Last spring, I collaborated with Dan Linsalata '07 on an op-ed opposing the constitution ("United Against the Constitution," May 31). I now wish very much I had reserved my judgment on the matter. That is not because I now disagree with the thrust of what we wrote, but because I am disgusted by so much that has been said and done since by the opponents of the Alumni Governance Task Force and the new constitution, and by the way my name, my newspaper's name, and the name of liberalism has been used to support those opponents. Mike Amico '07wrote on Sept. 20 that I was "trick[ed]" into co-authoring my letter ("Big Decision, Small Coalition"). That is not true -- I knew what I was doing and why. I did not know, however, that the same arguments that I made would be pushed so far into absurdity and animus.
The repetitive belligerence with which the AGTF has been attacked and the smugly reductionist rhetoric that has been employed in those attacks are demeaning to Dartmouth and to its alumni. I am myself perhaps guilty in my spring op-ed of being overly harsh and attributing far too much conspiratorial intent to the AGTF and its supporters. I believe that the constitution draft's flaws are honest (though nevertheless present) and come from the pressures of compromise and a certain sense of urgency that accompanied the drafting of this document, rather than actual manipulative intentions.
I do not believe that the draft is an example of gerrymandering, but I must also add that I believe it could do a lot more toward opening up the system and de-cluttering the path toward real action by alumni.
I feel that there is far too much room for bureaucracy in this draft, and that it will serve to dampen the possibilities of individual, grassroots involvement among alumni with the College. It will, I think, focus participation too narrowly in the auspices of the Alumni Assembly. What the draft provides, with its Association pouring into the Assembly and trickling into the higher committees and positions, is a funnel for alumni voices and efforts. What is needed is a loose sieve that enables free and multilateral movement among alumni, the administration, trustees and students. I personally believe the best way for alumni to matter on campus is for them to interact with the students, not with each other.
Secondly, I do not believe that conservatives, or dissidents if you prefer, are being persecuted in the constitution draft or in the actions of the AGTF to the extent that they would have you believe. But I do believe that there is a feeling among the AGTF's supporters that dissension itself is somehow inappropriate in matters of collegiate governance. A letter from the Alumni for Common Sense states, "opponents of the new Constitution are making false claims and sowing dissension where there should be none." I disagree intensely with this opinion. If Dartmouth is truly as diverse as I hope it is, then dissent, as long as it is genuine and not manufactured or trivial, should be not only inevitable but also practically necessary. I do not believe vehement but civil disagreement is something we should discourage, and I do believe that many supporters of the constitution draft would rather the dissent disappear than be taken seriously.
Thirdly, I think the entire trustee election process is a complete and total mess. I believe that it is unfair as it stands and will be unfair if the constitution is passed, though perhaps less so. One problem is that the elections are tied together with the other functions and functionaries of alumni governance -- the nominating and balloting committees under the new system are still intimately tied to the alumni's governing body, the Assembly. But more importantly, the current format of nominated candidates versus petition candidates creates a permanently flawed template for discussions of Dartmouth's future and its present condition. Its Manichean format and perceived unfairness only reinforce the notion that dissenters cannot be incorporated into Dartmouth's progress but rather must be victorious or vanquished.
The AGTF's own efforts at including previously dissenting alumni is a much better model of the way Dartmouth can function. In order to avoid flaws, nominating should be abolished; instead, all candidates should pass through a petition process. The nomination process, as I understand it, is meant to filter out candidates with lesser qualifications, less prestige, less gravitas. Filtering is what an election is for, and an election should do it.
We could quite easily have a better constitution than the one on which we are currently voting, and in some ways I do not see the point of voting for an imperfect document which is guaranteed to further inflame the Lone Whiners, as Mike Amico charmingly called them, and also rally conservative groups across the nation to their side. But this draft is miles better than the old and is hugely more democratic.
If I were an alumnus rather than a mere student, I would not feel entirely comfortable casting my vote in either direction. It almost makes searching for a job and writing a thesis seem simple.
