|
 |
CSLI: Student Committees Respondby Noah Hutson-Ellenberg
The IFC's report was particularly harsh, strongly criticizing the CSLI position on CFS organizations, calling several of the proposals “unfair” and “unfeasible.” The IFC emphasizes that Greek houses provide safe environments for alcohol consumption. On March 28, the SA voted to endorse their report, although the vote was primarily a decision to distribute the text to the campus. The SA intends to modify its report based on campus response. The Assembly conducted a survey of 1,157 randomly-selected students concerning all aspects of the SLI, and the study served as the basis of the SA report. The report, however, recommends the addition of cluster common houses, even though 50% of respondents did not favor the idea, against only 32% in favor. The Assembly concluded that common houses will not contribute to disunity, the major concern of those opposed to their construction. Both the SA and the CFSC believe that students should be given the option of residing in the same cluster throughout their college careers. The SA further endorses the CSLI's experimentation with freshman-only housing, and wants students to be able to choose that option as opposed to mixed-class housing. Some students worry that secluding freshmen from other classes will rend Dartmouth's shared community. Aggravating those concerns, the Assembly sides with the CSLI in recommending the construction of a new dining facility on the north end of campus. Yet, to maintain campus unity, the SA suggests that the new dining hall resemble the Courtyard Café and the Collis Café, with limited hours of operation, so that centralized dining remains the major option. The Student Assembly, predictably, champions the CSLI's “World Cultures Initiative,” and recommends that the College provide funding for a permanent staff and substantial programming. “The guiding principle of the World Cultures Initiative,” reads the Assembly report, should “be uniting all members of the Dartmouth community.” There remain stark differences between the CSLI report and the reports of the three student groups, however, concerning the proposed cap on the number of CFS organizations and their proposed membership requirements. The Assembly wants a seventh sorority on campus by the fall of 2000, to accommodate student demand. The CFSC also requests that Dartmouth reevaluate its prohibition on new student societies to allow for the creation of more sororities and coed organizations in the future. The CFSC and SA both note that sororities should be able to guarantee bids to all interested students; some students were denied membership in sororities this past fall due to large student demand for membership and the College's moratorium on new sororities. Last term, the CSLI proposed that Greek societies be eliminated when their memberships drop below three times the number of residential units in their houses. Against this proposal, the SA recommends that the requirement be equal to two times that number; the CFSC suggests that 1.5 times is the more appropriate figure. The primary concern of both the SA and the CFSC is that the CSLI's recommendation would hurt coed organizations, which have smaller memberships. What's more, adds the SA, the popularity of individual fraternities varies from year to year, making constant fulfillment of such a stringent requirement difficult. The SA, CFSC, and IFC all oppose the CSLI's proposal to move rush to winter term. The student organizations argue that the move would cause a loss of revenue for CFS organizations and would also lead to the misrepresentation of some organizations in the rush process due to the large absence of juniors during winter term. Winter rush would not alleviate the fall housing crunch, argues the CFSC, because students choose to be in residence sophomore fall for reasons other than rush. The SA, CFSC, and IFC also reject the elimination of pledge period, emphasizing the differences between the pledge period and hazing, as well as the importance of the bonding that occurs during pledge periods. New standards for the physical plants of Greek houses was one of the most controversial aspects of the CSLI report. Some Greek leaders charge that the standards were designed to drive houses into bankruptcy; the CSLI even conceded that the new standards would result in the elimination of some houses. The SA, CFSC, and IFC all support the establishment of new standards, but call for some funding by the College, noting the financial difficulties that will result. All three student groups maintain that summer residency in CFS houses must not be prohibited according to CSLI guidelines. Ending summer residency, they say, would substantially decrease revenue—an average of $20,000 per house. Renovating house basements is desirable, says the Assembly, “in order to create a greatly improved and presentable social space that does not center around the large-scale distribution of alcohol but around television and non-alcoholic game tables.” The CFSC and IFC, however, hold that house basements should remain social spaces; the CSLI's proposal to limit parties to the ground floor, they say, would eliminate the ability to confine alcohol consumption to one area and would also seriously damage the ground floor. The SA argues that every residence building, including CFS houses, should be required to have a DAPA (Drug Abuse Peer Advisor) among its residents. The CFSC recommends that each CFS organization be required to have a DAPA, SAPA (Sexual Abuse Peer Advisor), and a Tucker Foundation Liaison among its members, but not necessarily living in the house. The IFC, however, believes that CFS organizations should be encouraged, but not required, to have a DAPA and a SAPA. Forcing CFS members to become a DAPA or SAPA, they say, would not have the desired effect. So here's the rundown:
Regarding the CSLI's notion that any violation of Dartmouth's “Principle of Community” should result in the derecognition of Greek societies, the SA proposes that the College rewrite the Principle to include clear standards of conduct and disciplinary sanctions. The SA and CFSC do not support the CSLI's recommendation for the elimination of the CFS judicial system, arguing that the CSLI's characterization of the system as biased by peer pressure is unfair. The SA recommends that the judicial system be expanded to included unaffiliated students and administrators. n |
The
Student Assembly, Coed Fraternity Sorority Council, and
Interfraternity Council devoted most of the winter term
to formulating their responses to the Student Life
Initiative. The reports are all very similar, supporting
the expansion of social options contained in the
Committee on the Student Life Initiative report and new
standards for the physical plants of CFS organizations,
but rejecting, in many cases, the CSLI's more extreme
restrictions of student behavior.