The election of petition candidates Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88, raised questions throughout the College community about what led to the petition candidates' victories and what their election means for the future of Dartmouth. The race involved a complex set of issues and the effects are far from certain.How They Won
The petition candidates were immediately separated from the Alumni Council nominees through the message of Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth, an online group promoting the Council nominees, and through labels on the official campaign website denoting which candidates were nominated by the Council and which by petition.
Many alumni perceived the Alumni Council nominees as "pro-administration" and the petition nominees as "insurgents." This view was reinforced by the belief that the four Alumni Council nominees were handpicked by the College, when in reality, they were chosen by fellow alumni.
Although neither garnered an absolute majority, the petition candidates won relatively decisive victories, with 48 percent of voting alumni casting votes for Robinson and 45 percent for Zywicki. Alumni were allowed to vote for multiple candidates.
Some alumni, like author Dinesh D'Souza '83, predicted the "loyalist" vote would be divided among the four Alumni Council nominees. This may have been the case -- the four Alumni Council nominees together received 20,887 votes, compared to Robinson and Zywicki's 14,220. More precise voting breakdowns have not yet been released.Divisions Between Candidates
In many ways, however, the differences between the petition nominees and the Alumni Council nominees were overstated. Ideologically, the two sets of candidates varied little.
The divide between the petition candidates cannot be characterized as the conservative underdogs versus the liberal College-chosen candidates. The latter group, instead, contained both political conservatives and liberals.
After looking at one measure of political ideology, political donations, it appears that the Alumni Council nominees were diverse in political convictions. Although Alumni Council nominee Sheila Cheston '80 supported Democrat Hillary Clinton, two other Alumni Council nominees are Republicans. Gregg Engles '79 donated $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2004, and Curtis Welling '71 Tu '77 gave money to his Republican congressional representative, according to public records. No records for Richard Lewis '84 were available.
Engles, arguably the Alumni Council nominee with a platform most similar to the petition candidates' stances, even criticized the lack of ideological diversity among Dartmouth faculty.
The issues that mark one's national political ideology, however, are different from those that affect the College. As Robinson said, "It would be hard to wedge into a discussion my opinion about Social Security reform."
But the petition candidates did transfer political conservatism into College conservatism. In his weblog, Zywicki, for example, criticized the proliferation of academic departments designed "to present a particular viewpoint, not to create a balanced discussion, such as Women's Studies, African-American Studies and [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender] Studies." Presumably, some liberals might take issue with such doubts.
And the petition candidates' stance against big government perhaps manifested itself in skepticism of Dartmouth's plethora of deans.
Despite the mix of political views among all candidates, the petition candidates clearly differentiated themselves from the Alumni Council nominees. They were distinct from their "official" counterparts in that they were more overt in their criticism of the College -- such freedom comes with independence. Zywicki and Robinson decried what they saw as Dartmouth's shaky free speech policy, its misguided ambitions to become a research university, its bloated bureaucracy and its hostility towards athletics.
While College President James Wright congratulated the winners and said he looked forward to working with them, he likely would have preferred a victory by Alumni Council nominees more supportive of his presidency.
But were these criticisms of the College valid? Some alumni, specifically those behind Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth, suggested that the petition candidates' arguments were reactionary and misleading; for example, no candidates actually called for Dartmouth to become more like a research university. Despite Wright's oft-quoted reference to the College as "a research university in all but name," he has announced no plans to expand its size or alter its focus.The Election's Implications
Robinson and Zywicki will join last year's petition candidate TJ Rodgers '70 on the College's board, increasing the number of petition-nominated trustees to three out of 18. The Alumni Council, whose nominees have not won in the past two elections, may be forced to select more electable nominees if it hopes to have its candidates win in future elections. In the last two elections, winning seemed to require open criticicism of the administration, something Council nominees had been hesitant to do so.
Allegations of campaign rules violations also marked this year's election. The rules prohibited candidates from campaigning outside of their official video, questionnaire and two e-mails. Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth was accused of violating campaign rules, but Alumni Association President John Walters '62 said, while the organization perhaps violated the rules' spirit, he was powerless to sanction the group.
Significant changes in the campaign rules are likely next year given this year's controversy surrounding the inability to enforce such regulations and the nearly-unilateral opposition to the tight guidelines. Walters, who was charged with enforcing the rules, wants them changed, and Robinson said he would like to see them disappear altogether. With the use of weblogs in this campaign season, rules against supporters campaigning for specific candidates were rendered even more unenforceable. Unlike in previous elections, blogs played a significant role in shaping debate. If restrictive campaign rules are dropped, candidates in future elections will be able to campaign via their own blogs, rather than relying on those of others.
On the web site of The National Review, a conservative magazine, Robinson credited the blogs for spreading information about the race and campus sentiment.
"I learned more about what was actually taking place in Hanover by reading these blogs, all operated by undergraduates or very recent graduates, than I had in 25 years of reading the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine," Robinson wrote.
In the end, the election was about neither the triumph of conservatism nor blogs. The election of the petition candidates exposed the rift between differing visions. The Alumni Council nominees, seen (unfairly or not) as administration loyalists, were pitted against the petition candidates, who capitalized on alumni discontent.
