There is a lot of fog surrounding the petition candidacy of Stephen Smith '88 for Dartmouth's Board of Trustees. Often it seems petition candidates are demonized merely because they earned candidacy by petition. But Smith is not only a victim, for he has engaged in some odious politicking himself. All this maneuvering has detracted attention from Smith's real platform, which advocates a major realignment of current administrative priorities -- a position worth serious consideration. It is time to see the demonization, the politicking, and the platform for just what they are. Let us be candid about Smith's candidacy.
Demonization of petition candidates has been rampant. Regarding the now-defeated Alumni Constitution, Peter Fahey '68, a former trustee himself, alleged that a "radical minority cabal" (guess who) is trying to "take over the Board of Trustees," which "could well lead the College into a downward death spiral" ("Five Reasons to Vote, and Vote 'Yes,'" Sept. 21). President James Wright put it more subtly, but no less clearly, when he addressed the Alumni Council on Dec. 1, 2006. In his speech, he expressed doubt that the College would be able to maintain its stature, or even continue its operations, if any more petition candidates are elected. It is embarrassing that such politically motivated alarmism comes from such powerful offices.
A major aspect of the demonization centers on political philosophy. All three of the "petition trustees" currently serving espouse libertarian values. Some people, like Fahey, take this to mean that the petition candidates are "radical" in some way and thus do not belong on the Board. These people, who include another current trustee candidate, Sandy Alderson '69, allege that Smith is just the next in line of these highly disciplined radical conservatives, so you should not vote for him ("For the First Time, Money Enters into Trustee Race," March 7).
I spent some time online looking for convincing evidence that Smith is indeed libertarian. I could not find any. But maybe that's because I did not try very hard, because it's irrelevant. It does not matter one bit whether Smith is libertarian.
Let me be perfectly clear. I am not libertarian, and I would not vote for a libertarian for a real public office. But as a Dartmouth trustee, Smith's charge of defending and stewarding the College would have nothing to do with his political beliefs, be they libertarian or socialist.
Though the demonization of petition candidates must end, Smith may have played politics as well. As Andrew Seal '07 recently discussed on his Little Green Blog, several of Smith's statements on freedom of speech have been contradictory. Early in the campaign, Smith stated on his website that "President Wright has made it clear that the right to free speech doesn't apply to 'offensive' speech" and that "this position is the very antithesis of freedom of speech." On March 20, he wrote on his blog that when it comes to freedom of speech at Dartmouth, "I couldn't improve on the answers given by President Wright."
As he doesn't appear to have a coherent position on the issue, Smith is presumably trying to use freedom of speech to galvanize uninformed support from less-than-involved alumni. What settles the issue for me is that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- a group run by libertarians, who tend to be the biggest sticklers of anyone on this kind of thing -- gave Dartmouth a "green light" rating for free speech. Dartmouth was one of only eight schools, out of hundreds evaluated, to receive this rating.
If I could, I would advise Smith that in order to run a more honest campaign, he should straighten out his position on freedom of speech, and ultimately deemphasize the issue entirely. If he does not, the question for alumni following the race is this: do Smith's ends justify his means? Does his real platform merit support despite his unsightly politicking?
It might. Administrative priorities are a big deal, and to many alumni, our current ones are all wrong. Smith advocates a very critical revamp of the College budget. Any candidate who does that is worth at least a second look. Every dollar spent on construction, sustainability, or administrators to pester students about water pong is a dollar that could be spent on, say, reducing class sizes or making international admissions need-blind. (Earmarked alumni gifts are a notable exception.) Setting budget priorities straight is Smith's real platform, the part too often obscured by political fog. If Smith will move to revamp the budget to "keep Dartmouth a College" and "invest in excellence, not bureaucracy," well, you can't argue with that.
