Minimum Standards

Where Things Stand Today With Dartmouth's Fraternities and Sororities

After a year and a half of frustration and hard work, Dartmouth's fraternity houses know where they stand in the eyes of the administration. The results of Minimum Standards the plan to revitalize the College's Greek system are in.

Of the College's 27 fraternities and sororities, 16 passed inspection outright; three houses that "substantially addressed" Minimum Standards were given a two-to-three month extension to bring everything up to par; seven were given probation for varying lengths of time to comply with Standards; and one house was given a "No pass" recommendation that was later overturned by the Dean of the College. [See inset on p. 46.]

The events preceding these recent decisions are somewhat complex. What is important for the College, however, is that a thorough fraternity/sorority evaluation procedure has emerged a procedure that Shanahan says is unique. "Most institutions have not taken this approach, of getting involved in order to revitalize," he said. In fact, the Dartmouth approach has gotten such wide recognition that Dean Shanahan has been invited to a national conference in Oregon to make a presentation on the College's innovative stategy.

Following implementation of the Minimum Standards in the fall of 1983, house members immediately began planning how their organizations would meet the seven standards of leadership, budget, membership programs, alumni relations, physical plant, and behavior. By Feburary 1984, a facilities audit had been completed on each house, revealing how much work was needed on the physical plants to bring them up to par. The audits, ranging from $14,000 to $119,000, sent shock waves up and down Webster Avenue. The renovations were put into three categories, with priority given to safety improvements such as fire doors and smoke detectors. "The physical plant was our biggest problem," said James Evans '85, former president of Alpha Theta. "But there's no doubt that things are definitely looking better."

Agreement is virtually unanimous that though an enormous challenge, the physical plants have made steady progress. "Just look at the houses," said Rich Stoddard 'B5 former president of SAE and member of the Fraternity/Sorority Review Board. "The ones you thought might never make it have done incredible work and the ones that didn't need to do as much still look better than they ever have before."

President David T. McLaughlin holds praise for the improvements. "Setting priorities and focusing attention and resources is having a very favorable effect; you can already see it in the condition of the houses . . . But whether Minimum Standards accomplishes everything that one would like, I think only time will tell."

According to Shanahan, the improvements were slow in coming, but could finally be noticed last spring. "I felt that last year at this time the fraternities weren't moving as swiftly as they should be in order to accomplish what they needed to. I pleaded with them to get the ball rolling." In Shanahan's mind, the most noticeable improvements were on the behavior front. He found the difference between the behavior from the spring of 'B3 to the spring of 'B4 "marked." "This showed a sensitivity to the concerns the administration expressed and a willingness to address these concerns. A number of house presidents expressed appreciation to me for finally having the tools with which to effect change in their houses."

Overall, students seem to feel the standards are beneficial, but the urgency and manner with which they were effected irritated many. Dean Shanahan's actions and words seemed to be contradictory from time to time and students became skeptical of his intentions. Their voicing of their skepticism was most frustrating for Shanahan. "The suspicion [on the part of the students] that the College is really out to close the fraternities," bothered him. "It was the questioning of the motives. Most students don't question what we're doing; they think the changes are positive;" but they question why, he said.

Tim Coughlin 'B5, past president of Chi Phi (Heorot) feels the time was "long overdue for administrative assistance. I think it's good that the College finally stepped in." He feels the former parent/child relationship between the administration and the fraternities wasn't working. "If we were delinquent, we were punished. Now they've come forward and offered us something substantial."

Last fall the Committee on Student Life formed a special committee to look at fraternities and sororities and their adherence to Minimum Standards. This committee, known as the Fraternity/Sorority Review Board, was composed of three members of the faculty, four undergraduates, two alumni, and one ad- ministrator. The Board met weekly through the beginning of February to review each of the houses. "In preparation for the review, the Office of Residential Life submitted an assessment," Shanahan explained. Each assessment is a large bound book "including officer reports, manuals, newsletters, etc. that was collected by the ORL." Two weeks before a house was scheduled for review, it received a copy of the assessment and was able to draft a response to it. The response and the assessment were then given to the Review Board and a week later the board and the house held the actual review session.

Professor of Psychology John Lanzetta chaired this committee. Lanzetta's group decided to look at all the houses before making any decisions, to get the perspective of the entire range. "Each house usually sends two to four members to the actual review session," Lanzetta said. "We listen, ask questions, and clarify anything that is confusing." The house is then excused as the Board deliberates.

It was Lanzetta's first interaction with the fraternity system; he felt the group worked together very well and came up with some sound conclusions. He praised the student members for being conscientious, unbiased, and raising a lot of questions for their peers. The Board then submitted its recommendations to COSL, which in turn made recommmendations of their own to the Dean. The F/SRB and COSL agreed that the latter group would not overturn a decision made by the former group without first conferring.

Lanzetta feels the review process has been a positive experience for the houses. "They've had to stop, look at themselves, and ask what's going on. It's pulled the houses together."

The long wait came to an end on Feburary 27 when the COSL recommendations were made public. Only Chi Phi failed the standards, a decision that devastated the brothers. The reasons for the failure were cited as "lack of cultural programming, and disciplinary problems during Heorot's social probation from spring of 'B2 to fall of '83."

The brothers failed to give up. After meeting with the Dean and writing a "gut reaction" report on how Heorot could transcend all seven of the standards, Chi Phi was granted a reprieve and put on 15 to 18 months' probation. The brothers argued that they were being treated unfairly, especially the younger members, by having to pay for the misbehavior of brothers they didn't even know. The house has gone without a behaviorial incident for the last 15 months. This is the only COSL recommendation that the Dean has overturned to date, though houses unhappy with their status may appeal directly to the Fraternity Board of Overseers.

A few of the houses are not pleased with their probationary terms and feel the justifications of the terms by the COSL are trivial and captious. Sigma Nu for example, was cited for "building of the traditional snow sculpture" as one reason for the harsh terms meted out to them. Last year Sigma Nu built a snow sculpture offensive to some on campus; they promised not to do it again. The COSL saw the sculpture Sigma Nu built this year and deemed it offensive. "The sculpture started as one thing, couldn't be completed, so we just left it and wrote 'censored' across the front" as a response to what had happened last year, explained Jeff Weitzman 'B5. Weitzman feels the COSL misunderstood the sculpture. The brothers have gone to see the Dean.

One of the bigger debates this year concerning Minimum Standards was College ownership of the houses. To date, only Chi Phi (Heorot) has entered negotiations with the College to sell its house. With the highest facilities audit, Chi Phi realized they could not finance the necessary repairs themselves and decided to sell. "We wrote a newsletter asking for money and advice from alumni, but didn't get much response. We also already had a debt of $50,000 from a few years ago for plumbing. We decided that taking more loans would put us in way too much debt and not leave money for anything else," said former Chi Phi president Coughlin. He felt his house would have enough work trying to meet the other standards, and by selling the house they'd have one less thing to worry about. "The College said they want us to be just as independent as we were before," he said. "They've already fixed Priority One items [physical plant] for us," Coughlin said. Chi Phi's commitment to sell, incidentally, was kept separate from the recent probationary actions.

The question of ownership became an issue following a statement made by the Trustees in August of 1983 at the Minary Retreat. The bulk of the statement was devoted to College ownership and read, in part, "The Trustees believe that it would be in the best interest of Dartmouth institutionally and of the fraternities themselves for the College to aquire ownership of the house facilities." It went on to say, "The Board is, following the recommendation of the administration, willing not to make this a mandatory condition for house recognition at this time," but we "are convinced that College ownership represents the only viable alternative for insuring that the houses remain viable and strong contributors to the overall residential life at the College."

ulBut President McLaughlin doesn't believe the objective expressed was to timately own every house. It was rather "a deep concern that the condition of some of the houses was so critical that it was beyond the financial means of the house itself/' he said. He feels the statement expresses "a skepticism that many of the houses won't be able to afford the improvements without some outside financing, and that financing, if it comes from the College, will come in the form of ownership."

Rich Stoddard feels that College ownership is not in the best interest of many houses. "My house may be unique, but our belief, and our corporation's belief, has always been that part of being in a fraternity is learning to take responsibility," he said. "If you buy a house and promise to pick up after all the little boys, they're not going to learn to take care of their stuff. If they have to pay for breaking things, well, that's an important lesson in growing up. I don't see how in good conscience they [the College] could take that away."

The accelerated deterioration of the houses is attributed to year-round operation and coeducation among other things. "People don't leave the College as much on weekends, and due to the 'D-plan,' there is constant usage and the leadership changes often," said the President. "The independence of the chapter itself wouldn't be threatened by College ownership. It's only an obligation to repair and maintain."

Sue Finegan 'B5, former president of Sigma Kappa sorority, which is owned by the College, says she's unsure if she would encourage other houses to sell. "You don't have much control over the lease, you have no choice but to sign what the College tells you to."

But the College is trying to help out in many other ways. According to Shanahan, they offer ongoing loan programs, a special loan program for Priority One items, auditing services, three full-time staff people working with the system, and seminar retreats for presidents and house officers. "Overall, the brothers feel it's been a good thing for the system," says Rich Lindahl 'B5, former Bones Gate president. "But the implementation has been very fast and they haven't been the best conditions to work under." Lindahl feels the same way as many of his fellow ex-president classmates; that the Class of 1985 had to bear an unfair amount of the burden. Being president of a house last year, he recalled, was like having a full-time job. Bones Gate has worked hard to diversify its programming. "We've had the Barbary Coast, some lecturers, and some non-alcoholic parties," Lindahl said. "I only wish there hadn't been the feeling we were working for the administration rather than with them."

Dean of Residential Life Cristia Lesher has been instrumental in getting the houses' programming diversified. "As of last July, the fraternities and sororities have been under the Residential Life umbrella/' Lesher said. "Last year a committee was formed to help the fraternities and sororities learn how to do cultural and educational programming, to generate ideas for such activities. The College provided some matching funds for this program. The faculty and people from the Hop were also supportive."

From a practical standpoint, the improvements to the Greek system will benefit the entire Dartmouth community. Total membership in fraternities and sororities as of last fall was 1,656 students, with 441 of those residing in the houses. These figures represent a substantial part of the total undergraduate body.

Tension between authority and the younger generation's yearning for freedom will always be an undercurrent of the fraternity conflict, no matter where the system stands. Dartmouth's fraternity system is indeed fortunate that the students and the administration have come together to work out their problems. If student efforts continue to be strong and the administration continues to support their work, the fraternity system does not appear to be in danger. In view of the fraternity situations at Amherst, Colby, and Williams, things could be a lot worse.

What is important forDartmouth College is that athorough fraternity/sororityevaluation procedure hasemerged — one that isunique.

"My house may be unique,but our belief has alwaysbeen that part of being in afraternity is learning totake responsibility