COLUMN: The Committee on Commitment

From Stephen Glass's "Enemy of the People," Fall '93 From Stephen Glass's "Enemy of the People," Fall '93Tahe University is certainly committed. And taskforced for that matter. For instance, it is clear to everyone at the University, and the nation, that there has been a series of crises in recent months. But what is equally clear is that there has been an explosion in the number of committees, task forces, panel, forums, and working groups to deal with all of these crises. First, there's the Free Speech Task Force which is working to end the University's speech code, and countering them is the Human Rights League fighting to uphold it. There was the Incident Task Force which was designed to examine the role of University police and free speech in light of the theft of the Daily Pennsylvanian. And there was the Open Expression Committee who also examined the newspaper theft. There are students hosting a race relations summit, and there are others working to host a summit on free speech and race. Scores of smaller organizations have hosted panels. And of course, there is the end all and be all: Commission to Strengthen the Community. I have no doubt that these students, faculty and administrators formed these groups with genuine ideals and a hope that they will achieve their objectives. Moreover, I know the members of many of these committees and respect and agree with what they are trying to achieve. The problem is not one of ideals. It is a problem of misdirected energy. For no matter how positive the intentions of a group of people, committees at this University routinely serve only two goals: to shield and to delay. For those who have been on this campus several years, they will remember that daily debate centered on whether or not fraternities should be allowed to monopolize Locust Walk property. Dozens formed special interest committees to debate both sides of the issue. The much-awaited, anticipated, and greatly hyped Faust report on Locust Walk has even weighed in with its decision. Yet you wouldn't know that walking around campus. Nothing has changed. Now, years later, the fraternities continue to dominate the Walk, and whether or not you agree with that stance, everyone can agree that Locust Walk looks a lot like it did when I was a freshman. This is the beauty of a committee. No decision is made, time is wasted and those in charge look like they are acting. The other golden truth to committees is that they shield their members and authorities from responsibility. A University administrator can implement a committee decision blame free, noting that he abided by the will of an unbiased committee. Likewise, committee members can disassociate themselves with making a controversial ruling since it was the will of the committee, not their own personal decision. Note that this is not true when the decision is overwhelmingly approved and every member of the committee acts. For instance, ROTC is still on campus, yet members of the University Council need not feel personally liable that the campus' discrimination code is being broken since their committee endorsed its removal. And typical of committee members, while their consciences may be assuaged, since they voted to boot the organization, no one is willing to speak out or act on the beliefs on which they presumably voted. However, criticizing the University without offering a better solution is pointless. Administrators should take their lead from Interim President Claire Fagin who decided she wanted to suspend campus speech codes without forming a committee. Rather she asked the University to comment within a set period of time and a decision will be made thereafter. She seems on the verge of making a speedy decision without appearing too dictatorial and allowing the responsibility falls square on her shoulders. Since students do not have the same executive power, I can see their affinity for committees. Unfortunately, many student committees seem to enjoy the sound of their own voices rather than the wheels of progress. For the past few years, students have been working towards the noble goal of introducing an honor code. But if you peeked through their closed door, you will see a group who has talked its way around a conference table for years. Have any doubts? Look at the undergraduate's uppercommittee, top taskforce, and preeminent panel: the Undergraduate Assembly. Since my freshman year, the UA has formed countless committees on improving Residential Living, something that must be done for this University to thrive. Yet, students are still fleeing the High Rises since they are unhabitable. These committee, if anything, perpetuate the status quo. People think they are doing something to change the University, and the administration can sleep well at night knowing that these lulled students won't threaten them. These committees must go beyond issuing what they demand and begin to force the administration to act. It is in times of crises that the University must actively respond. Students, faculty, and even administrators must all move beyond talk and actually do. But while the University continues its love affair with committees don't be convinced that when the University says its committed, when, in fact, it should really be committed. Stephen Glass is a senior Anthropology major from Highland Park, Illinois, and the Executive Editor of the Daily Pennsylvanian. Enemy of the People appears alternate Wednesdays.