A Misguided Approach

Few administrative decisions have sent shockwaves through the undergraduate community like Interim Dean of the College David Pilbeam’s announcement on Tuesday that he was terminating the system of party grants run by the Undergraduate Council (UC). Much of the outcry regarding Pilbeam’s decision had to do not with the substance of the decision but the unilateral, sudden, and boorish manner in which it was made. Pilbeam’s refusal to communicate openly with students and UC representatives is not only alarming but also paradigmatic of a caustic and imperious attitude towards students that has recently come to grip University Hall.

Though the UC and University Hall had been in dialogue since last term regarding the party grants, the saga began in earnest over the summer. In July and August, the deans in University Hall contacted the UC leadership to raise concerns that the UC Party Fund, which provides $1,750 per week in funding to support parties open to all undergraduates, was being used to fund alcohol purchases and, more specifically, underage drinking.

Talks between the UC and the College deans resulted in several modifications to the grant process, including an expedited grant application process so that Houses could be notified earlier of impending parties, approval by House administrators that grant recipients were over 21, and checkboxes on the application form that alcohol would be served by students 21 or older. Any infractions reported by the College would result in the grant being revoked. In an e-mail dated August 9, Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd said everything seemed “okay by me.”

But by early September, the College appeared to have decided that not all was well, and Pilbeam scheduled a meeting with UC leadership for Tuesday. That meeting was abruptly canceled, and at the time he was originally supposed to meet with representatives of the Council, Pilbeam sent his now-famous missive, which was almost immediately posted on the College’s Web site.

Pilbeam’s letter was noteworthy not only for its content but also for its harsh tone. Calling the Party Fund “inherently flawed,” Pilbeam bashed the UC for funding unregulated events where the focus was clearly on drinking and insisted that his decision was final. Pilbeam also warned that funding individuals, as opposed to student groups, “is not in support of the greater good of the students you represent, not in keeping with your mission.” His belittling statement demonstrates an utter disregard for the student body and their elected representatives.

The letter was all the more shocking considering Pilbeam did not raise any red flags in his year as senior adviser to the Dean of the College and Interim Dean of the Faculty, during which time he was no doubt aware of the UC Party Fund, nor did he make any attempt to engage the UC. Instead, according to Kidd, Pilbeam made his decision after his staff briefed him on the ongoing discussions between Kidd, Associate Dean of Residential Life Suzy M. Nelson, and the UC leadership.

Finally, in his clumsiest and most tactless move, Pilbeam posted his letter to the UC leadership on his Web site. A far more reasonable course of action would have been to continue working in private with student leaders, or at least give them fair warning before publicly announcing such a drastic change. Instead, the Dean alienated virtually the entire student body by being so overtly disrespectful to their representatives. Adding insult to injury, since uploading the letter Pilbeam has refused to return phone calls, reply to student inquiries, or share access to the liability reports that originally put the UC party fund—which, according to the UC’s most recent legal advice, is in compliance with the law—under scrutiny.

Whatever one thinks of his decision, Pilbeam’s conduct amounts to an utter and total sandbagging of the undergraduate community.

But even if one gets past the manner in which the nixing of the Party Fund was handled, University Hall’s assertion that the campus will be somehow “safer” without it is extremely dubious. In reality, it appears from his letter that Pilbeam left a crucial element of student safety completely out of his calculus.

Quashing UC-funded parties—which occur on campus and in areas regulated by the College—will not stop students from drinking. Instead, the party scene will be further redirected off campus to final clubs and private houses, where safety is more of a concern and house tutors and the Harvard University Police Department are not available as a safety net.

We are further concerned that this policy will discourage students of modest means from throwing parties, thereby dividing the social scene along monetary lines. If Dean Pilbeam and the administration in general are truly looking to improve social life while preventing underage drinking, they must work with students to find a meaningful solution instead of threatening and admonishing the student body and their elected leaders.

Unfortunately, this incident is far from an isolated event. In fact, it seems like just the latest in a trend of University Hall putting the appearance of propriety before a pragmatic approach to student safety and being completely dismissive of student input. Last spring’s new alcohol policy was similarly forced on students; canceled meetings, secret reports, and withheld information have become the norm. Students are making a genuine effort to work with University Hall, yet the College administration’s modus operandi shows a blatant lack of respect for the student body it so frequently praises.

Quite simply, University Hall’s behavior has to change.