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 jcharlt1@swathmore.edu, 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