Dean Pilbeam Rings Last Call

A little over a week after Harvard undergraduates handed in their study cards, the College greeted them with a sobering announcement.

David R. Pilbeam, then serving as interim dean of the College, kicked off a year of increasing standardization of social life policies when he issued a notice in October to the Undergraduate Council (UC) that said, “From this date forward no further funds can be dispersed for private parties, including any that may have already been approved for forthcoming dates.”

Pilbeam’s directive shocked the campus and marked the first of several new social life regulations instituted this year, including a ban on hard liquor at most House events and new guidelines for parties held by student organizations. While the changes often amounted to only slight shifts, they continually represented both the College’s predominant top-down approach and a decrease in House autonomy and individuality.

A FOCUS ON DRINKING

Pilbeam’s announcement of the end of the party grant program set the tone early in first semester for a year marked by change.

On Oct. 2, Pilbeam ordered the UC’s funding of alcohol to be suspended indefinitely, as it used College funds to facilitate underage drinking and to support what Pilbeam called “parties where the focus is on drinking.”

The party fund had been created by the UC in the fall of 2003 to cover the costs of some private parties each weekend, including the reimbursement of alcohol purchases. Most recently, the program provided a total of $1,750 in the form of 16 separate grants each weekend.

Within 24 hours, the UC convened to discuss the College’s attack on its party grant system. A majority of the representatives voted not to terminate the grants immediately, as well as to set aside $2,000 for potential legal expenses.

On Oct. 8, the UC defied Pilbeam’s order by voting to allocate $17,000 to fund over two months of party grants. The following day, the College responded by freezing the UC’s funds.

After about two weeks of closed-door negotiations between Pilbeam and then-President of the UC Ryan A. Petersen ’08, the College unfroze the funds, and provided the Council with $100,000 as a show of good faith. And on Nov. 6, a joint e-mail statement from Petersen and Pilbeam announced that the party grant system would continue through the end of the semester, but would no longer reimburse alcohol.

The UC’s revised party grant system, which covered the costs for purchases other than alcohol, was suspended at the start of the spring semester. UC President Matthew L. Sundquist ’09 said in March that there were no plans to pursue a review of the program until the new Dean of the College Evelyn M. Hammonds takes office on June 1.

Quincy House Committee (HoCo) Co-Chair Welton E. Blount Jr. ’09 said that there was a great deal of negative feedback early in the year about the administration’s termination of the party fund but that students’ initial ire has cooled.

“I think people have come to terms with the fact that this is the policy and that people will have to adhere to it,” Blount said. “As time goes on, people are going to learn to adjust themselves accordingly.”

UC members and College administrators revealed conflicting conceptions of how the end of the party grants impacted social life this year.

UC Vice President Randall S. Sarafa ’09 said that he has perceived an overwhelming sentiment that the move seriously affected social life.

“I know a lot of students complain that they just can’t afford to host parties on their own in their rooms,” Sarafa said.

Assistant Dean of the College Paul J. McLoughlin II, however, said recently that he did not think eliminating the party fund significantly affected social life.

“The party grant is a relatively new program in the scheme of things,” McLoughlin said. “I think students will continue to have private events. It’s just that Harvard College will not fund alcohol.”

WORKING ON THE WORKING DRAFT

A month after the UC stopped reimbursing alcohol purchases, administrators presented a working draft of the College’s alcohol policy that, upon taking effect at the beginning of February, would standardize the rules for both private and House-wide parties.

The document banned hard liquor at most House events and advertising of private parties. The policy also requires that hosts register their parties three weeks in advance.

According to Adams HoCo Co-Chair Omar M. Abdelsamad ’09, the tightened regulations have not substantially altered events in Adams, since the House already did not serve hard liquor at Stein Clubs prior to the ban. He also noted that putting a rule on the books does not always translate into practice.

“Just because the College says there’s a ban doesn’t mean there’s actually a ban,” Abdelsamad said. “It’s really up to your master and resident dean.”

The new proposal has proven especially consequential in Mather House, which has been serving hard liquor at House events for the past three years.

Mather HoCo Co-Chair Lily G. Bellow ’09 said that there were initial fears that the policy changes would negatively impact the House’s happy hours. As a result, HoCo members began serving a greater variety of drinks, including bottled beers and malt beverages, in order to maintain student interest.

“Because we tried to work with the changes in that way,” Bellow said, “we’ve had great responses at our happy hours and still have high attendance, but there was certainly a lot of concern around what would happen, particularly at the beginning of the semester.”

Regardless of what Houses have done to keep residents happy, McLoughlin said that the changes should not have had a great effect on the atmosphere of Stein Clubs.

“The nature of Stein Clubs was never one where students were supposed to be intoxicated,” McLoughlin said. “I don’t know what it would say about social life if students would say they wouldn’t go to Stein Clubs anymore. You would have to then look deeper at the motivations for students to come together.”

U-HALL PARTY PLANNERS

This fall, Pilbeam also formed the Joint Subcommittee of the Committees on College Life and House Life to assess student organization event-planning.

The group was formed in the wake of a series of recurring issues that included overcrowded events, difficulty obtaining adequate Beverage Authorization Team and police coverage, and intoxicated students. In April, the subcommittee presented a draft of a report on student event management that included 19 major recommendations.

In particular, the report advised a cap of two large student events per weekend night and a registration deadline of three weeks in advance.

McLoughlin, who chaired the committee, said that there have been only five weekends with more than two large events over the past three semesters, suggesting that the policy did not represent a big change but rather simply another move toward standardization.

“The reality is not that we are asking for fewer huge parties,” McLoughlin said recently. “There can be the same frequency of parties as before, just spread out and funded differently.”

A VEIL OF SECRECY?

In March, Pilbeam said that “the alcohol business” was one of his proudest accomplishments in his tenure as dean.

“Though this has made a lot of students unhappy, it has also made a lot of students happy,” he said. “It’s just that they write to me, and they don’t write to their peers.”

McLoughlin echoed these ideas, saying that students have approached him to tell him that they support the new policies. He also pointed to dissatisfaction revealed by the College’s senior surveys over the ways in which the UC spends its money.

Student response to the social life-related policy changes has been mixed, but regardless many agreed they were unhappy with the way the regulations were implemented by the College.

“The biggest complaint I heard was the lack of real student involvement in the process and the way it was sprung on us in full form without the option for adjustment,” Bellow said.

Sarafa cited the lack of student input in the termination of party grants and in the restrictions on hard alcohol as a central concern.

“I think the worst part is that these policies aren’t being brought about in the proper way and are not being discussed in the way they should be discussed,” Sarafa said. “Perhaps some of their policies are good in respect to their benefits, but the students don’t know that. We should not have to search to figure out why these policies are being brought about.”

—Staff writer Arianna Markel can be reached at amarkel@fas.harvard.edu.
—Staff writer Sue Lin can be reached at suelin@fas.harvard.edu.