Let's separate fact from fiction. I don't know where Board of Trustees candidate Stephen Smith '88 gets the financial support for his very costly campaign. And I don't where he gets his facts.
1) Represents a broad base of alumni? We do not know who chose Smith, or how many alumni they represent, or what their agenda is. All we know is 650 people signed his petition.
2) "Bureaucratic bloat?" The College website says that the faculty is growing at 3 percent annually, versus 1.1 percent for staff. Faculty salaries outstrip staff salaries. Tenure-track faculty are up by 36 in the past nine years, not enough I agree, but faculty teaching undergraduates are up by 49. Take a look at Ask Dartmouth. Administration growth is fastest for financial aid and building management. Should the College stop financial aid, or close down the new dorms, labs, or fire librarians at the new Berry Library? Or dump the Zamboni driver, 'cause he's also part of this "bureaucratic bloat."
Class size is important. Generally, smaller is better, but it is not always the first consideration. When I had John Wilmerding and Jim Cox, the teaching ability and scholarship that made them national figures were more important than the size of the lectures.
3) Respect and disciplinary procedures? Here I would expect a more enlightened discourse from a lawyer like Smith. Sure, a student committee did a good job and submitted a report to the acting dean that warrants consideration. Doesn't it make sense to wait for the new dean to get a chance to have input? The Dean of the College has the board's delegated responsibility and it is the new dean who will have to make it work! The student committee can come back to consult or be beamed in for a video-conference. The trustees delegated authority to the dean. That's how institutional boards operate. Trustees set out the guidelines as a group, not individuals. Boards don't say "I"; they say "We." For disciplinary procedures, my suggested guidelines are: swiftness, fairness, transparency and predictability. But, hey, I'm not a lawyer.
It is necessary and useful to debate where the College is and where it is going. But it is not helpful to put out sweeping generalizations or stray from the facts. It misleads the voters, and it makes us look bad to the public. We need a board that not only will provide oversight today, but identify the issues that we need to face in the years ahead if we want our great College to be even greater tomorrow. That's the commitment I make to alumni, and to generations of students whom we want to attend the College in the future.
