Following Todd Zywicki and Peter Robinson's successful petition drives, a faction of alumni is upset. That faction, now organized as the "Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth" are publicly campaigning for the council nominated candidates and against the petition candidates. This group has sent e-mails to alumni asking for support. This group has put up a website stating their views (www.strongdartmouth.org).
While other freedom of speech cases to face the Dartmouth campus were riddled with ambiguity as to whether there was any real infraction, this one could not be any more plain and simple. The Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth blantantly violated the stated "Policy on Campaigning." The policy states that "Campaigning by the Candidate or his/her supporters beyond the two emails (sent through the council) is inappropriate." This organization is clearly campaigning by sending unauthorized emails and publishing an unauthorized web site.
It would be one thing if the group was a band of young alums unfamiliar with the rules of the election. However, the group's supporters include Robert P. Henderson, Michael Heyman, Joe Mathewson, Robert Danziger, Ronald Schram, Kate Stith, Ann Fritz Hacket and Robert P . Henderson. All of these are self-described "former trustees," all of whom should be well aware of the Policy on Campaigning.
If any group should be "derecognized" by the college for failure to follow speech codes, it is this band of alums. Their freedom to congregate and their rights should be limited.
The Policy on Campaigning also states that "candidates are expected to take reasonable steps to discourage their supporters from campaigning on their behalf." Have the council nominated candidates asked the Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth to stop its efforts and shut down the website? Given the number of alums endorsing this group and the time required to pull together that support, any resistance by the candidates to date is likely nonexistent.
This campaigning may unfairly skew the election. The balloting committee, if it is to follow its own protocol must state the violation with each candidate's bio as presented on the internet and in print. Furthermore, the committee should notify the Trustees of the violation. The Trustees may then, in turn, reconsider each of the nominee's candidacy.
The campaigning policy may be one freedom of speech limitation that I actually support. It is likely aimed at minimizing the sort of flame war now taking place in The Dartmouth's editorials and the Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth's website. It is sad, and unfortunate, to see a group of alumni leaders break their own rules to support this group and campaign for a candidate. I expect a higher ethical standard of my elders and hope to see a cleaner process in the future.
