The recent resignation of Harvard President Lawrence Summers forces us here at Dartmouth to stop and reflect on our institution, our administration and ourselves. While we realize that Summers was far from perfect, we do believe the vision that guided his tenure -- a frustration with the complacent and static nature surrounding his institution and the strength of character to act on this dissatisfaction -- was a valid one.
Summers, from the day he entered the post until the day he resigned, presented himself as a public academic first and as a politician second. This posture led him to say and do things that struck many as jarring, particularly his comment on the correlation between gender and math and science aptitude. Others, however, saw his behavior as a breath of fresh air in a university climate where politics seems to trump all else. In this way, Summers set a new tone -- popular with many students -- of outspokenness in the face of criticism. Leading by example, he reminded his institution from top to bottom that the gravest academic offense one could commit was not speaking his or her mind. Unfortunately this approach led to his own undoing.
As we can observe from the recent reaction of the Harvard student body, the actions and attitudes of college and university presidents can set a tone that has the potential to electrify a campus or to lull it into a somnolent complacency. We must ask: what tone is our own President James Wright setting? Though a brilliant fund-raiser and skilled public speaker, Wright presents himself as a politician first, ironic in lieu of his background as an academic. Summers' comments on university and extra-university affairs provoked discussion and debate among students at Harvard and around the country. In contrast, Wright today often evades controversy in official comments and rarely takes a strong stance in important debates. For example, his ambiguity toward the Dean of the Faculty search process when speaking with The Dartmouth and his refusal to comment on Summers' resignation do nothing to encourage debate. Moreover, Wright often suggests it is inappropriate for him to address issues affecting alumni -- such as current infighting -- though this body's relationship with Parkhurst desperately needs to be addressed. Students often are unsure of Wright's views, disregarding the consistently eloquent, yet homogenous talking points, which fail to spark debate and create an atmosphere of complacency.
Though it is unfair to pin Dartmouth's complacency solely on the President's shoulders, it is interesting to note how his no-comment approach stretches beyond his office. Perhaps it is our acceptance of this attitude at all levels of the College that keeps it firmly intact. It is unfortunate that the fear of offense or political faux pas can hinder discourse at an institution designed to encourage it.
