Some Assembly Required

By Alexander Wilson | Wednesday, January 14, 1998

It has been three weeks since the College Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CCAOD) released its controversial report on alcohol, and the Student Assembly (SA) has submitted no formal response.

The CCAOD report, which recommends crippling sanctions of Dartmouth's fraternity system, has been nearly universally condemned by students.

Dean of the College Lee Pelton, with whom the final authority to authorize and implement the report rests, has agreed to wait until the SA releases its recommendations in a counter-report, due out in February, before making a final decision on implementation.

Neither the Inter-Fraternity Council nor the Greek system as a whole has been given a similar oppurtunity to prepare a counterreport. No student referendum has yet been called for.

In addition to the numerous informational sessions about the report that the SA held for the students, they plan to solicit student recommendations from students in the Winter term.

These recommendations, to be collected through discussion groups and mass blitzings, will then be used to produce their counter-report on the alcohol problem at Dartmouth. This counter-report, which will be delivered to Dean of the College Lee Pelton by February 2nd, will present the SA's position and its alternative recommendations for altering the College alcohol policy.

The report will not dispute the findings of the CCAOD report on the current situation, but will merely suggest different ways to dealing with the problems posed by that situation.

Dean Pelton has agreed to await the Student Assembly counter-report before acting on CCAOD's report. Student Body President Frode Eilertsen '99 said, 'He [Dean Pelton]'s going to do nothing, absolutely nothing to implementing the CCAOD report until we submit one of our own. That's the deal we have with the administration.' The SA's strategy is to compile a complete picture of what the student's want and then negotiate with the administration on the changes that need to be made to the initial report to satisfy all the parties involved.

By agreeing to postpone action until February, Pelton has ensured that the furor that accompanied the report's release will have died down. By incorporating the Student Assembly's proposal, he gives the appearance of considering student opinion.

The process of informing the students and getting them involved in serious conversations about the CCAOD recommendations and alternatives to them is crucial to SA's plans, and is designed largely to get students thinking about the report in constructive ways, according to SA members.

Eventually, they hope to be able to obtain informed, objective, ideas for alternate ways to achieve the goals of the CCAOD report.

A chief aim of some of the programs, notably the initial panel discussion with members of CCAOD on Thursday, November 13, is to dissipate the initial impulse among students to flatly reject the report.

The futility of trying to make the administration just back down on the issue is a central part of the SA strategy. SA does not believe anything more than a compromise of some sort is a possible outcome of their efforts.

Robert Walther '01, a Student Assembly representative, said, 'This is an issue of funding. The federal government gives Dartmouth 60 million dollars a year. The administration can't afford to lose that kind of money.'

In theory the Student Assembly counter-report will be a compromise document, reflecting administration and student concerns. The difficulty for SA lies in reconciling what appears to be diametrically opposed viewpoints.

While the administration has produced its own document in the CCAOD report to present its preferred solutions, the students have only reacted to that document, at least so far.

The SA will have to serve as the middleman between the two groups, while at the same time encouraging the student body to put together a useful set of ideas. Student critics have claimed that the administration is already well represented in this area; they produced this report.

The SA's role, these critics claim, should be one of student advocacy, not executive compromise.

Eilertsen dismissed his critics. 'We would sound like a bunch of whiners, unconstructive whiners, because all we do is say, 'no, we don't like this,'' he said.

Case Dorkey '99, Vice President for Administration and Public Relations, responded to charges that the Student Assembly is out of touch with student opinion on this matter. 'The general sentiment [in the SA] is the report needs to be changed,' he said.

'A lot of people see problems with it and hear the students' concerns. Through the counter-report, which will be the official position of SA, we will address those problems and represent those concerns.'

While knowledge of the reality of SA's position and its plans will probably quiet criticism from students, some of that criticism still remains unanswered.

There seems to be no conflict between a statement from the SA expressing their disapproval of the current recommendations, a suggestion made by many students, and the SA putting forward its own plan and compromising with the administration.

In fact, there is a possibility that in failing to express opposition to the recommendations as they stand, the SA is giving up bargaining leverage come February 2nd, by making themselves appear less than fully committed to changing the CCAOD report. Certainly they have hurt their own credibility with the student body by failing to fall in step with an overwhelming expression of opposition to the report. Nor have they done a good job of explaining their plans or motivations to the community, despite all the information and discussion sessions that have been held and scheduled. The ignorance of the students about the SA counter-report is a prime example of this.

Eilertsen feels that student criticism over the lack of an official condemnation was misplaced. His feeling is that having to make that kind of response is a position the SA is put in too often.

He said, 'The problem is, we're always forced to react, and we have so little chance of being proactive...This is a chance to really be proactive.' Despite the criticism, Eilertsen feels confident that the student body will produce constructive commentary, and help the SA broker a deal with the administration. 'That's why I got involved with the SA in the first place,' he said. 'Because the students are smart. And they care about these issues.'

The most disturbing possibility discussed by some students has little to do with the motivations of Eilertsen, or any other member of the SA.

That possibility is that Dean Pelton's willingness to support the SA's efforts, and wait for its counterreport before restructuring the alcohol policy may not spring from a desire to accommodate student concerns.

That willingness might be born of a belief that working with the SA will actually reduce the effectiveness of student protest. The months until February 2nd will almost certainly cause a flagging of student interest in this issue, making it far easier for the administration to impose unpopular regulations than it would be now, when students are still very aware of the situation, and dissatisfied with it.

In addition, working with the SA, and possibly accepting some minor elements of its plan might serve to further dampen student reaction; the illusion of cooperation provided by such a compromise might prove effective.

The SA clearly believes that Dean Pelton is acting in good faith. Dorkey said, 'Dean Pelton is open to suggestions and challenges from the students.'

It seems unlikely that it will be possible to determine if the concerns about the administration's motives prove to be accurate or if the SA's faith in its good will is justified until the February 2nd deadline arrives.

Some Assembly Required

Article Tools

Related Articles