To the Editors:
The article, "Alumni nix changes to Council structure," (The Dartmouth, Jan 5.) missed the fundamental point of the proposed constitutional change. One technical glitch, that the Council recognized and promised to fix, was not reason to throw out two years of hard work to update an antiquated governance structure.
The primary reason for changing the constitution was to make the Alumni Council more representative of the alumni body by expanding it from 97 to 122 members. Importantly, this change would have increased the diversity of the Council by granting two seats to each officially recognized affiliated group including the Asian-Pacific Alumni Association, the Black Alumni of Dartmouth Association, the Dartmouth Gay and Lesbian Alumni Association and the Native American Alumni Association.
While I do not think that I "allegedly reprimanded" Janos Marton '04 and Noah Riner '06, I did encourage them to get all of the facts before forming an opinion. The facts are that Marton had sent an e-mail to young alumni encouraging them to vote against the constitution after meeting with a few antagonistic alumni and before he came to the Committee on Student Life meeting to ask for our opinions. Such an action is similar to extolling the virtues of Mussolini's train system upon arriving for the first time in World War II Italy -- how about learning of the tyranny before writing home?
Interestingly, the same alumni group that aligned with (or duped) Marton and Riner was vehemently against the expansion of diversity. They are also the same group that has unsuccessfully sued the college on governance issues five times -- leading the judge to order the dissident group to pay the college's legal fees. Did Marton and Riner know that?
Marton's and Riner's jobs are to represent students. I am afraid some disgruntled alumni hoodwinked them, thereby harming the expansion of diversity. How did that serve students?
