While the elections are not until next term, one person already seems to be running for President of the Student Assembly: Jim Brennan '96.
After his strong showing in the last election and his subsequent political activity, Brennan has little choice but to be considered an early front runner. Wisely, he refuses to comment on the situation.
Given that context, it is important to examine his public actions with more than a passing glance. One such action of particular interest involves the controversial Report of the Committee on the First Year Experience.
As Acting Co-President of the Conservative Union at Dartmouth during Fall Term he helped to organize a petition against the very notion of "freshman dorms."
Both this petition and his involvement set off a negative gut reaction. Are his motives responsible for my queasy feeling?
The motives do seem questionable. Such a petition could easily be viewed as political grandstanding. Get a few names, make a bit of a splash and gain populist support by spearheading a populist drive. Sure, some names on a petition are not going to change trustees minds, but the students will think you are a man of the people.
In an interview, Jim assured me that those were not his motives. He notes that the original petition idea was not his own, and that he supported it because of his own personal convictions on the matter.
Even so, that sick feeling remains in the pit of my stomach. If we grant Jim his motives we can still question the actions he endorsed. What does such a petition say about Brennan's opinion of his fellow Dartmouth students?
Jim gives the answer he is supposed to. He points to our common intelligence, "Whether people read the report or not we are all reasonable enough...to make a decision on the issue of freshman dorms." Yep, that's the right answer, Jim might have a future as a political speech writer.
But what is the true answer? The truth is that the Report of the Committee on the First Year Experience is a complex document filled with interrelated concepts and recommendations. The CUaD petition removed those bothersome complexities and presented, out of context, the most controversial recommendation. Their expressed purpose was student rejection of that recommendation.
It seems that in truth, CUaD and their Acting Co-President, did not think that Dartmouth Students could handle 30 pages of information. At a time when debate and discussion were appropriate, they said, we'll do the reading and thinking, all you have to do is sign your name.
"I agree with a lot of the report," said Jim. If that is the case why does he encourage us to look at just one recommendation?
In the grand moral scheme Jim's fault is not a large one. We all take the occasional shortcut to achieve our ends. In Jim's own words a petition was "convenient."
However, all indicators point to Jim as a candidate for Student Assembly President. Such figures are subject to scrutiny of their public actions. In this case such scrutiny leads to only one conclusion: in the interest of "gathering student opinion" Brennan simplified the complex and insulted our collective intelligence.
