No, I'm not kidding. On May 9th Dartmouth students will have an opportunity to tell the administration that we will no longer acquiesce to phony elections of a Student Body President who has no true institutional voice in the management of the school. There is no democracy in the administration of Dartmouth College; hence we should not let the administration maintain the facade of democracy. If you truly want your vote to count, you should vote for someone who can actually influence this school.
Simply holding elections does not make a democracy. Democracy exists when elections give voters real options, program variety and institutional power through their elected representatives. Dartmouth's student government elections are a classic example of sham-democracy. The administrators and the Trustees, the school's real power-mongers, are adamantly opposed to any genuine empowerment of the students, their temporary guests. Apparently only an institutionalized authority with a vested, long-term interest in the college's future can possibly be capable of making responsible and intelligent decisions regarding the lives of its flighty occupants.
The administration's attitudes towards students are fairly typical for a corporatist oligarchy that puts the school's public relations and financial health above virtually all other priorities. Their actions are reminiscent of those third world countries that make all of their policy decisions with the hope of encouraging greater future investment, even if such decisions negatively impact its citizens. Our oligarchy is managed by powerful Regents, in the form of Trustees, who aren't accountable to students in any way. The alumni do at least have influence comparable to that of a corporation's shareholders, although just as with corporations, an alumnus's influence is proportional to the size and frequency of his financial donations to the school.
Students' only current institutional voice is in the form of voting members on the College committees, the Committee on Standards, and the newly created Organizational Adjudication Committee. However, COS and OAC perform judiciary functions, not legislative ones. The College committees make suggestions about new policies or alteration of old ones, but it is the Trustees who have the real directional authority and the administrators who carry-out the day to day legislating of the Trustees' broader policy schemes.
There is a misguided notion that the Student Assembly and its current President, Jorge Miranda, are responsible for students' lack of influence with the administration. This is patently false. The SA has strongly urged the administration to increase students' voice through granting the SA greater legitimacy and giving more recognition to SA resolutions. The truth is that the administration is responsible for the current state of affairs. Despite all of the SA's attempts, there is still no institutionalized student voice. There is no student Trustee. There is no student administrator. Some of us see chalk as our only means of influencing school policy.
Three months ago it became clear to me that there was little the SA could ever do to increase its influence unilaterally. During a "fireside chat" with President James Wright, I asked him what the SA could do to increase its legitimacy and importance in the eyes of the administration. I expected to hear suggestions of greater maturity, structural reform and increased communication. Instead, President Wright's answer was, "Nothing, they're already the students' elected representatives." Not only was President Wright completely wrong about the structure of the SA (only about 2/3 of the members are actually elected), he seemed to think that the administration was already giving the SA as much legitimacy and recognition as it would ever deserve.
The three official candidates for Student Body President deserve a chance to explain how they plan to change the status quo. Michael Sevi has designed a seven-point platform for SA reforms. But point #7 concedes that, "after the overhaul of the Student Assembly...we will demand recognition as the true representative of the student body." Mr. Sevi's reforms will be for naught if they are met with an apathetic response from the administration. Molly Stutzman's plans are less radical than Sevi's. She plans to advocate for a stronger institutional voice for students through the recently created Student Involvement Council. She also wants to "address membership and be more active in enlisting the support of the entire student body, so that the Student Assembly can speak as a coherent student voice." Molly's positions illustrate a continuation of the work of this year's SA, which has had only limited success thus far. Theodore Root Smith declined to comment.
Dean of the College James Larimore is far stronger than any one of these three well-meaning, but inevitably impotent candidates. Unlike the student candidates, Larimore actually has the ability to satisfy student demands from across the political spectrum. He could enact nearly all of the demands that were made at the protests in front of Parkhurst a few weeks ago. Students that are concerned with the school's adjudication of the Principles of Community would have, as their elected representative, a person with the power, technically, to overturn COS and OAS decisions.
Some may wonder if Dean Larimore can be elected Student Body President, given his current position as Dean of the College. After all, it might be dangerous to vest that much authority in one person. Have no fear. Since the Student Body President has mostly symbolic powers anyway, he would not gain any additional powers beyond those that he has already won undemocratically from the search committee that appointed him. In addition, as the student body's elected leader, he would be responsible to a constituency that includes thousands of students, something that neither President Wright, nor the Trustees can claim. Dean Larimore is legally qualified to serve as Student Body President: he is not on academic probation and will be in residence for fall, winter and spring term next year, as mandated by the school's election rules.
With Dean Larimore in charge, students would no longer just have a representative to the administration, but a representative that is part of the administration. At last, the student's chosen leader would have an influence over college policies affecting the student body. Voting for Dean Larimore would send the message that the only way Dartmouth students can achieve a true institutional voice is by electing an administrator to Student Body President. Students who are dissatisfied with the mismanagement of Dartmouth and the meaninglessness of these elections have, in the past, chosen not to vote for anyone. But anger should lead to action, not silence. On Election Day, write-in Dean James Larimore for Student Body President and make your vote count!
