Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2002/11/03/the_colleges_dubious_logic.php
Sunday, November 3, 2002
Here we go again. For the past few years, the administration seemed to have adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward the Review, remaining silent on key issues the Review raised. Well, that time has passed and with it Parkhurst's hands-off policy. The administration has once again set its sights on the Review. I suppose that just means we are doing something right.
Earlier this year, Dean of Residential Life Martin Redman announced that student publications would no longer be permitted to deliver door-to-door in dormitories. The new electronic door-locking system would make this possible. If a student were caught distributing newspapers, the Office of Residential Life could restrict his access to dormitories with a few keystrokes. There was a vocal faction of the student body who opposed this measure, but the discussion soon died. It has resurfaced.
Review staffers have delivered two issues to dorms this year—one during Freshmen Orientation and one in the middle of October. The deliveries were unobstructed and without incident—it was business as usual. The policy, for our purposes, did not exist. It did not exist, that is, until I was summoned by Redman two weeks ago to discuss the policy. We discussed some alternatives to door-to-door delivery, but the problems did not lie in the methods, but in the principles behind the policy.
The decision by the administration to enforce its policy that prohibits door-to-door delivery of student publications is an affront to free speech on campus. The ban will certainly chill the dissemination of ideas on campus—something that a liberal arts institution like Dartmouth should encourage. But, at Dartmouth, such values are easily pushed aside to make way for administrative agenda. The history of the Review makes this clear.
This is not the first time the administration has sought to hinder the delivery of the Review. The Review has long been prohibited from delivering newspapers to student and faculty Hinman boxes, and, in the Review's infancy, an administrator attacked and bit—drawing blood—a student who was delivering issues of the Review. But, while earlier incidents targeted only the Review, the new policy is much broader, affecting other student publications, like the Free Press, a liberal publication, and the Jack-O-Lantern, the humour magazine. The administration wants to make it difficult for any views that differ from its own to spread across campus. And, while the policy is far from subtle, the administration has its excuses.
According to administrators, the aim of this new policy is to increase privacy in dormitories. Apparently, door-to-door delivery of publications subjects students to unwanted literature and invasive deliverymen in the hallways. If a student does not want a publication that is left at his door, all he need do is discard it. And, how the presence of a single Dartmouth student delivering newspapers is more intrusive than the hundred other students in the dormitory is a mystery. Dartmouth students have access to every dormitory twenty-four hours a day, but this all changes if the student happens to be carrying a bundle of newspapers. And, if administrators want private, empty hallways for students, how do they justify the presence throughout the day of custodians? And what about the security guards who roam the hallways during the night? The administration's claim that it seeks to make dormitories more private is not only unreasonable, it is hypocritical.
A recent ruling by the New Hampshire Supreme Court has further called into question the College's intentions. On October 25, the Court ruled that Dartmouth Safety and Security officers can search for drugs in students' rooms without first obtaining a warrant. So much for protecting privacy. Fortunately, this hypocrisy does not go unnoticed by students. Regarding the Supreme Court decision, Jill Powers '03 told the Valley News: 'I think they are overstepping their bounds. I can understand they want to keep things safe, but this is an invasion of privacy. Your room is your home at school. I wouldn't want them walking into my room.'
The issue is not privacy despite the claims of the administration. The issue is control over students, and this control is best attained by taking away the rights of students.
Dartmouth students don't have too many rights left, and the prohibition of door-to-door delivery would score a victory for the administration, but a resounding defeat for students.