<p>I've seen a few posts on this board complaining about Dartmouth's administration. In general, people seem to not like Wright. What exactly are some of the problems? </p>
<p>I've heard about the free speech stuff and the downplaying of fraternities, but are there any other problems?</p>
<p>Those two things you mentioned are offshoots, or symptoms of the real problem. The real problem is that the administration is a bumbling, inefficient bureaucracy full of overpaid, unimaginative administrators who are more concerned with not getting sued than with making the College the best place it could be. Wright will go on and on about making Dartmouth "as good as Harvard" (not that I even agree with the implication that we currently aren't), then will create another pointless administrative position rather than use that money to retain a rising star professor who leaves Dartmouth for a raise at UCLA or Princeton or something (not only did this happen but we lost a 20 million dollar grant thanks to it). The administration is basically has no vision or goal of any sort. They want to "get rid of the frats." Well great, just terrific. But how is that supposed to make us a better school? I get it, you don't like the "Animal House" reputation - but don't you think things like the econ and gov classes being constantly overenrolled and not even having enough rooms on campus to guarantee housing for everybody like the other Ivies are FAR greater deterrents for the people that choose not to come here than "Oh no, if I wander along Webster Avenue at 12 AM I might be able to get a free beer!"? Not only that, but the administration is completely disconnected from the student body. Not only is curbing the frats a Sisyphean task, but they have no idea how to even do it properly. What is Jimmy's grand idea to get people to not care about the frats anymore? Build a crappy dance floor in Collis that nobody goes to...terrific.</p>
<p>Let me tell you a story showcasing the colossal idiocy of the administration. Since I don't want to get sued or anything I'll make some names up. Let's say there once existed a hypothetical frat, Frat X. Now, let's say Frat X got derecognized for reasons that we won't go into, but suffice to say that since then other frats and sororities have received lighter punishments for worse crimes. Now let's say that Frat X stayed open for five years despite being permanently derecognized. Now, over the course of 5 years, a lot of rich old conservative alumni (both of this frat and others) got riled up at the perceived threat to their beloved frats. They elected a number of trustees who were basically anti-administration, and threatened to hold on to their money rather than donate it to the College. This was a completely obvious result at the time of the original derecognition, but since Dartmouth College administrators don't actually use their heads before making decisions, they evidently never considered this possibility. But I digress. The person who is in charge of these sorts of things from the College's side, let's call him Y, decides that the College is better off rerecognizing the fraternity, because god forbid they "stand up for what they believe in in the face of alumni threatening to pull their financial support" - no wait, they never believed in anything, they were just doing what they thought would lose them the least money all along! Anyway, he negotiates with Frat X's alumni about a rerecognition deal, but insists that the house go dark for two years to get rid of the current brothers (read: revenge for being made to look like an ass). Now, all of this is really not anybody's concern. One might say to him or herself upon reading the above: Who cares that a bunch of drunken fratboys got kicked out of their frat? Well, there's more to the story. The alumni, in an attempt to get this requirement dropped, insist that they need an active brotherhood to keep the house in livable condition, because heating, utilities, etc need to be kept on in case the house is renovated rather than rebuilt and the only way to pay for that would be to maintain an active brotherhood which could collect dues, rent, etc. That college, ever committed to strengthening academics and the like, AGREES TO PAY ALL OF FRAT X'S BILLS FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND A HALF rather than let the current brothers, who were freshman, sophomores, and juniors IN HIGH SCHOOL at the time of the original derecognition, and who certainly aren't being kicked out for reasons of revenge, keep their house. Now, the heating bills for this particular 80 year old, poorly insulated house approach 2 grand a month in the winter. The property tax alone is probably along the lines of 10 grand a year. All in all, the college will be paying upwards of 20 grand a year to keep a bunch of 20 year olds locked out of their frat house. During this same period of time, we've nearly cut the swim team, lost a neuroscience professor who is considered tops in his field and went to UCI or something (and like I mentioned above this lost us a 20 million dollar grant), I won't even mention the numerous scandals which have racked the college over the last couple years, and yet the college's priority is to spend 20+ grand to dispose of 20 kids who have never done anything to anybody. And if that doesn't illustrate the absolute black hole that is the Dartmouth College adminstration decision-making process, nothing will.</p>
<p>Oh yeah and so if anybody wonders why I said I wouldn't donate money to D while Wright and company were still around, it's because it would evidently burn a hole in their pockets and they would throw it off a cliff.</p>
<p>The administration just doesn't seem to care much about Dartmouth staying Dartmouth. </p>
<p>First of all, the bureacracy tends to be bloated (though, to be fair, nothing compared to many other universities I've seen): I'd rather have an additional government professor or two rather than two deanships/vice presidencies of "Institutional Diversity and Equity" and "Pluralism and Leadership"--seems to me they could be easily cut down into one office, at the minimum. And the same could be said of a lot of other positions.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the administration seems to get involved in student life when they shouldn't, and not get involved when they should (like maintaining the Old Traditions). Safety and Security shouldn't be so eager to pursue alcohol related offenses, ORL shouldn't be so eager to pursue frats for inane violations, the administration shouldn't be taking sides in free speech issues like last fall's Native American/Review Fiasco, and they shouldn't be trying to stop harmless things like rushing the field or throwing tennis balls at the Princeton goalie (why is it that Cornell can still throw fish at Harvard, but we can't throw tennis balls at Princeton?). Why don't they change many of the draconian and unfair rules of the Committee on Standards? Why didn't they step in to support some form of Tubestock--even if it did need to be modified?</p>