STAFF EDITORIAL A Time to Revise and Regroup

Author: [no author name found]

The social house system at Middlebury College is an important part of the Middlebury community. It offers outlets for social interaction for all students and has shown, especially this year, that social house members are committed to actively engaging themselves in the community through volunteer work and similar public displays. With this in mind, The Campus editorial board supports Community Council's decision to put Alpha Delta Phi (ADP) on one semester of probation, the other alternative being the termination of the house.

Included in this decision is the Community Council initiative to revise its policy for the review of social and academic interest houses. Although this modified policy is not set in stone, it adheres to many of the recommendations that The Campus requested earlier in the year regarding making the review process more understandable to those it affects. Most importantly, the proposed policy will make it clear what actions by social or academic interest houses warrant termination, provisional status or continuation with no stipulations.

By directly stating which actions constitute termination — showing a lack of respect for College property by exceeding dorm damage levels or violating the College's hazing policy — the revised policy hold the houses more accountable for their actions and leaves no room for questions as to the decisions of the Council in the future.

This being said, the review process itself must be further streamlined, allowing for more transparency of the system with more dialogue between the subcommittee reviewing the houses and house leadership. Currently, the three levels of status are not clearly defined in the Handbook, and are only fully explained in the final recommendations given to the houses at the end of the review process. A complete definition of each status should be included in any revised language. Additionally, The Campus questions the legitimacy of holding a social house with a large membership accountable on the same level, for problems such as dorm damage and excess alcohol citations, as, for example, a smaller academic interest house. The largest social houses have by far the most flow of students coming into its common spaces, therefore making it much more likely that dorm damage or citations will occur. To remedy this, we suggest a qualitative review as well as the quantitative process that will place the each individual house in the broader context of the social house system.

Although being placed on one semester of probation seems like a setback, the fact that the Council is allowing the current leadership and membership of ADP to continue to have regular meetings to address the areas to be addressed is encouraging, as it allows the house to take an active stance to fulfill the requirements of the Council.Furthermore, ever since the new leadership under President Bob Wainwright '03 took effect in January, ADP has taken strides to address many of the issues that the Council cited in its review, including increasing community service initiatives and specifically fostering a strong working relationship with the facilities management staff to decrease dorm damage. One of the difficulties of the review process is that it did not take this into account in its final evaluation, as the overall review ended as Wainwright began his term in office.

ADP has shown that it can make positive changes. This must be continued next semester, as the house will have to address all of the Council's recommendations to continue to be a presence at the College. The fact that four of the six social houses have been continued without any major stipulations, especially since some of them have been on provisional status in the past, shows that it is possible for the College's social houses to correct their problems. We encourage ADP, and the house system as a whole, to take the review process seriously and to realize that their place at Middlebury College hinges on complying to the