I congratulate The Dartmouth's Editorial Board for its excellent editorial on the proposed new draft constitution which aims to restructure Dartmouth's alumni organizations to, among other matters, enable greater alumni participation in governance of the College (Verbum Ultimum, Sept. 22).
The successful penetration of the obfuscatory codswallop and sophistry of Dartmouth's three Trustees by way of the petition process demonstrates once more -- and unequivocally -- that Dartmouth will not be in truly serious trouble so long as it continues to attract and further the education of students (soon to be alumni). Your very responsible and constructive participation in the current "discussion" is but one of the good effects of the often tortured processes through which the draft constitution has come to a vote.
Indeed, I had not been an alumnus for more than five or six years before questions about how Dartmouth made its decisions, including choosing its Trustees, began to come to mind, though it was not until I was elected president of my class (1956) that I began to push at every opportunity for greater alumni participation and more open processes. This "crusade" -- through 11 years as Class President, three on the Alumni Council, and close to 15 years as a founding member of the Board of Dartmouth Alumni for Open Governance -- has often been a lonely one, and frustrating. It was not, in fact, until someone had the good sense to appoint Joe Stevenson '57 chairman of the newly formed Alumni Governance Task Force that matters at last began to turn in a much healthier direction, such that there has been much about which to feel good (or at least a good deal better): the resumption of good will between alumni of different views, both on and off the AGTF; true reaching out to various would-be interlocutors (I was one), and really listening to what was being said; the emergence of a good, though flawed document; and, now, The Dartmouth's incisive editorial, which hits all the correct notes.
My only disappointment, on this front, since Stevenson assumed chairmanship of the Task Force, has been the behavior of Trustees T. J. Rodgers '70, Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88; and I say this in sorrow, not in anger. I voted for all three, and do not yet regret having done so. Dartmouth needs the escape valve of a petition process (as the drafters of the constitution have clearly recognized -- extending it broadly), but an escape valve will not bear the heavy volume of normal traffic. It needs to produce trustees who can generate effective ways of interacting with their fellow trustees to, in time, bring about some of the salutary changes they advocate. John Steel '54, the only previously elected trustee by petition, never learned to do this; perhaps, being but one, he could not have.
But Trustees Rodgers, Robinson and Zywicki, being three, have a much better chance if they don't continue blowing it, as they have thus far, by rebuffing fervent and open-ended attempts by myself and two members of the Task Force to engage them in an effort to alter the draft constitution in ways they could "live with," adopting the stridently political approach The Dartmouth has well described, and, by so doing, forfeiting any moral standing they might have had to influence the vote. I hope their efforts will be soundly defeated, and that they will come to think better of it.
I am convinced that it is by now high time that Dartmouth alumni concluded that there has been enough discussion, that the draft provides reasonable bases for proceeding, and thus voted "Yes." It is time alumni turned to the next step(s), which would be to run for positions in the new structure (or persuading others to) and, from these positions, making the new structure work far better than the old one has for quite some time -- then turning to amending the new constitution's revealed flaws.
This is certainly what I intend to do. I have my sights set on the new Alumni Relations Board.
Once there, I will continue saying things that need to be said, and holding the Trustees (all of them) to their strong endorsement of this new body and pledge to work constructively with it.
