Alex Kronman

May 11, 2010

Co-authored with Elizabeth Findell

There are some institutions of higher education where seeking out a senior administrator for comment in the face of a looming deadline would be considered active and thorough journalism. At CC, it’s akin to stalking.

On March 25, the Catalyst wanted to give Dean of Students Mike Edmonds an opportunity to respond to an article that focused largely on his decisions. He was out of the office, and since he lives only a block away from the newspaper office, a Catalyst staff member knocked on his door and left a message with the woman who answered. The staff member then turned around and came right back. We heard from Dean Edmonds later that night, got the information we needed and as a side note, asked if rumors were true that he was a member of a fraternity. Weeks later, a number of Catalyst staff members began hearing odd reports from students around campus. Apparently, the Dean himself had told multiple people that the Catalyst had “camped out” outside of his house and “staked him out” to ask him if he was a member of Sigma Chi.

Interesting? Yes, but only a minor and harmless anecdote in the ongoing saga of student investigation at an institution where information is shrouded in secrecy and any attempts to lift the veil are regarded with suspicion and contempt.

Numbers and, perhaps more importantly, perceptions of information vary between senior administrators, faculty, staff and students. The college’s President, Dick Celeste, masterfully deflects answering real questions like only a well-practiced politician can.

RETURN OF THE FRAT BOYS?

There are a plethora of cases we’ve encountered this year where a campus dialogue is curiously absent because of a lack of transparency in college operations. The potential return of the fraternities Sigma Chi and Phi Gamma Delta (Fiji), kicked off campus in 2006 and in 2008, respectively, has been a big story this year and one we feel important to investigate on behalf of the student body.

After Sigma Chi was removed, a former Catalyst writer pursued the story and interviewed a number of members with knowledge of the events. Little of the current editorial staff was around then but we were told by the writer that former Associate Dean of Students Jeff Cathey asked that the article not be published and that the writer not share the information with anyone else. The writer was told that if the story was published, or if the events surrounding Sigma Chi’s expulsion got any press, the fraternity would not be allowed back. Putting that responsibility on a student journalist is unfair, unethical and one not conducive to a informed student populous.

A few short months ago, over winter break, the Catalyst received a press release from the national Director of Expansion at Fiji letting us know that they would be on campus the last two blocks of the year to recruit “Re-Founding Fathers.” In our e-mail conversations with the Director, nothing he said indicated that that decision had not yet been made. Dean of Students Mike Edmonds told us that after Fiji gauged interest, the final decision would be made over the summer. Sigma Chi also submitted a proposal for early reinstatement that would allow them to return to campus two years early, in the fall of 2010. That decision will be made over the summer as well.

Just as we took it as a responsibility to try to figure out why Sigma Chi was expelled, we assumed we’d work with the college to figure out how the student body we both serve wanted to reintegrate these institutions back into campus life. Given the frats’ former impact, both positive and negative, and nothing but an active rumor mill as to why they left in the first place, the student body should have a voice in that decision- or at least be aware that that decision is going to be made. That dialogue can’t happen if there is nothing to talk about.

A similar scenario is playing out regarding the Synergy house, the campus commune where the most devoted eco-hippies can live and the rest of us can visit to share the vibe. There’s no doubt that their events are some of the most respected and colorful the campus has to offer. Due to federal disability requirements that resulted from an Americans with Disabilities Act audit, this community committed to sustainability can no longer reside in its current home. This decision has been in the works all year, yet Residential Life denied a Catalyst request to sit in on a student and staff meeting discussing its future. It is still unclear where the Synergists will live in fall 2011. Options have ranged from a hall in Mathias to a much larger location such as Arthur house. Again, this decision will be made over the summer when the campus community is not here to provide input.

PHANTOM NUMBERS

Reporting this past week on financial aid and the budget gave an even more illuminating view of the college’s approach to handling information. As three reporters combed as many offices as they could for basic data on college finances and student demographics, the process hit wall after wall. Why not make more budget data public? “It just gets complicated so fast.” The Admissions Office’s response to asking for college and comparative statistics? “I’m going to stall giving it to you because I don’t want that to get out.” Institutional Reasearch? “We’re very careful about what we share.”

The freedom to know and the ability to understand are absolute imperatives to being good citizens of CC and good stewards of the future. Problem solving is no easy endeavor; more people need to be invited into an open conversation to really decide what we want CC to be. In the case of financial aid, the college needs to engender an ethos of accessibility and honesty on campus. Someone needs to say, “Hey, we know we want a more diverse student body and we know we’re not in the best place right now. We’re working on it. We’re trying. This is how you can help.”

Some of the limited data made publicly available from the Admissions office comes from the federally-reported Common Data Set, which the Office of Institutional Research compiles and presents. Vice President of Enrollment, Mark Hatch, however, had a strong response to the data, saying the government categories did not fit CC and it was “criminal” how incorrect it was. However, this was apparently the only data IR had access to and earlier that day, another member of Admissions had said: “I don’t want to report anything internal. If we’re not reporting it to the government, I don’t want to report it to anyone else.”

The government reporting is wrong, but they don’t want to make public anything other than what is government reporting? These and other questions continue to confound the logic of the Catalyst staff.

This is not an isolated incident nor is it the product of a particularly active and whiney group of Catalyst editors. The Colorado College has a well entrenched commitment to secrecy. Cases range from the simple and harmless to the complex and catastrophic.

Campus investments have always remained under wraps, lest anyone copy the investment model of a less-than-stellar endowment.

Each year the school invites newly enrolled minority students to a summer academic preparation class, the Bridge Program, but hides from them that it’s only for minorities until they arrive. Surprise! It might be worthwhile but it’s also an introduction to the CC culture of secrecy.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL SATIRE

It’s always worth reminding the campus of the Monthly Bag incident. Every year, eager high school students across the nation flip through the sacred “Best Colleges” issue of U.S. News and World Report. Every year, they see a full-page advertisement warning against the six “Red Alert” institutions that represent the “worst of the worst” violators of student liberties. CC has held a position on the list since 2008, when it earned the distinction after its censorship of the Monthly Bag, the bathroom-distributed pamphlet that satirized the Monthly Rag. Immediately after it was posted, President Celeste dispatched custodial workers to remove all copies and fired off an e-mail to the student body demanding that the perpetrators reveal themselves. When both did, they were subjected to a disciplinary process that makes Gitmo look transparent. The secret tribunal ultimately found them guilty of violating the violence portion of the CC handbook. Because a mention of a lumberjack with a chainsaw appeared on the same page as a description of a rear-entry sex position, it was considered a threat of violence.

The student masterminds behind the Monthly Bag were subjected to an over three-hour trial, all of which they were forbidden to discuss. The real tragedy was the loss of an opportunity to have a real campus dialogue about sexuality issues and gender roles, something many people feel needs to happen.

The Bag incident fundamentally and irrevocably changed how the only one of us who attended CC at the time, Elizabeth Findell, looks at the Colorado College. “Regardless of how wonderful the block plan, classes, professors, campus and people are, this is a place where even the most basic academic freedom of speech is eschewed, where all thought must fall within the same narrow sphere or else face disciplinary sanction,” she said. “From that, the college will never recover in my mind.”

In addition to the indefensible censorship and revoking of student rights, the handling of the Monthly Bag affair fell right in line with CC’s shroud of secrecy. Though the very nature of the offense was a public one, disciplinary proceedings were kept strictly under wraps and the defendants were forbidden to disclose what they underwent. Political Science professor David Hendrickson defied these orders to throw what light he could on a three and a half hour long proceeding during which the accused students were made to answer a laundry list of charges never mentioned in their initial letter of reprimand. But, alas, it takes more than one man to restore a sense of moral purpose to an institution.

THE HALF-WAY APPROACH TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Lastly, a lack of transparency affected the college’s ability to operate effectively in one of its darkest hours. Jackson Solway, former Editor-in-Chief of the Catalyst, wrote on April 4, 2008 about the college’s handling of an alleged gang rape. He summed up “the highly sanitized, legally printable version: a group of male students, including D1 hockey players Cody Lampl and Derek Patorosso, a potential high school hockey recruit, and at least two other male students this paper is not at liberty to name, participated in the creation and/or dissemination of a sex tape involving a single female student, who, it happened, didn’t know she had been filmed. The question at the time was whether or not the sex was consensual.”

The college reacted to this by pursuing an aggressive investigation, suspending most of the men involved for less than a semester and then allowing a number of them back on campus. This absurd course of action made sense in no circumstance: either the men involved were innocent and deserved no sanction or they were guilty and should not have been allowed back on campus after a slap on the wrist.  Because the college refused to communicate honestly about the case, confusion, rumors and speculation reigned.

WE CAN TAKE IT

In this day and age there are no secrets. The question is no longer whether or not information is available, it is how it is available. Institutions must be able to manage the truth, it’s the only way to survive. A college that professes a liberal arts education must trust in its student body to understand the truth in its appropriate context. We can take it.

Armstrong Hall was built in 1966, before the internet made transparency a necessity. In its West Wing, the administration continues to exist in that era. We live in two different worlds. The powers that be shield our precious ears from “difficult” or confusing information. The time has come for the college to move away from the patronizing paranoia of what the students will make of sensitive information. We are the victims of ignorance and thus, we are the victims of apathy.

“Transparency?” said Roberto Garcia, Director of Admissions. “I promote it, but I don’t practice it.”