The Crimson article on the hiring of Dunster House tutors left in its wake deep misunderstandings over a sensitive issue. As one of the Dunster Tutors who went to see Dean Jewett in March, I would like to state the concern that brought me to Dean Jewett, in the hope of correcting the misrepresentations in The Crimson article of my position.
It was not my intent to make formal charges of nepotism. At the time I did not feel that this would bring a productive resolution to the situation. (Cf. the clarification on page four of today's paper). Rather, my intent in going to Dean Jewett was to convey my concern that the appearance of nepotism could cause great upset to the Dunster community. I felt that the appearance of nepotism had already become a divisive issue within the House, and that the presence of a brother as well as a grade-school friend of the Assistant Senior Tutor among the new candidates could become cause for comment. I had attempted to speak to the Master, Karel Liem, about tutor hiring and did not get very far. My goal in going to Dean Jewett was to ask him to speak to Karel and Hetty Liem about making changes in the selection process while that process was still ongoing, changes which would protect the House administration against charges of nepotism. Not only would this protect the House community from a divisive issue, but it could only benefit the candidates in question to enter the House without the appearance of nepotism.
I had accepted for some time that my efforts to resolve this potential problem were not successful, and planned to do nothing more. I find it regrettable, although predictable, that the problem should have surfaced publicly, and in an uncontainable and damaging way, at this time of year. Sophie A. Volpp '85