Pullout - Survey of the Candidates

Monday, April 21, 2008

Editor’s Note: The Dartmouth Review surveyed all of the candidates running for the Association of Alumni’s Executive Committee. The following is the joint response of the nominated candidates.

Joint Statement

We eleven independent candidates in the upcoming Association of Alumni Executive Committee election unanimously believe that our alumni community must be united as Dartmouth begins the critically important process of selecting its next President.

Dartmouth’s next President must be committed to retaining a focus on undergraduate education while having the academic credibility, institutional vision, and dynamic personality necessary to:

• attract and retain a world class faculty with exceptional credentials in their academies;
• inspire students to pursue excellence in all aspects of their Dartmouth experience;
• administer highly complex operations wisely and efficiently; and
• energize Dartmouth’s alumni and benefactors to increased support of the finest undergraduate college anywhere.

A candidate with these credentials will be hard to find.

Such a candidate may be even harder to recruit. Consider the difficulty of attracting the candidate Dartmouth needs while a divisive lawsuit creates instability and uncertainty, possibly for years as layers of courts issue ultimately unpredictable rulings. Consider the added difficulty of attracting such a candidate when the lawsuit reflects deliberate political polarization of the Dartmouth alumni body.

Our opponents are unapologetic supporters of the highly divisive, anonymously funded lawsuit filed against Dartmouth by a bare majority of the annually elected Executive Committee. No alumni approval was sought for a lawsuit brought in the name of all Dartmouth alumni. Not only is the lawsuit diverting money and resources from undergraduate education, it creates instability and disunity which hamper Dartmouth’s ability to attract the best candidates in the search for its next President. We are confident that the Dartmouth family can address its issues without intervention by the courts and without intervention by the New Hampshire legislature, as one member of the opposition slate sought and failed to achieve.

We have no quarrel with the good faith of fellow alumni who have strong views on either side about the Board decision regarding the manner in which Trustees are appointed or elected. We have strong and varied views ourselves. But, we believe Dartmouth’s Trustees have the ultimate responsibility for making informed governance decisions after weighing the sometimes competing and sometimes complementary interests of students, alumni, faculty and staff. We also know that no qualified candidate will accept the position as Dartmouth’s next President unless the Trustee’s mandate to exercise that responsibility is absolutely clear.

Unlike our opponents in this election, we know that litigation is not an acceptable vehicle for addressing and resolving differences of alumni opinion regarding college governance. We can and will do better than that.

We decline to adopt the polarizing “independents vs. loyalists” or “independents vs. insiders” rhetoric all too often heard in recent alumni elections. We are all on the same side for Dartmouth’s continued leadership, we are all on the same side in believing that loyalty to Dartmouth is a good thing, and we know for certain that all Dartmouth alumni became lifetime supporters of Dartmouth the moment we matriculated.

We believe in the excellence of Dartmouth and the incomparable experience it offers to each successive generation of students who are privileged to attend. Dartmouth today is a better place than it has ever been—and it has been exceptionally good for all of us. We want the next generations of students to value their Dartmouth experiences, different in context as they must inevitably be, as much as we did and continue to do.

Our slate includes members who voted for petition candidates in past elections and those who voted for Alumni Council nominees; we have members who worked hard to save, reform, and strengthen the Greek system following the Student Life Initiative; and we have members who have at times forcefully disagreed with actions of the Board and administration. As individuals we are committed to our beliefs. As a slate we are committed to Dartmouth. We are:

John Mathias ‘69 (President nominee)
Cheryl Bascomb ‘82 (First VP nominee)
Doug Keare ‘56 (Second VP nominee)
David Spalding ‘76 (Secretary-Treasurer nominee)
Marian Z. Baldauf ‘84 (Executive Committee)
Veree Hawkins Brown ‘93 (Executive Committee)
John Engelman ‘68 (Executive Committee)
Ron Harris ’71 (Executive Committee)
Kaitlin Jaxheimer ‘05 (Executive Committee)
Otho Kerr ‘79 (Executive Committee)
Ron Schram ‘64 (Executive Committee)

President Wright’s Legacy

Dartmouth has been very fortunate to have had James Wright as its President over the past 10 years. He will be leaving Dartmouth in exceedingly good condition, far better than when he began his tenure, with exceptionally high approval and satisfaction ratings from current students, recent graduates, and faculty. Like many alumni, we have not always agreed with actions taken by members of his administration, particularly with respect to the Student Life Initiative. However, we were very impressed with the way his administration was willing to work with concerned alumni, like our fellow slate members Doug Keare and John Engelman, to change the direction of the Student Life Initiative to assure the future of fraternities and sororities.

1. For whom have you voted in the last four trustee elections?

We believe that the voting booth should remain confidential for all alumni.

2. Did you vote for or against the proposed constitution?

Again, we believe the voting booth should remain confidential. We do note, however, that the vote for the proposed amendment showed evenly divided opinion among the 38% of alumni who chose to vote.

3. Are you against the Board’s planned disproportional expansion?

We have varied views among ourselves on the issues underlying expansion, but we all support governance of Dartmouth College by the Board of Trustees. All of Dartmouth’s elected and Charter Trustees are alumni, and this will continue to be the case. The current Board, comprised of equal numbers of elected and Charter trustees as well as the President of the College and the Governor of New Hampshire, voted for expansion. Unlike our opponents in this election, we do not believe that litigation is an acceptable vehicle for resolving differences of alumni opinion about college governance.

4. Are you for the current lawsuit against the expansion?

Alumni can and should resolve our differences of opinion without intervention by courts or politicians. This divisive lawsuit is diverting money from undergraduate education while causing acrimony and visible disunity among alumni just as Dartmouth begins searching for its next President. Unlike our opponents, we believe alumni have a right to know the identity and motives of the anonymous outside interests financing this lawsuit. This intolerable situation should be promptly ended.

5. What are the three most pressing issues facing the College?

(1) Attracting the best candidates for its next President;

(2) Remaining competitive as the best undergraduate college anywhere; and

(3) Continuing to attract and retain a world class faculty willing to dedicate itself to undergraduate education.

Editor’s Note: The following are the responses to the survey from the petition candidates. They were asked to give two statements: (I.) A statement about their respective candidacies; and (II.) a statement about President Wright and the qualities they are looking for in the next President of the College. They were then asked five questions:

5. What are the three most pressing issues facing the College?

President: J.M. MURPHY ‘61

I. I am running with a slate of petition-nominated candidates to continue the work of the current Association Executive Committee to prevent the Board of Trustees’ attempt to terminate unilaterally their 117-year-old Agreement with alumni that guarantees parity on the Board. Dartmouth’s alumni made the College great; having their influence diminished will harm the College in the long run.

II. Many good things have happened during President Wright’s tenure, but problems do exist— the administration at Dartmouth cannot be called anything but bloated. Above all, the next president’s focus must be on the primacy, quality and accessibility of undergraduate education.

1. The four independent, petition candidates: Rodgers; Robinson; Zywicki and Smith.

2. Like the majority of our alumni, I voted against that 7,000-word outrage.

3. Expansion, no; unproportional, yes --I am against it with every drop of green blood in my veins.

4. Yes. Regrettably, court action was only choice left to alumni by the Trustees, who refused to negotiate their attempt to abrogate the historic 1891 Agreement on parity. Most civil lawsuits in the U.S. are settled, however, so one can always hope the Trustees might rethink their action.

5.1 Alumni rights in College governance; they are severely threatened by the Trustees’ rash attempt to end parity. Dartmouth surpassed its 19th century peers and became pre-eminent because of the legendary, intense level of
alumni support that followed the 1891 Agreement. Alumni must not now be marginalized, or the College will eventually suffer.
5.2 Every close observer -- from McKinsey & Co. to undergraduates (see the 3/7/08 editorial in The Dartmouth) -- agree that “The College is plagued by administrative bloat...” Resources are not infinite and must be used more wisely (see No. 3, below).
5.3 The difficulties now experienced by students in course enrollment resemble those of a giant, state university, not the Dartmouth I remember. Of all the aspects of Dartmouth where staffing must be adequate, undergraduate education has to be foremost.


First Vice President: BERT BOLES ‘80

I. I ran for office a year ago, hoping to influence Dartmouth to re-focus on providing a true liberal arts education. Instead, we newly-elected Alumni Association leaders were immediately confronted with the plan by the Trustee Governance Committee to dilute alumni rights by ending 100 years of parity between “charter” and alumni-elected Trustees. Our term of office has been consumed with fighting against the resulting Trustee decision. We have scraped together funds (one of us has literally emptied his life’s savings) to try to combat the College PR machine and its refusal to give us equal access to our own constituents. With reluctance, and after repeated efforts to seek another means of resolution, we voted to file a lawsuit to enjoin the Board-packing plan. Now we are once again fighting the stacked odds to retain our seats. If we lose, the Establishment candidates will promptly dismiss the lawsuit, extinguishing the last hope for protecting the hard-won and long-honored governance rights of Dartmouth alumni.

II. I’m sure he dedicated many new buildings and raised lots of money, but what did he do, in the concrete, to ensure that Dartmouth students know history, know how to write and speak incisively, know the great works of thought and literature? Where did he ever, in the concrete, even acknowledge a need for, let alone an urgent emphasis on, these fundamentals? When I was an undergraduate, every freshman (except a few who placed out, and they got their own “seminar” boot camp) had to grapple with Milton’s Paradise Lost. The dorms and dining hall echoed with students reciting to (and amongst) themselves the great opening stanza. Long before Freedman’s notion of the “creative loner,” the ordinary Dartmouth student was making this liberal arts experience a natural part of the legendary Dartmouth comraderie. While we groaned at the task, we soaked up the beauty of this masterpiece, practicing the proven pedagogy that built the rhetorical prowess of the likes of Lincoln and Churchill. Now even this vestige of the great liberal arts is gone. I cannot applaud a president’s leadership when he has neglected the great liberal arts that are needed to produce great leaders.

1. I voted for the Petition candidates, Rogers, Robinson, Zwycki and Smith, and I would urge my fellow alumni to go back and read their platforms, which are a far cry from the “divisive” caricature portrayed by the Administration, and which in fact set the agenda for the new consensuses for free speech, small classes, and other cherished fundamentals of the Dartmouth experience that were being neglected until these candidates ran.

2. I voted against.

3. I am one of the six members of the Executive Committee who voted to file the lawsuit. Please see my “Candidacy” statement above for an explanation of why.

5. The new “3 Rs”: Reading, Writing, and the Rights of Alumni. Reading, meaning the works of history and literature that enable a student to be truly “liberally” educated, or, as President Dickey used to call them, “the liberating arts.” Writing, because as explained above the former commitment to great reading as a means of training to write has been thrown aside as the deans preen over their endowment, new buildings and admission statistics.

Second Vice President: PAUL MIRENGOFF ‘71

I. I am running mainly to preserve alumni parity with respect to the selection of trustees. I disagree with the view expressed by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees that reducing the percentage of trustees elected by alumni will mean the election of more capable trustees. To the contrary, I believe that Dartmouth alumni are best able to select tip-notch trustees.

II. President Wright’s record is mixed, in my opinion. For example, under his leadership, Dartmouth did large of amounts of very worthwhile construction. On the other hand, troublesome issues of student-faculty ratio and class size and availability remain. In addition, Dartmouth’s record with respect to free speech issues is not as good as it should be. However, there appears to have been progress on these fronts recently.

The most important qualities in the next president are: (1) a demonstrated commitment to Dartmouth’s traditional emphasis on undergraduate education and (2) a demonstrated willingness, in the context of higher education, to stand up against fads and political correctness, where appropriate.

1. I voted for Stephen Smith, Todd Zywicki, and Peter Robinson. I’m not certain what I did in the first of these elections.

2. I voted against the proposed constitution.

3. I’m opposed to the Board’s plan to abandon parity. I am not opposed to expanding the Board.

4. I favor the lawsuit as the only means of requiring the Board to honor Dartmouth’s agreement to permit its alumni to elect half of the Board. Fortunately, the lawsuit has succeeded in stopping the Board in its tracks and thus the litigation is inactive.

5.1 Maintaining Dartmouth’s traditional laser-like focus on undergraduate education;
5.2 Attaining better student-faculty ratio, smaller classes, and improved student access to classes;
5.3 Preserving of the alumni’s right to elect half of the Trustees, thereby preventing marginalization of Dartmouth’s legendarily loyal alums.

These three objectives are related, in my view.

Secretary-Treasurer: MARIAN CHAMBERS ‘76

I. My own candidacy for Secretary/Treasurer of the Association stems from my experiences with closed government”. Ambrose Bierce wrote that politics was “ A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles; the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” I am sad to say I believe that the College Administration falls in this category. The College Administration., like many others in this country, has sought to rely on the “trust us” category of government, ignoring the highly intelligent people who are alumni and the financial lifeblood of the College.

II. College Presidents: I have no particular opinions about President Wright. My only point of reference was John Kemeny, President when I was in school, and made me run to my mother at 17 years of age after reading his book on Boolean logic (let’s be glad I didn’t, however, major in math!). It is unfair to compare anyone to Kemeny, but I would hope that the next President would show the kind of personal attention to scholarship and students that Kemeny did. He is an idol of mine for his brilliant mind, kindness, and “gentle persuasion”. He knew his students.

1. I don’t remember for whom I voted in the last 4 Trustee elections. At the time, I didn’t think it made much difference.

2. I voted against it, because it is undemocratic for one group (sitting, appointed Trustees) to expand their turf at the expense of other (alumni approved) Trustees. This used to be called “fixing an election”—consult Putin!

3. Yes.

4. With a heavy heart, and reluctantly, yes. I have read Bleak House twice and know what results lawsuits can (and cannot) bring. I wish it could have been avoided.

5. I’m not sure that Alumni are best positioned to answer this question, as we are not the students living in situ. But I see at least three areas for improvement: 1) Cutting out the administrative excesses that have plagued institutions of higher learning across the country. 2) Improving benefits for retired faculty and staff. I find it inconceivable that our College won’t pay health care benefits for such loyal people. 3) A greater willingness to work with all three “legs of the stool” of the Dartmouth system, from students pressed by an unbelievable course selection process, to faculty worried about their futures, to Alumni who correctly desire answers to the money they contribute so generously, and a desire to have some say in the governance process. And, of course, good governance!

Executive Committee: ALEX X. MOONEY ‘93

I. I am a current elected member to the Dartmouth Association of Alumni and am seeking re-election to continue to press for the reforms needed to make the College establishment more responsive to her alumni.

II. Important qualities for the new college President include work with the Trustees who were elected by petition in a clear mandate by alumni, keeping and recruiting top professors, and keeping the focus on undergradute education.

1. Stephen Smith, Peter Robinson, Todd Zywicki, and T.J. Rodgers

2. Against

3. Yes, I am for the alumni maintaining their traditional right to elect half the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees. It is an outrage that the college recently took this away from us alumni.

4. I support it because it will return to us alumni our full voting rights.

5.1 Quality of Professors
5.2 Free speech on campus, not political correct indoctrination of students
5.3 Support for extracurricular activities, including sports

Executive Committee: FRANK GADO ‘59

I. My active involvement dates from 2003, when I witnessed the undemocratic manipulations of the then-Executive Committee, in league with the Alumni Relations office, to try to foist their destruction of the Association of Alumni on the membership. Three years later, they tried again with another constitution that would have meant a takeover by the Alumni Council. Last year, the trustees promised the Council, lamenting its successive defeats, that “help is on the way,” and under the guise of needing to enlarge the Board, devised their plan to stifle the alumni movement.

This past year, even though a majority of the seats on the EC were won by petition candidates, our work was impeded by the obstructionist tactics of the President and the Secretary-Treasurer, who doubles as the Vice President of Alumni Relations. (Fortunately, however, our majority presence on the EC enabled us to file suit to block the Board from implementing its plan.) I look forward to a more productive term in association with the other pro-parity candidates.

II. President Wright has taken Dartmouth farther down the road paved by President Freedman. Unfortunately, his tenure has been marked by a continuation of the College’s efforts to distance itself from the best elements of its unique nature. His Leslie Conference proclamation that the new mission of the College is the “production of new knowledge” is really a commitment to the research university concept at the expense of undergraduate education.

My prescription for the new president: Someone who will reinvigorate the idea of a college, who would make of Dartmouth a paragon of the collegiate model, comparable to what the University of Chicago and Harvard at the close of the 19th century meant for the university model. In short, a person with a transformative vision of education.

The second attribute I would seek is a recognition of the need to bring the Dartmouth family together again. Someone who speaks and writes English instead of Orwellian would be a most welcome new development. I am not sanguine.

1. I have worked very hard for the election of the four most recent petition candidates. I also voted for the first successful petition candidate, with whom I am honored to be running for the Executive Committee in this election.

2. I worked strenuously for its defeat.

3. I am emphatically opposed to this disingenuous effort to suffocate the alumni movement.

4. I made every effort to avoid it, but the attitudes and actions of the trustees left no choice. Our opponents would immediately nullify the view of the court by abandoning the suit. We are committed to letting the court rule, definitively, whether the 1891 agreement was in fact a contract, as we confidently contend it was.

5.1 Its transformation into a second-tier research university while ignoring the challenge to reinvent the liberal arts college.
5.2 The wasteful, inefficient, and anti-intellectual edema that is the administration.
5.3 Predatory, unnecessary rises in tuition.

Executive Committee: RICHARD ROBERTS ‘83

I. The reasons behind my candidacy - and those of my fellow petition candidates - are set forth at www.dartmouthparity.com.

II. I believe it’s too soon to fairly assess President Wright’s tenure with any meaningful perspective. I am sure that history will show that he was a strong leader and was deeply committed to the betterment of the institution. The number one priority for the new President should be healing the gap between Alumni, the students, and the College Administration and making all feel a part of the culture and its associated processes once again.

1. Rodgers, Zywicki, Robinson, Smith

2. Against

3. Against

4. Yes

5.1 Maintaining the focus on providing a pre-eminent undergraduate education
5.2 Restoring alumni harmony and participation
5.3 More effectively managing administrative and non-curricular expenditures

Executive Committee: JOHN STEEL ‘54

I. My best statement on candidacy is found at www.dartmouthparity.com .

II. I will decline to comment on Pres. Wright’s tenure. The next President should have lived the Dartmouth experience as an undergraduate, have significant ability to articulate the mission and protect the traditions of the College.

1. Voted for the petition candidates in the Trustee elections.

2. Voted against the proposed constitution.

3. Am against the Board’s planned unproportional expansion.

4. Am for the current lawsuit against the expansion.

5.1 Leadership,
5.2 Undergraduate education(College emphasis vs. University),
5.3 Reduce administrative bloat and focus on what the College strengths have been.

Executive Committee: ZACH HAFER ‘99

I. I am running because I love Dartmouth and the passion, loyalty, and camaraderie of the Dartmouth community. I think that elected Trustees are a big part of what makes Dartmouth special, and I want to preserve their role and influence on the College.

II. I think President Wright cares deeply about Dartmouth and I particularly admire his efforts to bring Marines to Hanover. Unfortunately, however, I believe that he has been wrong on the critical issues of the College’s identity, governance, and student life. I hope the next President understands the importance of keeping Dartmouth a college, with small classes taught by great professors, first-rate athletics and arts programs, and a truly unique bond amongst its students and alumni.

1. I was an active supporter of Stephen Smith, a terrific professor of mine at UVA Law. I am not entirely sure whom I voted for in the earlier elections, but believe it was T.J. Rodgers, Ric Lewis, and Peter Robinson.

2. Against

3. Yes.

4. Yes, regrettably. But keep in mind what happened here - the Administration changed the rules of the game to its benefit, in a rigged process, in the face of overwhelming alumni opposition, then created a pretextual reason for the change, and refused to negotiate in good faith.

5. Governance is obviously the big battle right now, I think, because it really goes to the heart of what Dartmouth is and aspires to be. Class sizes, emphasis on athletics, and student life are all critical.

Article Tools

Print Article

Email Article

Contact the Editor

Related Articles

· Pullout - Survey of the Candidates

· Pullout - The AoA Lawsuit: A Short History

· Pullout - TDR Interview: Marian Chambers

· Presidential Dodgeball

· Baseball Continues Hot Spring

Advertisement

Advertisement