Editorial

Author: [no author name found]



In the Dark



As a part of its annual review process, Community Council spent its last two sessions discussing the future of Middlebury College's social houses and academic interest houses for the upcoming academic year. Meanwhile, the broader college community learned little about these proceedings - namely because they occurred behind closed doors. During both meetings, the Council entered into "executive session," barring non-Council members - including Campus reporters - from observing the discussion and mandating that Council members remain silent about the topics and content of the discussion.

Community Council's secrecy in these recent discussions indicates a disheartening lack of transparency. It is all the more bewildering that the larger college community has been kept in the dark considering that the annual review process seems like an a key opportunity for the entire college community to take a closer look at how these institutions are performing on our campus. Did Community Council members speak more frankly about the current state of social houses and academics interest houses than the rest of the College community should be allowed to hear?

The early difficulty suffered by Kappa Delta Rho (KDR) in recruiting enough members to live in their house next year was surely troubling and stressful for the social house's members, but this seems to be no reason to prevent the larger college community from gaining information about the state KDR and the College's other social houses. It is discouraging that awareness about the entire Middlebury community is being stiffled beacause of some newly established notion that all students and community members do not have the right to know about the state of other groups on campus.

Students talk amongst themselves about the state of "alternative" living options on campus and stand only to gain from being informed on the way that college administrators and a select group of fellow students evaluate these types of institutions too. The more knowledge students have about the College and its programs, the more able they are to engage in intelligent debate and serious conversation about life at the College.

The notion that Community Council proceeding and recommendations should be kept private until President Liebowitz has reached a decision on any issue is setting members of the Middlebury community who stand outside of this inner circle up for isolation and alienation.

While some matters that involve individual members of the community must understandably be discussed in "executive session," any trend of growing comfort with employing this practice of secrecy creates an environment where the larger community simply cannot benefit from an awareness of the facts and challenges that confront Middlebury College's decision-makers. Setting students up for more intelligent discussion and greater awareness of Middlebury College life is a responsibility, not a favor. Keeping students ignorant to the details of College news and the decision making process is simply an uneducated proposition.