The oft-cited "Dartmouth Experience" undoubtedly means something different to each member of the College community. When the endowment is doubling, any differences in personal values can conveniently be swept under the rug. Only after losses to the endowment when jobs are threatened and budget cuts debated must we seriously consider how these values define the College. Before we make cuts, we must prioritize what is essential to the Dartmouth experience. Until we do this, all budget cut conversations will be overshadowed by the larger debate on the College's core purpose.
In an open letter to College President Jim Yong Kim, 75 faculty signatories articulated a clear vision of what they felt Dartmouth is and ought to be ("Faculty protest layoffs in letter," Jan. 26). The College they envision is a community that serves as an "anchor" for the Upper Valley. This model, and the budgetary actions that would be consistent with it, has garnered widespread student support. We wonder, however, if this movement is gathering so much attention simply because there is no defined alternative approach that has been as clearly articulated. Those who have rejected their argument believe Dartmouth must act as an institution engaged in the "business of education." They argue that current "economic realities" trump any ethical responsibility Dartmouth has to the surrounding community effectively putting the "bottom line" at the core of College values.
Being fiscally responsible, however, is a business model, not an institutional principle. In either case money will be spent, but the true issue is where it should be spent. We must make judicious cuts to preserve the Dartmouth Experience no one will refute that but the community never received a clear explanation of what the administration sees as essential to that experience.
Kim was chosen to be our leader. He must provide Dartmouth with one unified vision for the College's future. Until he does that, we have no point of reference from which to judge the claims made by the faculty or by the Service Employees International Union. After three terms and multiple budget forums, Kim has enumerated many goals for the College to lead in health care development, to produce responsible global citizens, to dominate in athletics and to provide the best undergraduate education in the world. These are admirable aspirations, but they are too disparate and broad to constitute one coherent vision for the College especially when we must decide what line items are most essential and which could be jettisoned. The budget cut process requires the College to narrow its direction, define the path for the future and prioritize certain goals above all else. Without a clear idea of the College's priorities, everything supposedly remains "on the table," yielding debate that is frequently too nebulous to be productive.
The time has come for Kim to lay out the specific direction of the College for the next decade, even the next century. The budget presentation at next weekend's Board of Trustees meeting should be viewed as an opportunity to highlight and affirm a defined set of goals. Instead, we are left waiting for an announcement of budget cuts that will, by default, give us more perspective on what the previously undefined Dartmouth experience actually means.
