After six weeks of voting, 44 relevant articles and opinions in this paper and extensive coverage in the national media, Stephen Smith '88 was elected last Thursday as Dartmouth's newest trustee. Rumors flew, accusations followed and tempers flared throughout the race. It is over for now, but the fight will continue, for Smith's victory confirms the coherence of the many recent manifestations of alumni discontent. Three years after T.J. Rodgers '70's surprise election to the board, one fact is now undeniable: We have settled firmly into a new model of Dartmouth politics.
In this new model, no one can pretend that the "cabal" of alumni unhappy with the College's current direction is marginal, sinister or small. Smith garnered the support of an absolute majority of voting alumni -- 55 percent -- running on a platform highly critical of many aspects of the current management. That is not a coincidence. The movement that elected Rogers, Todd Zywicki '88 and Peter Robinson '79 -- and that defeated the Alumni Constitution -- is stronger than ever.
That's what it is -- a movement. Notwithstanding the Dartmouth Editorial Board's claim that Smith "refused to disclose the sources of his funding" ("Pull Back the Curtain," May 18), he did make a disclosure. On March 6, he wrote on his blog that "literally hundreds of alumni have donated to my campaign. Some have written checks; others have provided cash or in-kind donations; still others, volunteer assistance of one sort or another." Surely some donated more than others -- every movement has its leaders. But there is no "close-knit cadre" to speak of.
Beyond that, money and mailing lists do not win elections. Sentiments and convictions, which translate into votes, win elections. Dartmouth alumni are not so naive as to let money and mailing lists influence their sentiments and convictions. How many consecutive elections must this movement win before we admit that it exists? How many will it take until we stop writing off its victories as unrepresentative of true alumni opinion, or as driven by underground dealings in smoky back-rooms?
As a mark of the movement's growing influence, Smith's victory will substantially alter the interpersonal power dynamics on the board. Not counting Gov. John Lynch (who is an ex-officio member, but by tradition never votes), the board currently consists of President James Wright and 16 other trustees. Without Smith, the "petition trustees" are outnumbered 14 to 3, almost 5 to 1. When Smith joins the Board on June 10, that dynamic will be 13 to 4, just over 3 to 1. In such a small group, the defection of even a single voice from one side to the other can have a huge impact on the balance of negotiating power. Moreover, Smith's election will bring a new bully pulpit to all the petition trustees. They now speak for a movement that has elected the last four alumni trustees in a row, and defeated a constitution to boot.
So the movement will have an easier time agitating in support of its goals. But what are its goals? I see the movement as united around two basic ideas. First, the center of attention of Dartmouth's budget and image must be focused away from its administration and onto its faculty. Eliminating oversubscribed classes through sustained faculty growth should be the College's number one budgeting priority. The bureaucracy should be vigorously pruned, and proposals for new administrators in the future should be viewed with extreme skepticism.
Second, and more broadly, the movement is united around involving itself in College affairs when necessary. It scorns the idea that any interference amounts to "board micromanagement," which must be avoided at all costs. It understands that trustees of educational institutions have the right -- no, the duty -- to interfere when administrative policies are misguided. Smith's campaign promise to work towards Committee on Standards reform is a perfect example of this. I hope the petition trustees will bring the same conviction to campaigning for need-blind international admissions and a sensible alcohol policy.
We have entered a new era of Dartmouth politics, an era defined by a movement and those who oppose it. If my analysis of the movement's goals is correct, every student ought to support it. The movement is not liberal or conservative. It is a large and dedicated group of people who want to put Dartmouth back on track.
