Pullout - Last WordBy Katherine J. Murray | Monday, April 21, 2008 Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. In recent years, the longstanding right of alumni to elect half of the Board has come under attack by the present administration of Dartmouth and a small number of its core supporters. The cause for this unprecedented assault on the rights of Dartmouth alumni was dissatisfaction on that part of the administration with the results of recent trustee elections. This notion of respecting Dartmouth’s history, tradition—no change versus evolution and getting better—is one of those tough issues, one of those tough trade-offs. We are really upset about the way the College is trying to muscle us around — it’s a pure act of thuggery. It is my view that all of this signals that it is time to give the efforts at alumni governance reorganization a rest. Let us work with the existing structure. The Association sent a questionnaire to approximately 58,000 Dartmouth alumni asking whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement: ‘I believe that the Board of Trustees should maintain its current balance of 50% charter trustees and 50% directly elected alumni trustees (excluding the two ex officio positions.’ As of August 30, 2007...92% had indicated that they agreed with the statement, and 8% had indicated that they disagreed with the statement. If my voice is silenced my pocketbook shall remain closed—despite my fondness for Dartmouth. Given the divisiveness of recent elections, we did not believe that having more elections would be good for Dartmouth. [Ed Haldeman] has rolled the tanks of Tiananmen onto the Dartmouth Green. Do the Administration and the Board of Trustees hold Dartmouth’s alumni in such contempt that they will try by duplicity and deception to accomplish what they could not by well-funded persuasion and honest election? How very, very sad. [Smith, Robinson, Rodgers, and Zywicki] cannot, in good conscience, remain silent while counsel for the Defendant, purportedly in the name of all the trustees, urges upon this Court a position that [Smith et al] are firmly convinced is unlawful and not in the best interest of Dartmouth. President Wright should resign for actions inimical to Dartmouth and alienation of her alumni. As for me, I am putting a hold on the bequest that had been intended. If you do not want the input of the alumni, then you should not expect our financial support. The governance issues had no impact on Jim Wright’s decision [to retire in 2009]. The Board is very supportive of Jim and the work that he’s done. By the time he leaves Dartmouth, he will have been president for 11 years and will have accomplished, in large part, what anyone could have expected a president to accomplish. A number of steps have already been taken and mechanisms are in place to keep alumni up-to-date about the governance review and to solicit alumni views on the matter—and these measures appear to be working effectively. I discussed this with Ed Haldeman and Jim Wright. Given the various efforts underway, we do not believe that separate and duplicative communications from the Alumni Association are necessary. Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy. The administration lost another Trustee election in May, and now appears ready to take by fiat what it cannot win at the ballot box. What a horrid lesson in democracy to Dartmouth students. |
Article ToolsRelated Articles· Pullout - 6/24/1891: Never Forget · Blowing the Whistle on Ed Haldeman
|
|
|
Copyright © 1996-2009 The Dartmouth Review |
||