Last weekend's announcement that a slate decisively opposed to recent lawsuits against the College was elected to the Association of Alumni executive board ("Alumni elect Unity Slate' to AoA," April 12) may mark the end of the contentious debate on the appropriateness of alumni body representatives suing the College in pursuit of parity ("Lawsuit appeal divides candidates in AoA race," March 30). Although no elected alumni group has expressed a desire to bring a lawsuit against the College, the persistence of the discussion of parity within alumni factions shows us that debate over the Board's composition is far from over. Indeed, it should not be, with alumni as varied as former petition candidate Joe Asch '79 and recently reelected Association president John Mathias '69 have advocated the shared view that parity is a goal of a majority of the alumni body, despite the previous disagreement over how to reinstate it.
This past election saw a rare convergence of opinion. During the campaign, trustees-elect Morton Kondracke '60 and John Replogle '88 both expressed interest in a movement toward parity, while Asch called for definite reinstatement of the policy. The past efforts of Mathias to work with the Board on increasing the number of elected trustees may not have been fruitful ("AoA candidates establish platforms," Mar. 4). However, the newly-elected representatives have expressed interest in a shift toward parity.
That being said, the most pressing concern may not be simply striking a balance between alumni-elected and Board-selected trustees. Rather, reassessing the overall composition of the Board on several more diverse levels is paramount. Only five of the 22 current trustees are women. Only four, including College President Jim Yong Kim, are people of color. Fifteen, however, are a part of the corporate world. All but one of the trustees graduated from the College more than 25 years ago. This lack of diversity in experience prevents the Board from directing Dartmouth as well as it might by failing to represent all of its constituents. When the vast majority of trustees bring such similar perspectives to the boardroom, the chances for fresh ideas and substantive debate are inevitably limited, no matter the trustees' impressive resumes.
Electing Kondracke, a journalist and political commentator, will hopefully constitute the first small step of a larger movement, not just a minor aberration. Replogle and Asch agreed that adding a student member to the Board was a proposal worth considering. Recruiting a trustee from outside of the alumni body for new insights, less tinged by sentiment for the College, should be evaluated. (The only modern trustee not to graduate from the College was a mother of a Dartmouth student, elected directly following co-education in 1972.) The Board has also never drawn from its reservoir of talented alumni who have only passed through Dartmouth's graduate schools.
The College's Board need not reflect the exact makeup of the campus community. However, Dartmouth's governing body no longer resembles, even vaguely, the multifaceted composition of the College. What we need, first and foremost, is a Board that accounts for these differences within its membership, not merely how he or she reaches the office. A new type of "parity" needs to be established one that includes broader representation in gender, race, occupation, age and affiliation to Dartmouth.
The most productive arrangement for the Board does not solely consist of a return to the 50-50 representation at the core of past divisive campaigning. Parity, for a modern age, calls on us to do much more.
