Dartmouth has forgotten its identity. Social engineering seems to be the paramount concern of this administration. The commitment to providing the best liberal arts education possible is secondary to the social engineering agenda. Class sizes, curriculum quality, housing, athletics and free speech have all taken a back seat. Increasingly it becomes clear that this administration cannot see the obvious. Its values are in such stark contrast to those held by the majority of people who have attended Dartmouth that a drastic shift can only be made from the top down.
The election of T.J. Rodgers '70 as a petition trustee candidate is perhaps the most significant event that has occurred at Dartmouth in recent history. It confirms the fact that the alumni body does not approve of the path that this administration is taking despite the lies and misrepresentations Wright and his henchmen may dribble to the public. Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88 should be elected to the Board of Trustees as the next step in the process of reemphasizing traditional Dartmouth values. The candidates from the Alumni Council are always handpicked drones despite whatever puppet democratic system is constructed in a house of mirrors. Read their statements. The source of the disease is isolated; it exists in the Board of Trustees. Electing candidates from outside the system is the most efficacious manner of regaining control of Dartmouth's cycle of decline.
The obtuseness of this administration can be demonstrated in what has become the generic administrative defense. Rather than saying that several sizable problems exist and enumerating the significant steps that the administration plans to take, defenders have instead claimed in essence that the problems do not exist. They are quick to shoot back particular examples of good things that occur at Dartmouth. If you put a group of talented people together in a small community, of course they are going to do incredible things. No one is claiming that talented students, athletes and professors do not exist at Dartmouth. The problem that those concerned seem to be missing is that the overarching institutional values that separate Dartmouth from its peers are becoming less prominent every day.
Dartmouth's athletic facilities are piss-poor and shameful for the most part. Many high schools have more suitable athletic forums. Athletes choosing to come to Hanover are a testament to the draw of Dartmouth as an institution. Athletics Director Josie Harper points out that Dartmouth boasts many top caliber athletic teams ("Looking Ahead for the Big Green, March 8). But this does not mean that we wouldn't have better programs with improved facilities. Where is the correlation between Dartmouth doing well in many areas and an excuse to be terrible in others? The building or renovating of several facilities recently does not change the fact that far more are still substandard. If it needs to be drawn in crayon, take a walk into Alumni Gym. Ms. Harper's defense of the athletic program is the generic administrative defense because it doesn't recognize that a problem exists. Harper's argument boils down to, "everything's great, look how well some of our teams have done, and at some of the accomplishments we've made." The non-recognition of the problem is the essence of the disconnect between traditional Dartmouth values and those that this administration espouses.
Dean Carol Folt's defense of class sizes ("The Fact of the Matter," March 3) follows the same blueprint (likely handed out in the henchman handbook). Folt's argument justifies Dartmouth's popular classes being generally oversubscribed by pointing out that we've added a few new professors. How can this be a disputable topic? Dean Folt mentions specific examples of alumni gifts that have recently created new professorships. This does not change the fact that many students count on being shut out of at least one if not two courses in their own major every term. Shouldn't that be the barometer that is used to judge whether a problem exists? How can a student create an intellectually coherent stream of courses if he can't be assured a reasonable likelihood of getting into the classes he wants? Students can't get into classes. Fix it. Don't talk in administrative double-speak about the new "professorship in emerging fields."
This administration's contention that easily perceivable problems are not real and are justified by isolated accomplishments underscores the need to elect petition candidate trustees. The issues at hand are more complex than laid out here. But this isn't one isolated problem. This is a complete disconnect, and this reflects why Rodgers, Robinson and Zywicki sound very similar and so different from Wright and the other trustees. Dartmouth's administration has an agenda that no longer places an intimate liberal arts education, athletics, undergraduate students' interests or free speech atop the to-do list. Instead, social engineering sits as priority number one. Electing Robinson and Zywicki is step two in the redirection process.
