Make a Statement: Don't Vote!

By J. Lawrence Scholer | Monday, April 1, 2002

Ask any student about the current Alumni Trustee election, and you will get a quizzical stare and a careless shrug of the shoulders. That the alumni are in the process of electing a new Trustee is a shock to the average undergraduate. But, why should students even care? The Trustees have a recent history of making decisions that are contrary to the interests of students, and the interaction students do have with the Trustees borders on the absurd.

Last spring, for instance, activist students held a protest outside Parkhurst as the Trustees were inside holding their spring meeting. Amid chants of 'We're here, we're queer, and our parents think we're studying' and 'Hell no, status quo,' students took turns addressing the small crowd of students that had gathered at the steps. What did these students call for? A black box theater program, a Korean studies program, a new Women's Resource Center, an end of the crusade to destroy the Education Department. Other proposals were lost in the fanfare and bongo drumming.

The Trustees' attention has been left to a handful of student activists, activists with whom the Trustees and administration largely agree. If the Trustees believe that this small, poorly organized gathering represents the sentiments of the majority of Dartmouth students, they are mistaken. The majority of Dartmouth students don't care what the College does. Moving the Women's Resource Center to Collis would not bring more students to the WRC but instead drive students from Collis. Most are content to remain silent, avoiding any controversy, taking classes and fraternizing in basements. And, with spectacles like the one last spring, who can blame them?

Now it appears that this apathy has crept into the ranks of Dartmouth alumni. Fifty thousand strong, the alumni body should have the ability to influence the direction of the College, but as among students, a small administration-friendly cohort controls the alumni.

The Association of Alumni, the members of which include all alumni of the College, is currently holding an election for Alumni Trustee. The Alumni Council nominated three candidates for the position—Chansoo Joung '82, Tuck '87, Jose Fernandez '77, and Mark Harty '73—and now alumni must vote.

Voting, however, has proven to be difficult. This year someone (exactly who makes these decisions is unclear, as the alumni don't participate in these clerical matters) decided to have an electronic election—those capable would vote on-line. Those capable of voting on-line were all alumni who had an e-mail address in the Alumni Office—these alumni would be forced to vote electronically. If an alumnus, who was slated to vote electronically desired a paper ballot, he would have request one from the Alumni Office. The request, however, was not a guarantee that the alumnus would receive any voting materials.

Ostensibly, voting electronically should be very simple—easy for the voter and easier for tabulating the results. Voting Dartmouth-style is not so foolproof. Alumni cannot simply open their web browser to www.dartmouth.edu/alumni, click the correct link, log-on and vote. Electronic voters have to contact the Alumni Office for information necessary to log-on—a unique pin number. Whereas voting used to entail marking a paper ballot and returning it to Hanover, now the process contains more steps and requires some personal effort for a vote—and for most alumni it's hardly worth the effort.

The new voting process has hindered voter turn-out. The election was scheduled to be complete at the end of March; however, the election period was extended for a month, to April 30. The alumni at large had no input in this decision. Such a move brings to mind tired election jokes from 2000, and one can't help but recall the stories of inner city voters in St. Louis electing a dead man at polls which should have closed hours before. Regardless of the outcome, alumni should challenge the decision—it seems a viable and socially responsible tactic.

If the deadline extension is a result of low voter turn-out, many alumni will inevitably turn to these pages for a candidate endorsement. Well, we aren't going to do that. It is not that we don't want to; it's just that we have no basis on which to pick a candidate. One cannot make an informed decision based on the information given about the candidates.

On the alumni website, each candidate presents his views, all three responding to the same questions. Far from giving any insight into the candidates, the responses are merely standard, cookie-cutter replies to very broad questions. Each candidate answers in generalities, and, it is nearly impossible to distinguish among them. The candidates litter their responses with empty words like 'diversity' and 'community,' both of which Dartmouth needs to more actively foster, they say.

Nor do the candidates bring anything truly novel to the discussion. 'Another priority will be the challenge of creating a more diverse community despite the College's rural setting,' says Chansoo Joung. 'Those who harass, denigrate or embarrass their fellow students based on sexual, racial, or ethnic criteria forsake their place in the Dartmouth community,' responds Jose Fernandez. Fernandez does not explain how far he would take these measures. Would he apply it to students shouting football cheers or fraternity members writing a humorous newsletter? 'I would stress the importance of diversity and tolerance and mutual respect in the Dartmouth community,' says Mark Harty, mirroring the Fernandez statement. One wonders whether the college prepared their responses.

Information on the backgrounds of the candidates is sketchy at best. Fernandez, New York attorney and a Cuban refugee, seeks to improve the preparation Dartmouth gives students for the international community. Fernandez wants to create more 'international programs,' presumably more 'Studies' type courses, some of which exist today. 'Studies' courses, however, tend not to prepare students for the international world, but teach students about ethnocentrism and other rhetoric. Nor does he view the Student Life Initiative as a solution to the College's social woes. He goes further: '[The SLI's] recommendations must serve as a means and not an end.'

Chansoo Joung has spent his career at Goldman Sachs consulting with boards of corporations, institutions, and governments. Joung is the sole candidate who seeks to accomplish specific academic goals. He wants to improve the math and science curriculum for non-majors. 'I believe that many of our best and brightest students that [sic] graduate with social science degrees are functionally math illiterate,' he writes. He views this improvement as necessary for students as they enter a world where technology is so important, he writes. Like Fernandez, he sees the SLI as only one step the College should take: 'I think the Student Life Initiative is the right start in some of these directions but it needs to become more than a one-time initiative.'

Mark Harty's answers are stocked with generalities. A lawyer, Harty believes 'Dartmouth has a spirit, a vitality, and a history of excellence that is unique in all of academia.' But, who at Dartmouth or close to Dartmouth would disagree with that? Harty praises the SLI for considering 'issues regarding inclusiveness and community.' He also wants Dartmouth to foster idealism—'This can be done through 'need blind' admissions and by a strong, diverse, and vibrant study body.' Is our student body not this? Nothing novel there—institutions require 'need blind' admissions and strong students to stay competitive.

Though vague at best, these responses remain the only option for alumni seeking to compare the candidates. The Association of Alumni prohibits candidates from campaigning of any kind, basically barring discourse with concerned alumni. Say an alumni club invites a candidate to speak to the group—the candidate would be prohibited from doing so by the Association of Alumni. Alumni also face an obstacle if they try to personally contact the candidates. The Alumni Office issues a directory of alumni every five years, the last being released in 1996. In 2001, alumni gave relevant information and ordered the new edition of the alumni guide. Doubtless, much of the information would have changed since 1996. Alumni have yet to receive their order—it should have come in December.

Given the uncertainties with this election and a prevailing sentiment among alumni that their voices will not be heard, make a statement and don't vote. By abstaining from voting, alumni will send a message to the Trustees through embarrassingly low voter turn-out numbers. While alumni apathy is a sad, although natural response, to the current state of Dartmouth, that it exists is obvious and will be apparent to all.

Make a Statement: Don't Vote!

Article Tools

Related Articles