Stewards' Folly

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

"The United States military announces the 2,065th death of an America soldier since the war began. Iraqbodycount.net estimates 26,970-30,366 civilian deaths resulting from military intervention," read a recent comic in the Daily Dartmouth ("Guy and Fellow," 11/14/05). Meanwhile, Michael Ellis and Scott Glabe "continue to play hide'n'seek" in the offices of this newspaper. The implication—a not-so-subtle one—is that we are chickenhawks, unwilling to serve in the war we support.

The strip gets its facts wrong—this paper has no official position on the war in Iraq (skeptics should consult TDR 3/11/05) and both of the accused are considering reserve and active duty service post-graduation—but the comic posits an argument worth addressing. Namely, it trumpets the oft-heard claim that administration officials who did not serve in the military are in no position to send troops to war, a subset of the larger supposition that you cannot talk about what you do not know.

This claim is made often at Dartmouth, with the corollary that only someone with a certain attribute is qualified to talk about issues that affect him, whether he be a minority, a Greek, or an athlete. This leads to a situation in which each person must talk for himself because no one else can possibly understand what it is like to be in another's shoes.

While putatively reasonable on its surface, this state of affairs is founded on an assumption that is, put simply, bunk. Postmodernist jargon notwithstanding, truth is not confined by individual perspective. Not being a member of ROTC does not disqualify me from opining on the war any more than President Bush's lack of background in urban planning removes his legitimacy to be the ultimate overseer of HUD.

Of course, when casting judgment on the war, talking to soldiers would be a good place to start, and I am sure that minorities would provide some of the most incisive commentary for an article about diversity on campus. However, the point remains that my standing has no bearing on whether or not I am right.

As this paper is not given to self-referential commentary on foreign policy (well, we are self-referential, but we steer clear of the foreign policy), what has this got to do with Dartmouth? The answer, believe it or not, is that the above argument is currently being advanced the administration and its apologists to argue against greater open governance.

We are stewards they say, not representatives, and more democracy will force the board to cater to alumni special interests at the expense of the big picture—one to which faculty, administrators, and the ever-ambiguous "future of Dartmouth College" all contribute brushstrokes. And as stewards, they say, they are the only ones capable of seeing that future. This is the reason the ancien regime of alumni are working so hard to make it more difficult for petition candidates to succeed.

How curious the situation in which we find ourselves! Entrenched liberals are making conservative arguments—proclaiming the value of entrenched institutions—against rebel conservatives seeking more democratic governance of the College. If that were the end of the story, I would be forced to side with the former; good conservatives, after all, are more sympathetic to the Second Estate than the Third.

Yet, there is something that makes the Lone Pine Revolution different than 1789, and that something is legitimacy. The downfall of the latter was its disregard for such basic historic institutions as the seven-day week, while the former seeks to restore rather than reinvent. Moreover, as a course in the American founding would remind us (if such a course were offered at Dartmouth), legitimate power— though it may be invested in leaders in a representative government—is ultimately derived from the people.

Where this fact is ignored, whether it be at Dartmouth or in a two-bit banana republic, all power rests on an unsteady foundation; where it is well regarded, any power, even the extreme power of sending young to men into battle, may be exercised. At Dartmouth, the "people" are in large part the alumni, and, until their wishes are heeded, the College's stewards serve no one but themselves.

Stewards' Folly

Article Tools

Related Articles