The selection of the Class of 2006's Senior Executive Committee earlier this month raises a number of troubling questions concerning the Dartmouth administration's conception of diversity and democracy. Comprised of 20 students -- 12 of whom are elected by the senior class and eight of whom are appointed by administrators -- the SEC is charged with planning Class Day and the five-year reunion, while keeping classmates connected with one another and the College in the interim.
Unlike most of the useless committees around campus that are brimming with "leadership" but devoid of true purpose, the SEC actually plays a critical role in maintaining class unity after graduation and encouraging young alumni to contribute financially to the College. As such, it is clearly quite important that the committee represents the diversity of the class as a whole, and its membership ought to include people from all sectors of campus life. This is, perhaps, why eight of the positions are reserved for students who would "ensure the diversity of representation on the committee," in the words of Rex Morey, Assistant Director of Young Alumni and one of the three administrators charged with choosing these special eight ("Twenty students selected for the SEC," Feb. 13). It seems strange, then, that this year's SEC has only two fraternity members and two varsity athletes and that at least half of the committee members are also either in Palaeopitus or the Casque & Gauntlet Senior Society -- many in both. By some measures, of course, the current SEC is quite diverse, but it would be difficult to argue that it is broadly representative of the entire senior class.
This is not to say that these committee members won't do a good job; I know many of them quite well, and I have full confidence in their ability to reach out to the rest of their classmates. However, I do find fault with the system that selected them and, more broadly, the notion that we need College administrators to tell us who can represent us best after we graduate from Dartmouth.
The selection of the SEC is a multi-part process: Students fill out an application listing their motivations for applying and their affiliations with college organizations. The senior class then casts votes for up to 20 applicants -- 12 of whom are elected. Then Morey, Class of 2006 Dean Teoby Gomez and Student Activities Director Linda Kennedy choose the remaining eight members based on mysterious criteria known only to them. The committee membership is announced, but never does the public find out who was elected and who was appointed. While this sort of a system might make sense in a struggling, post-Soviet bloc country, it does not remind me of any electoral system I have seen in this country.
The number of missteps in this year's election makes the transparency lacking in the process all the more necessary. Students hoping to take part in the process had to vote three separate times because of a malfunctioning elections website, making this an exercise in democracy that would undoubtedly turn Jimmy Carter queasy.
Not knowing which members were chosen and which ones were appointed leads the skeptic to wonder whether one of the criteria for selection -- in addition to meeting the College's vision of diversity -- is friendliness to the administration and support for its agenda. Is it possible that the selection committee is trying to keep its critics from playing a role in Class Day exercises? Maybe. Maybe not. But without transparency in the process, we'll never know.
As a good, solid liberal, I often find myself backing the progressive bent of the Wright administration, but I often find myself at odds with the way it goes about achieving its agenda. Yes, diversity is good. But do we really need the administration to hold our collective hand and lead us toward the Happy Land of Diversity? The SEC selection process smacks of paternalism, tokenism and a lack of confidence in Dartmouth students' ability to figure out how to pick a diverse and representative set of leaders.
I would not argue, of course, that the SEC should be comprised solely of fraternity presidents and varsity captains, but maybe -- just maybe -- there ought to be at least one of these on a committee of 20. Greek houses and sports teams are probably two of the strongest sources of bonding at Dartmouth. Would it not make sense to make use of these natural forms of connection between students when trying to keep young alumni connected with one another and the College?
The underlying problem with this entire process is simply the administration's lack of comprehension of the meaning of diversity. Diversity does not mean "one of everything." That's called tokenism. Diversity means reflecting the various qualities found throughout a group while avoiding over-representation and under-representation of any particular subset. How does one go about achieving such an objective? Perhaps one allows the group of people in need of representation to choose its leadership by itself. How could this group go about making such a selection? How about by holding an election? I hear that's what they do in democracies.
