Campus Politics Lit. Review & Analysis

8/14/2019 Campus Politics Lit. Review & Analysis

1/73

INTRODUCTION

This thesis is a political analysis that reaches out to the many different audiences

that have a stake in higher educations past, present, and future. For those alumni of

Union, especially those who consider their relationship with the college strained by the

controversial changes that have occurred over the past decade, this analysis will help to

put some issues at rest, raise new ones, and give you a intimate analysis on why your alma

mater acts the way it does.

For the incoming students onto our campus, this analysis will give you a

perspective on the tireless and often thankless years of work that have gone into preparing

this school for your arrival and through studying it, you should be better prepared for the

years just ahead in a place that will, in all likelihood, shape your future identity. This

analysis will also reach administrators, deans and professors, and others who oversee our

enterprise of higher learning. There are serious policy implications addressed in this

research and anyone with concern for the future of student affairs or the intellectual

culture of a college should be made better aware of the mechanism that drive the

participants of the higher education community like Unions.

1


2/73


3/73

Literature Review and Historical Analysis:

Over the past two hundred years, a legacy can be traced that has given identity to

small residential liberal arts colleges in America. By examining the evolution of these

institutions, and more specifically Union College, it is evident that there are several key

factors throughout history that have evoked significant change in the dynamics of what

and who defines policy here. These changes are outlined throughout specific events in

history, all of which in some way affected the political dynamics of colligate institutions

and how they are governed.

3


4/73


5/73

read as a means to understand the guiding spirit that gave birth to colleges like Union, and

how such colleges formed their mission and purpose as an academic institution: John

Thelins A History of American Higher Education, Laurence Veyseys The Emergence of

the American University, Helen Lefkowitz Horowitzs Campus Life, and a chapter from

Frederick Rudolphs The American College and University entitled, The College

Movement. All four of these authors agree that understanding a colleges heritage is a

key factor in being able to determine what the mission of a specific colleges future is.

However, these authors disagree in how large a part historical legacy plays in defining the

nature of politics among the contemporary stakeholders on campus.

If we can understand better the events of the past, we can better understand how

Union got to be the way it is and where we fit in it as students, teachers, administrators, or

alumni. An advocate to this approach is John Thelin who, in his introductory chapter in

A History of American Higher Education writes, Colleges and Universities are historical

institutions. They may suffer amnesia or may have selective recall, but ultimately

heritage is the lifeblood of our campuses. Thelins theory is that a schools identity

emerges out of the struggles and debates of its history, thus when examining the present

the past cannot be ignored.

The first colleges of the early nineteenth century had little identity, as they were

just beginning to form a place within society. Frederick Rudolph, wrote of the college

movement in The American College and University,that the idea of colleges during this

5


6/73

time was a broad social experiment, whose missions and patterns of leadership were not

easily defined, fiercely debated, and whose futures were far from certain. Rudolph goes

so far as to stateCollege-founding in the nineteenth century was undertaken in the same

spirit as canal-building, cotton-ginning, farming, and gold-mining. In none of these

activities did completely rational procedures prevail (Rudolph, 49). It is evident that

colleges from their very beginning had to struggle with imbalances and inequities in

resources and stakeholders as they struggled to form their missions and mere survival

within society.

While the contemporary inequities facing a college are not nearly as extreme now

as they were during the early college movement, they certainly have always been a

challenge to the decision makers on campus. Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz in her book,

Campus Life, made this evident in descriptions of the early style of college men, as

Horowitz calls them, whose identity was forged through student revolt against draconian

administrative laws in effect during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It

was during this time that colleges experienced a wave of collective student uprisings, led

by the wealthier and worldlier undergraduates commonly in attendance there.

What held true for all the institutions that survived these tumultuous times was the

supreme will of all stakeholders involved to endure under a guiding mission or purpose.

Truly, the oldest surviving institutions like Union and its aged peers call on the brightest

and best heroes from its past in order to define its mission for the future. It has been said

6


7/73

that colleges in America were on the frontier of American progress at the time of their

formation and the best ones now are the ones that have stayed on the cutting edge to this

day. John Thelin supports this idea by concluding that the academic institutions that have

grown with the country and have had tough-minded awareness of changing conditions,

while maintaining a continued purpose for the future survived this time period (Thelin,

xiii).

There were multiple motivations behind founding a college in the nineteenth

century in America. One driving factor was the rivalry that existed at that time between

neighboring states America. Frederick Rudolph, in his chapter entitled The College

Movement, told of how each state, as it developed, sought to make itself a new center of

learning modeled after the learning centers of Oxford and Cambridge of their ancestral

England. Such powerful institutions were needed to attract the countrys brightest and

best people to their cities to spend their dollars, in turn advancing the sates interests.

Moreover, if ones state did not have a place of learning for native youth, these youth

would seek an education elsewhere, driving potential profitable business to other states.

Therefore, colleges in the 1800s were founded with a provincial focus to serve the local

community and to stay regional.

A second motivating factor behind founding colleges can from religious

congregations, who also took an interest in forming new colleges. Presbyterians, Roman

Catholics, Methodists and Baptists all sought to have a college of their own in every

7


8/73

American state, as a means to further stabilize and enhance their religious communities.

The idea of establishing a college during this time acted as a powerful means to advance a

groups identity. Thus, there was little emphasis placed on creating a college with a

mission that differed from the original mission of the organization seeking to establish the

college.

The final motivation behind founding a college in this era, beyond serving a

provincial community, or a congregation, was for the purpose of serving to better

American society as a whole. This college mission was born out of the notion that men

and eventually women, had an obligation to give back to society and that it was through

these up and coming colleges that such an individual would be given the chance to do so.

It was out of this idea that basic guidelines were established for how the early colleges

would conduct and govern themselves. Fredrick Rudolph references sentiments

expressed by President Joseph McKeen at Bowdoin in 1802 in which McKeen stresses the

importance of remembering that literary institutions were, and still are to this day

founded and maintained for the common good of society. McKeen also argues that once

a person enters such an institution, that it then becomes that individuals responsibility to

cultivate an enhance their knowledge for the purpose to - in someway - improve and

contribute to the greater good of society (Rudolph, 58).

President Joseph McKeen was not alone in drawing such conclusions about the

purpose and mission of these literary institutions, as well as the role and obligation that

8


9/73

one has once they enter such an institution. However, as these academic communities

have evolved it is clear that this mission has shifted and even faded out of many of the

existing college communities. The desire for individual success coupled with self-

indulging behaviors by people or groups of people associated with these colleges has

overpowered the ideals on which such institutions were founded on. There is not one

specific factor that can be attributed to this shift, one that has created a need for personal

wealth rather than a global wealth, never the less such change has occurred and in turn

has impacted the governance of many colligate institutions, including Union College.

Reverend Peter Gomes, of Harvard, recently stated in a speech he gave at Union Colleges

Founders Day:

I noticed the admissions statement of the college, that ends on a glorious note

about the liberal arts education being essential to the future of mankind. It is very

noble, but it does not go far enough, for it does not state the business as your

founders did and I hope you fill, that the whole purpose of this enterprise is not

personal, private, interior decoration but rather it is to improve our commonwealth

for civil discourse, common equability, and public good.

As one can see from the words of Gomes and other luminaries, the notion that a college

should serve to better society through the lives of dedicated graduates was not new, and

indeed as a collegiate mission and guiding purpose it would never entirely disappear. Yet,

what would stand out in the first half of the nineteenth century would be the degree to

which these colleges diluted their original missions. Fredrick Rudolph attributes many of

these mission changes to national social and political trends. Rudolph states: As the

9


10/73

public displaced the public servant in the conduct of civil affairs, the college was denied

some of its sense of purposeAmericans lost their sense of society and substituted for it

a reckless individualism (Rudolph, 60). Certainly there were moments and speeches

recorded where the humane missions of civil service were highly touted by lead

administrators during the turn of the nineteenth century, but never the less as highlighted

by Rudolph, American society had changed and the expectations placed on these colleges

would change with it.

The now emerging leadership of the elite liberal arts college would be more

concerned about the expectations of their students than about the expectations of society.

To the students and their parents, the view of the college would become very close to

being a place where one could experience indulgence than a place where one should be

tutored in ones obligation to better serve the nation. For many years, however, a

fundamental purpose of the college movement in the United States was one that centered

on a global mission, as President McKeen had expressed so well in 1802 (Rudolph, 60).

The liberal college campus at this time was clinging to the best ideals of their

genteel tradition in the face of shifting societal expectations on what the educational

experience requires. Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz in her book, Campus Life, examines the

political and social dynamics that were beginning to emerge at this time within the

upcoming generation of students, and how this initiated change to the college mission.

Horowitz argues that mans reasoning for attending college is what changed. Young men

10


11/73


12/73

create strong political structures, as a means to ensure a civilized governance of the

college and its mission during periods of change.

In taking stock of the political arrangements of the academic community taking

shape at the end of this period, there existed three main focal points for ambition, or

rather three centers of vested interest within an academic community: the individual,

concerned with their own career; the department, seeking to improvement its position

with respect to other departments; and the local institution as a whole, competing with

other such institutions. All three of these groups have influenced and continue to

influence the purpose of ones college, and it is the structure and communication within

and between these groups that define the politics of the college.

II: Money & Prestige: The Academic Revolution in the 20th

century and its impact

on the roles and responsibilities of students, faculty and administration

Alexander Astin, in studying life at a liberal arts college found that at the most

elite of the college levels, the quality of a students experience was unmatched. Given his

findings, one might have expected that the traditional liberal arts campus structure would

be adopted as the principal model for the many new institutions that took shape following

WWII. But the massive expansion of Americas higher education system that took place

12


13/73


14/73

millions of federal dollars proved too tempting to resist. Research and not classes and

relationships became the primary function of many a department on the larger university

campuses.

As faculty were recruited, retained, and promoted on the basis of producing

notable scholarly works, the emphasis moved away from the teaching and the student

interaction side of the faculty role. Therefore, the rise of the modern American research

University began with its own unique ethics and culture that is beyond the scope of my

research. But this important national trend in higher education is relevant in its profound

impact on the identity of the liberal arts college as it strove to respond to the rapid social

changes. The response was a reworking of the total mission of the institution. Usually,

in the name of raising standards and broadening the base, these college have largely

succeeded in adapting to their own purposes the methods and styles of the larger

institutions. A casualty of this wholesale adaptation is often the loss of an institutional

character or personality that would justify its existence in comparison with the very

places it imitates, and with which it competes (Gomes, 103). The religious ethics and

genteel tradition and values needed to be played down so that our overshadowed academic

communities could still appear fashionable in relation to the larger and more secular

research universities.

In a structural and academic sense therefore, the liberal arts education has become

associated more with completing a series of course credits and a Bachelors degree than

14


15/73

with acquiring the skills, mindset, and values personified in the founding colleges

mission statement. College as a rite of passage, as places for boys to become men

seemed less and less a goal but more of a fortunate bonus, should the graduates receive it.

In essence, to many larger state universities and many non-residential and less selective

community colleges, a liberal arts education was interpreted in credits and not in the

community of learning.

A Broken Consensus

This change in national trends both social and economic factors contributed

greatly to the changing identity of the traditional college education. More and more, the

distinction between teaching roles and research roles was blurred. The vanishing

distinction post WWII was that professors at colleges taught and professors at universities

did research. Small residential and highly selective universities of the northeast found

themselves in the minority and now having to compete with larger universities that

offered more affordable education for students, and greater research capability and

exposure for rising faculty members.

Each stakeholders role and responsibility on campus became individually

motivated and not community oriented. Faculty members were there to advance their

research and thus their careers. This shift in faculty priorities on private liberal arts

campuses meant to Reverend Gomes that, college culture was more frequently defined

and maintained by professional administrators hired for the purpose and often at a remove

15


16/73

from the central academic mission of the school (Gomes 105). The result was

fragmentation of the traditional residential college campus. Faculty broke down into

competing departments, students increasingly into social organizations and further into

cliques. The result was less time and energy necessary to contemplate the ideals, culture,

goals, and values necessary for a shared community to remain stable. Gomes defined this

is his articles as A Broken Consensus.

This is evidence of a shift in roles and responsibilities for not just the faculty and

administration but for the students as well. This change in responsibility across different

colleges affected perceptions on who was responsible for what. When it came to

responsibility for the economics of paying for education, a shift began to occur here as

well, which affected the content and the style of students who were entering these

communities.

Harvards president in the first half of the twentieth century spearheaded an

innovative phenomenon to expand the pool of applicants that Harvard could pull from.

Reaching outside the traditional group of private high schools, he began the first

programs of financial aid for the hefty tuition. These innovations would not only keep the

small communities competitive, but would begin to attract students from all financial

walks of life. This would in turn bring economic diversity to the formerly closed and

homogenous campuses of the northeast, but gender and racial diversity would not show

itself on the scene of colleges like Union until the nation became to simmer and boil with

16


17/73

the seeds of national unrest over two powerful movements that followed each other in

rapid succession: the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement. Both

movements would bring greater diversity to the private college campus and change the

nature of living and learning there.

The buildings that for the previous centuries had made many of the liberal arts

colleges what they were: close-knit, residential communities of values. This issue can be

described in this way, forty years ago historian Allan Nevins described the importance of

campus architecture in the institutional saga: One of the more difficult obligations of

these new institutions has been the creation of an atmosphere, a tradition, a sense of the

past which might play as important a part in the education of sensitive students as any

other influence. This requires time, sustained attention to cultural values, and the special

beauties of landscape and architecture. (Thelin, xxi). Taken from an example more

close to home, The Garnett Yearbooks 1952 edition describes the college fraternity

houses as representing concrete living evidence that Union not only provides for the

scholastic and cultural enlightenment of her students but also for their social education.

Reverend Gomes agrees with Thelin in terms of the impact that traditional and

historical structures of a college like in Harvards case, their main chapel or in Unions

case, the fraternal mansions, can influence its identity greatly. The result, he believes, has

not always ended up for the good. Gomes states:

17


18/73

If, in the felicitous phrase with which the president of Harvard confers the

several degrees in design, architecture helps to shape the space in which we live,

then simply by looking at so many of our older elite residential liberal arts

colleges we are able to imagine both what the founders intended to say about their

schools and what is now, for so many of them, the problem of that legacy(Gomes, 102).

This suggests that the culture of a society can transition rapidly with current events, but

the building of the campus and the traditions upheld underneath their esteemed roofs may

not always project an image for the schools identity thats convenient or even compatible

at that current time.

III: The legacy of culture wars of 1960, experimentation and reform of 1970s

The culture wars on many of the countrys larger research universities over the

issue of diversity and greater participation occurred because of events driving profound

shifts in Americas system of values, namely those espoused in the civil rights movement

and the anti-war movement ending in the Watergate scandal. The Watergate scandal

represented a rift in the moral infallibility attached to the highest levels of our government

administrators and this was reflected on the leadership of the college campuses as well.

Few institutions of higher education were spared from these culture wars.

Notions of civility, deference, and a treasured sense of continuity had fallen victim to

crises for relevance, engagement, and transformation. The small residential colleges,

18


19/73


20/73


21/73

Millet writes also that as in the past, the behavior of student leaders and some

student organizations continued to result in some adverse public comment and replied

that to the campus-wide governance, the preparations of regulations to prevent or control

disruption of the community required considerable debate and care (Millet, 253). Faculty

members, on the other hand, did not want students meddling in what were viewed by

them as purely faculty affairs such as policies and standards affecting faculty personnel

actions. These stakeholders as a body were accustomed to coming to their own consensus

on things such as degree requirements and curriculum and presenting their decisions to

the deans and the boards for consideration. The participation and criticism from student

representatives in a central forum where such issues were now considered struck them as

a diminution of their authority (Millet, 254).

Another major weakness in the development of campus wide governance

structures like this was the belief that the other overarching governing bodies for both

faculty and students could be dispensed with. For how could the faculty treat with

students as equals and still impose rules and regulations on their conduct that relegated

them as children? Furthermore, these students did not want their conduct limited without

the equal say in faculty conduct and curriculum. The result was often deadlock or an

agreement that both parties would stay out of each others camp as they teamed up against

the efforts of a common parent, the administration and the presidents office.

21


22/73

In an open participatory decision-making structure, the third major party, the

administrators found it necessary to spend a great deal more time and effort than in the

past explaining and justifying various support services, including auxiliary enterprises.

The college managements role in the delivery of support programs was now subjected to

a degree of student and faculty oversight and interest that had not existed in the decades

prior. There was even some record of how presidents and their administrative colleagues

claiming just how much more costly and less efficient rendering support services were

becoming as a result of this unwelcome type of interference. In The Encyclopedia of

Union College History, the shortcomings of the open participatory model enacted on our

campus at this time are recorded from the presidents office,

Our one-year trial of the new governance systemhas gone fairly well. It is

apparent, however, that is consumes time voraciously and that is has compounded

more than it has clarified the widespread confusion about authority, responsibility,

and accountabilityAdministration is unquestionably more difficult in the new

system in every way I can measure -President Martin in a report to the trustees,

June 1972.

Presidents and administrators found their hands tied during a time in which

faculty and students were determined to bring about politically and socially hostile

changes in their roles in the name of increased freedom and participation. It is important

to note from the close of this section is that college governmental changes and reforms

mirrored those felt on a national level and occurred alongside a cultural reform. It was a

movement that demanded the institutional leadership abandon the traditional stance of

22


23/73

moral guardians over student life and to vest its hope instead in increased tolerance,

dialogue and participation among all the stakeholders.

Never the less the question for these institutions still remained: would such a move

still preserve our identity and purpose? Who or what would fill the gap? At the time of

Millets writing, he did not foresee that most campuses fell short or fell back from

complete open participatory models, although he did comment that a major weakness of

this experimental model would be an abandonment of faculty and student senates outside

the all college senate (which Union never did, although we did abolish our all college

senate). The constant state of action, crises and reform in the 1960s and early 1970s

made it difficult for a necessary consensus to evolve into a system that could successfully

take the place of the original authority figures.

IV:The modern liberal arts college: The rise of student affairs and the

abandonment of facultyIn Loco Parentis roles.

By the 1980s, student movement within academic institutions had begun to roll

back. Helen Horowitz, in her book Campus Life, uses the examples of the killings at Kent

State University and Jackson State College in May of 1970 as a means to prove that

college students had indeed expressed a level of political unrest that had reached a

23


24/73

breaking point. Such events drew national attention, forcing the greater public to question

the social and political security and management of many of these institutions. When

tragedies, like those mentioned by Horowitz occur the institution itself must also re-

examine their current state of governance at that time.

John Millet, in his section titled The Future of Academic Governance,

highlights just how important effective management is for these institutions. Yet, prior to

being able to successfully reform or even administer sound policies back into these

colleges and universities, Millet states that there are basic grounding principles that must

be recognized an upheld in order to obtain such reform. First, Millet notes that academic

institutions are not a debating society, a legislative assembly or a recreational center.

Secondly, these institutions were enterprises established as a means for which one

could learn, as means to further improve ones self so as to positively effect a greater

community. Finally, Millet notes that during this time of social unrest and reform, there

was little communication and discussion of the successful application of campus wide

governance. Thus, if colleges wanted positive reform they would need to create a

structured political system that would be engaged in articulating and maintaining a

dialogue of campus wide governance (Millet, 258).

Millet defines fundamental ground rules for change, however, these ground rules

become difficult to apply to colleges for most find that their academic, social and political

networks have become so interdependent on the consensus with one another, such reform

24


25/73

easily escalates into a tedious challenge. For example, the learning process that often

occurs within a student residential environment and how this is managed should also

dictate the residential life and cultural values. What is an evident change being managed

effectively by our small institutions in theperception of quality of a elite, residential,

liberal arts learning experience. Less and less was this measured in the quality of the

degree a college produced, but rather how many prospective students and their parents

desired that degree and the price they were willing to pay for it. Colleges in line with

Millets emphasis on production, saw liberal education as a marketable product to

dispense. The size of the market determined the schools selectivity, and the level of

selectivity determined that institutions elite stature, and it is that stature which became a

hallmark of quality.

In regards to how a college fits into the market against its competitors, selectivity,

among other factors, is probably the most commonly used element in determining a

colleges degree of elite-ness in its identity. The fact that so many of these institutions

have been able to survive and even prosper during several decades of massive expansion

of low-cost public higher education can only be attributed to the belief among many

prospective students and their parents that small, private, residential liberal arts college do

in fact provide benefits not likely to be found in any other institution they compete with

for students and faculty.

25


26/73

One unique aspect that elite liberal arts colleges find have practical value in an

admissions and marketing sense is the fringe benefits of a degree from their particular

institution. Meaning, these elite institutions act a means for one to further their

educational and social life, as well as lay the foundation for career advantages are

associated with having a degree from these particular institutions (Astin, 80). The highly

selective or elite liberal arts college has a perceived advantage in quality on account of its

superior learning environment.

Hugh Hawkins, a Professor of History and American Studies at Amherst College,

wrote on The Making of the Liberal Arts College Identity how the private liberal arts

education was marketed more and more in providing a substantial increase in earning

power. No one could recall when careerism had been so power in liberal arts college.

My folks want to know what I can do if I major in your department? was a question

often heard. Between 1970 and 1987, the proportion of entering students who claimed

their goal for coming to school was a goal of being very well-off financially rose from

39 to 76 percent (Hawkins, 23). One of the most dramatic changes in college students

during the past three decades has been an increase on their materialistic values (Astin,

86).

In Astins conclusion, most of the effects of the private liberal arts college are

indirect. These environmental influences are what affects the community most, not the

26


27/73


28/73

the community. The cultural wars and reforms of the 1960s and 70s, greatly stirred the

moral character of students, faculty, and administrators. The students became more

empowered and experimental forms of democratic government were implemented during

this time period.

The policy changes that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s created a need for

the residential liberal arts college community to address questions facing the institutions

sense of civility and community. Though these factors impacted the structures of campus

power through history, the mission the residential community continued to draw from

remained more or less the same. The mission of the college, to train students to become

balanced, ethical leaders and change the world in which we live, remained constant even

in the face of cultural change. Unions coming of age and maturing politically indicates

our campus was influenced by the same historical trends. In the second chapter well

examine, Union through its unique history and how that has governed the politics of the

decision makers of our college.

A case study proving this will be the U2K committee as a relationship model on

how successful policy should be implemented on a campus to maintain quality and

prestige coming into the 21st

century. This is evidenced by the charge given to this

committee composed of influential members of the faculty, students, and administration.

It is stated in the first passages of the committees proposal for Residential and Social

Life at Union. The aim of the committee was, To propose a set of reforms that would

28


29/73

preserve the traditions of Greek life that are consistent with an academic community that

values open inquiry, seriousness of purpose, diversity of opinion, and a broad, equitable

choice of residential and social options.

The following historical and political analysis reveals how the U2K committee

constituted a microcosm of the most effective style of policy formation in a private,

residential, liberal arts college setting like ours. It involved some of the dedicated and

influential minds and leaders from all three camps, bringing them together in a

community of open discourse, serious inquiry and trusting relations and produced

forward thinking ideas that will change the higher education community both here and

around the nation. Indeed that is the only types of influence relationship that have

worked at colleges and it is exactly what happened with U2K and why the fertile ground

was laid for the idea and ideals behind the Minervas to take root and grow today.

29


30/73

CHAPTER TWO

The Garnet Revolution: A historical study and political analysis on

causes of the U2K Crises

There are two camps at Union, although not every person fits neatly into one or the

other. One camp ardently believes that the Greek system is a benefit to the campus, and

the other sees it as a detriment.

-Preliminary Report of the U2K Committee

The Garnet Revolution describes the latest in a series of progressive steps to

transform Union within the changing politics of the nation at large. While we cannot go

back to those turbulent days where the compromises and innovations originated, we can,

30


31/73

in this next chapter analyze the events which shaped the viewpoints of the separate camps

at this time so we may make more informed strategic policies in the present day.

In the years leading up to the Garnet Revolution, a culture war existed between

those who wanted change and those who did not. Specifically, it marked a constant

debate between the social cohort who had taken up residence in many Greek houses in

recent years and the faculty who taught there and the serious, intellectually focused

students of its day.

There were three distinct phases of political action during this time. First, was the

facultys resolution to move the Greeks to a sophomore rush and form a committee to

address the increasingly anti-intellectual social atmosphere growing there. The second

phase, coupled with the inability of the established governmental structure to produce a

cohesive plan to ensure the security of intellectual culture on the campus on their own,

was President Hull deciding to bring all the leaders of the three camps under one

committee dubbed, the U2K committee. The work of this committee was instrumental in

influencing the chain of events to formulate a new social policy to recommend to the

Board of Trustees. The third phase of actions occurred within the U2K committee as all

three parties, the faculty, students, and administrators discussed, debated, and built

consensus.

Amidst these challenges facing a modern campus, the students and the faculty

shared something closely in common when it came to the new order that was taking

31


32/73

shape within the decay of the old social system: both were engaged on campus in a

passionate quest for relevance. Both of their roles and purposes were in varying degrees

of identity crisis and looked to their leaders serving on the U2K committee for signs of

hope.

Before we begin, its important to clear up one of the most common

misconceptions of these events of the not so distant past which is the belief that the

formation of the recommendations of the U2K committee were part of an administrative

conspiracy to get rid of fraternities at Union College. Proponents of this view should note

following a serious examination of the reports and personal testimonies from those

involved revealed the opposite was true. U2K was, in all reality, nothing less an attempt

by certain members of the faculty, students, and administration on the behalf of the future

members of the college to save the best aspects of the Greek system here at Union that

was achieved despite great personal risk for all those involved in the controversial

endeavor.

To illustrate what the alternatives to reform were, Ill share the answers I received

from one of the interview questions that I asked most of the faculty and administrators

involved in my research which went, What do you expect would have happened had

President Hull not formed the U2K committee and sophomore rush was not enacted?

Alan Taylor, professor of mathematics and a U2K committee member told me, Oh

faculty would have done away with fraternities, Taylor said confidently, "again, were

32


33/73

talking influence. We have enough influence to do it. Theres no doubt in my mind in

terms of exerting influence in the administration and the board, you cant have the whole

faculty unhappy, nope. President Hull probably would have gone away during the

process; it would have been a serious thing (Taylor, 2007).

When I met with Dean Leavitt, the current Dean of students he echoed this

assessment of what was at stake, I suspect that the faculty would have forced the issue.

They would have ended up coming together and putting a resolution down for the

administration to take a final stand on the future of Greek Life at the college. That was

the way it was headed. It was headed for a showdown as to whether we were gonna keep

Greek life. And by that time I think there really were faculty who were committed to

seeing this through. So in a sense, what the President was trying to do was stave that

off. I pressed Dean Leavitt further and asked what he predicted would happen if the

President would not do something about the Greek dominated social system. What would

the faculty have to do? He answered, Well, you organize a vote of no-confidence in the

President. The idea is that theyd sort of take a stand against the administration with the

Board of Trustees that theyre so dissatisfied that they want a change. And that has

happened in the past.

Dan Lundquist, as the longest serving senior administrator on the Presidents

cabinet and as Dean of Admissions and Communications for the college, also shared with

33


34/73

me his predictions on what the alternative was to change: Its possible that the faculty

wouldnt have let the issue drop and they would have pushed it and pushed it until a

compromise might have been cut off and the issue might have gotten so volatile and so

hot that it might have ended the existence of Greeks. If the energy hadnt been shunted

off into the U2K and the house system, it probably would have just continued to fester and

I dont know how long it would have been sustained.

And finally, our new Dean of Campus Life, Tom McEvoy shared his predictions

on how different todays campus might be had it not been for the decisions made in those

crucial years, I think Union would really be risking its reputation as one of the more

selective colleges in the country. I think if the college had not taken stock of itself of

where it was at that moment in history and instead said, its gonna be status quo, I think

you would have had a student body that had flattened out in its potentialI think the

college would have been in a major funk.

Ive always believed that if you dont change, youre doomedI would doubt that

the college would be a major player right nowI doubt we would have attracted Steven

Ainley who cited the housing system as one of the reasons he cameI know I wouldnt be

here, thats for sure.

The question that follows is, on a modern liberal arts campus how was an issue

allowed to reach a high level of polarization within the community that the campus was

34


35/73

quickly approaching a crises? An analysis of the formative events and relations that

preceded the movement provides insight into the role of Unions history dating back

almost two centuries in defining the forces giving rise to U2K.

The evolution of the Greek system at Union:

Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz in her book, Campus Life, described the foundation of

Greek societies as the students political response to the repressive stance that was

common in many early colleges towards life outside the classroom. Horowitz attests to

the vision of our earliest alumni in starting this dynamic movement emerging as a general

trend in the organization of student culture.

In 1825 Union College was growing into the largest college in the nation. Its

student body reflected the range of its region, drawing the sons of upstate New York

Aristocrats along with the young men from the country and the new frontier towns. A few

prominent students confirmed their friendship by adopting the name Kappa Alpha,

choosing the watch key as an emblem, and surrounding the society in vaguely Masonic

ritual. By 1840 fraternities had spread to most New England Colleges and would take

solid root in the Midwest before 1850 (Horowitz, 29).

35


36/73


37/73

friendships, and loyalty to their alma mater were cultivated. The students and alumni of

the fraternities donated flagpoles to the school, gates to Jacksons Gardens, and instituted

in their private curriculum that taught social etiquette and style alongside the mandated

learning and singing of songs about Old Union, expressing their fond love and gratitude

to their home, the mother of all fraternities.

One of the chief supporters of the fraternities during the first half of the 19th

century were, in fact, the faculty members themselves, with at least one professor belong

to each house as an advisor along with mutually beneficial socializing after class. Happy

to see their students fed, trained and nurtured into leadership positions and taught to be

life loyal alums, the higher education community was happy to lend support to these

institutions as the college campus matured and grew. The major conventional power that

many of the fraternities (and later sororities developed) was an interstate network of

undergraduates and alumni across the country which soon formed into Grand Chapters

and national councils that could govern and coordinate the expansion, rules, and rituals of

the chapters. Large fraternities like Sigma Chi, a member of the Union Community since

1923, have grown to over 200 chapters and quarter million members, including alumni.

Taken collectively, Greek letter societies can take pride in being included among of a

roster of fraternal alumni that could make most of their host institutions blush with envy.

For over a century and a half, fraternities existed at Union in this way,

withstanding the ravages of time and change and increasingly becoming so important and

37


38/73


39/73


40/73

the 1960s and the death ofin Loco Parentis in the early 1970s, allowing their students

the ability to grow up during a time when the definition of what grown up at college

was supposed to be was no longer easily defined.Therefore, the Union students who

became Greeks, in the absence of suitable guidance and incentive to do otherwise, took

their lessons from whatever campus role models that were to be found among the

upperclassmen and alumni who stayed connected with the chapters. Students who were

responsible for a lot of the negative activities also learned that what was legal or illegal

did not determine right or wrong on the campus when it came to the social life as many of

the students have not properly been engaged by faculty in intimate conversations about

life outside the classroom. While attempting to allow young adults distance to

experimentation with different modes of living, to try out ideas and insights free of adult

domination, the faculty had moved from a developmentally healthy distancing to a

developmentally detrimental virtual abandonment (William & Naylor 88).

It is not clear to this day if the school ever built consensus on the trajectory of

their Greek organizations they had fostered for so long would take after going co-ed.

While heirs to an impressive legacy and network of resources, most Greek leaders have

proved either unable or unwilling to translate these terrific opportunities and resources to

proactive ends for their chapters advancement and continued survival of a quality

standard on campus. Proper standards of quality programming never appeared to be

40


41/73


42/73

logistically by the faculty and administration. The Greek system at Union College was

gradually becoming a system without direction.

By the 1990s, with the student affairs office and residential life eclipsing their

historical pre-eminency and the faculty and alumni distancing themselves from

organizations, the houses and their societies that received the next generation of

unassuming Union students were isolated from external support as the quality of their

membership became compromised by students who had little interest or incentive to run

against the grain of the social system that had evolved over the past 30-40 years. The three

main houses left in the middle of campus were the last of over a dozen mansions on the

campus grounds and in the adjoining neighborhoods that had either been sold, shut down,

torn down, or just plain abandoned in the past two decades. By 1996, the Delta Phi house,

home to Unions second oldest fraternity was boarded up. It needed a million dollars in

repairs to be saved from being condemned. On the other side a campus, the porch of the

Alpha Delta Phi house, which had for years overlooked Payne Gate, the traditional

entrance to the campus, was ready to collapse. Those freshman that entered these lonely

buildings as pledges in 1998 had no idea that they were among the last cohorts of a

residential system that had dominated the social skyline of the campus for over a century

and a half and would soon be returning to the fringes of campus from whence it came.

What the remaining fraternities came to lack in physical stature during this time,they more than made up for in influence on the minds of many students who seek a

42


43/73


44/73

The dominance of this type of institutionalized persona was not the only dispute

that faculty had with the Greek societies on campus. Their relations had come

increasingly strained due to several factors. Even though the administration supported

these parties open to most everyone by allowing their students to host them with little

penalty for underage drinking, there was still dispute over the selectivity of the

organizations themselves, the strategically centralized location in which this all was going

on, and there was the lingering aspect of hazing and abuse that, if and when it surfaced on

a college campus, would be splashed across national headlines. Professor Taylor, looking

back, remarked how this behavior was observed by the faculty at Union, It was a huge

thingwe could pretend it wasnt there but it wasonce the awareness came up, people

said, What are we thinking? Come on, this is the 1990s.Meanwhile on Unions

campus, in its smaller yet more concentrated form, fraternity and sorority pledges were

showing up in teachers classrooms reeking of alcohol or smelling from not being able to

bathe during certain pledge periods.

Dean Leavitt shared these examples with me as reasons for faculty building

consensus against the status quo. The biggest complaint that you were hearing was the

pledging process was just plain interfering too much with students academics and it was

going on during the first year that they were here when students were taking these

44


45/73

required courses, like freshman precept. So there was this concentrated effect at certain

times of the year when you know, a lot of them were zoned out, He said jokingly.

The other thing, there is always an element in the faculty that feels that Greek

organizations, because of their selectivity, their exclusiveness tend to be kind of elitist

and to select certain types of people. The I only wanna be with people who share my

values, kind of feeling And it goes against a lot of the values faculty try to promote

these are all based on stereotypes of course, but I think a lot of those stereotypes were

there (Leavitt, 2007).

Lack of discretion and oversight on the part of the organizations who sponsored

this behavior among their members actually resulted in many pledges proudly telling

their professors that they were late or missed their classes due to a pledge event, much in

the same fashion that a varsity athlete might ask to be excused for an athletic obligation.

Something that characterizes most academic communities, Dean Lundquist said

to me while discussing faculty attitudes towards the Greek-members, I call it the itch

that cant be scratched, that professors are professional question-askers, I think its gotta

be a challenge for men and women who are professional intellectuals to see American

adolescent kids regardless of their GPAs, acting out. While Lundquist is not a faculty

member himself, his years of experience leading Unions admissions program has brought

him up-close and personal with many facets of Unions academic community and our

45


46/73

peer institutions. He went on to say, I gotta believe that there are people who have

devoted their lives to their disciplines, and if theyre in the wrong mood, what an insult to

have someone coming in with a hangover or falling asleep in class and I think that rightly

or wrongly that the frats got tagged as the bad guy. Lundquist stated with some

sympathy, Whether or not anybody liked fraternities or not, because undergraduate

fraternities were and are the locus of underage drinking, whether they deserved it more

than kids getting a six-pack on the floor at West College. In the court of public opinion

at Union College and elsewhere, fraternities were easy piatas to hit,and so they did.

Whether in perception or reality, it was embarrassing for the faculty to be shown

up by these social clubs. It seemed that within a matter of months from stepping on

campus, a freshman and eventually sophomore male could have more influence on the

students minds than the faculty. These could become very challenging and eventually

threatening factors to a faculty member who has dedicated their life to the profession.

Steve Leavitt, was a former professor of Anthropology at Union and described his

perspective on the faculty versus the social situation in this way, The faculty dynamic

has to do with the quality of their life. The quality of their life has to do with whether or

not they have chosen for their life mission something that makes a difference. So for

them, having an impact on their students is a way for them to make a difference in the

world. Therefore, the students need to regard what the faculty does as central to why

46


47/73

theyre here. And anything that takes away from that, that you are not a central part of

our life, makes faculty very anxious. Cause theyre like, to be totally flippant about it,

Why have I decided to devote my life to a bunch of spoiled brats who want to waste their

life partying away so that they can get their Union degree so that I make no difference. I

dont have any impact on them. What a waste of my life. So its a visceral thing with

faculty. In fairness to the poor beleaguered Union students, I think a lot of faculty think

that they do make a big difference, and a lot of students say that. So I dont think the

overall situation is really that bad(Leavitt, 2007).

For many professors, though, enough was enough. In the spring of 1998, leaders

in the faculty senate accused the Greeks of being detrimental to the intellectual life of

freshmen students and proposed a vote that passed almost unanimously for a movement to

sophomore rush. The Student Affairs Council, the leading policy body on student affairs

composed of a student-majority membership, received the recommendation from the

faculty and rejected it in a 5-4 vote. The issue was defeated by the very governance

structure the faculty had designed several years before. Not to be deterred, several

professors threatened they would take effective action to abolish the Greek system and

those who harbored it from campus if the schools leadership did not take action to set

things right. Professor Taylor assured me that the faculty were not in any sense backed

into a corner by the split SAC vote sending back their recommendation for sophomore

47


48/73

rush. I think what people didnt realize is it was fragile enough that if even nudged

slightly, the faculty were on the verge of saying, this is the end of the Greek system, this

is it. Yeah, the Greek system came very close to disappearing at that time. Faculty

attitudes and perspectives are succinctly captured in the concluding passage that was

published at the end of the summer in 1998 by a committee formed by the president to

look into the growing controversy:

Union has many proud and long standing traditions. In 2000 Kappa Alpha will

celebrate its 175th anniversary, a milestone that surpasses the founding date of most

American colleges. However, there is one Union tradition that is older, and far more

important. For 203 years Union has been shaping minds and characters by bringing

together cohorts of bright, capable students and a gifted faculty. Through exposure to one

another, to important books and ideas, and to a regimen of scholarly discipline, we have

sustained an outstanding academic enterprise. However, these two traditions - Greek life

and the educational and developmental imperatives of the College - now appear to be at

odds and must be reconciled. During one of the open debates, a student gave a litany of

good things fraternities do, and inquired in a Rodney Dangerfield manner, 'Why can't we

get respect?' A wag in the audience retorted, 'Why can't you be respectable?' Neither got

it entirely right, but the example shows both how close and far the two sides are from one

48


49/73

another. We believe that this community working together can bridge the

gap.(Conclusion: Report from the Committee on Sophomore Rush August 27, 1998 )

Dean Leavitt, when I interviewed him, made it clear that by not initiating an

Greek-led solution to the matter, the students at Union at the time had internationalized

the conflict and brought college intervention (especially in the form of U2K

recommendations) into the heart of the Greek system. Not only that, but lack of

discretion with activities that involved hazing or underage drinking in their organizations

had made college leaders appear weak and foolish for trusting them. Therefore, their

behavior alienated the people whose opinions in the higher education community

President Hull and the Board of Trustees relied on most, this was a contributing factor to

why the students who were Greek members and their supporters were not prepared to

prevent the intervention. One can see here in the continued presence of relatively

unsupervised parties, and the continuation of non-discrete hazing practices that the nature

of campus life can still be described as being governed by self-help. Without

deterrence or mentorship, students entering and learning on Unions campus become

disconnected from the influence of the intellectual mission of the college.

The Administrations Perspective on the U2K decision:

49


50/73

Gathering Consensus and Building Trust

If Union is to move to the next level of excellence, we must change the social

culture at the College. Although many might argue that fraternities should be eliminated,

as have several colleges with which we compete, I believe that it is not the existence of

fraternities that harms Union, but their dominance. Simply stated, fraternities, in my

judgment, can be a part of Union's fabric in the future, but they should not be the force on

campus that they have been for the past 175 years.

-Roger Hull to the Members of the Board of Trustees, October 26, 2000

As one can see from President Hulls remarks, the problem was not to determine

whether the situation that the Greek houses were involved in should be addressed, but

rather would the college, in an attempt to undue the mistakes of past policy makers, get

wrapped up an a contentious crises that could destroy relationships on campus.

President Hull called on Dean Alford and others to form a special committee to

look into the committee on sophomore rushs recommendations on the future of social

life on campus in an entirely new and separate committee that could eventually report to

the trustees directly. Student government organizations, namely the Pan-Hellenic Council

for the Sororities and the Inter-Fraternity Council were asked to pick their representatives

50


51/73


52/73

to actually deal with the social problem. So, everybody is manipulating everybody else

(Alford, 2007).

Fear and assumptions are effective levers of influence when the campus

leadership is disconnected from a definite set of campus values. When this is the case

with our college leadership, we can hardly be surprised when administrators of a

community without a well-defined sense of direction, can be easily be influenced by

students, alumni, and powerful faculty (William & Naylor, 59).

Also influencing the administrations decisions, as it had in past crises with

Union, were the national trends taking place across Americas system of higher education.

These were issues of rising competition, apathy among students and many alums, and

increasingly uncontrollable flows of information and media coverage where perception of

one stakeholder becomes the reality for another.

Fred Alford, Unions Dean of Students at the time, commented on the influence of

these perceptions on the direction of policy, Another thing that was in the fertilizer of all

of this was the notion that-heres this good little college thats ranked, I dont know, #38

in the U.S. News and World Report. I think its better than that; most everybody thought

it was better than that. There are notions of self-esteem and ambition rolled up and this,

but it was about, How is Union going to develop the respect it deserves in the larger

academic community? And the U.S. News and World Report is one of those things that

52


53/73


54/73


55/73

Suzie Benack, from Psychology. Representing the Greeks were Kate Stephanik, Noah

Truger, Matt Barry and others that appeared throughout or served on sub-committees.

The members of the U2K committee included leaders chosen by the Greeks to represent

them and the committee had gained the blessings of the President, the Dean of Students,

the Dean of Faculty as well. What follows is a brief overview of the models governing

these decision makers surrounding the U2K discussions and their policy formation.

At the beginning, there didnt seem like any way they were gonna be on the same

page, Allen Taylor a faculty representative on the U2K Committee told me in our

interview. In debating their options, some professors on the U2K committee were

pessimistic You absolutely could not go into the 21st

century with the castles in the

center of campus-reserved males. I could picture bringing my daughter on campus and

pointing to those buildings and saying, well, those are residences, but you cant ever live

in them.As Ive said before, she would have had a quick, two-word answer for me

(Taylor, 2007). The students on the committee, through serious discussion and debate,

made sure that the faculty and administrators they worked with realized which policy

actions would, in their opinion, kill the Greek chapters on Unions campus.

Alan Taylor recalled the unifying effect that all the hard introspection and

association had on the committee as it matured, It was a long time building up the trust,

as it should have been. In the end, you really had a group that was not just looking at

55


56/73

what was happening now, but looking 25 years ahead when the faculty would be retired

and the students would have long graduated and saying, we have to do whats best. This

is not really going to be affecting us as individuals. I have enormous respect for them,

especially for the students.

During the debate on what to do next, they made sure that they outline the goals to

achieve on campus. The three that were decided upon were:

1.) A need for the Greek system to disassociate itself from the supporters of

regressive activities i.e. those groups of students that engage in alcohol abuse

and hazing.

2.) Gender equity in housing and equal access to social space.

3.) A need for faculty to participate more in out-of class intellectual life of the

campus and administrative support to make this happen.

The Fred Alford decided that their first objective was to come up with an

alternative that would provide for all three. I was looking to do something to stir-up, to

break this monolith that is the Greek dominance of the social life there. I was looking for

it, and a lot of faculty members were looking for it(Alford, 2007). This alternative was,

in very rough terms, the original idea for the Minerva Housing System in effect on

campus today. Dean Alford briefed the committee on a scenario, which would involve

moving almost every fraternity out of stand-alone housing and establishing a new

56


57/73

residential system within the old buildings with equal access to every member of the

Union learning community. As a feeling of mutual respect developed among all the

representatives, the work to develop the recommendation represented in some ways the

physical embodiment and in some ways the programmatic embodiment of the way that a

residential college ideal defines undergraduate education as having a curricular and co-

curricular part. The steering committee met on a weekly basis and also got to socialize

together at Fred Alfords home as equal participants in a of serious discourse and

exchange of ideas on how to better the community in which they lived.

The best policy for social and residential reform was obviously not easy to agree

upon, however, considering the unpopularity of change among many influential students

connected to the U2K members. The faculty members and administration had to muster

all of their finesse on the committee to compromise with student leaders in government

that they would need- and should accept the committees proposal if Greek organizations

were to have any sort of future on Unions campus. There was a student, Noah Truger,

Dean Alford explained, Noah was a Psi U brother and it was a very difficult thing for

him because fraternities demand a lot of loyalty. He was the president of Psi U and he

understood that if the Greek system was going to survive at Union then this was probably

the smartest thing for him to do.

57


58/73

Kate Stephanick called how all the members of the committee, though coming

from different perspectives and fields of experience on the campus, were united over time

around their belief in the value their recommendations would bring to the school.

It was demanding of all of us, Kate recalled, I joke with people that I met my

husband on the committee, that wasnt coincidentalwe together constantly and we were

kind of bonded in a wayand the faculty were dealing with criticism from fellow faculty

members too because they were afraid that not enough was going to change, that this was

all going to some big sham where you appoint a committee and nothing changes. So, we

were all kind of bonded in that I think(Stephanick, 2007).

It was this conviction that lead to almost all of the leaders present to signing and

adopting the recommendations of the U2K committee. In the fall of 2000, the U2K

committee published their preliminary report in the Concordy that stunned the campus

community. It called for almost every remaining fraternal mansion to be turned over to

the college to make way for the largest social change on campus since the college went

coed about 30 years before. The entire committee then presented itself before the Board

of Trustees and answered their questions regarding the situation at hand. Kate Stephanik

and her colleagues detailed the proceedings of the committee over the past three years.

On the 26th of October, Roger Hull addressed the members of the Board of

Trustees as he endorsed U2Ks recommendation.

58


59/73

During the past 10 years, we have transformed this campus and our environs

dramatically; we have broadened and expanded significantly our academic programs; we

have addressed a variety of technological and educational challenges; and we have met

our admissions and financial goals. While beginning to create social options for students,

though, we remain locked socially in a nineteenth century model. It is time to create the

model for the twenty first century. Just as 30 years ago, alumni argued that coeducation

would ruin Union; so today some alumni will make the same argument with regard to this

proposal. It did not take 30 years to prove critics of coeducation wrong, and it will not

take 30 years to do so with regards to the U2K recommendations.

Back on campus, the students strongly opposed the new plan. People were acting

like the Greek system was being eliminated and then that the whole system was rigged,

Kate expressed to me, I mean, no one was questioning our participation on the

committee prior to the report, but once it didnt say what they wanted it to saypeople

were just grasping at strawsthe faculty had to compromise much more on the committee

than the students did.

The Board of Trustees formed a special committee to review the U2K. Pressed

against a corner, the IFC and Pan-Hellenic Council responded with a recommendation of

their own for reform within the social system. Apparently, it was too little too late.

During the final days of the U2K crises, the more moderate chapters were scrambling to

59


60/73

forestall the conflict with a flurry of phone calls from alumni to the President, personal

visits from alumni, and angry opinion editorials in the Concordy. The U2K committee

was receptive and supportive.

The students had an incredibly strong voice, Kate recalled in our interview,

And that was the part that was so frustrating was that once that all this came out and

people saw that fraternities were going to be moving out of their houses, I mean the

Greek system ended up dodging a huge bullet because of the students on the committee.

Compared to what could have happened, what was happening at other schools and what

was on the table, this was a very minor change, certainly yes, a big change for Unionwe

managed to keep the Greek system exactly the same except for a few moving from their

residences.

Around the same time that the U2K committee had committed its plan to the

Board of Trustees, student protest became widespread on the campus. Kate and Noah

took the beating most because they were the head of the Greek system and the Greek

system felt that they had sold out the Greeks somehow where in point of fact theysaved

the Greek system! Professor Taylor stated emphatically, If it were not for them the

Greek system on the campus would be long gone right now. The realization that their

situation was desperate was evident in their proposal as well as the current leaderships

willingness to reform in a bid to forestall losing exclusive ownership over the three

60


61/73

mansions that their organizations were housed in, was evident in the sweeping proposals

presented.

To President Hull, the U2K committee, and eventually the Board of Trustees, the

unhealthy dynamic of party politics among the current houses was unacceptable and

there was no evidence from the preceding months from the IFC or Pan-Hellenic Council

leaders that they could reason with the undergraduate members currently living in the

Greek chapters on their own. Collective and institutional action had to be taken. The

Board of Trustees and the President himself had made it clear that they would not accept

the status quo as it was now. Historical precedence was not enough for any institutions

survival on campus. This reality applied to the academic divisions as well. Engineering,

for example, underwent substantial change.

Throughout our work, we have been guided by one principle ... to determine the

best course of action that will allow Union College to be among the nation's most highly

rated and respected liberal arts colleges. To achieve this, Union must attract premier

students and faculty, which in turn requires that it provide top-notch facilities and

programs and a cultural environment that nourishes intellectual pursuit and academic

excellence as well as a fulfilling social life.

Union College Board of Trustees

61


62/73

Despite what students might have thought at the time, the current nature of the

social life outside the classroom was a vital interest to the stakeholders of Union College,

from the professors, to the Deans to the Board of Trustees. The Chairman of the Board

reviewed the report on the current state of campus life and concluded that a new

committee would be appointed to determine the outcome of the recommendation.

However, if this committee was in favor of keeping Greek life a part of the campus they

must prove how Greek life was an asset to the college. The Report of the Board of

Trustees Special Committee on Student Social Life and Housing, once published, made

it clear that in order to remain competitive, the culture of the campus had to change. The

judgments of the committee, accurately identified the key vehicles of influence and

persuasion related to student social life that block Union being better-perceived among

the most highly-regarded liberal arts colleges in the United States:

*Virtually all Union social life seems to revolve around alcohol; though three-

quarters of our students are not of legal drinking age, alcohol is easy to come by and

largely unsupervised within the fraternities that host parties and other gatherings; in

view of this, it is not hard to understand how other social activities have difficulty taking

root; the consequence is a very one-dimensional social scene, especially among

underclassmen, that excludes those who don't wish to participate and precludes

alternatives;

62


63/73

*There is considerable evidence that the party scene interferes with intellectual

pursuit and academic achievement of many students; cultural norms and peer pressures

exist that discourage 'intellectualism,' particularly outside the classroom and in social

settings;

*Many students indicate they wish the social scene were different, but do not

(or do not know how to) mobilize to change it; they don't seem to realize how many others

feel similarly; there is a sense of powerlessness to change things;

*We (the administration, the faculty, trustees, parents) have accepted the heavy

drinking paradigm of current students as a given of 'modern' college life as if we are

helpless, sending the message that we don't care enough about our kids . . . or our college

. . . to strive for something better.

(Report of the Board of Trustees' Special Committee on Student Social Life and

Housing, Feb. 15th, 2001)

In 2001, the Board of Trustees published The Plan for Union, which would be an

official school policy approach to reforming and strengthening the quality of residential

and social life on campus. Steve Leavitt, Dean of Students, described the influence these

competitive values have on administrative policy, Ultimately what were all caring for

here is an institution of higher learning. Thats what its all about. And we pride

ourselves as being one of the better ones in the country. And we are all committing our

63


64/73


65/73

kind of place it is, how new ideas are accepted and put into practice, how one makes

his/her needs known and how easy it is for someone to have his/her needs met, what is

seen, heard, and felt by people who are part of the community, the feeling that parents,

prospective students, and faculty candidates get when they visit and, at a deeper level,

what these sorts of things imply about Union's values, about what is encouraged and

discouraged, and about what is neglected or overlooked. As a consequence, while our

required judgments are focused primarily on Greek life and the proposals of U2K for a

house system, this report will offer some observations and recommendations that might

seem at first glance to be beyond the scope of our charge. We see them as being all of one

piece, for the real issue is the nature of Union's social systems and their relationship to

the mission and purposes of the College.

-Report of the Board of Trustee Special Committee on Student Social Life and Housing,

2001

Over the months that followed, a House Implementation Committee was then to

be formed and staffed with many of the most dedicated professors involved in U2K and

included some of the finest young minds entering the institution following the proposal.

A new Dean of Residential Life was hired to spearhead the implementation and shepard

the fledgling movement, Dean McEvoy. The Minervas, as the house system would come

be known as, was hailed as one of the most innovative movements coming out of higher

65


66/73

education today, and would eventually be written in the Chronicle of Higher Education as

one of the boldest attempts of an institution to refine itself in the 21st century.

CONCLUSION

In review of the material presented in my research, three different models are

available in judging how a college like Union governs itself. The nature of the people

involved, the nature of the organizations involved, or the nature of the relationships

between stakeholders involved.

In the first model, those who would hold the type of student, faculty, or

administrator as the principle source of political behavior would then naturally conclude

that a higher quality of student or faculty are the most essential to achieving the type of

66


67/73


68/73

more radical, rogue chapters operating out of small houses on Seward place and Alpha

chapters operating out of stately mansions, a few with thousands held in trust in the bank

by some dedicated alumni alongside quality weekly programming and organization.

There were also chapters that operated effectively out of the basements of Fox and

Davidson, some were dry, and some were wet up to their ears. There are multi-cultural,

co-educational, and non-residential Greek organizations, although small in number, that

function healthily on campus. These organizations were never designed to be completely

uniform and there were many who did not stand alongside each other in opposition to

reform.

This period of time in Unions history shows exactly why the nature relationships

as the system of governance over academic and extracurricular life is a fundamental cause

of conflict. For so long, the academic community at Union attempted to educate in the

absence of consensus, or even arguments about consensus. Ultimately, this analysis

concludes that the most effective political model for Union is vested in a combination of

three systems or models: the nature of the individual, the nature of the department or

organization, and the nature relationships governed by the institutions value system;

eventually reveals that the most universally consistent model for explaining the source of

crises on our campus the acute lack a universally accepted system of values to incentives

consensus on campus issues.

68


69/73

This is not to say that the nature of individual quality among campus members

and their organizations or interest groups are rejected outright in this theory. All three

models interact with one another. Therefore, while the nature of the individuals and the

nature of the organizations on campus may be the immediate cause of crises on campus,

the structure of the campus community centering on the overall mission and value system

is the underlying origin of conflict on this campus. All sides failed to accurately relate to

the other.

The affects of this lesson on policy formation are summed up in The Abandoned

Generation: An institutions purpose changes in subtle, unstated ways. Change is often

necessary for an institution to survive in a changed world, but that change ought to be

intentional and openly discussedThe absence of an explicit, functioning educational

philosophy implies a certain lack of discipline on the part of the faculty and senior

administration, a lack of commitment to a specific set of principles. This lack of

commitment soon becomes obvious to new faculty members, students, and nonacademic

employees. Such an institution is easily manipulated by competitors, students, and

alumni (William & Naylor, 62).

In evaluating their actions to reform the school, the administrations strategy of

appealing to the Union students in societies to reform themselves while allowing the

current social arrangement to continue had not worked due to a more immediate

69


70/73

perceived pay-off from partying that outweighs reform. There might be those who, in

hindsight, would claim that the administration and faculty, in their attempt to reduce the

dominance of the fraternity system, had in fact failed to remove the dominance of their

party politics because they attempted a legislative solution rather than a relational

solution in a co-curricular sense.

While the U2K committees open forums, publications, and participation leading

up to the recommendation before the Board of Trustees were procedurally correct the

faculty and college officials did not have an adequate understanding of the circumstance

of the higher education system that the current Greek-member student and his cohorts

saw themselves in. The average student coming Unions campus at that time and their

understanding of their role in the institutional mission or lack thereof was the direct result

of the disconnected nature of individuals and their organizations here. Nothing better

illustrates the compartmentalization that has occurred in college and universities than

the separation that exists between undergraduate and student life (food, housing, and

social life) and undergraduate academic life. Student life and academic life will never be

integrated unless the administration is seriously committed to making it happen (Naylor,

76).

Without a guaranteed sense of their role in the campus community at large,

students, faculty, and administrators will all look to their own defenses as they hash out

their purpose of existence on this campus. Again, the problem lies not in human nature or

70

8/14/2019 Campus Politics Lit. Review

Campus Politics Lit. Review & Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Campus Politics Lit. Review & Analysis