To the Editor:
I take issue with Peter Fahey '68's opinions on the alumni constitution ("Five Reasons to Vote, and Vote 'Yes,'" Sept. 21) for several reasons:
First, and most importantly, he explicitly attacked the thousands of his fellow Dartmouth alumni who, like myself, oppose this ill-advised new constitution by describing us as "a minority group of radical dissidents who collectively have neither done meaningful volunteer work nor made significant contributions to the College." Furthermore, we are characterized as a "radical minority cabal to take over the Dartmouth Board of Trustees." As I interpret his elitist argument, our opposition to the proposed constitution will negatively effect the College's financial health, discourage "contributions by alumni and friends" and interfere with "crucial investments in Dartmouth's future." I find this to be the most wrongheaded and condescending criticism imaginable. Does Fahey understand that he is attacking thousands of men and women of Dartmouth who love the same school he cherishes and who also have contributed many hours of time and untold dollars to the College? Clearly, and quite disturbingly, his targets include the three most recently elected trustees of the College who last week sent a letter to all their fellow alumni arguing forcefully against the proposed new constitution. It would appear that he believes that anyone who differs with his point of view does so for selfish motives and has no desire to support the College.
Second, I find it laughable that Fahey can argue that the proposed constitution will result "in a streamlined, responsive organizational structure." Apparently, Fahey must not have read the entire proposed constitution. If he had, he would have found a proposal which is long, complicated, overly bureaucratic and, ultimately, not democratic. My recommendation to Fahey and anyone considering a "Yes" vote is to read carefully the more than 7,000 words of the proposed constitution and ask themselves if they see any hint of a contemporary Hamilton or a Madison in the tortuous text of the proposed document.
Third, contrary to Fahey's assertion, the proposed new provisions dealing with Trustee selection do not present a "fair format" but rather are designed to impede any alumni who seek an alternative candidate to the choices which "emerge from the Alumni Council's exhaustive nomination process." Why alter the alumni Trustee selection process which has worked well over the past decades? It appears that the objective buried in the proposed new selection process is to discourage any further revolt by the restive alumni body. Rather than change the process, the Alumni Council nominating committee should concentrate on nominating candidates who can win the election. Or it should stand back and permit thousands of well-educated, informed Dartmouth alumni to get on with the business of selecting Trustees who represent the values and standards of the alumni body.
Contrary to the opinion of Peter Fahey, I believe that a "No" vote on the proposed new constitution and a "Yes" vote on the four short fixes to the existing constitution will have positive consequences for our College, which is loved by its alumni whatever their opinions on this constitutional dispute.
