Last Wednesday, Dartmouth made national news when The New York Times published an article covering the ongoing battle over the proposed alumni constitution. The article, which made the front section of the paper, explained the general gist of the controversy, and featured a familiar cast of characters, from College President James Wright to the editors of the Dartmouth Review and Free Press. I was initially surprised by the coverage of an issue that (I assumed) was only the concern of die-hard Dartmouth aficionados. But on Saturday, the article remained on the Times' website's list of most frequently e-mailed articles, sitting proudly at number five.
I cannot pretend I understand every intricacy of the controversy surrounding this proposed constitution. But minutia aside, the constitution would change the way trustees are elected to the board, and critics charge that it would, in effect, make the process more difficult for outsiders. The announcement of the proposition follows the election of three candidates critical of what they see as the administration's diminishing focus on undergraduates as well as its emphasis on political correctness at the expense of free speech. This timing has provoked accusations that the constitution is simply a way to preserve the administration's agenda. Supporters of the constitution reply that the proposition is not a response to the particular claims of the three recently-elected trustees, but rather that it is a long-planned effort to, in the words of chairman William Neukom '64, create "a more democratic, more participatory form of alumni self-governance."
The debate is more complicated than this brief explanation, and there are undoubtedly arguments supporting both points of view. But without taking sides, it is worth wondering why the controversy has attracted so much attention across the country from bloggers, other colleges and national newspapers.
The answer perhaps lies in the universality of the issues being debated. They are issues of free speech versus political correctness, undergraduate focus versus emphasis on alumni, and, as a result of the politicization of the debate, right versus left. Doesn't sound so unfamiliar now. This battle over the alumni constitution is in fact representative of many ideological problems that businesses, organizations and governments are facing in the world today.
The free speech/political correctness debate has gained a great deal of exposure earlier this year with the well-publicized and potentially anti-Muslim political cartoon that appeared in a Denmark newspaper. The incident triggered a flurry of discussions of free speech, especially in the context of terrorism. In the Senate, political correctness mixes with patriotism in the debate over the proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. And just last week, a Philadelphia steakhouse owner attracted national attention when he put up a sign in his restaurant declaring that "This is America" and that he would only serve customers who spoke English. Dartmouth joins the chorus of ideological fervor with President Wright's oft-quoted statement that "It is hard to understand why some want still to insist that their 'right' to do what they want trumps the rights, feelings and considerations of others." Consequently, the proposed alumni constitution is inextricably linked to the issue of free speech; it has come to be perceived as Dartmouth's own anti-flag-burning amendment, with all the controversy and protest that comes along with it.
The undergraduate-alumni binary is similarly not one that only manifests itself in the educational context. Undergraduates and alumni could just as easily be employees and shareholders. With the onset of globalization and the international conglomeration of corporations, the focus of business management has changed, too. Instead of a model based on job security and centered around stakeholders, corporate governance (at least in the United States) is becoming increasingly market-oriented, with emphasis on attracting long-term investment and employing cheaper labor (outsourcing is a prime example). Decisions over whether to prioritize the stakeholders (faculty and students at Dartmouth) or the shareholders (alumni and other donors) are made every day in every business, which makes it scarcely surprising that even the unlikeliest of groups in the United States are following developments in the world of Dartmouth alumni with interest.
It is unlikely that the passage or non-passage of Dartmouth's proposed alumni constitution will alter the course of business management or world affairs. But the outcome and, more importantly, the reaction to the outcome will surely reflect strong opinions about the increasingly relevant issues that we face at Dartmouth, and that we will have to face again and again in our post-graduate lives, no matter where we end up. The debate will not end when this particular controversy comes to a resolution. But when it does, who knows, maybe Dartmouth will make the front page of The New York Times.