Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
July 9, 2025 | Latest Issue
The Dartmouth

Moving Beyond the Constitution

Over the past months, both sides in the alumni constitution controversy have drawn caricatures of each other for potential voters, obscuring the more diverse underlying position each actually represents. Widespread misunderstanding of the motivations and intent of those behind the two perspectives has caused the controversy to become further polarized, fostering an undue hostility among the careful stewards of the College. This ideological schism, however, is not as insurmountable as advertised. Any opinion voiced here in the wilderness is also a blow against apathy, and should be given credence as such.

The truth is that both positions in the debate are equally undergirded by broad distributions of personality and character; constituencies that share a genuine passion for our common school. The future successes of Dartmouth and its leaders will depend upon an ability to adapt and evolve -- to formulate ideas that will remain cogent beyond the tides of contemporary opinion and to fight for them with conviction. Somewhere along the way, critics of both sides seem to have forgotten the value of debate as a healthy catalyst for change.

The real success story -- the impressive outpouring of student and alumni opinion-- is devoid of political affiliation. In the past few months, we have seen a marked increase in the volume of student voice, as well as a higher level of visibility for policy discussion. Most importantly, the bond between alumni and students has been reinforced, creating a more open dialogue and awareness between two groups that have constantly struggled to communicate. Independent of its outcome, the effects of the debate that has so inundated this campus on speech could ultimately do a great deal of long-term good for the College.

If it seems as though we have been deluged with propaganda from both sides, we have; admittedly, this debate has often dissolved into mudslinging and hawkish stereotypes. The distracting sensationalism which has developed may be useful as a political construct meant to affect votes, but left unchecked it is inefficient and a detriment to the appropriate evolution of the College. When the dust has settled in the wake of the vote, (and it will) I would hope that the limiting definitions of partisanship that now apply soon fade, along with their pervasive socio-intellectual politick. We should not be so short-sighted as to allow the current divisive mentality to cloud our underlying solidarity.

With respect to the amount of hard work that has been put into the document in question, the alumni constitution remains a draft. As a draft, it should be subject to continual review, input and improvement. If the proposal is rejected, then it should be followed by another, and so on. This synthesis of opinion will by definition ultimately result in a more perfect document. After all the political posturing and preaching is finished, voters retain the right to disagree with either side. A vote against does not represent sweeping zealous conservatism, nor a cry against change -- it is simply a statement that the current draft is neither the most compelling nor effective we alumni are capable of producing. If one feels that the current version is any less than fully representative, they should not feel obligated to settle, much less be demonized for one's failure to do so. Surely, if the document currently proposed has so monopolized campus debate of late, then some sort of additional revision cannot be so radical a notion.

In recent Dartmouth history, it has seemed all too easy to relegate intelligent student dissent -- on the Student Life Initiative, the swim team, enrollment sizes and the Alumni Constitution -- to the status of petty complaint. This obvious precedent should point to the danger in conflating a unique and sweeping range of arguments into an easily dismissed whine. Yet, all too many have swallowed the widely advertised belief that anti-constitution sentiment is inherently anti-Dartmouth, or that their school is being "threatened" by dissent. In truth, the vast majority of those who oppose the new document are in agreement that change in the alumni structure is both necessary and inevitable for the College to progress. Going forward, it should be a priority to reconcile political differences and to develop a joint interest in collaboration.

If nothing else at this point, it should be apparent that once again the opinions of the students and alumni have proven more diverse and impassioned than previously anticipated. In the coming years, I would hope that several of the concerns brought up during this debate will be addressed in their own right, with more clarity. The true measure of success and democracy at Dartmouth College will be the mutual level of respect with which we approach the future issues that strain our ranks. Respect for the value of a differing opinion demands intelligence, restraint, and the strength to allow those who think critically, albeit on their own terms, to go on doing so.

In the end, the remarkable dialectic created by the efforts of the two debating sides may prove to be more relevant and more generative than either party expected. For now, I am content to know that such devoted sons and daughters of Dartmouth exist. It is my personal hope that via the recent alumni constitution controversy student voice and alumni involvement have once again been invigorated, and that the College itself has shaken awake.