Proponents of the new constitution have set aside arguments of merit, advancing instead two arguments: that we should adopt the new constitution because a task force worked hard on it for a long time and that a group of "radical dissidents," as Peter Fahey '68 wrote in The Dartmouth ("Five Reasons to Vote and Vote Yes," Sept. 21), represents a "radical cabal [trying] to take over the Dartmouth board," as he wrote in a recent e-mail to alumni.
I thank the Alumni Governance Task Force for its hard work. However, its new document must prove clearly superior to our 1891 constitution -- or it should not be ratified. AGTF meeting tallies and hours worked are not relevant; only the text of the proposed constitution itself should bear on our vote.
I believe the AGTF constitution would harm our fragile alumni democracy and impair the petition trustee process. That analysis is deliberate and reasoned. Those who disagree with it should debate on merit.
Fahey's argument cuts to the quick: that this trustee has "never done anything constructive for the college." Why would Fahey, a successful Wall Street investment banker -- who has never once said or written a negative word to me -- launch such a vicious public attack on a duly-elected trustee?
At first his statements struck me as so preposterous that I ignored them. Sooner or later, I felt certain his attack would reflect negatively on him, not me. Instead, Fahey's argument has become perhaps the central theme in the pro-constitution campaign that is well-coordinated and advised by professional political consultants who have blanketed alumni with pre-recorded messages and telephone polls. For example, Joe Stevenson '57 warns on the AGTF website of an "attempt by a small number of alumni to ... take over the board of trustees." In the current issue of the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, Rick Routhier '73, president of the Alumni Council, decries an "alumni faction whose objective is to control ... the board of trustees and direct the appointment of the next president..."
What a spectacle. Purporting to serve an institution devoted to the life of the mind, three alumni engage in attacks ad hominem, scare tactics and name-calling. None offers a word of evidence. They can't. Their charges are untrue.
In my campaign for the board -- and meticulously thereafter -- I have championed just two causes: freedom of speech on campus and Dartmouth the College, the best in the world -- not Dartmouth University, the second-rate Harvard. If this makes me a "cabal leader," I accept the epithet, and will proudly display that title at all future Dartmouth events.
I have worked closely with College President James Wright and fellow trustees on free speech (our new policy is the best in the Ivies), reducing class size and oversubscribed courses, hiring more faculty (our student faculty ratio is now down to 8:1), improving alumni relations (with candid views the president never gets from insiders), and creating an effective mission statement. In the first two years, I created 68 documents on Dartmouth governance issues. The most important of them, 28 position papers on key topics -- College vs. University, our mission, free speech, alumni relations and environment -- will soon be sent to Fahey. I challenge Fahey to compare these documents to his own work as a trustee and say again that these are the contributions of a trustee who has "never done anything constructive."
The "radical cabal" statement cannot be based on fact since I have been scrupulous in avoiding all political issues, given my sole focus on free speech and the world's best College. I reveal for the first time my "radical" political views: I believe that reproductive choice is a liberating force in women's lives. I believe in the rights of minorities -- I supported our recent transgender policy change. I am against attacking Iraq -- and wrote an editorial saying so. Conservative? I also believe in free speech and the rights of assembly and due process -- all of which have been infringed at Dartmouth at times. If that's "radical," I'll proudly put that on my name card, as well.
Indeed, if Fahey had just asked me, he would have discovered that with the exception of the new constitution vote, my "radical" voting record is identical to that of trustee chairman, Bill Neukom '64, and not perfectly aligned with that of my fellow "cabal" members, Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88, who are independent thinkers belonging to no group.
As for choosing the next president of the College, I support the current one. Maybe it's because we both come from working-class homes in Wisconsin, but I consider Jim Wright a friend. The next time somebody talks about a "cabal," would the editors of this newspaper please call Parkhurst and ask Wright what he thinks?
In his recent convocation address, Wright warned, "Even in our free society, we need to acknowledge the decline of a tolerance for difference." I agree -- and we've got intolerance problems at our College.
I have worked diligently as a trustee to make Dartmouth a better place. I have put forth a reasoned and respectful opinion against the new constitution that is different from the establishment's. Intolerance for that difference should not trigger an unwarranted attack on my personal integrity or the demeaning of my contributions to the College.
