Res-Life Regime Suppresses Dissent

Students standing outside in the cold in front of dorms, waiting for friends or passerby to buzz them in, are now a regular sight around campus. Student Assembly’s petition to the administration to revoke the new dorm access policy received about three thousand undergraduate student signatures from a student body of less than four and a half thousand.  Complaints concerning the College’s restrictions commonly come up in casual conversation around campus.  Yet despite widespread discontent with the new dorm policy, one group of students has been remarkably silent.  Dartmouth’s UGAs have had absolutely nothing to say.

The reason for the conspicuous absence of the UGAs’ voices from an important conversation about the system that employs them is quite simple. Parkhurst has made it known to the UGAs that expression of their personal views will not be tolerated if those views happen to express displeasure with the administration’s new policy.  The clearest example of this thuggish behavior is that UGAs from certain housing communities were explicitly told not to sign the Student Assembly petition to revert to the old full access system. Another example is that an anonymous UGA stated, “our boss said that as UGAs we had a responsibility to support the Office of Residential Life and administration line of command.” As anyone who has ever held a job knows, employees have only two ways to react to such a statement made by their employer: tow the party line or quit.  Arguing for the opposite side is career suicide. By creating this environment hostile to free expression, Parkhurst has effectively placed the College’s UGAs under a soft gag order.

Many UGAs are afraid to voice their true feelings on the dorm access policy because they fear losing their jobs. To be clear, no UGA thinks the administration will immediately fire those who deviate from the party line for speaking out. Rather, they fear that if they voice their true thoughts, they will simply not be invited back to work as a UGA the following term. As one UGA commenting anonymously for this article said, “the UGA position can be competitive.  You know that there’s always somebody else who’d be willing to fill your role if there were a reason they didn’t want to rehire you.” When the Review’s reporter asked directly if the UGA was speaking anonymously because they feared retaliation by the administration, the UGA responded simply “Yes.” In fact, every UGA who agreed to speak to The Dartmouth Review for this article only did so after repeated assurances of strict anonymity. Clearly, they feel pressure to support the administration’s position and fear the potential consequences of public dissent.

The threat of termination is so effective because employment as a UGA is by far the most lucrative job that any Dartmouth student could possibly obtain on campus. UGAs are paid two thousand dollars per term. On top of that, their meal plan is also paid for by the College.  Considering that meal plans average about two thousand dollars as well and are required for all on-campus residents, UGAs really make four thousand dollars per term.  All this money is in exchange for a time commitment so minor that many UGAs are also capable of holding a research position with a professor, which pays another thousand dollars per term.  Therefore, the UGA job enables students to make the equivalent of twelve to fifteen grand a year—while being a full-time student! As one UGA interviewed by the Review said, “very few people do it [the UGA job] because they want to.  Most people do it because they know they could use the four thousand dollars to help pay for college.” Absolutely no other job on campus is comparable in terms of the financial reward.  Students have coveted the UGA position for this very reason for a long time, and the College’s recent choices have made them even more desirable.

Dartmouth’s cuts to financial aid last spring have heightened the importance of the UGA job to many students.  The cuts did not affect students who attend Dartmouth for free; rather, the cuts were aimed at middle-income families.  A typical example of the new financial rules is that a family who previously paid for twenty-five percent of their son’s education might now find themselves paying for forty percent of it.  Many families who were barely able to meet the original twenty-five percent quota by pinching every penny now are unable to meet the forty percent requirement. As a result, several students have dropped out of Dartmouth College since the spring because they could not afford to finish their degree. The only way other students have continued to attend Dartmouth, despite lesser financial aid, is by earning the huge salary of a UGA and supplementing it by taking a research position for a professor.  For such students, their ability to complete their Dartmouth education is directly contingent on their continued ability to hold their job as a UGA.

Students having to work to stay in college, limited financial aid, the College’s dislike of criticism—each of these facts on their own do not seem so terrible. But they paint a grim picture when assembled together. Parkhurst chose to cut financial aid. Parkhurst is well aware of the financial stranglehold that choice placed on many UGAs. UGAs know that speaking out against the new dorm access restrictions could mean the loss of a UGA job for the following term.  Taken together, these facts amount to nothing less than the College committing financial blackmail against over one hundred students with the aim of restricting their speech.

This behavior by the administration is morally repugnant.  Dartmouth’s UGAs deserve the ability to voice their true thoughts on the College’s latest actions without fear of retribution. What does the College get in return for acting in a manner that would make Don Corleone proud? At least some portion of the student body is unwilling to openly, vocally criticize the administration’s newest stupid policy.  What has the College lost?  Its moral compass.