December 2007
“Letters of Interest” Invited: Working Group on Institutionally Responsible Practices and Policies
This Working Group (members listed and more information provided below) intends to “test drive” a new process in the Spring ’08 semester that will review proposals to change practices or policies at the college to others that might be more socially responsible. The Working Group therefore currently invites brief “letters of interest,” letters which indicate a desire to propose such a change which would modify existing college practices and policies in ways that align with the college’s evolving ethical commitments and sense of institutional responsibility. Send brief letters of interest to Joy Charlton, Working Group Chair, by email at , as soon as possible before January 21, 2008.
Letters of interest should give a brief summary of the proposed change, with a list of the person or persons submitting the letter and their email contact information. Those submitting the letter should be prepared to produce a full proposal by the spring term should their proposal be chosen to be included in the “pilot” process that will run in the Spring semester.
From those expressions of interest submitted, the Working Group will choose a practical sample to consider in the spring, e.g. a group of proposals that might allow it to consider different kinds of changes, or different topics, or different ambitions. A proposal will be requested (see components below), and a review process engaged (more information below).
The role of the proposed process will be to foster efficiency, education, and open, engaged communication about institutional responsibility in decisions facing the college. Members of the Working Group will work with both decision-makers and advocates of proposals to achieve these goals, without assuming the roles of either.
Members of this Working Group has been discussing a new process since Fall ’06, and the following reflects their current thinking.
Purpose of a new process to consider institutional responsibility
The reasons for establishing a new committee are three-fold :
- To help proposals for socially responsible practices at Swarthmore College reach appropriate decision makers efficiently
- To evaluate proposals and provide recommendations to administrators about implementation
- To provide a venue for the college community to be educated about and engaged with questions of institutional ethics.
Rationale.
A new committee process is based on long-standing ideals of the College.
Swarthmore describes its educational mission as “to help students realize their intellectual potential and to imbue them with a deep sense of social concern.” The Swarthmore College Bulletin also states that the college’s “purposes and policies must respond to new conditions and new demands.” A proposed new committee would build on these foundations by providing a process that promotes coordination, transparency, accountability, clarity, inclusiveness, flexibility and sustainability for these efforts, as well as opportunities for education about the complexities of ethical decision-making.
The goals cited above are in fact intertwined, and the pedagogical experience of Swarthmore students does not end outside of the classroom, but rather each facet of life at the college influences what students learn about ethical behavior. Thus, the college strives to create an environment that demonstrates the institution’s holistic commitment to responsible citizenship outside of as well as inside of the classroom.
As members of the college community identify ways that the college’s practices might be modified to keep in line with the evolving nature of the College’s ethical commitment, it would be the task of the Proposal Review Committee to evaluate the proposed practice to see if it is in line with the ethical commitment of the college based on principle and precedent, as well as to evaluate the practicality of the proposed change.
Current concerns that prompted the consideration of a new process include: the large number of proposals that go directly to the President and his staff; the difficulties students often face in learning about agendas, timelines and guidelines for college decision-making, in particular those that involve gaining access to information about the college budget; lack of transparency and clarity in the proposal process; and the challenge of maintaining focus on long-term issues and on the history of related efforts over time.
Working Process
A new process would be charged neither with advocating policy, nor with acting as final arbiter. Instead a committee would be charged with taking proposals advocated by groups within the Swarthmore community, evaluating them, and presenting a report and recommendation to the President who will make the final decision.
The committee will make available in electronic form, as well as in paper archives, criteria for proposals and information about previous proposals, decisions about them, and their implementation
The process of proposal evaluation would take several steps, which will follow a timeline.
Step One: Informal Consultation
- The first step would be an informal meeting between proponents and a sub-group of the committee, perhaps one or two members, designated by the committee chairs. The purpose of this meeting would be primarily informational, to provide guidance to proponents about committee processes and criteria, as well as about relevant college processes, such as the budget cycle. This information would be available electronically, but the meeting would be an opportunity to ask for clarification as needed. Committee members could also suggest steps the proponents might take before making their presentation to the full committee in order to meet criteria, for example meeting with a department chair, reviewing related past efforts, or adjusting a timeline to be congruent with the college budget process.
- In some cases this conversation with the department chair, e.g. Director of Dining Services, might lead to a decision to implement the proposal. Proponents would be requested to inform the committee if this happens. In many cases, we anticipate that the preliminary conversation with the department head would provide information but not lead to a decision before review by the committee. In this case the proposal proceeds to Step 2.
Step 2. Presentation to Committee.
- The committee will have several sessions to hear presentation of proposals, announced in advance so that advocacy groups can prepare presentations in time for these sessions.
Step 3. Recommendation
Information will be provided to the president of the college regarding the status of a proposal and the potential implementation of the proposed change
Components of Proposals
We recommend that each proposal address the following issues:
- Content of the proposed change to policy or practice
- Congruence with college principles and approved policies and practices
- Quality of analysis of the proposed practice or policy on its own merits
- Thorough analysis of the proposed practice or policy in light of the college’s current practices and policies.
- Comment on the proposal’s potential relationship to broader policy or practice issues
- Evidence for consultation with members of the college community most likely to implement and be affected by the proposed change.
- Analysis of implications for other in the college community
- Evidence of support for the proposed change from others in the college community
- Examination of possible unintended consequences
- Reasonable timetable for implementation
- Effect on college budget
- Sustainability—what is required to sustain the change over time?
- Effective process for communication of proposed changes to all constituents of the college community, especially those responsible for implementation and affected by the proposed changes.
- Plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the change for accomplishing the expressed goals
Participants in the Working Group’s planning process:
Rachel Ackoff ‘07[Fall semester ‘06]
Jenessa Calvo-Friedman ‘08
Elizabeth Crampton, ‘09
Nicole Escobar ‘09
Anne-Marie Frassica ‘09
Peter Gardner 08
Alix Gould-Werth ‘07
Aaron Hollander ‘07
Andrew McKay ‘07
Sarah Roberts ‘08
Angelina Seah ‘07
Brian Tomasik ‘09
Sven Udekwu ‘09
Joy Charlton, Lang Center Executive Director, Working Group Chair, 2007-08
Carmen Duffy, Investment Associate
Maurice Eldridge, Vice-President, College and Community Relations
Patricia James, Lang Center Associate Director
Jennie Keith, Lang Center Executive Director, Working Group Chair 2006-07
Jim Larimore, Dean of Students
Art McGarity, Faculty Engineering[Fall semester ‘06]
Peggy Seiden, College Librarian
Eric Wagner, Athletics