The College's Bankrupt Policy

By Andrew Grossman | Monday, January 24, 2000

If it is enacted, the Student Life Initiative Committee's report to the Trustees will destroy the Greek system, not 'as we know it,' but entirely. Many students reading the report have been struck that its conclusions are not immediately apparent. Some believe that, regarding Greek houses, the recommendations are merely a strengthening of minimum standards, the rules that govern the upkeep and operation of Greek houses, an annoyance at best. This is not the case.

The Committee proposes that the College recognize no new Greek organizations at all. Students who live in the houses of fraternities and sororities not recognized by the College—that is, one that does not submit to College regulations—would not be allowed to enroll in classes—akin to expulsion. Should a house close for any reason, the report states, 'It could not be replaced by another new organization.' Thus, any breach of the new minimum standards would result in one less house to serve students. In fact, the Committee recognizes that 'It is unlikely that all current CFS organizations will be able to meet the higher standards, with the result that the number of organizations will probably be reduced.' The report claims that this decline in the number of houses will 'assure continuing balance between selective social organizations and other campus institutions,' an arbitrary distinction, as any campus group might be thought of as being self-selective. 'Other campus institutions,' moreover, includes selective sports teams, a capella groups, and undergraduate societies. The Committee furthermore characterizes the decline as desirable to 'complement the enhanced cluster system and the other recommendations of this report.' Critics charge that the Committee is wary of allowing its new residential life scheme to compete freely with the Greek system, for fear that the latter would still prove more popular with students.

The report describes how much easier it will be for houses to fail Minimum Standards. Houses would become liable for the activity of their members. Any behavior by house members that the College deems contrary to Dartmouth's 'Principle of Community' would constitute a failure of Minimum Standards.

A new community service requirement, requiring that house members be 'in the top tier among all Dartmouth undergraduates' in terms of hours committed to community service, affords another standard to break, even if accidentally. The College would, of course, be vigilant in enforcing new requirements; Safety & Security officers will be allowed 'free access at all times' to Greek houses.

The most dangerous proposals, though, are the ones that ensure that it will be economically unviable for Greek houses to continue operation. Greek organizations obtain the majority of their funding through rent. This is where the houses are most vulnerable, given the extent to which the College regulates living arrangements.

The Committee recommends that only seniors and up to four juniors, who must be house officers, be allowed to live in each house. The College would also require that each house be completely filled each term, meaning that every rush class must be within four members of the capacity of the house. If they were unable to fill to capacity, organizations would be in danger of losing their houses. Greek houses would have to meet this requirement by the winter of 2002, although exceptions might be made for coeducational houses. Houses would also not be available for residence in the summer term, now popular for newly-joined members on campus for their 'sophomore summer,' further reducing the Greek organizations' revenue flows and diluting the value of membership. These standards alone would put a strain on any house, to meet the minimums and maximums and deadlines of these very arbitrary rules.

More significant are the raised physical standards, that would force extensive renovations on many houses. These standards would include 'internal and external cosmetic features, furnishings and grounds, as well as structural, utility, and safety features.' Further, the houses would be expected to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which private residences are not required to do. In fact, many of the College's own dorms don't comply with the Act, likely on account of the steep costs involved. The Act requires wheelchair ramps, elevators, lifts, special bathrooms, wide hallways, and other major structural changes. Needless to say, all of this is very expensive. Costs for a single house could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, of course, houses would be subject to frequent 'unannounced inspections for compliance.'

This is money that the houses don't have and that would be difficult to raise. The Committee realizes this and has come up with two ways to help the houses. 'Loans from the College, secured by the property, could be made for these purposes'—a deceitful offer from an institution that clearly wants more to foreclose than to collect. If houses are unable to meet the financial demands, they are urged to '[commence] negotiations for the College to acquire the house.'

If the Trustees enact the Committee's plan, continuity will be very difficult for the Greek system. The new residency rules would cut into their revenues and justifiably affect membership; after all, who would want to join a house in which he's not allowed to live and placed under restrictions that are well beyond the rules under which students live in dorms. Even if the houses could survive so crippled, that they would be able to afford all the renovations, repairs, and construction that the Committee is demanding seems unlikely.

So, what will be the end result if the Committee's recommendations are taken? Backed into a corner, the fraternities and sororities will be forced to sell their houses to the school, the only interested buyer. Surely, new options will arise, likely off-campus and maybe even on-campus, in the College's revamped clusters, although even proponents concede that the latter is doubtful, but the future and history of the Greek houses will be lost in a cloud of rhetoric and PC posturing.

Somehow, if Greek houses were able to survive all the costs and restrictions involved with the recommendations, their work and efforts may, in the end, have been in vain. The Committee's final proposal for the Greek system reads, 'If, after any year, the Dean of the College believed that the system-wide progress achieved was below expectations, he or she would recommend that the College no longer recognize the selective residence-based organizations.' At that time, the College could acquire the houses after students and alumni devote their own resources to the houses' renovation.

As if this weren't enough, the report recommends a re-evaluation of the Greek system in 2005, at which time its residential nature would be reconsidered. The Committee's report paints a picture of the future of Dartmouth's Greek system that is bleak at best. Hopefully, the Committee's efforts to mask their attempt to dismantle Greek life won't go unnoticed by those who value the school.

The College's Bankrupt Policy

Article Tools

Related Articles