ADP-just fine by me

Author: ANDREW CARNABUCI '06

I am writing to express a position that I believe has been tragically underrepresented in the recent public conversation about the social houses and the pledge process. I am not myself a member of a social house, but I still believe that I am echoing the opinions of the vast majority of Middlebury students when I say that the social houses are a tremendously positive and successful contribution to the college community.

The anti-social house invective came to a ludicrous crescendo with the publication of a shameful editorial condemning the pledge process and the social houses in general. Last week, The Campus' editorial staff called for a comprehensive social house review. Based upon the singular and isolated incident at ADP, the editorial concluded that every social house was guilty of numerous pledge violations, and the entire pledge process should be investigated and reviewed. The premise behind any such investigation is a strong suspicion that the current system is not working. This defies the obvious facts of the matter. ADP violated the pledge rules, and the Inter House Council held a hearing and punished them for their violation. That is not symptomatic of a system that is broken. That is symptomatic of a system that is both self-correcting and self-disciplining.

Much of the recent criticism of the social houses also seems to be based upon their "irrelevance." This alleged irrelevence of the social houses seems to be rooted in two relatively recent policies: the reinterpretation of the state liquor law and the commons system. In regard to the new guest-list policy, the argument goes, the social houses can no longer perform their primary task of holding large open social gatherings, and therefore serve no purpose. The problem with this line of thought is that despite the tougher guest-list policy, the social houses in general, and ADP in particular, have continued to hold large, safe and extremely enjoyable parties on a regular basis. They have adapted to the new regulations by means of e-mail and Web-based invitations. This does not make them irrelevant - it makes them commendable for staying as true as possible to their mission statements despite the extra effort involved.

The second cause of irrelevance seems to be that the College's long-term plan is based upon the commons system, and the social houses, by virtue of their independence from that system, are becoming irrelevant. The College Fathers can cluck on all they like about their universally-despised commons system, but it would be foolish to try and excoriate every element of College life that cannot be divided evenly five ways. Every social house this year showed an increase in the size of its pledge class over past years. This suggests increasing relevance, not irrelevance. By ways of comparison, several of this year's senators (myself included) ran on platforms that involved decreasing the influence of the commons on room draw. There is also a pending proposal to reduce the influence of the commons on Senior room draw. This trend indicates that it is perhaps the commons, not the social houses, that are lapsing into irrelevance.

My point, I think, is fairly simple and self-evident. Give the social houses a fair chance. One honest mistake on ADP's part is not grounds for the amount of College discipline and public outrage that has ensued, and a single hiccup in a single house's pledge should not give anyone license to take up the robes of Torquemada and conduct a social house Inquisition.