Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/06/12/interrogating_the_sli.php
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Editors Note: What follows below is a reduced version of "Interrogating the SLI." Please consult the Review's February 1, 2005 issue for the full article.
'The Confidential Files of the Student Life Initiative'—what?
At the end of November 2004, The Dartmouth Review obtained hundreds of internal, confidential documents from the Trustee Committee on the Student Life Initiative. These papers are a wealth of primary source material—memoranda, reports, minutes, letters, agendas, copies of handwritten notes—of a kind that is simply unprecedented, and it is almost impossible to overstate their value.
These documents were provided by an anonymous source, and we are to protect his or her anonymity. The reasons are obvious: he or she was a member of the Trustee Committee, intimately involved in the planning and setting out of the architecture of the S.L.I.
Why are you publishing the contents of these papers here?
These papers allow us to look at the S.L.I. without the gilding. They bring a degree of transparency to a sub rosa process. I would contend that the way the Initiative is pushed today is incomplete and perfunctorily presented. The S.L.I. is at once not as bad as we thought, and in many ways far worse. It was not an isolated, one-off incident, but part of a broader ideological effort to radically alter the character of the College. This is not an unsupported claim. It is a fact, and these documents provide copious, explicit evidence of that. This is not widely discussed because while it could be discerned and it could be perceived it could not be proved. Now, it can. It is all there, in writing.
So what exactly is the Student Life Initiative? After all, it occurred over five years ago. No current undergraduates were around when it was announced. It was simply here when we arrived. Here, some history is necessary.
On April 5th, 1998, the Trustees elected James Wright as President of Dartmouth College. Promptly on April 6th, President Wright delivered an address, where he laid out his "vision for Dartmouth." He envisioned for the College, among other things, a place where the out-of-classroom experience fully complements the formal classroom learning.On February 9th, 1999, President Wright and the Board of Trustees issued a statement announcing the Student Life Initiative, inviting "the Dartmouth community to enter into a conversation on how social and residential life could best complement the academic experience at the College." They laid out five principles to guide that conversation: (1) "there should be greater choice and continuity in residential living and improved residential space;" (2) "there should be additional and improved social spaces controlled by students;" (3) "the system should be substantially coeducational and provide opportunities for greater interaction among all Dartmouth students;" (4) "the number of students living off campus should be reduced;" and (5) "the abuse and unsafe use of alcohol should be eliminated."
In April 1999, the Trustee Committee on the Student Life Initiative was established, co-chaired by Trustees Susan Dentzer '77 and Peter M. Fahey '68, charged with enacting the 'five principles.' The Committee included undergraduate and graduate students, administrators, faculty, and alumni, and was asked to evaluate constituent response to the S.L.I. and seek the counsel of experts, and, based on the evidence gathered, propose to the Board new approaches to residential and social life. The Trustee Committee deliberated throughout the summer and fall terms 1999 and on January 10th, 2000, the Board of Trustees released the Committee's recommendations to the Dartmouth public. The documents explored here outline the process by which the Committee arrived at those recommendations.
Hang on. The S.L.I. is old news—it might have been controversial when it was announced, but that was just a bunch of loutish frat boys demanding the right, presumably, to bathe in keg beer. Anyways, the S.L.I. was just about strengthening the Greek System, making it better.
The S.L.I. was about many things, not just about the Greek system. In a January 2005 interview in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, President Wright said the S.L.I.—referenced in the present tense, you'll note—is "about trying to provide greater continuity and coherence to the Dartmouth experience. As the College was becoming more diverse, it wasn't providing enough opportunities to learn from each other, which has been a cornerstone of the undergraduate experience here since the 1920s." Of course, providing more continuity and coherence is not divisive or contentious. The S.L.I. caused such a stir because it caught students off-guard and seemed to be extremely underhanded.
It is important to remember that the S.L.I. was hugely controversial, seismic. Part of it was the way it was announced—it was a total surprise to the student body and amounted to a public relations disaster. The administration released the details of the plan to the Associated Press before they released them to the campus. Most of the criticism was directed towards Trustee principle three, that the C.F.S. system "be substantially coeducational." The Daily Dartmouth ran a superfont banner headline blaring, TRUSTEES TO END GREEK SYSTEM 'AS WE KNOW IT.'
The problem, of course, was fundamental uncertainty. No one quite understood what "substantially coeducational" really meant, or what "as we know it" really meant, and many understandably assumed the worst. Would it mean co-ed houses? Would it mean no houses—doing away with the Greek system altogether? No one knew, but the prospects seemed poor. President Wright did not improve the situation when he declined to share what the new social system would entail, although he said "it's a view of the Trustees and a view that I share that it's time to move on to another and a different system."
In the Alumni Magazine interview, President Wright acknowledged, "Much of the early S.L.I. discussion was on the Greek system—narrowly, but in retrospect, understandably—because you can't deal with the out-of-classroom experience at Dartmouth without dealing with that issue. "At the time," he continued, "there were houses not meeting their own charters and commitments, not fully functioning as members of the community… One of the great success stories of the Student Life Initiative has been the way students who are part of the Greek system have stepped up and responded to things we've asked them to do."
So how accurate do you find President Wright's assessment of the S.L.I.?
It is correct in many ways. But in order to understand what the S.L.I. has done right we have to disengage the many issues it touched on and understand what it has done wrong. It was a sprawling, enormous enterprise—any comprehensive attempt to address the needs of more than five-thousand people would have to be. If we strain out the differences we can assemble a fairly-accurate balance sheet and appreciate how things played out.
The S.L.I. is a recognition that the role the out-of-classroom experience at Dartmouth performs is nearly as important as the role the educational experience performs. This is a good thing, historically true, and true enough today. But the S.L.I. was so divisive because it was a trigger for a kind of deeper frustration over what kind of school Dartmouth should be, and a lot of that frustration was and is over the role that fraternities and sororities play here.
That element aside, the S.L.I. has done many important things. It led to a greatly enhanced system of residential clusters, and to the formation of the Undergraduate Advisors program, which installs students responsible for programming on each floor of every dormitory. It also reaffirmed the College's commitment to move forward with the North Campus expansion, which will provide new dorms and decompress the residencies of the old dorms. Most rooms on campus will remain oversubscribed until the new halls are built, but once they are they will pave the way for the eventual demolition of the dismal River and Choate clusters. The S.L.I. led to the creation of more recreational and performance spaces controlled by students; decentralized dining options and added more eateries; created more study space, open twenty-four hours a day; established more classrooms, especially for seminars; improved the residential and social life of graduate students; and created more social options beyond the C.F.S. system. No question, it diversified the options here on Hanover Plain.
It is easy to mock the 'alternative social options' that the S.L.I. people have cooked up—very easy, in fact. A typical example occurred in February 2002, when 'Bigger Better Later,' a now defunct programming organization, bankrolled the "Kick @$$ Party," a lavish extravaganza in Leverone Field House which included a mechanical rodeo bull, a pedestal joust, an inflatable "lazer tag" arena, "extreme trampolines," and an "adrenaline obstacle course and screamer slide." This, whatever your opinion on the Greek system, is excessive.
It strikes me as typical—an enormous waste of money, and not very fun besides. But, if some students really do enjoy this sort of thing and if the College wants to put out, well, have at it. As one professor said when the S.L.I. was released, "Keep Greek system as it is, but let competition show what's better." I suppose.
So what did the Committee formally recommend regarding the C.F.S. system?
This no secret. The full report is available on-line and also in the College Archives. The S.L.I. report did cite the many positive benefits of the C.F.S. system. But there were also terrible depredations, it seemed. They were: "selectivity and sense of exclusiveness," "less diversity," "single-sex makeup," "behavioral issues," "the abuse of alcohol," "lagging physical standards in some organizations," "dominance of the system," and "uneven membership."
The report asserted, "The C.F.S. system as currently constituted requires major improvements." It mandated that Rush be moved to the winter term of sophomore year and that it be "less exclusive;" established a moratorium on new organizations; called for the elimination of permanent bars and tap systems; recommended that residence in C.F.S. housing be limited to seniors and junior officers; and the drastic renovation of the physical plants. Safety and Security, the campus police, was to have "free and continuous access" to all houses on campus. It also mandated the registration, with the College administration, of all social events occurring within proximity to campus. "It is unlikely that all present organizations will be able to meet the new standards, with the result that the number of organizations will probably be reduced," the S.L.I report concluded. The changes, they said, were "idealistic but achievable."
How did the Trustee Committee arrive at those conclusions?
Professor Sheila Culbert, the Special Assistant to the President, wrote to me in an e-mail, "The Committee met with a number of different community members and groups including faculty, students, administrators, and alumni. They heard a range of ideas." This, they certainly did. In fact, the swath of ideas they received and considered is staggering. They hosted innumerable forums, and spent over a hundred and fifty hours engaged in the deliberative process.
In a huge June 24th, 1999 compendium, there are—to name only a few—detailed proposals from the Organic Farm, the Japan/Korea Affinity House, Dartmouth Television, the Programming Board, the Dartmouth Film Society, and the Environmental Studies Department, among others.
Linda Kennedy, the current Director of Student Activities, submitted the "Gabfest Proposals," "the result of a set of informal conversations begun in February to think broadly about how the College might respond to the Trustee's Five Principles." The centerpiece of her proposal was a "Common House," a centrally located structure described very much a like a fraternity building, that would be given over collectively to recognized student organizations and "would be a key component in empowering students to control their social lives."
The alumni response was mixed. The Alumni Council issued resolutions supporting the efforts to build new dormitories and new social spaces, though they urged "leaving as much of student social planning up to students as possible." Regarding the Greek system, the Alumni Council supported "higher standards" but was of "divided opinion" as to the efforts to make "major changes" to the fundamental nature of the organizations. They advocated "due process" in disciplinary decisions, "permitting the formation of new C.F.S. organizations," and "reexamining the apparent preference for the coed selective organizations."
Who else did the Trustee Committee hear from?
In July 1999, Dean of the Faculty Edward Berger, in conjunction with the Provost, Susan Westerberg Prager, submitted a 'Final Report' to the Committee on the Student Life Initiative called 'Faculty Perspectives on the Student Life Initiative at Dartmouth College.' Most of the report was made public, though the Trustee Committee also received a 'Confidential Addendum' that included unadulterated faculty perspectives.
Surprisingly, given the stereotypes of the faculty with respect to the C.F.S. system, much of their commentary was practical and thoughtful. One professor called for dormitories that were "humane." A professor of Classics argued "that we not delude ourselves into thinking that we can or, for that matter, should, eliminate the use of beer or other spirituous liquors by changing the structures in which students live and interact with one another." Another said, "Wiping frats off the face of the Dartmouth landscape will not in and of itself kill the problem....While fraternities may be accountable for perpetuating a fundamentally distasteful and dangerous ethos, I am not convinced that eliminating them by fiat, or subterranean buyouts, will be our bridge to the 21st century."
Of course, there were also many grievances. Most centered on the horrors of the C.F.S. system. One professor was disturbed by the "historical association with WASP and heterosexual culture." "Alcohol, to my thinking, is not a major problem;" an Art History professor commented, "rather, it is the misogynistic, racist and dysfunction culture of alcohol that seems to plague the existing social system at Dartmouth that needs to be addressed." She urged social engineering in response. "I strongly urge, therefore, that a response to the trustees five principles set out the goal of new social structure, which would *allow* students to congregate as they please, but which would *necessitate* that students of different backgrounds and interests mingle on a day-to-day basis."
The main problem with the C.F.S. system, most professors claimed, was that they were "predominantly based on exclusion." In the words of a typical professor, "There are many things that I object to about the Greek system, but perhaps the biggest is its institutional premise of exclusivism: that you can't belong to a particular house unless the current members decide they want you. This bothers me because it seems to me so completely antithetical to some of our greatest ideals of a liberal arts education which are ideals concerning the open exchange of ideas and openness regarding areas of inquiry."
So they heard and considered a lot of ideas, from a lot of different people. That's the input. How did the Trustee Committee—sixteen very different men and women—arrive at the eventual output?
According to an undated memo titled 'Guidelines for Arrays of Alternative Approaches,' several goals were outlined. The ambition of the Committee was to consider "3 to 4 alternative approaches for each domain or sub-domain" that demonstrated "sensitivity to input received by Committee" and covered "a range of radicalness." Another memo covered the "policy issues" with respect to alcohol and the Greeks. It is a long list of questions, including, "Will the College permit the consumption of alcohol?," "Will individual possession be permitted?," "Will the school consider its jurisdiction to include all College property and all student-sponsored social activities, including those held off-campus?," "Will drinking games [and] chugging… be prohibited?," "Will the College invest in new facilities to create alternatives to fraternities and sororities?," and "Will fraternities and sororities be banned?"
We are also in possession of the "3 or 4 alternative approaches" that the Committee considered. These are drawn from a July 28th memo that was "the revised version of the document that you went over at your last meeting in Hanover on July 21-22." The proposals covered several domains, including "Student Housing," "Eating and Social Spaces," "Social Organizations," and "Alcohol Policy."
It is the section on social organizations—fraternities and sororities—that is most controversial. 'Alternative A' ("Improve Present C.F.S. system") includes provisions for the upgrading of physical plants, which would require houses "to complete 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." It proposed "far greater penalties and fines" for alcohol violations. It would "discontinue all open parties" and require C.F.S. houses to "open up" their "social spaces" to residence facilities and other student groups. It would "end parties following Wednesday night house meetings" and "establish a curfew." It would "restrict number of students living in each house."
The "degree of radicalness" only gets more extreme from there. 'Alternative B' ("modified C.F.S. system with no mandatory provision to go co-ed") would not require C.F.S. systems to go co-ed unless they failed to meet the standards of 'Alternative A.' 'Alternative D' would "convert C.F.S. houses into new mandatory co-ed system."
'Alternative E' would eliminate the Greek system entirely and latches onto Linda Kennedy's "Common House" idea. These houses would be composed of roughly two-hundred men and women—every student at the College would be required to join up—and might be created by a "three-year phase in period." "All students" would become members of "DCH houses and all existing fraternity, sorority and coed houses would be de-certified by the College."
But that is of course what the Trustees and President Wright declaimed they were doing in the first place—the end of the Greek System as we know it.
When I wrote that the Student Life Initiative was part of a broader ideological effort to radically alter the character of the College, this is what I was referring to. The semiannual efforts to end the Greek system as we know it are rooted in an undisclosed plan to fundamentally displace the historical character of Dartmouth College.
Go on.
On July 21st, the Trustee Committee was addressed by Norman E. McCulloch, Jr. 1950, a former Chairman of the Board of Trustees. His remarks add greatly to our understanding of the Student Life Initiative. He outlined the Trustee's institutional vision for Dartmouth College, which was largely based on two objectives: strengthening the academic prestige of the College and eliminating the C.F.S. system. The program would take "patient but steady implementation over, perhaps, a decade," he said, but "these major evolutionary changes will have an enormous impact on the essence of a Dartmouth education and further cement the College's ability to stand with pride and confidence with the country's very best universities."
In McCulloch's turn of phrase, the important charge was "institutional maturity." He alluded to a November 24th, 1986 confidential memorandum that he drafted to the Board of Trustees—he was Chairman at the time—that proposed
THE BOARD ADDRESS THE WISDOM OF GRADUAL BUT NONETHELESS FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASES WHICH GUIDE OUR LEADERSHIP OF THE COLLEGE. SPECIFICALLY, I PROPOSE THAT WE BEGIN A DIALOGUE AIMED AT EMPHASIZING THE ACADEMIC STRENGTHS OF THE COLLEGE AS A FIRST PRIORITY. PARENTHETICALLY, THE SANCTITY OF "THE DARTMOUTH FAMILY," WHILE IMPORTANT TO OUR CULTURE, ASSUMES A LESSER ROLE. IN SHORT, I PROPOSE THAT WE RAISE OUR SIGHTS AND REACH FOR INSTITUTIONAL MATURITY, INDEED, THAT WE "GROW UP."
An enormous part of this, he said, was the fraternity system. "The evolution of the College has made it largely outdated and irrelevant and it should be phased out… Therefore, the message must go out… that the Greek system has served its original purpose, has overstayed its welcome and must be completely replaced by social and residential alternatives more consistent with and supportive of the College's academic purposes." The evidence is very explicit—McCulloch situates the S.L.I. in the larger context of diminishing the importance of "the Dartmouth family"—that is, loyalty, fellowship, to each other, to the institution. And the whole problem, he is saying, is the fraternity system. This is a very explicit institutional agenda. It is not the nattering of a few radicals here and there.
And what has changed is that the defenders of the Greek system have declined precipitously both in number and in vociferousness. Moreover, their position at the College has changed dramatically. It is no exaggeration to say that students and alumni are now the primary supporters of the system. This is not the way it used to be.
A lot has changed since those days, though. And surely there were serious problems with the social culture of the campus.
Problems, sure. Many aspects of the C.F.S. system can be unhealthy or foolish. Any institution—Dartmouth College, a frat house—is going to fall far short of utopia. But if the Student Life Initiative was really just about improving the Greek System—fixing its problems—this is improvement by way of brass knuckles.
If there is indeed this effort in place to eliminate fraternities and sororities, why are fraternities and sororities still around? And how do you explain the support that Dartmouth currently provides for the C.F.S. system?
I do not quite know the answers to these questions. They are important and need answering.
And, it must be said, the College does provide important support to the Greeks. Most houses are covered under an umbrella insurance policy that dramatically reduces costs. The College also offers low-interest loans to houses for renovations and physical improvements. The College re-recognized Phi Delta Alpha, which was on long-term probation. And Rush—or, the new member selection process, as it's now so called—was moved back to the fall term earlier this year, allowing the houses to shore up their financial positions earlier, and, more importantly, allowing them to bolster group cohesion.
But you still find fault with the Student Life Initiative.
Beyond the pettiness and the enormous administrative load, there are more fundamental problems with the Student Life Initiative. Many people in power at this institution have reduced all of the problems with Dartmouth, all of its perceived flaws, to a single variable: the existence of the fraternity system. And yet I have always found its adherents to be smart and thoughtful and fun, and to contribute greatly to the life of the College. Perhaps the C.F.S. system is not antagonistic to the academic goals of Dartmouth College, but it might just be, perhaps, complementary.
Didn't the Trustee Committee on the Student Life Initiative acknowledge this by allowing the continued existence of the C.F.S. system?
Yes—to a point. But the Student Life Initiative is dishonest, concealing many of its most basic premises. It is impossible to look closely at the implementation and execution of the S.L.I. and not think that there is some incremental, slow-motion process running below the surface, some hidden motivation. The vision that Norman McCulloch outlines certainly provides a large arena for conspiratorial thinking, and it is difficult not to dip into the paranoid style. The Dartmouth that he envisions—and it is not easy to know just how many are in concordance with this vision, to know how likely it is that that vision will come into existence—is not the Dartmouth that I want to attend or ever hope to see.
That is a grim prognosis.
It is. But that is not the note I wish to end on. The Student Life Initiative may point to the vitality of the Greeks, not to, say, their decline and fall. The Coed-Fraternity-Sorority system remains as vital as ever, and it gains more strength and importance every year. No other student activity on campus garners more participation among undergraduates. And now, perhaps, we have reached a kind of détente. It may turn out that the Student Life Initiative is a lasting compromise, in the sense that fraternities are given a stay of execution. But no one can know, because we do not know and cannot know what is occurring behind closed doors now, just as five years ago no one knew the true extent of the motives behind the S.L.I. as it congealed. This is the discouraging imperative of the modern age at Dartmouth College.