TWO ROMANTIC INCIDENTS involving the new freshman prefect program have occurred this fall. In one, the upperclassman assigned to a group of freshmen as an advisor was not present at the only orientation session for prefects, held at 7:30 a.m. on the first Saturday of Freshmen Week. He was reassigned to another group after the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO) learned of the affair. In the other, the upperclassman voluntarily resigned, also after the FDO learned of his involvement. These two incidents, while not particularly damaging to the concept underlying the program, do draw attention to flaws in both the management and policy-making of the FDO.
The obvious shortcomings of the training the prefects received this term deserves immediate attention. It is unconscionable that a program which professes to give good advice to freshmen cannot even competently manage and teach the upperclass advisors. The prefects should receive adequate and regular training to ensure that they understand what they are doing.
An even deeper problem, however, is an apparent inconsistency in the rules of the program itself. It appears that the one prefect was excused for his actions simply because of his lack of knowledge, and it's unclear whether the other, who had heard Dean Moses's injunction not to date freshmen, was forced to resign or merely urged to do so. There should be no equivocation, and no double standard: The prefects should all be told that there is no place for romance in this type of advising atmosphere, and that when there is an infraction of this rule resignation is required.