sit down and talk with us. By the way, Dr. Turco, you can quote me if you want.

No Comment?

Article Tools

Related Articles