After private interviews with each trustee candidate and hours of deliberation, we could not come to an endorsement. Each is qualified and addresses our biggest concern: Dartmouth's tradition of great undergraduate teaching in available classes. We'll take you through the pros and cons of voting for each and leave your ballot up to you. Voting begins Sunday, but votes can be cast through May 15, meaning that the nature of the campaigns could change as well.
We applaud former Ambassador John Wolf '70's "global vision" of increasing Dartmouth's brand recognition abroad and diversifying a Northeast-dominated student body by recruiting harder from other parts of the country and world. These are important, inspiring ideas that set Wolf apart from the pool, but the fact that he focused almost exclusively on this platform made him seem one-dimensional.
Biotech entrepreneur Sherri Oberg '82 Tu'86 has hands down been the candidate most involved with the College since graduating, having served on several Tuck boards and fundraised extensively. Her relative knowledge and curiosity about campus issues is refreshing. However, we question how forward-thinking she is, having told us she is about "preserving and continuing what Dartmouth has." She has also made minimal efforts to communicate her ideas to the alumni outside the Vox the Vote website. While she may be right about the absurdity of zealous campaign spending here, posting some thoughts on a blog costs zero dollars.
At the other extreme, baseball CEO Sandy Alderson '69 has sunk over $10,000 into his campaign. He brings star power to the race and is as aggressive about bringing star power to Dartmouth's faculty as he is about winning. He generally supports College President James Wright, like Oberg, but he also maintains that he is an independent thinker who would take the seat without a concrete agenda. His history with the College seems to confirm a degree of independence. In his campaign he has stuck to safe issues, but has satisfied this board with his desire to improve the faculty.
Law professor Stephen Smith '88 also shelled out major cash, and used it to present the most concrete agenda. We were impressed that hiring faculty topped it -- promoting college-style teaching and reducing course enrollments is about getting the right people and enough of them. This plank was the strongest out of any candidate's campaign. In touting his independence, however, Smith repeatedly deflected questions about his sources of support. Further, it was a tremendous mistake to push the idea that there is a speech code at Dartmouth -- and he abandoned this red herring recently. Free speech is not a pressing issue here. Given his campaign's anti-administration slant, electing Smith would send the message that alumni believe the College is in big trouble -- even though Smith's other platforms do not reflect this mistaken notion.
Each candidate was the favorite of at least one member of the board, but only Alderson garnered a green light from each member. Our struggles in finding a consensus are not a reflection that we disagree about the direction of the College or what a trustee should be, but rather that all of the candidates espouse similar views -- perhaps evidence that there's not much divisiveness about the future of the College after all.
For the record: An article on Friday ("A weak consensus," Mar. 30) incorrectly stated that votes in the trustee election may be changed until May 15. Once votes are cast they may not be changed.
