R.I.P. Dartmouth College (1769-2007)
It's all over, folks. Dartmouth is done. On September 8 all the lights went out in Hanover as Ed Haldeman, Chair of the Board of Trustees snuffed the candle of democracy once and for all. By adding eight (unelected) charter trustees to its membership, the Board has ensured it will never again be troubled by the niggling complaints of semiconductor tycoons and former Reagan speechwriters.
Nah, just kidding. Dartmouth's still kicking, though things will never be as self-determined as they used to be. Yet I feel like as long as wikipedia pages like this one continue to be well-maintained, Dartmouth is going to be alright.
The response in the meantime from alumni has been vitriolic, to say the least, since naturally every step away from the 1891 constitution is a step into hell. One alumnus ominously comments in our inbox, "This stinks of Russia circa 1905. Sooner or later, there is going to be a catastrophic reckoning," and threatens to withhold donations, "until democracy is reinstated."
After the jump: dueling strongly-worded letters to alumni (I know, I know -- why aren't these thrilling documents before the jump?)
This is a letter from Ed Haldeman to all alumni. An alumnus on this site comments, "the soft words of the Trustees' report cannot hide its thuggery."
Dear Members of the Dartmouth Community,
Earlier today, the Dartmouth Board of Trustees took several steps to strengthen the College's governance. Given the intense debate about this issue in recent months, I wanted to write to you as soon as possible to tell you what we've done and why.
Let me start by saying Dartmouth has never been stronger than it is today. It's one of the most selective institutions in the country. Our commitment to teaching has never been stronger and student satisfaction is at record highs. The student-to-faculty ratio now stands at 8:1. We have expanded the faculty by
15 percent since 2000 and maintained competitive faculty compensation, reflecting the College's sharp focus on its academic programs. Once current building plans are completed, we will have invested $1.1 billion in new and renovated state-of-the-art facilities since 1998.Like its peers, however, the College confronts new challenges. We are facing increasing competition for the finest students and the best faculty as well as for the financial resources needed to support the College. And, we operate in an increasingly complex and highly regulated environment. Having the strongest possible governance is a critical factor to ensuring Dartmouth's continued success in the years ahead.
The changes we are making preserve alumni democracy at Dartmouth by keeping eight alumni-nominated trustees. They expand the Board with eight additional charter trustees, adding alumni to meet the needs of the College. And, they address the destructive politicization of trustee campaigns that have hurt Dartmouth. These changes represent a balancing of competing interests. They are true to Dartmouth's founding principles. And, they will ensure that, moving forward, the College has a strong, effective, and independent governing body.
Over the past three months, the Board's Governance Committee conducted a thorough review of this issue. We carefully considered input from many alumni, current and former trustees, faculty, parents, students, and other members of the Dartmouth community. We consulted with experts in college and non-profit governance and carefully evaluated practices among 30 leading colleges and universities. And, we developed a report to the full Board, which I encourage you to read for yourself at www.dartmouth.edu/governancereport.
After reviewing the Governance Committee's recommendations - and after much thought and deliberation - the Board of Trustees concluded that Dartmouth should strengthen its governance by taking steps to:
* Expand the Board by Adding More Alumni to Better Meet the Needs of the College: We are expanding the Board from 18 to 26 to ensure it has the broad range of backgrounds, skills, expertise, and fundraising capabilities needed to steward an institution of Dartmouth's scope and complexity. Dartmouth has been at a competitive disadvantage to its peers, with one of the smallest Boards of any comparable institution. We have had 18 members on our Board, versus an average of 42 trustees at peer schools and an average of 34 at other liberal arts colleges. We also are giving the Board more flexibility to select trustees who offer the specific talents and experiences that the College needs, which elections don't ensure. We will accomplish both of these goals by adding eight new charter trustee seats to the Board.
* Preserve Alumni Democracy by Retaining Alumni Trustee Elections: We are maintaining alumni trustee elections at their current level and preserving the ability of alumni to petition onto the ballot. Dartmouth currently has the highest proportion of alumni-nominated trustees of any peer institution and is one of the few schools that allows alumni to petition directly onto the ballot. The Board believes that this gives Dartmouth's alumni an important direct voice in our governance and fosters greater alumni involvement in the College. Dartmouth will continue to have one of the most democratic trustee election processes of any college in the country.
* Simplify the Alumni Nomination Process: Dartmouth's trustee elections have become increasingly politicized, costly, and divisive. It's not the results of these elections that are the problem, but the process itself. So we are charging the Alumni Council and the Association of Alumni to develop and implement a process for selecting alumni trustee nominees that preserves elections, maintains petition access to the ballot, and adopts a one-vote, majority-rule election process.
* Improve Direct Board Engagement with Alumni and Other Stakeholders: A larger group of trustees representing even more diverse backgrounds will help us enhance Board engagement with key areas of the College including academic affairs, student life, and alumni relations. We are therefore creating new Board committees focused on each of these three critical areas. This will facilitate greater interaction and communication with individuals in each of these three areas.
While we will continue to have eight trustees nominated directly by alumni, a significant number of seats on the Board, I know some will ask why we didn't simply expand the Board through an equal number of charter and alumni trustee seats. Given the divisiveness of recent elections we did not believe that having more elections would be good for Dartmouth. We also believe that the Board needs more trustees selected for the specific talents and experiences they can offer the College - which elections can't guarantee. We will still have more alumni-nominated trustees than most other schools and the opportunity for regular contested elections. But we think this is the best balancing of Dartmouth's interests.
I know there are strongly held views on all sides of this issue. And I respect that many of those views are driven above all by a desire to do what is best for Dartmouth and its students. But some of the recent rhetoric in this debate has become so harsh and divisive it is now doing harm to Dartmouth. I want to urge everyone who cares about Dartmouth to debate this issue in a reasonable and respectful way. As President Wright has said, there is far more that unites us - as friends, faculty, students, and loyal alumni of the College on the Hill - than divides us. Above all, we have a shared love of and dedication to Dartmouth.
One thing that has made Dartmouth an enduring and successful institution is that its history has always been one of adapting to meet new challenges and needs, while still preserving what is unique and special about Dartmouth. That is why a board originally composed of twelve New England men, half of them members of the clergy, today consists of eighteen men and women from many parts of the country and walks of life. That is why Trustees who once served for life now serve four-year terms. And, that is why elections once open only to "graduates... of at least five years standing" are now open to all alumni.
In these and many other respects, Dartmouth's Board has made fundamental changes to its governance structure and procedures throughout the College's history. The changes we're making today are no different. They are driven by what is best for Dartmouth and its students, and what is necessary to ensure the College continues to meet the new challenges it faces in the 21st century.
I love Dartmouth. I honestly believe there is nowhere else in the world quite like this great College. We need to protect Dartmouth and ensure it continues to prosper for future generations of students. I, and the entire Board, are intensely focused on helping Dartmouth to continue building its world-class academic program. That is what drives us forward. And, I look forward to continuing to work with all of you - alumni, faculty, students and parents - to build on Dartmouth's unique and pre-eminent place in American higher education.
Sincerely,
Ed Haldeman
Chair, Dartmouth College Board of Trustees
Here is a statement from the Association of Alumni Leadership, which another alumnus refers to as "a club of toadies who do not represent the alumni."
Dear Members of the Dartmouth Community,
We, a majority of the elected leaders of the Association of Alumni, comprising all 68,000 Dartmouth graduates, lament the decision by the Board of Trustees to eliminate the historic parity between the number of Trustees chosen by the Board itself and those chosen by all alumni. This is in flagrant violation of an agreement between the College and her alumni that has benefited Dartmouth for well over a century.
Further, we deem unacceptable that the Board should now dictate the election process by which alumni choose Trustees, a power which has appropriately and historically been determined and exercised by alumni themselves.
The lengthy report by the Trustees' governance committee, seemingly reasonable on the surface, is revealed upon a more careful inspection to be problematic and at times misleading. One positive in the report, creating standing committees for academics, student life, and alumni relations, is sadly outweighed by the negative of reducing your role in electing Trustees.
A more expansive response, including our proximate course of action, will be issued after we have had more time to digest and deliberate the full implications of the Trustee decision.
Association Officers & Executives:
Martin Boles '80
Timothy Dreisbach '71
Frank Gado '58
David Gale '00
Alex Mooney '93
Marji Ross '81
Kathryn Wallop '80
31 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: constitution, Dartmouth, keggy the keg
Email – 
Search
About
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
September 11th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Oh Keggy…I can’t wait to go back to school.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
In the past week or so, there’s been 3 articles in the WSJ about this, 1 in Forbes, 1 in the NYT, and at least 3 from British papers. Apparently, the board decided to say, “shove it”.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:25 am
A couple of the petition candidates have strong ties with the WSJ, which also employs a former editor of the Dartmouth Review (who wrote one of those articles). This is an incredibly bad move on the part of the “establishment,” and it’s simply going to encourage the brainless idiots who fancy themselves the “Lone Pine Revolution.” Neither of these camps speak for me or for most students and recent alumni.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Most recent alumni I’ve talked with are enraged by this move. It doesn’t matter what you think about the current petition candidates, or the current dirrection of the college. This moves prevents any Alum from having a say in any future state or dirrection of the college.
It is also upsetting that after having asked alumni(through the consitution vote last year), a small majority of the Board, pushed by their Administration masters, decided to enact what was not agreed on, and then some.
This clearly will not cause the college to die, but the repurcussions of this action I imagine will be sharp and swift.
Alumni and current students (many of whom I have spoken with) love thier college, but will not stand to see the things that make it so wonderfull degraded.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:22 am
@d06: why, exactly, should alumni have such a great say in the future state or direction of the college? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not have a lot of alumni pre-1970 having any control over the College. If you love your College, you shouldn’t feel the need to have such control over it. Alumni will sometimes be resistant to much-needed change. I don’t support the Board’s move–it was horribly planned and executed. But there’s just so much sensationalism on every side…
September 12th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Very few alumni fixate on the Board and understand their various responsibilities and the Board’s structure. The “radical” alumni that have been winning elections have been winning because 1) they incite natural passions for free speech (by pretending there is a speech code at Dartmouth when even the Dartmouth Review can acknowledge that Dartmouth does an amazing job in that area relative to other schools), 2) they claim the Board infinges on democracy (well, the Board was not and never was a democracy), 3) they claim that the College is variously no longer a small college as it was 30 years ago (very true, our endowment is a great reflection of this), that the College no longer cares about the students (wildly speculative and in my personal experience and in those of many friends, very untrue), or that the beuaracracy is too bloated with do-nothing deans and organizations (since the College is SO much smaller, population-wise, than its peer institutions, we do have many administrative arms that are not as vitally required as at those other schools but to keep up in the “arms race” for the best quality students, professors and resources, we have administrative elements that seem superfluous on the surface) and 4) the petition candidates were mostly defeating a slate of recommended candidates that were canceling each other out.
Unlike my fellow classmate d06 (above), I am not enraged by this move. I support the Board of Trustees because I believe Dartmouth, as it exists today, is an outstandingly run College and I give a great deal of credit to President Wright and the Board. Yes, at various times, I have actively disagreed with their policies, but I believe that their current direction is a good one. I am enraged by the manipulations of the “lone piners” who equate the failed, 7-year-old SLI with a current speech code. I believe that alumni will continue to have the strongest and most vital voice in the Board…they dominate the current Board and will continue to do so in the future.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
@d07
Wha???
If you love your College, you shouldn’t feel the need to have such control over it.
So i suppose if you love your baby, you shouldn’t feel the need to have control over him/her as well eh? but instead have a “board” of people who don’t represent your interests make decisions about the child on your behalf?
come on. this is not about being resistant to change. the board itself is resistant to change. this is about giving alumns the ability to have a voice… about democracy. I’m sure you’d be pissed if the board was taken over by dartmouth review staff in 20s years. the way things are now, you’d have no way to complain about anything they’ve done or stand against them. don’t be short sighted about this. we need our democracy!
September 12th, 2007 at 10:59 am
“The “radical” alumni that have been winning elections have been winning because”
Question: what evidence is there that the petition candidates are merely supported by some radical fringe group (and, yeah I know there’s conservative people supporting them, but what evidence is there that that’s all there is to it)? Haldeman and Wright can complain about these people all day along, but at least they have something to go by that suggests there’s support for the petition’s candidate views — what poll, what election is there that suggests the opposite?
No offense to the slate of recommended candidates, but it’s not like this was a run-off mayoral election–that’s all they all they were in this context, recommended candidates, and there wasn’t much of a groundswell for them outside of this fact.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:10 am
“@d07
Wha???
If you love your College, you shouldn’t feel the need to have such control over it.
So i suppose if you love your baby, you shouldn’t feel the need to have control over him/her as well eh?”
—-
I can understand his point. The problem I have is a lot of people love it because it valued input (or at least made that demonstration). These elections didn’t have to be just a formality–you could have petition candidates. If the board wants it to be like other schools and says people shouldn’t care because this is how it’s done elsewhere, that other places are as bureaucratic, okay, but if it’s merely no different than other places, then it’s merely no different than places, that damages how much loyalty people are willing to show it.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I’m curious as to how many alumni still believe women shouldn’t be admitted to the College.
I wouldn’t be so concerned with the “alumni voice” if so many of our alumni weren’t old, conservative hacks. As a major in the sciences I’m especially concerned, as their effors to produce “well rounded men of Dartmouth” largely thwart my ability to access talented minds in the field. These alumni are totally ignoring the globalization of the College, which will ultiamtely lead to its demise.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
@d10
There are certainly a few hold outs that do still have that antiquated notion of Dartmouth as a bastion of masculinity…a male paridise. I would say however, that they are few and far in between, and that most of those who do still hold such attitudes have long since ceased being involved with the college.
None of the petition trustees have EVER advocated going back to a single sex school…in fact, most of them were classmates with women while they were at dartmouth. This “conservative/revoke coeducation/no diversity” tag that has been applied to these folks is, in my opinion way off. I have met 3 out of the 4 of those petition trustees that are so villified by the administration, and they are just pasionate alumns that want to see a refocuss on the faculty, taking resouces to do that away from a bloated administration.
To address your second question, don’t for a second think that these 4 individuals do not value the role of the sciences at Dartmouth. TJ’s entire career has been built off the base he was endowed with while studying engineering @ dartmouth. Their cause is to focuss on the undergraduates…that includes undergraduate research in the sciences. You should have to worry about compeeting h graduate students to assist professors researching as you would at most any other Ivy institution (Princeton asside I think).
At any rate, to end a rambling post, the change in the structure of the board may curtail petition candidates now with a particular view point, but it will also curtail candidates in the future that may have a totaly different view. It insulates the board from change. This is certainly not a good thing.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Anon,
My statements above reflect some generalities, for sure. The “radical” petition candidates, four of whom are now Trustees, are importnat alumni voices and I am grateful for them. However, the Alumni Council’s history of nominating 3 candidates for each seat has been a big reason for “radical” electoral success. The new rules stipulate that only 1 or 2 candidates be nominated, which should prevent the mainstream candidates from cancelling each other out.
It’s also very worth remembering that Dartmouth “currently has the highest proportion of alumni-nominated trustees of any peer institution and is one of the few schools that allows alumni to petition directly onto the ballot.”
September 12th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
@dart96: Dartmouth is not my baby. Dartmouth owes me nothing. I received a generous scholarship to a prestigious academic institution, and I took the opportunity that was offered to me. I plan on giving back to Dartmouth as much as I possible can, because, if anybody owes anything, it’s me. If you think that the “Lone Pine Revolution” has been good for Dartmouth, then you’re truly mistaken. To use your analogy: sometimes the best thing a parent can do is let go.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
@d10:
Those ‘old, conservative hacks’ you cite are the ones who have seeded the endowment and allowing it to provide substantial financial aid and operating costs for your current Dartmouth experience. They have also funded the construction of Berry and Rauner Libraries, Kemeny Hall, Moore Psychology Center, Wilder, Fairchild, Burke, McClean, and so forth and so on. Those names didn’t get selected from thin air. If you want to benefit from continued resource growth within the college, it’d be appropriate to show due appreciation to the involvement of your predecessors rather than jump juvenile name calling. If you think the current alumni and alumnae are ruining your experience, remember the college wouldn’t have ever expanded past Dartmouth Hall if it weren’t for generous alumni involvement. Perhaps respect and tolerance for those with whom you disagree (even when voiced anonymously) will be something you learn before May 2010.
Additionally, if you truly believe that it is just the alumni/ae who believe in the “well-rounded men of Dartmouth” then you clearly paid no attention to Dartmouth’s mission and philosophy when researching colleges before application. It is, and always has been, a small liberal arts college with great resources. The entire institutional goal is a balanced education. If you feel that becoming well-rounded “thwarts your ability to access talented minds in the field” then you (and I say this as a physics major) should have gone to a tech school. Since you didn’t you 1) ought to take a more thorough look at the talented minds Dartmouth makes readily accessible and 2) need to explore the Dartmouth name will open the doors to many talented minds outside Hanover. Truly, you must be working hard to feel short-changed by the resources to which you have access.
Maintaining its individuality by following its timelessly honorable mission will not lead to Dartmouth’s demise but rather allow it to continue producing another 238 years of revered members of society. And perhaps, one hundred years from now, Dartmouth will again be named one of the worlds ten most enduring institutions alongside The University of Oxford.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
From what I have seen so far, it really looks like the liberals against the conservatives, just like it is at every college everywhere. Why can’t everyone just focus on the bigger pictures, instead of pitting the artsy liberals against the fratboy neocons? The bigger pictures being the growth and success of Dartmouth’s reputation so that it becomes a school recognized worldwide like a Harvard or an Oxford. I will be a Dartmouth student (am I officially yet?) and it is frustrating to have to try and explain this alumni disagreement to people. As (I think it was) Gandhi said, “can’t we all just get along?”
September 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Personally, I think alumni should refuse to give Dartmouth a cent until they go back to the old board system. If they don’t want continued alumni input (enough that it matters, anyway - less than 1/3 of the board is not going to be able to make any decisions), they should try managing without alumni money as well.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Actually, it was Rodney King. Close though.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
@d04: God, you suck.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
d04, you make the Board’s point exactly. Institutional candidates are largely selected on fundraising and giving abilities. Ed Haldeman is a passionate trustee that has a building named after him. Pretty much anyone who donates a building can sit on the Board if they like.
The problem is those petition candidates that bring very little to the table in that regard. Sure, they are passionate and mostly high achieving people. But aside from Rogers, they do not have a lot of money to throw to the College.
If their ideas truly aren’t radical, as some have suggested, let them push their agenda and represent an alumni constituency that clearly exists. But let us also not be deprived of the big spenders that will allow Dartmouth to continue to provide the best undergraduate education in the world.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
d04, you make the Board’s point exactly. Institutional candidates are largely selected on fundraising and giving abilities. Ed Haldeman is a passionate trustee that has a building named after him. Pretty much anyone who donates a building can sit on the Board if they like.
The problem is those petition candidates that bring very little to the table in that regard. Sure, they are passionate and mostly high achieving people. But aside from Rogers, they do not have a lot of money to throw to the College.
If their ideas truly aren’t radical, as some have suggested, let them push their agenda and represent an alumni constituency that clearly exists. But let us also not be deprived of the big spenders that will allow Dartmouth to continue to provide the best undergraduate education in the world.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Frankly, I wish that Dartmouth could just reinstate the Indian mascot. It’s really not that offensive, and the old pictures of the student dressed in a headdress actually look somewhat authentic, not caricatured (unlike “Chief Wahoo” of the Cleveland Indians). Last year I was annoyed that UIllinois had to discard their mascot Chief Illiniwek simply because those politically correct idiots at the NCAA demanded it.
Sorry, but I would side with the DartReview crowd on this one. To think I almost went there for school!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
“But let us also not be deprived of the big spenders that will allow Dartmouth to continue to provide the best undergraduate education in the world.”
—-
That’s great for them and Dartmouth, but do you think the amount of people who give money and are against the decision are limited to the four petition candidates?
—-
“The new rules stipulate that only 1 or 2 candidates be nominated, which should prevent the mainstream candidates from cancelling each other out.”
—-
That makes perfect sense to me and I wouldn’t oppose it at all.
—-
“It’s also very worth remembering that Dartmouth “currently has the highest proportion of alumni-nominated trustees of any peer institution and is one of the few schools that allows alumni to petition directly onto the ballot.”
—-
If this is a good thing, though, why lessen it? Either decide it’s bad or make some modifications and keep it around.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
@d04: If Dartmouth is a small liberal arts college, then maybe I ought to transfer. While I’m at it, every physics, math, bio, chem, and psych major ought to transfer as well, and then we can dismantle Thayer and the DMS while we’re at it. Then we will see how well Dartmouth fares. Dartmouth is a University, and it’s high time you old, conservative hacks (yes, I’m saying it again) realize this. Even my old, conservative grandfather realizes that my Dartmouth isn’t his Dartmouth of 53 years ago, and really oughtn’t be.
I didn’t apply to any tech schools because I don’t enjoy being in those types of environments, but I’m not training to be some sort of classical orator that spends his weekends at his country club throwing around political speak. I think the current set of requirements as it stands does well to expose us to many fields we may not have encountered otherwise, but we must also choose a specific path through college if we’re going to excel in the real world. We can’t all be expected to graduate with an immediate six figure bonus from Merrill Lynch simply because we were in the same frat as an executive and got a “well rounded” education.
And you’re perfectly right; Kemeny, Moore, Sudikoff, Fairchild, Berry, McClean, they were all donated by old alumni. But can you honestly imagine that these people gave money for state of the art science buildings with a clause in the contract saying, “make sure you populate these with mediocre staff that won’t allow the students to be too good in any one thing, just well rounded”? I can’t make any strong claims, but I certainly believe that these funds were given with the intent of pushing the College forward, not pulling it back into the 19th century.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
@d10:
I think what d04 is getting at is that Dartmouth is and has been for a while focused on undergraduate teaching, not on research and graduate studies like most other research universities. While we have all those programs, they are really just extras that complement the undergraduate aspect of the college. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to go to a tech school, but it sounds to me like you were looking for an academic environment like MIT, and I can’t see how you expected to find that at Dartmouth. Honestly, though, we have so much room within our curriculum that you could do as much focusing as you want. It’s reasonable to finish distribs in 10 classes if you are careful, and one or two of those will probably go towards your major. That leaves at least 25 (I don’t remember the exact number) classes to use on your major if you like, with most majors being completed in 8-10 classes. You could practically take every relevant class in a department of your choice if you wanted (I know I thought about doing this in math for a while, but then quickly realized that I would probably gouge my eyes out if I did). Not only that, but every department offers students the option of pursuing reading courses and undergraduate research courses. There are also Presidential Scholarships, which I would encourage you to take advantage of. I don’t see how you could think that you must necessarily be molded into “some sort of classical orator” at Dartmouth; you clearly have large amounts of freedom in your curriculum, even if you do have to take a few humanities courses. However, the appeal of Darmtouth to most people who end up going is the option of jumping easily between fields, going to school with people with such diverse interests, and the close professor/student relationships that are possible at a school as small as Dartmouth.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
@d09
I won’t argue with you since I agree with you and realize most of what you say. I don’t hate Dartmouth. If you read what I wrote again, I think the distribs work well. I don’t want to be at MIT, hence not considering going there. Although I don’t believe the current administration is perfect, or even very good, I’m also against the reactionary stance against it.
And my argument isn’t specifically geared towards the sciences, they just make for the strongest case. We’re not going to attract world class faculty if we don’t provide them with the opportunity to immerse themselves in their fields. And strong graduate programs don’t necessitate ignoring undergrads. Just look at Princeton.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
d10, why is a critical view of certain trustees and the current adminstration automatically deemed a “reactionary stance?”
I’ve read comments on these boards over the last few days that seem quite disparaging of the alumni as a whole. Comments asserting that alumni participation is dominated by bigotted old white men. As I recall, 38% of the 67,700 then-living alumni voted on the proposed changes to the Alumni Assoc. constitution last fall, and those voters were split pretty evenly. Most of the people I know voted on the issue, ranging in class years from 2002 to 2006, and they voted on both sides.
At times I’ve had my misgivings about the beliefs and opinions of some of my fellow alumni, and each of us has some strong emotions regarding the school. However, I respect the alumni as my peers, I acknowledge their intelligence, and therefore do not believe that they would vote on an issue pertaining to the College without first informing themselves concerning the issues and considering their choices. Alumni are smart, passionate people just as they were when they were students.
Certainly a recent alum’s memory of the College is not so far from the present reality on campus as to render that opinion irrelevant. Indeed, classmates of mine served on the very admissions committee that brought you to Dartmouth. Are their alumni opinions thoughtless and uninformed?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:56 am
One of the best (or perhaps the only good) editorial ever written by The Dartmouth:
Dartmouth’s trial in organizational democracy is no longer in its best interest. But let us be clear, and don’t let anyone fool you; the College’s current structure of governance isn’t really a democracy. Democracy is government by the governed. In the case of Dartmouth, the students and faculty are the governed, but the alumni are not. The so-called government for those constituencies is the Board of Trustees and, no matter how the Board is composed, the governance of Dartmouth relies on the construction of a Board that acts in the best interest of the College’s students and teachers. So, when the Board convenes Friday, it should attempt to construct a Board with that goal — and only that goal — in mind.
Over the last few years, elections for alumni trustees have seated the wrong people. The victor in the most recent election, Stephen Smith ‘88, ran against a phantom speech code. One of the winners of the previous alumni trustee election was Todd Zywicki ‘88, a Virginia lawyer skilled at and willing to make completely specious arguments convincingly.
Zywicki recently backed off the argument he made in an August op-ed in this newspaper that the 1891 resolution of the Board is a contract between Dartmouth and its alumni that “promises the alumni body the right to elect half of the Board.” For a systematic dismantling of that argument, the Editorial Board would point readers to former Trustee Kate Stith-Cabranes ‘73’s essay published on The Dartmouth Independent’s website last week. Zywicki responded to Stith-Cabranes on his blog, denying that he had ever tried to argue that the 1891 agreement was legally binding. He without question was trying to convince readers that the 1891 resolution was binding, whether or not he believed it himself.
Smith’s and Zywicki’s demagoguery demonstrates what can go wrong in the current system if individuals decide to exploit it. In the age of all-media voting and the Internet, smart people can convince the less informed of many things, true or not, and the current system has rewarded those adept at rhetoric. We want for Dartmouth stewards, not politicians.
Now Dartmouth is at a juncture. It must decide what is best for its future. A big part of that future is the money that will maintain the College. Truly frightening would be a scenario in which the major donors lost their say on the Board to those who undervalue large gifts to the College. If major donors cease to have influence, Dartmouth will cease to have major donors, a scenario that the Board has a responsibility to avoid. Indeed, these financial considerations should be understandable; they were the impetus for the resolution in 1891.
Dartmouth’s new Board structure could take one of many forms. Whatever the Board decides, it should place a great deal of the power in the hands of people dedicated to stewardship and to future Boards. It should reward large donors, and it should consist of a range of vantage points and skills. Undoubtedly the alumni viewpoint is vital and should have a place on the Board; T.J. Rodgers ‘70 shook up the Board positively when he brought Dartmouth’s questionable commitment to free speech to its end. But the alumni should not be able to take the Board; it is not theirs to take. We agree with Board Chairman Ed Haldeman ‘70 that alumni will sometimes resist beneficial change and that tough decisions are not always popular.
Dartmouth is distinctive in its alumni dedication, but that loyalty is the product of our college, not the structure of the Board. To those loyal alumni who love the College so, Dartmouth will always rely on your approval. Your philanthropy or lack thereof will always be a constraint on the Board’s decisions. But true love is selfless. If you truly love it, you should be able to cherish the College without controlling it.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Old conservative hacks on trustee boards are a thing of the past. Glad to see that Dartmouth is getting with the times. Anyway, let all the outrage and fury be expressed. The fact is, people will continue to support the institution. These are the kinds of people who have too much pride to allow their precious little school go down the tubes.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“true love is selfless. If you truly love it, you should be able to cherish the College without controlling it.”
—-
True love is recipricated. It’s not manifested in being asked for your opinion - then told to shove off. It’s not just the changes the board’s making, but the way they’re making it that’s the problem. If Dartmouth continues to be the instution it was, that alumni enjoyed - cool - but the fact they’re even going about it this way is a sign it isn’t; these sorts of things are indicators that this is not what’s planned.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 am
This whole thread has made me so damn irritated.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 am
all of my dartmouth buddies have suspended donations as of when this news first came out. Most of us still think it’s an outrage. sure, the kids on this board will argue all day about it, but most alums think this strong arming is the work of the “devil” in the form of mr. wright. perhaps we can reincarnate daniel webster to challenge him to a debate for the democratic “soul” of the college.
that’s my opinion… and that of most of the alums i’ve spoken with in the past few weeks. there i’m done. no arguing…
after all, arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. win or lose…. you’re still retarded…