— From top left: Sheila C. Cheston '80, Peter Robinson '79, Richard W. Lewis '84, Curtis R. Welling '71, Gregg L. Engles '79, Todd Zywicki '88. —
Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/02/11/six_vie_for_alumni_trustee_post.php
Friday, February 11, 2005
When Eleazar Wheelock sought to get his little school chartered, the men to whom he entrusted the College's money, according to the charter's text, "cheerfully agreed." Some trustees certainly haven't been "cheery" or, as the document describes original trustee John Wentworth, "trusty." So it falls, then, to the alumni to ensure that at least some are. In the spring, they will select two new trustees to fill vacancies on the board, and thereby guide their College and its direction.
— From top left: Sheila C. Cheston '80, Peter Robinson '79, Richard W. Lewis '84, Curtis R. Welling '71, Gregg L. Engles '79, Todd Zywicki '88. —
In December, the Alumni Council's Nominating Committee selected four official candidates after a long series of interviews. Sheila Cheston '80, senior vice president, general counsel, and secretary of B.A.E. Systems North America, was contacted for consideration several months before being officially tapped. Andrea Lordan '86, who chaired the Alumni Council's nominating committee, identifies "prior experience on non-profit and for-profit boards and similar bodies" as one criterion employed by the selectors.
Along with Cheston, the committee selected three other candidates. Curtis Welling '71, 1973 graduate of Tuck, is president and C.E.O. of AmeriCares, a "nonprofit disaster relief and humanitarian aid organization." Welling estimates that he has "dedicated ten to twenty percent of his time to public service." He also served as President of the Alumni Council, which selected him. Gregg Engles '79, chairman and C.E.O. of Dean Foods Company, is a member of the President's Leadership Council of Dartmouth. Richard Lewis '84, chief executive of Curzon Global Partners, has accepted a second nomination after last year's unsuccessful race.
The official nominees share notable traits. All four candidates belonged to single-sex Greek houses and serve as corporate executives. Andrea Lordan emphasizes that because trustees serve multi-year terms, career distribution should be analyzed over several consecutive slates; last year's official slate included a professor and university administrator, for example. The slates may be well-distributed, but the vast majority of current trustees have no hand in academics. They're generally people of enterprise and captains of industry, and this year's official slate, though including a non-profit executive and former law professor, emphasizes that particular mold over that of academe.
Of course, voters need not limit themselves to the official slate. In last year's election, T. J. Rodgers '70 successfully ran as a write-in candidate, a feat accomplished previously only by John Steele in 1980. This year, Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88 hope to follow in Rodgers' footsteps. Alumni not nominated by the Council may appear on the ballot if they submit five-hundred signed petitions by February 23rd (though they must request them by the tenth). Requiring participation by less than one percent of the electorate, it's a realizable, though tedious, task. Robinson and Zywicki have set up websites that link to letters explaining their candidacy and concerns.
Like the official would-be trustees, these two write-in candidates share certain features. Both hold official scholarly positions (Robinson at the Hoover Institution, Zywicki at George Mason Law School), both have worked in government (Robinson wrote Reagan's famous "tear down this wall" speech, Zywicki did policy work for the Federal Trade Commission). Zywicki blogs for The Volokh Conspiracy, and Robinson contributes to The Corner on National Review Online. Neither of their fathers attended college.
Of these six candidates, I spoke with Robinson, Zywicki, and Cheston. Besides demonstrating a deep affinity toward their alma mater, they also touched on some common issues, salient in Dartmouth's current politics. Each has several favorites, which always included, first, support for undergraduate education. Beyond this, Cheston wants to increase communication with the alumni body, which she calls a "tremendous resource." Zywicki trumpets the well-rounded student, funding that prioritizes education and transparency in governance. Robinson emphasizes free speech and athletics.
The undergraduate mission of the College is their peak interest. Sheila Cheston wants the College to "provide the best undergraduate education that it can," stating that a "talented, diverse student body" and academically accomplished faculty also excited by teaching set Dartmouth apart. Zywicki asserts that "Dartmouth has drifted from its core mission in recent years," often by diverting funds to "programs of questionable educational value" and creating new dean's positions while simultaneously closing satellite libraries like Sanborn— evidence of what he calls "pathologies of a bureaucracy run amok."
In describing their ideal Dartmouth professors, they accentuate the classroom. Cheston desires a distinguished faculty also excited by teaching. Robinson and Zywicki both esteem a particular Government professor, Vincent Starzinger. Robinson recollects that he and his classmates would be "thoroughly prepared and alive—intellectually alive" while attending one of Starzinger's classes. Zywicki recalls that Starzinger would "pass on the wisdom of the ages" before considering personal views. Too many professors, states Robinson, "see teaching as a burden they must endure to perform their real work, research." Zywicki observes a teaching-research symbiosis; from his experience, professors who taught did research that was "useful, accessible, and relevant."
Athletics, now something of a third rail in Dartmouth politics since the Furstenberg affair, fared well. Cheston, who rowed varsity crew, acknowledged the social attributes of athleticism. Robinson affirmed the idea of mens sana in corpore sano, the classical idea of comprehensive health in mind and body. Zywicki points out that many schools wish they could strike the balance between athletics and academics as effectively as the Ivy League. He adds that athletics build alumni pride and loyalty, while achieving well-roundedness in students.
Candidates did not emphasize Greek life but spoke kindly of it. Zywicki formed some of his deepest friendships through his fraternity, and Cheston witnessed the foundation of the sorority system at Dartmouth, of which she became a part. Zywicki sees it as a freedom of association issue; he acknowledged that some negative aspects need reform, yet "the administration's war against the fraternities and sororities must end." Cheston acknowledged the system's importance, while stating that it is only one part of social life. Robinson wants the administration to allow the system to flourish instead of "[paying] it lip service while in fact engaging in harassment."
Robinson in particular championed the issue of free speech. Official college policies and "petty harassment" by administrators entrench political correctness, he asserts, pointing to Dartmouth's poor ratings by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. This issue is manifest, he declares, in the campaign for Trusteeship itself, which is marked by substantial restrictions on communications with alumni. Candidates, once officially confirmed, must sign a consent form, agreeing that campaigning by the candidate or supporters beyond "two e-mails is inappropriate." This includes "written, electronic, or telephone communications." The official slate, posted online on December 17th, had not been publicized in an official capacity by February 9th save for an approximately 160-word biography of each candidate. According to the Alumni Affairs office, Patricia Fisher '81, Director of Alumni Leadership, would soon have a "conversation" with the candidates, and videos would be made and released to the public. The guidelines provided by Alumni Relations guarantee a biographical statement and a candidate's statement (each four-hundred words) that cannot contain endorsements.
Peter Robinson says the rule "restricts the flow of information" too much, and though he'd be happy to see it changed, he'd of course abide by it. Zywicki called the restrictions "vaguely drawn." Cheston sees the rules as preventing the elections from getting out of control, concurring with Patricia Fisher that the speech restrictions were necessary to treat all candidates equally. The campaigning policy applies not only to the candidate but also to supporters. "At a time when technology is making it possible for information of all kinds to flow in vast streams," notes Robinson, "the administration permits only stingy trickles." He perceives his opposing this regulation as part of a larger effort to promote free speech and transparency.
Fewer than a quarter of the 62,000 eligible alumni voted in last year's election. Though no one wants to see grandstanding or multi-million dollar fundraising drive these campaigns, if the alumni are to be further mobilized, perhaps it would be prudent to allow communication beyond a few censored blurbs. After all, Dartmouth alums aren't known for their apathy; a bit of urgency and persuasion might direct their devotion toward their ballots. Meanwhile, the wisdom of Dartmouth's sons and daughters will have to suffice this spring.