Despite all the attention given to the vote on the proposed Alumni Association constitution in the pages of this newspaper, very little of the discussion has been overly student-generated. Still, we recognize that the constitution, which aims to consolidate two pre-existing alumni groups, redefine committee structure, create a new leadership arc and rework the trustee nomination process, is a document which promises deeply to impact Dartmouth's present and foreseeable future.
We urge all alumni first to read the document and understand the arguments on both sides, in the hope that they will realize that the compromises which the document reflects will empower Dartmouth's alumni beyond the status quo. The Dartmouth supports both the spirit of compromise and the provisions of this document that make it easier for alumni to become involved in the College. Therefore, we recommend that concerned alumni vote in favor of the constitution.
A vote in this election should not be a political vote against College President James Wright or Dartmouth "insiders" to which it has been unfairly reduced by many of the document's detractors. Rather, it should be a vote in favor of a constitution that streamlines cumbersome organizations in a spirit of compromise and democratic representation. The constitution was crafted by a group composed not of insiders or outsiders but of concerned alumni volunteers across the spectrum of opinion. Opponents of the constitution have abused scandal-hungry national media outlets to turn this vote into a plebiscite on the current state of the College. One's vote should not be cast as a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that "Dartmouth is in trouble" -- Dartmouth is one of the premier undergraduate institutions in the country, and the school and its student body are excelling.
While the constitution contains many beneficial and contentious provisions, a few changes in particular are worth highlighting. Creating an elected leadership body called the Assembly makes for more fair and democratic governance than the present Alumni Council. Another example of a proposed change with benefits, specifically those that arise out of compromise, is the proposed leadership arc for the president of the new Alumni Association. The president will serve one year as vice president of the council, one year as president-elect and one year as president. Some designers of the constitution wanted only people with previous experience to be presidential candidates. Others wanted an entirely open election. This structure is a pragmatic compromise that falls halfway between two conflicting view points. Opponents of this measure charge that it deprives the newly-elected officers of tangible power, demonstrating the degree to which the constitution's realities have been distorted -- the vice president and president-elect position have power immediately, especially since the president-elect is the chair of the new Alumni Assembly.
Perhaps most controversial is the revision to the nomination process for trustees. Petition candidates would now be required to declare their candidacy shortly before the official nominations are revealed. This move is an effort designed to prevent situations such as the last trustee election, in which three of the Nominating Committee's candidates divided the vote and allowed petition candidates to win without a clear majority. Although this may sound like the Alumni Governance Task Force is altering the rules for the benefit of the Nominating Committee, the new system allows for one-on-one competitions that are more in keeping with principles of majority rule. Does the proposed constitution make it more difficult for petition trustee candidates to be elected than the current one? Probably. Are head-to-head elections fairer and more "democratic"? Absolutely. Certain opponents charge that this new provision strips potential petition candidates of their ability to protest official candidates, but they fail to recognize the compromise required for fairer elections.
Since last fall, the Board's three sitting petition trustees have chosen to ignore the AGTF's multiple requests for input and only spoke on the constitution after it was too late to alter the document. Even if the AGTF did not welcome the trustees as warmly as it claims to have done, there is no reason that the trustees should not have tried to involve themselves in changing what they saw unfit in the constitution.
Perhaps most damaging to Dartmouth has been the politicization of the issue and its airing in the national media. While the vigorous debate surrounding the constitution's creation and content is healthy for Dartmouth, the polarization of this issue in the blogosphere and outlets such as Laura Ingraham '85's conservative talk show has sadly and unfairly cast the College in a negative and ideological light. Whether or not academia has a liberal bias, this constitution is absolutely not about the permanent consolidation of "liberal" control at Dartmouth, which conservative opponents and commentators have alleged. The blame for the denigration of the quality of discourse, however, does not rest solely on the opposition. The AGTF was woefully under-prepared to deal with the firestorm of opposition that the proposed changes raised. Its initial silence in the face of criticism also may have supported the insider-outsider perception.
Ultimately, whatever the outcome of this vote, neither the debate over the structuring of the College's leadership nor the broader discussion of Dartmouth's future is going to disappear. While we support the approval of the constitution, our overwhelming hope is that the spirit of constructive debate and compromise be furthered regardless of the ultimate result. In an election so fraught with discussion of democracy, we urge that all alumni, regardless of their vote, stay true to the principles of democracy whatever the outcome. Honoring the process is the best outcome for Dartmouth.
