Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/01/31/what_exactly_were_they_thinking.php
Monday, January 31, 2005
Editor's Note: The following excerpt is drawn from a memorandum sent to the members of the Trustee Committee on the Student Life Initiative on July 28th, 1999. According to a cover letter, it is a revised version of a document the committee "went over at your last meeting in Hanover on July 21-22." The following is reprinted without significant change; any omissions I have made for reasons of space are indicated by ellipses in brackets. This exerpt concerns the 'alternatives' the S.L.I. Committee considered regarding 'social organizations' and ran on pages 9 through 14. A full copy of this document is available upon request.
'Social Organizations'
1.) Alternative A (Improve Present CFS System)
a.) Improved physical standards
— Define a higher level of expected standards for the physical plants (at least equivalent to College-owned houses/residence halls; including cosmetic features of structures and furnishings)
— Conduct audit of all facilities to the above standards defining work required and associated costs over a 2-5 year horizon
— Require houses to complete above work on schedule using private resources if houses cannot perform necessary work on their own, they will be de-recognized with presumption that the College eventually would assume ownership and make necessary repairs
— Physical standards, once achieved, to be maintained on a continuous basis (monthly, not annual inspections)
b.) Unify governance of all campus social organizations having physical plants to assure that physical standards are demanded and met
c.) Achieve better balance among all-male, all-female, and coeducational facilities
— Establish standards of excellence that would include enhanced version of current minimum standards and minimum residence requirements. The latter would apply strictly to house members and would not allow houses to count "boarders" as true residents
— De-recognize any houses that fail to meet any of the above requirements
— Encourage the start-up of under-represented types of organizations in the freed-up facilities of failed organizations
— Create an escrow account for the entire CFS system; if a house doesn't undertake necessary improvements, College could withdraw funds from account and expend on house's behalf
d.) Eliminate exclusivity in rush among selective organizations by
— Assuring that any individual who rushes at least two to five houses will receive a bid from one of these houses
— Creating a CFS-financed system of automatic financial aid available to all students receiving financial aid from the College
e.) Devise new alcohol policies (See Alcohol Proposals) and strict enforcement, including far greater penalties and fines for violations than at present. Ban house slush funds to finance alcohol purchase and consumption. Require that all expenditures for alcohol be shown on house books
f.) Discontinue all open parties. All CFS parties would be by invitation only to Dartmouth students only (no Hanover High students, e.g)
g.) Adopt new and more stringent anti-hazing policy and Eliminate pledge period and hell-night type initiation rites
h.) Open up CFS social spaces on regular basis to other organizations and require CFS houses to cooperate in sponsoring events with adjacent or nearby residence facilities
i.) Design and adopt new Membership Contract incorporating a personal alcohol behavioral standard which is reasonable but stricter than the current widespread practice [...]
j.) Automatically deny CFS membership to any student who has been subjected to College discipline of a level requiring separation from the College for a term or more
k.) Establish a College-financed incentive program, under which College would pay for conversion of any CFS basement from a bar into something else, such as a carpeted family room, kitchen, fitness center
l.) End parties following Wednesday night house meetings. Prohibit alcohol at these meetings and establish a curfew
m.) Step-up involvement of College administration in improving system. Increase staffing for this purpose. Undertake leadership training of CFS system leaders
n.) Require greater involvement of house alumni corporations in making all above changes
o.) Create and enforce new financial standards for each house
p.) Create new internal judiciary committees within each CFS house and replace the current CFS judiciary committee with a broader judicial system that governs all Dartmouth student social organizations
q.) Closely evaluate which students live in CFS houses and restrict residence to students meeting academic standards. Restrict number of students living in each house
2.) Alternative B (modified CFS system with no mandatory provision to go co-ed)
a.) Adopt the provisions of Alternative A, except add the following provisions which are intended to facilitate an easier transition by houses from one type to another (i.e., without suffering de-recognition and necessitating a new replacement start-up and to aid progress toward a more balanced system)
b.) Each present student organization would amend its charter to permit the acceptance of any Dartmouth student (regardless of race, religion, disability, national origin, sex or sexual orientation)
c.) Each organization would then be required to respectfully consider the membership of any such person, but would not be required to accept any such person unless the organization were then below its established minimum membership requirement. In other words, houses could effectively choose to remain single-sex as long as they met all standards established under Alternative A
d.) If the foregoing were not acceptable to any national organization, such affiliation would have to cease.
e.) The College would offer financial incentives, such as help in capital projects and maintenance, for houses that adapted their gender and selectivity profiles in the direction of a better system balance, and that become more conducive to mixed-gender residency
3.) Alternative C (Convert CFS houses to a new co-ed, non-exclusionary system)
a.) Require each CFS organization to amend its charter and require acceptance of any Dartmouth student who applies for membership, regardless of race, religion, disability, national origin, gender or sexual orientation
b.) Create a single, system-wide rush process that is non-selective. Any student who rushed any houses would have to be accepted for membership
c.) Apply any or all parts of Alternatives A to revamped CFS system
4. Alternative D (Convert CFS houses into new mandatory CFS system that would remain somewhat selective)
a.) Require each current CFS organization to amend its charter to require acceptance of students of both genders. If a national social organization forbade this, house would have to convert to a local organization
b.) Create a single, system-wide rush process. Any student who rushed at least two houses would have to receive a bid from at least one house
5.) Alternative E (Create a new system of Dartmouth Commons Houses for entire student body)
a.) College would undertake a substantial financial investment to create a new system of coed, non-exclusionary social houses. The purpose of the houses would be to provide an environment in which Dartmouth students could socialize with each other in ways complementary to the academic purpose of the College. The new Dartmouth Commons Houses would provide a sense of belonging for students, especially for those who do not choose to belong to the CFS system. The houses would provide the basis for a revitalized and improved social setting at the College that is in line with the Trustee's five principles
b.) The new Dartmouth Commons Houses would consist of roughly eighteen attractive house facilities, constructed anew if necessary, or located with existing College-owned houses on or near campus. If the [College] chooses to phase out CFS system in tandem with creation of new system, the College could also negotiate with CFS organizations to purchase any houses it did not already own
c.) All Dartmouth students would join a new Dartmouth Commons House. Each house would have approximately 200 members in any given year, with the expectation that 150 members would be on campus in a given term
d.) Memberships could be arranged in one of several ways. First-year students could spend two terms "shopping" for a house, then select one of their choosing. Alternatively, students could be assigned to houses via lottery or based on the residential cluster in which they live
e.) A new student-run governance structure would be created in advance of the debut of the Dartmouth Commons Houses to decide precisely what should be in them and to devise a preliminary plan for operations. Students would thus have a decisive role in shaping the institutions. Upon inauguration of the houses, the governance structure would run the facilities as well as plan and coordinate programming among the houses, with substantial cooperation and assistance as required from the College administration. As a consequence, a broad base of students would have substantial leadership opportunities granted it
f.) The new governance structure could decide whether or not to orient individual houses toward certain themes, such as the performing arts, or combinations of themes (the performing arts and life sciences, for example.) Alternatively, the structure could decide that all houses should be undifferentiated by academic or other themes and should remain comparable to one another
g.) The Dartmouth Commons Houses would be generously funded by the College and would not require any additional dues or contributions from students
h.) The new houses would abide by all alcohol and other policies applicable to other social organizations, such as the CFS system
i.) Each house would have one or more members of the faculty as its advisers and academic coordinators, as well as a representative of the administration
j.) A limited amount of residential space in each house would be made available for upper-class students who wished to be actively involved in planning, programming, and administration of the house—possibly offering free room and board in exchange for the execution of these duties
k.) The Dartmouth Commons Houses could be brought into being in one of two ways. One option is to add them to the existing social structure of the College. In this case, all students would have to join a DCH, but they would also be free to join a CFS house separately if they so desired. A second option is to phase the DCH system in as the CFS system is being phased out. Under such an arrangement, no Dartmouth student would be able join an existing fraternity, sorority or coed house as of a certain date, while students who were already members would be able to retain membership until they graduated. At the end of a three-year phase in period, all student would be members of DCH houses and all existing fraternity, sorority and coed houses would be de-certified by the College
l.) The DCH system would operate on an "open campus" policy, in which all students would have access to programming at all houses at all times
m.) A sample week of scheduling at the newly-created Jean Kemeny House might be as follows:
Monday Night: Opening reception for members to kick off fall term, with welcoming speeches by house leadership, academic advisors, and catered dinner under tents on the lawn [...]
Wednesday: Regular afternoon tea begins for remainder of term. Wednesday night all-house Mexican fajitas dinner is followed by film or lecture [...]
Friday Night: Beef and veggie burger dinner; beer is available in kegs or bottles for of-age student producing ID's and given wrist bands. Following dinner is first of term's house dances, co-sponsored with Sheba Freedman House next door, at new Social Center (Webster Hall replacement)
Saturday: In morning, house sponsors hike to Velvet Rocks; box lunch provided [...] In the evening, fall formal dance co-sponsored with Wheelock House; for students not interested in dancing, separate Woody Allen film retrospective and talk by faculty member specializing in film studies is also scheduled [...]