Deciding the Deanship

Seven months ago, former Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 retired from his position in University Hall. Now, interim Dean David R. Pilbeam’s tenure is nearing its close, and a search for Gross’ permanent replacement is underway. Rather than be prematurely retrospective on the successes and failures of Pilbeam’s interim, we urge the administration to recognize the immediacy of student concerns in the search for a replacement.

Although this might seem self-evident, it is imperative that the new dean of the College be responsive to student interests. In creating open dialogue with student groups and the Undergraduate Council (UC), it is crucial that the needs of students in all areas of undergraduate life meet a truly receptive ear.

For instance, many undergraduates feel isolated from the process of choosing House masters. An ideal dean would solicit student input when making the kind of decisions that affect House life so profoundly. Especially in light of the withdrawal of UC party funds in the fall and last week’s alcohol crackdown, it would be wise to emphasize the need for open communication between student forums and the proposed dean. Though the dean’s role requires nuanced coordination of both the sentiments of the student body and the administration, the new dean should recognize that accepting student expression is the first step in creating a beneficial atmosphere between students and high-level decision makers.

The new dean must also strive to achieve a transparency in decision-making processes. The nature of the Administrative Board is one crucial matter in which progressive reform must be greatly amplified. The representation of students on the Ad Board is shrouded by bureaucratic banalities and many students come away from their disciplinary experiences disillusioned with the administration’s failure to present a clear and open disciplinary body. In order to achieve a healthy relationship between the student and administrative bodies, decision-making procedures such as those that take place on the Ad Board must be more transparent.

In order to choose a candidate that values these issues so pertinent to student life, it is necessary that students be consulted throughout the dean search. Student advisory committees perform a vital function in providing a voice for the students, and undergraduates should take advantage of these means of participation. A 31-member undergraduate advisory committee comprised of House representatives, freshmen, and UC members met sporadically with Dean of the Faculty Michael D. Smith this fall to facilitate undergraduate participation in the decanal decision. Input from these students should be weighted heavily, and committees such as this one should have a prevalent place in advising administrative appointments.

We acknowledge the inevitability of some prospective disagreements over policies when the new dean is chosen. Still, the time is ripe to suggest what the administration should seek in their appointment. If the new dean embarks on his position with gusto for open communication and reception to students’ concerns, the relationship between the new appointee and the students of the College will be the most advantageous for both parties.