Symposium: "What Is To Be Done?"

Thursday, September 27, 2007

In the wake of the trustees’ decision to decrease the proportion of alumni trustees on the board, those who opposed the decision wondered what to do next. Should the decision be fought in court? Ought alumni to withhold donations? To mount another press campaign? The Dartmouth Review asked several vocal figures in alumni governance as well as journalists who have written about the alumni trustee matter at Dartmouth to offer comment and answer the question, “What is to be done?”

Please read Jeffrey Hart’s analysis of the situation on page twenty-three.

Frank Gado ’58, Second Vice President of the Dartmouth Alumni Association, writes:

The action of the Board was, most regretably, no surprise. Any one who has been following events closely has to have realized that the supposed study conducted this summer only sought palliative excuses for doing what had already been decided (just as I had stated in my August interview with TDR). Varied attempts by the Alumni Association’s Executive Committee to obtain from the Bucklin group an indication of what specific problems or desiderata they were addressing went unanswered. The only meeting we were granted with Bucklin and Haldeman should be described as an audience, not a meeting. A final draft of their report had already been written when this strange encounter occurred. Our questions met only with a stone wall or boilerplate.

Reflecting on the meeting, I kept thinking of a quotation from Samuel Johnson: “Where there is yet shame, there may in time be virtue.” Seeking in vain for some sign of the Board’s shame over its behavior, my hope for its virtue faded.

This unwarranted assault upon the body of alumni has asserted justification for the most specious of reasons. A genuine concern for the College’s welfare could easily and amicably have been explored through a joint effort which, I am confident, could have accommodated all objections. Instead, the Board decided to achieve by fiat what it failed to bring about through its strenuous and unsuccessful push for a new alumni constitution last year. To think that these trustees are the beneficiaries of a Dartmouth education is worrisome, not only for Dartmouth but also for America.

If this is allowed to stand, the Dartmouth that has united us in affection will surely fall. Today, a North Campus; tomorrow, an East Campus. The “industry,” as Chairman Neukom called it, may prosper, but the ideals of a liberal arts undergraduate education will have withered.

What is to be done?

Never before, not even at the time of the Dartmouth College case in 1819, has the exigency for concerted action been greater. The determination of the Wright administration to throttle the Alumni Association’s independence has repeatedly been shown, most outrageously in the refusal to give the Association access to its own members’ addresses. It is clear that we will have to fund all our activities that do not meet with the Parkhurst’s favor and approval, and a means for communication with our membership will be a sore need. A majority of the Executive Committee has established an independent bank account to meet past and future costs. A check sent to the AoA at PO Box 525; Hanover, NH 03755 will lend strength to our efforts.

In addition, groups of alumni are exploring legal avenues of restoring the alumni body’s full rights. Stay informed,and support these endeavors as they develop.

But contributions of money are not the only way to fight back. The mission statement of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine announces: “The goal is an engaged and informed Alumni body. Therefore, the magazine reports the news of the college and its alumni [and] provides a medium of exchange of views concerning College and alumni affairs.” As the main support of the DAM derives from your class dues, exert all the influence you can through your class to assure that it does fully and fairly report the news of these alumni developments.

Most important of all, involve yourselves politically in the struggle. Take the time to learn what those who sit on alumni political councils are doing (or not doing), and vote. Fortunately, The Dartmouth Review offers coverage that is reliable and insightful.

Stephen Smith ’88, a law professor at the University of Virginia and a Dartmouth College trustee, writes:

By its stunning recent action, the Board of Trustees has broken faith with the alumni whose loyalty and sacrifices have made Dartmouth the world-class institution it is today. We now anxiously wait to see how badly the Board’s decision will hurt the College. Already, some alumni have announced they will no longer contribute to Dartmouth, and the Association of Alumni has given notice of potential legal action. Although I deeply regret that it has come to this, I cannot blame alumni and their elected representatives for refusing to accept the brazen power play we have just witnessed. Whether this matter is resolved out of court, as I hope it will be, or in the judicial system, I hope the end result will be a Dartmouth that again treats its alumni with respect instead of contempt. The prospects for such a Dartmouth are bright indeed, but not for a Dartmouth that holds its alumni in contempt.

Timothy Dreisbach ’71, a member of the Alumni Association executive committee, writes:

Many alumni have concerns with the recent decision:

•It destroys the Board parity that has served Dartmouth well for a hundred plus years. Thousands of alumni, over 92% of those surveyed by the Association of Alumni (AoA), stated that they believe parity should be maintained. The voice of ALL alumni on the Board, obtained by their electing of trustees, is reduced from 50% to 33%. The trustee report confuses the distinction between trustees who are alumni and trustees who are chosen by alumni. There is great benefit in the latter.

•There seems to be no reason for taking action in the immediate timeframe, and thus this appears to be a specific reaction to the recent elections of petition trustees. Coming on the heels last year’s constitutional debate, it raises needless controversy. The trustee report recognized overwhelming disagreement by alumni with the Board’s recommendation to eliminate parity, yet they adopted this change without first sitting down with the alumni’s Association leadership to work on trustee concerns together.

•The trustees want to dictate how the alumni must conduct their own elections to choose the alumni nominees (different than when the trustees elect the nominee alumni put forward). Only alumni have a right to set their own balloting rules. The statement that the College will run the alumni’s elections until alumni change their rules is unacceptable.

•The rules as proposed make it easier for a nominated candidate to win by increasing the likelihood of multiple petitioners and then using “one person-one vote” counting to split the petitioner vote. Having more candidates for alumni to choose from is good, but only if the voting rules are the current approval method or an instant runoff where there is no split vote. (Note: The proposed rules do not and cannot guarantee two-candidate head-to-head races. Not requiring two candidates is a good thing, as the advantages of having a majority winner are more than offset by the negatives of a two-party system with divisive “insider/outsider” elections.)

The leadership of the AoA is looking at a variety of options. We have been sincere all along in a desire for working meetings with the trustees, and remain open to discussions if they can also be flexible. But resolving the dispute over parity will be a major hurdle.

The executive committee (EC) felt strongly about keeping alumni informed, hence our letter earlier in the summer. We did not participate in or endorse any of the advertising that was later done by independent groups. The money for our mailing came from unsolicited contributions by members of the EC and other supportive alumni. The College stated that it would not support this communication by the Association, either financially or in the provision of a mail list of Association members.

The AoA Executive Committee (EC) has not made any recommendations on alumni withholding funds. We are engaged in this entire imbroglio out of a desire to help our College, not hurt her. We have begun receiving unsolicited donations to help cover our expenses (via checks payable to the Association of Alumni, PO Box 525, Hanover NH 03755). The monies go into a separate bank account not controlled by the College or its employees. It can only be spent as directed by the executive committee.

The Association has no new comment on legal matters. All possible courses of action remain available to us. Now is not the time for knee-jerk responses, but for measured thoughtfulness and firm action. Our deliberate pace is in no way an acceptance of all of the trustee recommendations or a capitulation to their demands regarding the conduct of our elections.

Roger Kimball, co-editor and -publisher of The New Criterion, writes:

What we have just seen happen at Dartmouth is the application of the Brezhnev doctrine to intellectual life. The Brezhnev doctrine, readers will recall, stipulated that no country that had fallen under the sway of Communism would be allowed to withdraw and opt for a capitalist alternative. “Freedom” meant the freedom to embrace Communism. Hungary dissented in 1956, and Budapest was soon swarming with Soviet tanks. Something similar happened in Prague in 1968. Since the 1960s, the American university has, with few exceptions, been a fiefdom of the Left. Speech codes, political correctness, the whole multicultural, anti-American agenda are alive and well throughout academia. And administrations, far from resisting those ideological imperatives, have actively abetted them. Indeed, what we see now is the union of leftist ideology (thanks to the faculty) and a lumbering bureaucratic determination to enforce conformity with that ideology (thanks to the administration). It makes for a toxic marriage, paradoxically activist and reactionary, that is contrary to the interests of higher education, and therefore contrary to the public interest. Is there hope for Dartmouth? Maybe. But it won’t be easy. The powers-that-be at Dartmouth have amply demonstrated their indifference to public opinion and the wishes of the Dartmouth alumni. The Wall Street Journal, several prominent weblogs, and other entities concerned about higher education and good governance have been severely critical of the Wright-Haldeman usurpation. But critical op-eds come and go with thenews cycle. Carefully crafted end-runs around democratic procedure have a way of succeeding, especially if one is patient. How long, after all, can the barrage of criticism last? In my view, the only hope lies in legal action, and the obvious entity to pursue that is the Dartmouth Alumni Association. What should be done in the meanwhile? My advice for anyone contemplating making a financial contribution to Dartmouth is, Don’t. Just say no. Your money will be far better spentelsewhere—supporting the Alumni Association, for example, if it chooses to fight against this latest implementation of the Brezhnev Doctrine in higher education. The intense loyalty of Dartmouth alumni—and theirwillingness to fight—should not be underestimated. You might just win!

An anonymous contributor writes:

In every large organization where there is no effective independent oversight, the sole criterion for action becomes the interests of the controlling insiders, and what they think they can get away with. Absent such oversight, they can get away with a lot, particularly if they are willing to impose secrecy and prevent transparency, as is the case at Dartmouth. Private universities, organized as non-profit foundations governed by boards that are permanently self perpetuating are about as insulated from the disenfranchised constituencies they should serve as it is possible to be. These include parents, students, alumni, and the public too, given the national interest in education. They become insular and parochial, and utterly disconnected from the concerns of those who support them and from the best interests of the larger culture; they become islands of smug complacency.

As a result, at Dartmouth as at many other institutions, effective final control, at least over isses that interest them, falls to the faculty, and in particular, those elements of the faculty that are willing to make the most noise and offer the most disruption. Responsible faculty simply does not have the time to spend all night in faculty meetings struggling with the extremists. Parents, students, alumni, and the public have no means to make their concerns felt, but faculty and junior administrators can disrupt the campus.

An ineffective board of wealthy seat purchasers, vetted for compliancy, and who view their trusteeships as an honor bestowed on them by the president in recognition of their financial support, rather than as a demanding job of performing oversight, will respond to any ruckus by telling the president to quietly make the problem go away so they are not embarrassed and the social status value of their purchased seats is not diminished. After all, that was the deal: they paid their money for the honor.

This type of trustee typically has little knowledge of the academic world or of principles necessary to the proper functioning of the university. Indeed, they have no very clear idea of what the institution is supposed to be or to do, or even interest in the matter. The president’s response will naturally be to appease the faculty and other trouble makers rather than discipline them. As a result, the president ends up serving disruptive faculty elements as a neutered mascot on the issues that concern them as President Wright has done, or he is ousted, as was the case with Harvard’s Larry Summers.

These faculty elements are concerned primarily with matters which have symbolic importance for the perpetuation of their ideological point of view. They seek to maintain and enforce an intellectually impoverished and stifling atmosphere of political correctness congenial to their beliefs but inimical to the proper intellectual functioning of a university and to the quality of the overall educational product furnished to the students. Faculty typically has little or no interest in the efficient management or financial operation of the institution, and makes no effort to participate in any effort at improvement. In these areas, the administration has more of a free hand, but it lacks the incentives and the governing structure that would require it to tackle the hard work of good management.

It would scarcely be possible to deliberately design a worse system of governance. In the business world, crony-dominated governing boards frequently run into serious issues of corruption and waste. There have been signs of this in the academic world. A few years ago, it was found that major research institutions were grossly overbilling the government for administrative expense overhead allowable under research contracts. Publicity centered on the improper charging of lavish sumptuary outlays for certain university presidents. One is reminded of the more recently disgraced corporate executive who improperly billed his company for a shower curtain costing thousands of dollars.

However the sumptuary expenditures billed to the govenment by the universities were only a drop in bucket of the hundreds of millions of dollars of improper charges. Dartmouth was among the institutions implicated. In the business world, those responsible would have gone to jail, but this scandal evaporated, probably because of the presence of loyal alumni of the institutions implicated at high levels of the federal government responsible for prosecutory decisions.

There was the matter of admissions departments conspiring to suppress competition for admittees by fixing their financial aid offers.

In addition to ethical slackness, a visit to any campus produces the impression of extravagant financial waste and bloated bureaucracies. Inflation of tuition and fees is at annual percentage rates far beyond inflation. Elimination of senior thesis requirements and of comprehensive examinations has expunged accountability for the quality of education offered. There is no attempt to offer a coherent educational core, while exotic niche courses, often tendentiously political, proliferate. Signs of poor management are visible everywhere. Would these things have happened had there been aggressive and effective oversight by an independent governing board answerable to broader constituencies?

It is past time for serious review of governance of private colleges and universities, not the sham exercise of insider avoidance of accountability recently seen at Dartmouth, replete with conflicts of interest and blatantly dishonest justifications. Governing boards need to be elected in ways that insure their own independence and accountability if they are do do a proper job of overseeing the college administration and faculty. Governing boards need to be answerable in some significant degree to parents, students, alumni, and the general public, not just to faculty and administrators, or the most extreme elements of them. Higher education is far too important to our nation to allow the present situation to continue.

Marjory Grant Ross, ‘81, a publisher, wrote this originally on the Alumni Association blog:

I believe the recent decisions by the Board of Trustees are reckless, arrogant, harmful to the College, completely dismissive of the alumni, and disloyal to the tradition of Dartmouth. I believe Dartmouth stands alone as the best example of how alumni and administration can work together for the good of the College -- at least, it DID stand for that, until September 7th. I believe it is foolish to emulate other institutions’ governance when Dartmouth has been a leader in this field (it reminds me of those Supreme Court Justices who want to base their decisions on international law, rather than our own Constitution). And I believe the Board has been terribly misleading in their descriptions of what they passed, and what the ramifications of those changes will be.

I urge the alumni to speak up, to voice their strong objection to being robbed of our voice and being forced into a permanent minority on the Board of Trustees. It’s disingenuous for the Board to say they kept the alumni-elected positions intact—the fact is, they packed the court by doubling the number of Charter Trustees, and thus relegating alumni-elected Trustees to a permanent one-third position. I think it is shocking that the Board of Trustees would so baldly insult the intelligence and judgment of the alumni by stating that we cannot be trusted to elect the best Trustees for the College. What I think the Board of Trustees really meant is that we cannot be trusted to elect Trustees who will rubber-stamp the Board’s wishes. In that, they are entirely correct.”

Candace de Russy, an education reformer, writes:

Indeed I and other higher education reformers are mounting a robust campaign to oppose the suppression of dissenting views on the Dartmouth Board. The hypocrisy of the campus’s ruling kingpins reeks to high heaven. They loudly exalt all manner of diversity relating to race and gender but secretively quash diversity of opinion on their own governing board. More vigorously than ever we will renew our calls for more democratic process and transparency. And we intend our efforts to resound throughout all higher education.

Symposium: "What Is To Be Done?"

Article Tools

Related Articles