I apologize for taking up site time and space with this exchange, but it really does relate to the issue of identity politics. You may recall that many years ago in the midst of financial crisis Dartmouth College gave its alumni the opportunity to elect half of the trustees in exchange for a capital infusion. Now the Board, shocked by the election of a number of petition trustees not selected by the trustees and administration at large, wish to change the rules again, after their failed attempt to rej*gger the constitution, by adding half again the number of trustees to the equation, all the supernumeraries to be assigned by them, of course. The order of the emails is reversed. So please skip this if you don’t care.

Matt,

Thanks for responding, but that doesn’t really answer my concerns. If the Trustees deem it necessary to add members, by all means we are open to the suggestion. Why these supernumerary would be all appointed by the Board . . . that is a different matter.

Please disclose to me what agenda you believe it is these “non-Dartmouth groups” are supposed to have. Can you tell me? Why is it that this was never a problem until petition candidates began winning elections? Does the group lack legal standing? Because what the Board has attempted to do is to overturn a legally binding contract with the alumni of the College through extra-legal means. And I don’t believe that I have to explain to you that it is the Board itself that determines, ultimately, what groups do or do not have standing as being “officially associated” with the College.

What pro-Parity people are you speaking of, who were asked for their input? And what are they supposed to say? “Yes, I think it’s wonderful that you are disenfranchising us this way”?

Sorry, Matt. It just doesn’t wash, in my opinion. I’ll tell you what: how about we make two-thirds of the Board of Trustees direct electees of the alumni? Please explain to me why that shouldn’t be contemplated.

If the direction for the College that the trustees and administration propound is so clearly superior, then a good public airing of the differences ought to be enough to convince my very intelligent and well-intentioned Dartmouth brothers and sisters that that is the case. Tilting the field is for losers.

Best regards,
Dan Collins ’82

—–Original Message—–
From: Matthew Hoffman
Sent: Jun 2, 2008 4:54 PM
To: ‘Dan Collins’
Subject: Dartmouth Parity

Hi, Dan. Thanks for your note. I hope I can address your comments adequately.

We never said that one’s biases — political or otherwise — do not or should not affect one’s actions as Trustee. What is objectionable and completely inappropriate is the funding of a trustee candidate’s campaign and the current lawsuit by a political organization with absolutely no ties to the College. The idea of non-Dartmouth groups trying to buy an election for their own agenda should be distasteful to all alums. Liberal or conservative, it’s wrong.

When the pro-parity folks were asked for their input on the matter of increasing the size of the Board, they refused to participate. Their response was to do nothing…except sue the College. So, Angus King is absolutely wrong when he says that the Board “closed all avenues to questions.”

Mr. King is also wrong when he claims that 50-50 representation is a 100-year-old practice. The truth is that alumni-wide voting for Trustees has been taking place only since the ‘70s.
Here’s a wonderful note written by a classmate to Dartmouth students who had asked that their ability to vote for 1/2 of the trustees not be taken away from them upon graduation:

I submit that the passion for Dartmouth demonstrated by the signers of your email is sufficient evidence that the Dartmouth Trustees, without micro-managing by alumni groups, are doing an excellent job of guiding the evolution of the College. The effort by certain alumni to actively influence the Board through the candidate petition process began when I was an undergraduate with the election of John Steel…The battle cry of the group promoting Mr. Steel and many other petition candidates who followed was that if the Board were left to its own devices it would shape the College we love into a “Harvard light” and de-emphasize the qualities that make Dartmouth unique. This group has not succeeded in gaining control of the Board, and over the past 25 years the College has been allowed to evolve from the Dartmouth I loved into the Dartmouth that you love. I am confident that a Board of Trustees free from the control of groups of alumni with particular agendas will be best suited to govern the College as it continues to evolve into a Dartmouth that, I hope, your children will be lucky enough to love.

Dartmouth today has greater undergraduate satisfaction, smaller course sizes, more course choice, and more independent study with a professor. I can’t think of a reason why the pro-parity group, including at least one of our trustees, would say that Dartmouth is becoming a “research university.” Can you?

Ironically, if the plaintiffs are successful, you and I will have less say over what goes on at Dartmouth because more of the trustees will be beholden to someone else. “Paranoid?” Did you see the YouTube video of Trustee Todd Zywicki’s speech at George Mason University, telling people not to give to Dartmouth? (And he was speaking as a Trustee of the College!) Can you imagine what Dartmouth would be like if every Trustee told people not to give to Dartmouth?!?

I don’t want to imply that the issues aren’t complex; they are. And they should be discussed, debated, argued, etc. I think it’s healthy. I think it’s great that you’re engaged and involved. The pro-parity folks were asked for their involvement and input. They refused. They sued and therefore stifled debate. It’s unfortunate, really.

Thanks again for writing, Dan.

Take care,
Matt

—–Original Message—–

From: Dan Collins [mailto:croolwurld@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 2:54 PM
To: mhoffman@wunr.com
Subject: Parity

Dear Matt,

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you vehemently over this. The idea that one vision of Dartmouth can be apolitical, or that the Board’s greater attachment to Dartmouth is less politically motivated than the petitioners’, is insulting to our intelligence as well as our sense of duty and affection toward the College. This business of changing the rules to protect against the influence of more duly elected alumni willing to serve the College, because of an imputed devious and dire influence that they are supposed to want to exert, is both paranoid and absurd.

I’m deeply offended by the Board’s actions. I agree wholeheartedly with Angus King ’66:

“…To boil this controversy down to “are you for the lawsuit or against it” is, to put it charitably, grossly misleading.

“No one is in favor of suing their college—unless an important principle is at stake and you are given no other alternative. And unfortunately, no other alternative is exactly this case. Last fall, the Board abrogated the right of the alumni to elect half the Trustees and effectively closed all avenues to question, let alone reverse, this decision. Hence, the lawsuit. To blame the suit on those who brought it, it seems to me, has it exactly backwards. By your logic, if someone defrauds you in business and refuses to make good on your loss, you are the bad guy for bringing suit to recover your property. This position doesn’t pass the straight face test.

“The simple issue is not the lawsuit, it’s the incredibly high-handed and short-sighted action of the Board last fall which vitiated the 100 year old practice—based upon an agreement between the College and its alumni—of providing the alumni with equal representation on the Board. Parity is the issue and those who believe this principle to be important and worth maintaining had no other choice but to bring the suit—because the College and the majority of Trustees made it clear that they had no interest in seeing this principle honored. Indeed the very purpose—the whole idea—of the Board’s action last fall was to nullify this principle. And as near as I can tell, until the suit was filed neither the Board majority nor the administration had the slightest interest in “working within the Dartmouth family to address their concerns”.

“Two additional points. First. I’m still astonished at the action of the Board from the point of view of process. After losing three or four elections in a row, including the ill-fated effort a couple of years ago to rig the alumni constitution, instead of responding to the issues being raised by the insurgent trustees and the large number of alumni who kept electing them, the majority of the Board simply abrogated the process itself. I thought we left “if I don’t get my way, I’m taking my bat (or in this case, ballot box) and going home” on the sandlots of our youth.

“I have some first hand experience with this democracy stuff and it is often cumbersome and sometimes downright annoying. But when you lose elections and keep losing, the idea is to figure out why and respond to the issues being raised, not simply change the rules so you don’t have to cope with that pesky majority which disagrees with you. We all would deplore such an act in a developing country (“Ruling junta cancels elections; cites expense and chaos of recent balloting”); it is this action which has shamed Dartmouth, not the lawsuit whose purpose is to rectify it.

“Regardless of one’s position on any of the underlying issues, I don’t see how anyone can defend what these folks did last fall. It’s just plain wrong to cancel an established democratic process because you lose a couple of elections and both of us know it.

“My second and concluding point is that for the life of me, I can’t figure out why you or any other alumnus/alumna would for a minute support the College administration in abrogating our own power in the governance of the college. It just doesn’t make sense. I can understand the administration’s motives—no executive likes an activist board which questions its prerogatives and power. But for any alumnus to sit still for this—and in many cases actively abet it—I just don’t understand. For if this is allowed to stand, the time will come—sooner rather than later in my opinion—when decisions will be made which you and I and the majority of alumni will strenuously oppose, but we’ll be powerless to stop them.

“For once you have laid your sword and buckler aside—once the suit is dismissed—they cannot be taken up again, and something important will have been lost.

“So let’s be honest—this vote is about parity, not the lawsuit. If the establishment slate (for want of a better term) is elected, the lawsuit goes away, and if the lawsuit goes away, parity goes away. It’s that simple. And I’m still listening and waiting for a reason parity should be abandoned. So far, I haven’t heard it.”

Best,

Angus King ‘66

No matter how you try to dress this up, Matt, it remains a power grab. It is nothing more, and nothing less.

Dan Collins ’82