Shaping Up

The administration and the Greeks join hands on minimum standards

This spring, five years to the month after the faculty approved the Epperson proposal to abolish fraternities at Dartmouth, the battleflag was still flying. "The fraternity system is in danger," ran the Dartmouth's editorial for March 30. "In the past year both Chi Phi and Psi U Fraternities have had their College recognition suspended. Phi Delta Alpha was on social probation last fall. This is only the beginning." Reference was made, not altogether cheerful reference, to the administration's stance of "shape up or ship out," and shaping up, figured "the D," meant no more open parties, improved physical plants, and a responsible approach to alcohol. "The problem is," concluded the editorial, "there are presently no guidelines, beyond a vague notion of good taste, explaining what behavior is acceptable."

Well, last month the mysteries of good taste were explained. In spades. A minimum standards document, prepared by the offices of the dean of the College and the business manager, was approved by the Trustees at their August retreat. The document was based on a draft that required a good many hours of midnight oil on the parts of the Interfraternity Council (IFC), the deans, and the Fraternity Board of Overseers (FBO). (The FBO, com- prised of students, alumni, faculty, and administrators, was created in 1978 by the trustees for the purpose of addressing the faculty's charges that fraternities at Dartmouth had become too racist, anti-intellectual, sexist, uncivilized, and alcoholic to warrant the College's continued recognition.)

On the canny advice of the newly-arrived dean of the College, Edward Shanahan, the FBO turned the job of formulating standards for Dartmouth's fraternities and sororities over to the executive committees of the IFC and the Pan-Hellenic Council. The students dutifully drew up a detailed set of guidelines for their own regulation. "It was an arduous process," explains Lee Levison, assistant dean of the College for fraternities and sorori- ties. "It was a tough thing to do, knowing that some of their buddies might not make it under the standards they were formulating. It required their being visionaries." Last July, at a retreat held for the purpose, the students' work, amplified and revised by Levison and Shanahan, was hammered into a shape that could be sincerely endorsed by everybody on the FBO, the Committee on Undergraduate Life (CUL), and the IFC.

< < "K /I" inimum Standards" is a 30-page document, outlining in eloquent detail the standards that will now be applied to all fraternities and sororities at Dartmouth. Leadership, bud- gets, membership, progam development, alumni, behavior, physical plant standards, and evaluation are the topics listed on the contents page. The standards require, among other things, that fraternities and sororities provide the College at regular intervals with detailed budgets, audit information, membership contracts, statements of purpose, carefully written rush and pledge education programs, statements of objectives revised each term, detailed orientation programs for all incoming officers, constantly updated alcohol rules and goals, outlines of alumni relations and outreach programs, and written codes of ethical behavior.

Physical plant maintenance is very closely spelled out. Fraternity and sorority houses shall not have, for instance, leaky roofs, peeling shutters, floppy gutters, or littered porches. No potholes, beery floors, or electric octopuses. No dirty dishes, dirty refrigerators, or doorless private rooms, and their lawns shall be trimmed to between three and five inches high. The standards include a rigorous housekeeping chart specifying, among other things, daily toilet cleaning and hall vacuuming and weekly replacement of toilet paper and emptying of bathroom trash. They provide for general "spot checks" by the College and for three unannounced housekeeping inspections a year. The consequences of bad grades at annual evaluation time and the processes of making amends are codified as well.

At the same July retreat that produced the final version of Standards," the FBO-CUL also dealt with some side issues generated during its discussions with the IFC. The result was a four-part FBO-CUL resolution to the Trustees. The resolution first endorsed the minimum standards document. Secondly, it endorsed application of the CUL residential life concepts to fraternities and sororities as well as dorms. Third, it suggested limiting the number of fraternities and sororities at the College to 30, putting a cap on the current number of all-male fraternities, and increasing sororities and alternative houses to the point at which the number of single-sex organizations reflects the ratio of men and women students at Dartmouth. The fourth and final resolution was an endorsement of the College's owning or leasing, as a condition of recognition, all fraternity and sorority houses.

This last resolution has generated some indignation and may yet generate more. Curbing the all-male fraternities to an upper limit of the current number, 17, caused some rumblings, too, and the final skirmishes are far from finished, even though the war is clearly winding down. It is impossible at this point to predict exactly where this phenomenon of the eighties the reevaluation of Greek societies on American campuses will take Dartmouth. At Amherst (where all the houses were collegeowned), single-sex fraternities and sororities were recently abolished. Hamilton College solved its fraternity-sorority problems by washing its hands of all involvement with them and moving them off-campus, where they became independent, private organizations. At Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, a faculty vote for abolition similar to Dartmouth's was disregarded by the trustees, who laid down instead strict regulations for all student organizations and endorsed the principle that all of them should be open to both sexes. Trinity's president is authorized to withhold recognition from any new organizations that are not coeducational, though exemptions are possible for those existing single-sex groups that can at three-year intervals demonstrate a three-quarters vote in favor of remaining single-sex.

The current truce between Dartmouth's administration and its students augurs well for the sytem here. On campus, the prevailing sentiment is a tempered optimism, which has been aptly articulated by Stephen Jennings 'B5. Jennings, who was commissioned this summer by the dean of the College to do a study of Dartmouth's fraternity-sorority system, came to this conclusion: "I have offered my suggestions with the belief that the fraternitysorority system has the ability, creativity, and desire to bring about reform. Many of my suggestions are drawn from the experiences of other schools, schools which by and large have forced reforms onto their fraternity/sorority systems. My proposals are offered with the hope that coercion will not be necessary at Dartmouth. Yet, if the quality of undergraduate life is to improve, the College must be prepared to step in should the fraternity-sorority system's own efforts fail."

The administration displayed an unheard-of degree of openness, fair-play, and ability to compromise. Of course, they did not agree with everything that was proposed by the IFC. Nonetheless, they played straight poker. For those of us who remember things like the Mahoney proposal [to own or lease], this change of attitude was incredible, so incredible that a conscious effort had to be made to suspend our disbelief. Dartmouth is all the better for having three normal people dealing with its fraternities instead of the twisted minds that gave birth to the Mahoney proposal.

Given this new status quo, some confidence in the fair application of the Standards is warranted. In all fairness, one cannot but believe that the same administrators who negotiated "Minimum Standards" in good faith will also enforce them in good faith.

The IFC has certainly not given birth to a monster. In fact, the system may have just done itself and the future of Dartmouth the greatest possible favor: By agreeing to be measured against tough standards, all houses have given indisputable proof of their dedication to the betterment of the College and to their own betterment.

J. Nuno Pedro '84, writing in the Dartmouth of August 12, 1983

There will be a year in which all the houses will be applying "Minimum Standards" to themselves and the College will be applying them to the houses to see how all measure up. Then evaluations, and after that one more year to clean up in. Then anything from suspension to expulsion if necessary. The next step is for the FBO to mesh the fraternity constitution with the minimum standards.

The FBO-CUL resolutions seek to get us away from the very damaging premise that fraternities are not part of Dartmouth College, are privately owned that "you can't touch us" premise, the extreme of which is, "We can do anything we want." It creates, has created for years, a double standard at Dartmouth. Owned or not, fraternities and sororities are part of the College, and their behavior will be examined as much as that of any other member of the community. That is not a happy prospect for those who want to be completely independent, and some alumni also will argue the principle hotly.

Number four the own-or-lease resolution was controversial even for us on the FBO and CUL. In retrospect, I think we shouldn't have made that one. If ownor-lease is voluntary, models will be cre- ated, and if it is done right and done up in a nice package, others will want a piece of the action and there will be no need to make own-or-lease mandatory. If it is not done right, and it doesn't fly, then ownor-lease shouldn't be, mandatory or not.

James Tonkovich '68, assistant secretary of the alumni and member of the FBO

There is a feeling on the part of the students that their autonomy is being theatened. Any move to restructure or define the fraternity-sorority system has been seen as infringement by the College. It's an age-old problem inherent in this relationship. The adversary relationship between the administration and the students is a historical one, but we are trying to build some bridges. The College is trying to support the fraternity-sorority system. Some houses won't make it, but that does not mean the College is out to abolish the system. The stick has been used. Now the College is using the carrot, and coming forward with some real support.

Minimum standards and the CUL-FBO resolutions are a solution that will bring about real positive and significant change. The College recognized it had a responsibility, not a privilege, and the College does not take that lightly. There is nothing up anybody's sleeve. The standards are there. These are our expectations.

Lee Levison, assistant dean of the College

It seems to me that the basic objective of the College in the residential life area is to come up with one residential system that everybody in the community lives under.

The biggest sticking point now is the FBO-CUL fourth resolution on looking into ownership or long-term lease. There are two reasons behind that resolution. One everybody talks about; the other, the most important, no one talks about. One is the physical side, the pure fact that a large number of houses are in such tough physical shape that it is inconceivable that sufficient funds can be raised by the fraternities themselves to make them comparable to other housing on campus.

The second point is the attitude prob- lem within the fraternity system, which has been very defensive since the Epperson proposal in 1978. Something should have been done right then and there, but noth- ing was, and in the intervening five years, the defensiveness has become rooted, so that any attempt to do anything for the fraternities has met with suspicion and resistance, an attitude of "Who are you to tell us what to do? We own our houses. You get the hell out of here!"

The general sentiment of the community is that mandatory own-or-lease is the best thing. The majority of the College community feels that there shouldn't be any system at all, but if there is, it certainly should be under the regulation of the College. The IFC has done a lousy job of identifying their enemy. It's not the administration. There are strong constituencies in the undergraduate, the administrative, and the alumni bodies that are very anti-fraternity. They're fed up. Don't get me wrong there is a hard-core group of alumni just like the ones who back the Review who will back the fraternities to the end. However, if there were really strong support out there, the fraternities wouldn't have trouble raising money. And they do. Fraternal devotion is not a tradition here here fraternities even fight their own nationals. I just don't think that except for a handful of alumni, there will be a major problem with these changes.

Edward Scheu '46, chair of the FBO

Dartmouth is not the first college to attempt a significant restructuring of its residential life. Other similar institutions Bowdoin, Brown, Colby, Trinity, and Williams to name a few also have looked or currently are looking at how their fraternity-sorority systems might be better directed towards the goals of residential life. My research on these and other institutions has led me to a conclusion which is problematic for Dartmouth; that is that those institutions which have had the most success in reining in their fraternity-sorority systems either have owned the houses or have had contractual arrangements for future ownership.

Stephen Jennings '85, reporting to the dean

But mandatory own-or-lease, in light of what's going on right now, is an outrage because it precludes any attempts to change the system, It precludes minimum standards is what it does. As an option, as one way of getting money, own-or-lease is one thing; as a mandatory requirement, it is an outrage. I think it stinks. There is a sentiment that it will free up the fraternities to do other things. My sentiment is that I don't want to be freed. We have to learn. We're not doing very well now. But now we have "Minimum Standards." Give us a chance to use this document. We're kids, but we're not stupid. Don't tell us we have to be owned. Let us figure it out for ourselves.

Craig Byrne '85, member of Zeta Psi and summer term president of the IFC

These are terribly important issues. I told the IFC I could set up the first draft of minimum standards from my and the institution's perspectives and they could comment, or they could do it based on their analysis and I could comment, in which case the document would be characterized by their own assessments. I am pleased that they chose the latter. I assured them we were not going to use the document to close fraternity houses. Although some houses may not make it, our purpose is to restore to health the system, though I think the students did not realize at first that we would address programs, leadership, and behavior as well as physical plant.

The College hasn't spoken with regard to the own-or-lease resolution, but it is fair to say that the FBO and the CUL feel there is a significant problem now with individual private ownership, one that will always be an annoying problem. They would like for the houses to recognize the seriousness of the problems and see clearly the threat to the survival of the system. We will encourage them to recognize that vulnerability. It is better for the houses to understand the reasons for the committees' conclusions and agree with them as realistic solutions. I see those four resolutions as votes in support of the system, to ensure that the particular residential experience that so many men and women have enjoyed here will continue to be here for future generations.

Edward Shanahan, dean of the College

In this vintage Adrian Bouchard photo of Fraternity Row, a lone student makes his way toward Tabard (formerly Sigma Chi).Though the Row looks much the same as it did when Bouchard took this shot in the late fifties, the interiors of many of today'sfraternities might startle the young man above were he to return like Rip Van Winkle after a lapse of some 20 years.

Nuno Pedro '84

Jim Tonkovich '68

Dean Lee Levison

Ed Scheu '46

Craig Byrne '85

Dean Edward Shanahan