Letters to the Editor

Friday, April 8, 2005

Let's Not Jump to Conclusions

Sir—

As a member of both Dartmouth Alumni for Open Governance (DAOG) and the Alumni Governance Task Force, I take exception to Nathaniel Ward's article of March 11, "Alumni Seek Constitutional Change (Again)." In addition to some glaring factual errors, Mr. Ward paints an incomplete and somewhat twisted picture. The Task Force and its working proposal deserve another look.

The Task Force was formed by the presidents of the Association of Alumni and the Alumni Council the month after the defeat of the previous constitutional overhaul attempt, known as Draft 15. They later expanded its membership to better represent the spectrum of opinions about governance reform, including another dissenting voice (other than my own).

From the start, the approach of the Task Force has been to tackle, head on, the controversial issues that arose with Draft 15. Some of these issues have been discussed and compromises reached, while others continue to be debated. The recently distributed interim report focuses on some solutions to those contentious issues and outlines an innovative reworking of our alumni organizations that differs substantially from the previous plan. The most noteworthy change can be summed up by saying that the Council is being merged back into the Association, not the other way around. What we are left with is a strong, unified Association with its leadership elected by all alumni via all-media voting. Also, it will be easier for dissident voices to be heard through, among other things, the communication outreach efforts of the new Alumni Liaison Board; through electing at-large members to the ALB, the Assembly, and some committees; and through petition processes for everything from Assembly membership, to leadership positions, to Alumni Trustee. There are, indeed, significant changes alumni need to consider. For its part, the Task Force will carefully consider alumni comments on these changes and fashion a final draft that will hopefully be acceptable to the vast majority of alumni, including the many who, like myself, helped defeat Draft 15.

It is important to understand that some constitutional changes proposed in Draft 15 were (and are) widely accepted and are not at issue (one reformer called Draft 15 "a glass half full") and, thus, are retained in the Task Force proposal. One of these is the suggested change in the process of nominating and electing Alumni Trustees. Reducing the number of candidates to two per vacancy (plus any petition candidates) and the change from the "approval voting" system (vote for any or all acceptable candidates) to the "instant run-off voting" system (indicate your first and second choices) is a very positive move and in no way disenfranchises alumni. True, there are other aspects of Draft 15 that have been retained, either through reasoned debate or as a part of some compromise, that some may find troubling, and alumni should speak out if any seem unreasonable (for example: raising the number of signatures required for Alumni Trustee petition candidates to place their name on the ballot from 500 to one percent of the alumni body, or about 620 people.

Mr. Ward's article suggests that "opposition" viewpoints have not been sought out, respected, and incorporated into the current proposal. In fact, the Task Force has worked hard to specifically address those concerns. As it has evolved, deftly steered by chairman Joe Stevenson '57, the Task Force has proven itself to be that rare environment where alumni can bridge philosophical divides and work together toward a better Dartmouth, which is pretty exciting whichever "side" you are on. Not only are two DAOG members respected and often-heeded members of the Task Force, but the chairman and other Task Force members have had serious, substantive, and productive face-to-face meetings with DAOG leaders on two separate occasions. These meetings (and periodic communications via telephone and e-mail) have proven invaluable in Task Force deliberations and in crafting the working proposal. This is a huge improvement and the results are evident. The primacy and supremacy of the Association, the creation of the ALB to breathe life into the communication process, all media voting, directly elected at-large representatives to the Assembly and the ALB, directly elected leadership, yearly review of the Association constitution and related governance issues, and a more representative Assembly are all critical parts of the current working model that most reformers, I think, would embrace. Further, the Task Force continues to especially seek the input of reform-minded alumni. So, if you see something in the proposal you don't like, now is the time to speak up. If there is a better organizational construct for the Association of Alumni, let's get it on the table and discuss it.

Substantial change can be confusing, and if the Task Force's interim report is unclear, it may be due, in part, to the fact that the Task Force has tried to include and engage the alumni body in Task Force deliberations while it is still using a broad brush (in itself another great improvement). Now is the perfect time for others to weigh in with their thoughts and concerns while things are still flexible. Task Force members have a responsibility to educate and elucidate once a final draft is presented, but for now we are working hard on crafting that final product, one which would benefit greatly from as much alumni input as possible. Let's put it together before we pick it apart.

William L. Hutchinson '76
Nantucket, MA

Defending the Indefensible

Sir—

I am contacting you in regards to Friday, March 11th's "The Week in Review," section about the new bike program. Did any reporter even bother to garner any information about this? I am not very familiar with the workings of this newspaper. Is this a news section or an opinions section? If this was supposed to be a news article, this is pretty disgarceful [sic]. Not only is much of the information/facts false, but they are incomplete.

a) Besides Ben and I, the other main sponser of the program is Todd Golden.

b) The resolution does not explain that "somehow...this program has the potential..." It explains what that "somehow" is.

c) When you say that "students see no particular reason to take care of the equipment," on what basis have you obtained this information? Have you conducted a survey? Have you conducted interviews? How many students have you interviewed and how diverse were those students? After all, by making a blanket statement like that, you must have some information to back this up.

d) You also mentioned in this short and incomplete article that the Assembly's "upperclassmen" opposed the proposal. Clearly, not all of the Assembly's upperclassman opposed it. In fact, not even a majority of the Assembly's upperclassman opposed it. This is misinformation and cannot be presented as factual.

Who writes your newspaper's "The Week in Review" anyhow?

Frank Glaser '08
Hanover, NH

The Editors respond: Our reporting for the article was mainly based on common sense, a that trait both you and the Assembly have been lacking throughout the various incarnations of the Big Green Bikes program. And we ourselves have been wondering where "Week in Review" comes from for quite some time.

Too Late

Sir—

If you can, please try to avoid any support of the neocon agenda.

John O. Adams
Stone Mountain, GA

A Pleased Subscriber

Sir—

Your President's suggestion to subscribe to The Dartmouth Review has provided me with the evidence of a major improvement in thinking, and the redevelopment of sound inductive logic, in today's college students. Aristotle would surely approve. At times, I have not always agreed with or found relevant some items published, however, in most cases, I have enjoyed and benefited by reading the publication.

Since the mid sixties, the secularist and leftist positions taken by the trough feeders that have infiltrated even the most legitimate academic institutions have found their way into the classrooms. In brief, their shallow and neo-Leninist thinking, which has spawned the Frankenstein of "political correctness," is now running amuck throughout Western societies.

As an egregious example of this, I would like to draw attention to an expertly written piece by Karen Parkman, found in your September 20, 2004 edition. Ms. Parkman has eloquently identified the humdrum, garden variety, loony lefty drivel spewed by one "professor" Shelby Grantham. This effete counter-culturist would be too hot to handle even for "pink-tanks" such as the New York Times. She should be teaching English Sub-Zero.

Since a college education's cost has substantially outpaced inflation, and the opportunities to recapture these costs have gone sharply in the other direction, it must be concluded that all curriculums must represent a high quality of utility, in order to reduce this impact. Dartmouth students, and their parents and benefactors should become more keenly aware that their hard-earned money should not allow this poisonous nonsense to be presented at the College. Metaphorically, we need not continue to be taught that the sun sets in the east.

Dave Goett
Port Murray, NJ

Letters to the Editor

Article Tools

Related Articles