Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/10/13/the_last_word_on_the_alumni_constitution.php
Friday, October 13, 2006
OK, last time. I promise. After this issue you won’t see the words “Alumni Constitution” on this page again. But for now, more than two weeks remain before the voting concludes, and I would be remiss not to mention an issue of such importance. Ironically, however, discussion of the matter has all but ceased.
What happened? It’s clear that the greatest hurdle in the approval process has been overwhelming (and understandable) alumni apathy. The College’s massive “Vox the Vote” effort—a lame MTV-esque campaign to reach alumni, many of whom probably graduated Dartmouth before televisions were even commonplace—aims to turn out “record” 30% voter participation. Thirty per-cent? Sounds like a concession to apathy if I’ve ever seen one. Even those most vocal about the constitution, both for and against, have dropped off the radar. Proponents and opponents alike now face a stark, if subtly ironic, reality: everything to be said about the document has already been said.
Nonetheless, this minor inconvenience did little to deter those resourceful scoundrels behind the foul document. Rather than beating mercilessly upon the same tedious highlights, they shifted their rhetoric towards the “hard work” of the AGTF, apocalyptic predictions of Dartmouth’s fate, and a host of other irrelevant points equally foreign from the merits of the constitution itself.
The organization Dartmouth Alumni for Common Sense is spear-heading the effort to move scrutiny away from the constitution itself, and draw focus to just about anything else; in this case, anything else is a Hydra-like monster spewing condescension and irrelevance. At its worst, DACS sent out mass emails, mailings, and pre-recorded telephone calls insisting that it is “incumbent” upon all alumni to vote “yes.” Yes, incumbent. As in, DACS made the choice for you, and it is your duty to follow orders. Suspiciously absent from the propaganda is any substantive reason to support the constitution. Thinking is strongly discouraged.
Last week, Peter Fahey ’68, in an editorial in the Daily D, claimed that a no-vote will lead directly to significant decreases in financial donations to the College and send it into a death spiral in the national college rankings. He overlooks the obvious fact that, should the constitution fail, we’re just back where we started. The College has faced plenty of divisive controversy before and, lo, it’s still here. If you believe that a “No” vote will set major donors running for the hills, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that you may want to check out.
When DACS plays nice, its supporters make claims to the effect of “many people worked very hard on this document, and so we should show our appreciation by voting for it.” I can’t argue with the first clause; the AGTF certainly put forth an admirable effort and probably did so with the best of intentions. However, the second part of DACS argument is embarrassingly irrelevant. This isn’t Little League. You don’t get the trophy just for showing up. In the real world, results count for more than effort, and the results of the AGTF’s commendable effort are, kindly put, underwhelming.
DACS’s website recently published a statement by Kate Stith-Cabranes ’73, who supports the constitution because it will help Dartmouth to provide “incomparable opportunities for friendship, involvement, and scholarship.” To take this causal relationship at face value, I must assume some organ established by the new constitution will choose my friends, activities, and courses for me. The sheer lunacy of this proposition betrays the utter vacuity of Ms. Stith-Cabranes’ argument.
If I were a gambling man—and I am—my money would sit on the constitution’s defeat. Though suffering from acute cynicism, I still believe that most Dartmouth alumni—at least those who have not succumbed to apathy—are intelligent enough to vote on facts, not emotions.
One last thought: in an informal, unscientific Student Assembly poll, 67% of students holding an opinion were against the constitution. While the poll probably suffered from a number of biases, similar polls correctly predicted the last two alumni elections, those that elected petition trustee candidates T.J. Rodgers, Peter Robinson, and Todd Zywicki. Here’s hoping for the hat-trick.