Wright, King, Stith-Cabranes Flop

by J. Patrick Leo and Catherine Muscat

On February 17, President James Wright, Acting Dean Daniel Nelson, and trustees William King and Kate Stith-Cabranes confronted the student body via closed circuit television in an attempt to assuage many of the rumors that have been circulating around campus.

Teresa Knoedler '00, Vice-President of Student Life for Student Assembly, and Jonah Sonnenborn '99, Treasurer of Student Assembly, moderated the discussion and relayed questions submitted by the student body the previous week. The floor was also thrown open to the few students randomly selected to comprise a live audience.

Knoedler and Sonnenborn pressed the Trustees again and again, trying to wring some specifics out of them — what sort of “new system” they saw replacing Dartmouth's current social organization, whether the Greek system could play any part in that new system, how the Trustees' reconciled the unpopularity of existing co-ed houses with their decision to force the entire campus to go co-ed, and why exactly the Trustees thought this move necessary.

King, Nelson, Stith-Cabranes, and Wright, surprisingly, seemed ill-prepared to answer these questions, and again and again ducked them to issue blank platitudes. They repeatedly asked the campus to “imagine the possibilities” inherent in being allowed to create their own social system. When Knoedler pressed, suggesting that the students had, in fact, imagined all the available possibilities and had settled on one they really liked — the Greek system — Wright et. al. said, substantively, “No comment.”

Stith-Cabranes, King, and Wright each admitted that they had no further plans to develop the campus' social system; this entire move was, in effect, to destroy the Greek system, with nothing to put in its place.

When asked to explain exactly what “substantially co-educational” meant, Wright said, “I'm an historian and I thrive on ambiguity, but I have two lawyers here with me from the Board of Trustees, and perhaps they can define `substantially co-educational' for you.”

Following Wright's comment, hecklers in Collis and the Mid-Fayer and Streeter lounge erupted into jeers of “he's not answering the questions!”

Despite the many ambiguities in the trustees' responses, they presented a few real suggestions about social life at Dartmouth.

Decentralized dining, more beds for on-campus living, expansion of residence halls, and the fact that the Trustees are open to student input are all positive ideas stemming from the five principles. The prospect of constructing new buildings for student organizations was particularly popular with students.

At first glance, it appears that the trustees have afforded the students of Dartmouth a once in a lifetime opportunity: they are giving the students a huge sum of money and a flexible framework (the oft mentioned five principles) in which the students can “re-imagine” social life at Dartmouth. This is an excellent initiative, and long overdue.

Dartmouth undeniably needs more beds for its growing student body, and increased social options are certainly welcome at a rural town such as Hanover.

However, by making reforms in the Greek system a non-negotiable absolute, the trustees have smeared the proposed clean slate of social initiatives.

The administration's first attempt at damage control over the recent controversy surrounding the elimination—or to use President Wright's euphemism, reduction—of single-sex fraternities and sororities failed to adequately address concerns over the real impact of student opinion and the ultimate goals of the trustees' five principles.

The eerie silence that followed a call to promise that the Greek system would remain intact after the initial reforms demonstrated the real danger in which the fraternities and sororities lie.

Rather than answering questions in a straightforward manner, trustees Bill King, Kate Stith-Cabranes, and President Wright (Acting Dean Nelson was conspicuously silent throughout most of the discussion) attempted to shift the focus from the Greek system to social life as a whole, as if student concerns over the current Greek system were irrational and arbitrary.

The students have directed much of their criticism toward President Wright; Austin Wheeler '02, however, said that, “Wright is taking more blame than he deserves. It is more than coincidental that the Trustees have dispatched President Wright to implement these principles in his first year in office, before he is able to establish himself with the student body, to end the Greek system `as we know it.'”

Why is the Greek system the only sticking point? As hard as President Wright and the trustees tried to shift the issue from fraternities to the broader, comprehensive, and ambiguous realm of social options, the five principles are clearly an attack on the Greek system.

One student commented, “I doubt that the trustees would draw such a hard line if the student body rallied around Thayer and centralized dining.” President Wright's interview with The Daily Dartmouth undeniably singled-out the Greek system as the primary focus of the trustees' principles. Members of fraternities and sororities are understandably on the defensive. As one student put it, “to me it's not a system. It's my house and it's my life...I feel vulnerable.”

Because of the mandate for reform in the Greek system, one-third of the student body may be permanently alienated from the entire process of improving social options.

“If our input doesn't match their vague ideas, they [the Trustees] may disregard the student voice,” one student observed. If the trustees had only kept their principles completely flexible, the entire student body may have been able to collaborate on improving social life.

As a sorority sister from Kappa Delta Epsilon asserted, “it should be the will of the students to end Greek life at Dartmouth. Who knows? With increased social options at the College, the students may have chosen to end the Greek system on their own accord.”

The Board of Trustees has expressed interest in student opinion in implementing the five principles, and is willing to invest a great deal of money into their “vision.” However, exactly what the trustees' vision of the future is remains hazy, a point which they themselves do not refute.

As it stands now, the five principles have only managed to polarize the student body into pro- and anti- Greek factions, a divide that could have been avoided with better timing and greater sensitivity to student reaction.

Dartmouth College admittedly needs additional social options; however, the answer to this dilemma does not lie in dismantling a traditional and popular social outlet and replacing it with a new “system” that has yet to be determined.

Dartmouth's best course of action lies in parallel systems, with fresh alternatives operating alongside the current Greek system and benefiting every student at Dartmouth, affiliated and unaffiliated alike.