SGA approves first-year rush IHC-endorsed bill seeks to expand social house program

Author: Megan O'Keefe

On Jan.16, the Student Government Association Senate (SGA) approved a proposal that would allow first-year students to join a social house during their second semester at Middlebury College.

The bill, authored by Inter-House Council (IHC) President Kris Burfitt'05 and sponsored by SGA President Andrew Jacobi '05, was passed in a vote of 13 to two, with one abstention.

The subcommittee on social houses is considering the bill and is expected to make a recommendation to the Community Council on Feb.14. A vote in the Council will determine a recommendation to College President Ronald Liebowitz on the policy.

The "First Year Social House Membership Proposal" bill calls for inviting students to "rush any semester beginning with their second semester of their First Year" and seeks to allow student members to live in social houses beginning the "first semester of their sophomore year." Current College policy stipulates that students are ineligible to join a social house until the their sophomore year and may not live in a social house until Winter Term of that year.

A similar bill, authored by former SGA president Sam Rodriguez '04, was overwhelming defeated in the Senate last spring. Unlike the previous version, however, the reincarnated bill is endorsed by the IHC, which includes the presidents and vice-presidents of all five social houses. Said Burfitt, "I had heard interest in the possibility of freshmen being able to rush and pledge early in the semester, and it was an initiative I chose to pursue. I brought it up to the IHC, and after some discussion, they agreed to support me."

A leaflet distributed to SGA members by Burfitt, a member of Omega Alpha (Tavern), and IHC Vice President and Kappa Delta Rho (KDR) member Laura Lindel '04.5 entitled "The IHC Community's Internal Perspective" introduced the IHC's support of the bill, noting, "While there isn't necessarily something wrong with the Social House system as it stands, expanding the option of membership to a broader range of students would help not only the student body as a whole."

According to the bill's rationale, opening up rush and pledge to first-years would serve the student body by curbing drinking at off-campus parties or in unregulated dorm rooms. Additionally, the bill seeks to "enhance" social options available to first-years by offering them access to "unrealized" social house activities like "barbeques, trips, study groups, concerts, community service and intramural teams."

Senate debate over the bill raised concerns about possible alienation of Feb classes from second semester first-years who may be too occupied with rush and pledge to mix with the new students. Additionally, concerns were raised over whether the bill will simply allow the social houses to fill beds and raise more money through the collection of dues.

While Burfitt said that the bill focuses on social advantages, Jacobi noted that the bill will also help social houses meet their housing quotas. "Smaller houses like Tavern often have problems filling their large houses, and the penalties for failing to do so have become very harsh. Allowing sophomores to live there would remedy this problem," he said.

First-year Senator Jake Cohen voted in favor of the bill because it "will give those mature and dedicated freshman the opportunity to actually pledge." He noted, "One of the benefits for the social houses may be filling quotas, but rest assured, it is not the purpose of this bill. I like the idea of extending the offer of rushing to freshmen."

Cook Commons Senator Elizabeth Schaumberg '07 abstained from voting on the bill, explaining, "I hadn't had a chance to talk to my constituents about it." Schaumberg, who opposes the bill, said that "a significant amount of more communication should have been had" prior to a Senate vote. Schaumberg continued, "It would have been nice to have a greater dialogue. I don't think we considered all of the implications thoroughly."

Additionally, concerns have been raised about possible increase in alcohol consuption and abuse if first-years are permitted to join social houses. According to Dean of Student Affairs Ann Hanson, alcohol is a definite concern in relation to changes in the rush timeline. "First-year students are typically the ones at most risk for drinking," said Hanson, who questions what additional pressures may be added by social house membership.

Schaumberg also expresed concern about alcohol use. "They can say as much as they want to that rush and pledge are dry events, but the main concern is what happens with rush and pledge are over. First-years are still inexperienced in college life and are still getting acclimated to a different way of living," she observed.

In their presentation to the SGA, Burfitt and Lindel distributed an abbreviated list of rush timelines at other Colleges and Universities. While the list indicates that a vast majority of schools allow membership in "Greek-type" organizations before Middlebury College, the list also reveals that more than half of NESCAC schools do not have such organizations.

The presentation also included a list of perceived concerns with the bill and the "reality" perceived by the IHC that diminishes these worries.

The list of concerns includes the fact that "second semester freshmen haven't had enough time to acclimate to life on campus" and that the earlier pledge may "deny [first-years] the opportunity to form bonds within their class" and "detract from involvement in other student organizations."

The reality section emphasizes "valuable relationships developed through the rush in pledge process" and "the rush and pledge process is of a limited timespan so as to easily allow students to maintain existing friendships and build new ones.

Schaumberg, while noting that the information was well presented, expressed dissention. "I don't that after one semester [first-years] have had enough time to fully assimilate into College life."

Assistant Dean of Student Affairs and IHC Advisor Karen Guttentag declined to comment on the initiative. Similarly, IHC Senator Michael Villarello, who is away for Winter Term was not present for the Senate vote, declined to comment.

Though the bill is controversial, Community Council members have hesitated to express an opinion on the proposal before hearing the recommendation of the social house subcommittee. Ann Hanson says she will have open-mind, noting, "It's hard to judge from conservation how people will vote."

-- Additional reporting by Andrea Gissing