Zywicki on the Student Life Initiative

I was doing some background research on the history of the Student Life Initiative, looking through the Dartmouth Review's archives (since last spring, The Dartmouth's archives are unfortunately gone), when I came across an old quote from future trustee Todd Zywicki in a January 2000 article about the administration's approach to social life:

Some are alarmed at the broad mandate for control of students' lives that an enforced Principle of Community would give the College. One example of an infraction that the new judicial system would punish, the report says, is last year's 'ghetto party,' a fraternity party that had a theme some students found offensive. The scope of the new 'unified College-wide judiciary system,' then, would include supervision of expressive conduct, including speech. The Principle of Community also seems to apply to casual interpersonal relations and political beliefs, especially beliefs about the educational value of 'diversity' and affirmative action.

'This is brainwashing, pure and simple,' says Todd Zywicki '88, Assistant Professor of Law at George Mason University. 'They want to ensure that students think in the way they desire. This report is an astounding social engineering document and its aim is the re-education of students once they get to Dartmouth. The College doesn't like that it doesn't know what goes on behind the closed doors of a fraternity. They want pervasive supervision of students.'

The dismantling of fraternities and sororities at Dartmouth would mean the end of student-controlled social spaces and the regulation of student social lives by the Dartmouth administration. In this way, campus critics argue, the Social Life Initiative represents the infantilization of students at Dartmouth...

'Greek organizations are Burke's 'little platoons' that link atomized students to the history and legacy of Dartmouth, and act as the mediating institutions that Tocqueville talked about,' says Zywicki. 'Fraternities provide a comfort zone for students to consider and debate uncleansed ideas. That's why Dartmouth wants them broken into atomized pieces, the better to remold them into the new Dartmouth mindset.'

I also found this section of the article really interesting:

Whatever the particular merits of the Greek system, Dartmouth's move to tightly regulate the social lives of students on and off-campus signals the adoption of the in loco parentis role that universities abandoned in the 1960s and 70s in response to student protests. 'Students don't rebel against adult guidance in the way they did 30 years ago,' President Wright told The New York Times last March. Wright's Dartmouth is leading universities in returning to the pre-1960s mission of defining students values—in his case, 'based on Dartmouth's Principle of Community and on adherence to norms of civil behavior.'

It's clearly a break from the past. 'I graduated from college in 1968 and the whole point of going to college then was to get institutions and parents out of my life,' Harry Lewis, Dean of Harvard College, said in the same March 3 Times article. 'I worry about the narrowing impact that such a well-supervised college experience might offer... There is something troubling about students working so hard to fulfill the dreams of others. It makes it harder for them to discover something of their own, get excited and pursue it.'

Zywicki's concerns about the judicial enforcement of the Principle of Community, which did not end up happening, are right on the money. The Principle are incredibly subjective:

The life and work of a Dartmouth student should be based on integrity, responsibility and consideration. In all activities each student is expected to be sensitive to and respectful of the rights and interests of others and to be personally honest. He or she should be appreciative of the diversity of the community as providing an opportunity for learning and moral growth.

The SLI report actually suggested hauling organizations in front of the what became the Organizational Adjudication Committee for failing to provide "moral growth" and for not being "sensitive" and "respectful". Trying to enforce these wishy-washy moral standards would have been a parallel to the House Un-American Activities Committees. Although Dartmouth has stated that the Principle of Community are not judicially enforceable, during the Zeta Psi fiasco this apparently took place anyway, according to a 2001 TDR article:

Dean Redman argued to me, in person, that he was able to punish Psi Upsilon for violating the Principle of Community. Yes, that selfsame Principle of Community that the Student Handbook notes 'in itself is not adjudicable'. The vehicle for this was a requirement of the Minimum Standards that says fraternities and sororities are obliged to incorporate the spirit of the Principle of Community into their charters. Thus, Dean Redman claimed the ability to punish them for violating the spirit Principle of Community. In essence, he is punishing them on the basis of a speech code that applies to 40% of the College's undergraduate population, but not to the other 60%. If these students were not Greeks, their speech would not be punishable (ignoring, for the moment, Redman's asinine views on harassment).

Although the Minimum Standards of that era are gone, the current 89-page CFS handbook does state that Greek organizations must, as a requirement for recognition, "ensure that its conduct, purpose, and activities are consistent with the mission of Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth College Principle of Community," which does seem to contradict the statement that the Principle are not adjudicable.

The entire concept of the Principle of Community is very questionable. Without a doubt, the presence of any racism, sexism, or homophobia at Dartmouth is a serious problem. But these problems cannot be solved by a three sentence edict from the Board of Trustees. Unlike its peers - the Standards of Conduct, the Academic Honor Principle, and the statement on Freedom of Expression and Dissent - the Principle are overwhelmingly vague, leaving it a danger to Greek organizations when its adherence becomes a condition for recognition. Around Dartmouth, it gets placed on the walls of offices and reception rooms. It becomes the justification for every social life recommendation, every decision, every program. It represents the epitome of 21st century quasi-corporate politically-correct head-in-the-sand thinking - the belief that mission statements and the like actually matter, and that decisions should be based around them. Any belief that the Principle of Community have made Dartmouth a more inclusive place is absurd. Dartmouth has become more inclusive because the world is becoming more inclusive and because students are actively seeking to make Dartmouth more inclusive. Certainly, administrators have been making a difference in improving diversity (the fine folks of the Student Life Department, for example), but the belief that Dartmouth can be socially re-engineered from up high with disregard for the things that students care about (i.e. the Greek system) is flat-out misguided. Dartmouth's improved inclusiveness has not occurred because the trustees published a statement twenty-eight years ago or because they aimed a wrecking ball at the Greek system nine years ago.

Zywicki Responds

Joe Malchow at Dartlog received a statement from Todd Zywicki regarding his controversial speech at the Pope Center for High Education. It's an interesting read.

The Bigger Picture

As a follow-up to my comments in the previous post, I would like to share some thoughts about the broader perspective regarding the petition trustees...

1. I believe that the presence of the petition trustees is ultimately beneficial to Dartmouth. I like Dartmouth's administration and I think they do a very good job. I've worked with some of the top administrators and they always seem on top of their game and the sort of people we want leading Dartmouth. But even the best administrators need good oversight, because people are human and they make decisions that are not always the best. And the stakes here are very high - one of the most prestigious academic institutions. I don't have great confidence in the oversight capabilities of the Board of Trustees because I believe they are overly willing to follow the administration's lead. By comparison, the election of the petition trustees put increased pressure on the administration, and their presence on the Board has led and will continue to lead to increased oversight. I think this is a good thing and will benefit Dartmouth in the long run.

2. The petition trustees should be given free rein to do their jobs as they see fit. They are a minority on the Board and always will be. They are not really a threat and shouldn't be treated like one. There should be less concern about what they may say and more interest in the issues they raise. Controversy is artificial, and debating loyalty and responsibility to the Board is ultimately a distraction. Constantly putting the petition trustees on the defensive is unwise. When people feel threatened, they act more aggressively and they act in unpredictable ways. From one trustee controversy to the next, Dartmouth has been under a state of emergency. We need to get back to normalcy. It is in everybody's interest to reduce the level of conflict. An outsider at the "Ask the Trustees Anything" forum two weeks ago would have found it difficult to distinguish the petition from the non-petition trustees. Everyone was very collegial and they revealed broader agreement than one might gather from newspaper headlines. That's exactly what we need moving forward, and I think that will comes from an environment where the petition trustees are treated as accepted members of the Board.

3. Zywicki's comments were undeniably blunt, but were fundamentally aggressive articulations of his well-known beliefs. He shouldn't have said it. But there is no need to go nuts over it. Everybody knew that Zywicki thought Freedman was a bad president; whether he called Freedman a "truly evil man" or a "bad leader" or a "mediocre president" is besides the point. It's all the same really. When we create an environment where trustees need to be hesitant about expressing their opinions, we reduce accountability and transparency. As elected leaders running on an opposition platform, it is absurd to expect the petition trustees to remain silent about the issues they care about. As a student, I want, and furthermore I expect, trustees to be open about the issues and concerns facing Dartmouth. When problems are shoved behind closed doors, things rarely turn out well - we end up with Enrons. Finally, concerns about PR problems are overstated. Only a few years away from the college tour circuit, I strongly doubt that any prospective student was turned off by the trustee struggle. That's simply not what students care about when picking a college. Secondly, I doubt the petition trustees have caused Dartmouth giving to decrease. If anything the increased attention should be good for alumni giving.

Loyalty to Whom?

A big controversy swirling around Dartmouth are Todd Zywicki's comments to the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy about Dartmouth, its trustees, and its administration. Perhaps the most infamous moment of the speech comes when Zywicki attacks academic administration: "What I think you have to understand is, those who control the University today, they don't believe in God and they don't believe in country. University is their cathedrals."

In today's The Dartmouth, along with a news story describing the controversy, Bill Montgomery '52 contributes an opinion article criticizing Zywicki's remarks. Montgomery focused on Zywicki's attack on former Dartmouth president James Freedman, who Zywicki called a "truly evil man." While I emphatically disagree with Zywicki's statements, I also take issue with Montgomery's notion that Zywicki violated his responsibilities as a trustee.

After considering the limits of free speech and Zywicki's responsibility to the Dartmouth board, Montgomery concludes that Zywicki violated his responsibilities as a trustee:

However, and this is the most serious part, when he became a member of the Dartmouth board, Zywicki accepted the obligation to follow board guidelines for conduct as clearly spelled out in the Statement on Governance and Trustee Responsibilities... [It] is very clear that Trustee Zywicki, by speaking in a derogatory manner with specific examples, is in violation of his Dartmouth trustee responsibility and the board must hold him accountable or abandon their mission statement. At a very minimum, he owes an apology to the Freedman family and the Dartmouth community, or he should resign his position as a trustee. This is not about free speech; this is about responsible behavior.

How could Zywicki have agreed to the Statement on Governance and Trustee Responsibilities upon his election, when it was only adopted last June, clearly as an ex post facto attempt to silence the petition trustees? The Statement itself was introduced with Orwellian tones as it lay out its goal to "strengthen Board members' performance as stewards of the College."

But more importantly, Montgomery insinuates that by criticizing Freedman, Zywicki somehow violated his obligation as a trustee. Montgomery suggests that speaking ill of Freedman is, by extension, speaking ill of Dartmouth. This is an absurd notion. First, it suggests that Dartmouth is no more than its leaders, a traitorous notion by my standards. Second, Montgomery seems to think this idea should apply to past presidents. Obviously, this makes absolutely no sense. Would a trustee be violating their duty by criticizing Daniel Dana, Asa Smith, or Nathan Lord? Montgomery says that the issue at stake is "responsible behavior," that Zywicki shouldn't criticize Freedman because, well, it isn't nice. But if Zywicki genuinely believes that Freedman was a "truly evil man" - a view, I'm sure, not uncommon among some alumni - doesn't he have a right to express that view, given Freedman's lasting influence on the college's direction?

Ultimately, Montgomery seems to confuse a loyalty to Dartmouth with a loyalty to James Wright or James Freedman. They are not the same and everyone knows the difference. Taking a personal example, last year I was on the Student Assembly executive board, serving under Tim Andreadis, who was student body president. At the end of fall term, Tim had a dispute with another board member, which ended with the other board member being placed on probation with the college. As a result, I stepped down from my position and wrote a resignation letter criticizing Tim. So, since Tim was student body president, was I somehow being traitorous to the student body by criticizing him. Of course not. I was merely doing what I thought was right; what I thought was in the best interest of Dartmouth students.

The same goes for Zywicki. When Zywicki criticizes James Wright, he is not criticizing Dartmouth. He is merely doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the college. Although I disagree with him, alumni elected him because they wanted an independent voice and that is exactly what he should be allowed to share. That's how democracy works.