Dartmouth's trial in organizational democracy is no longer in its best interest. But let us be clear, and don't let anyone fool you; the College's current structure of governance isn't really a democracy. Democracy is government by the governed. In the case of Dartmouth, the students and faculty are the governed, but the alumni are not. The so-called government for those constituencies is the Board of Trustees and, no matter how the Board is composed, the governance of Dartmouth relies on the construction of a Board that acts in the best interest of the College's students and teachers. So, when the Board convenes Friday, it should attempt to construct a Board with that goal " and only that goal " in mind.
Over the last few years, elections for alumni trustees have seated the wrong people. The victor in the most recent election, Stephen Smith '88, ran against a phantom speech code. One of the winners of the previous alumni trustee election was Todd Zywicki '88, a Virginia lawyer skilled at and willing to make completely specious arguments convincingly.
Zywicki recently backed off the argument he made in an August op-ed in this newspaper that the 1891 resolution of the Board is a contract between Dartmouth and its alumni that "promises the alumni body the right to elect half of the Board." For a systematic dismantling of that argument, the Editorial Board would point readers to former Trustee Kate Stith-Cabranes '73's essay published on The Dartmouth Independent's website last week. Zywicki responded to Stith-Cabranes on his blog, denying that he had ever tried to argue that the 1891 agreement was legally binding. He without question was trying to convince readers that the 1891 resolution was binding, whether or not he believed it himself.
Smith's and Zywicki's demagoguery demonstrates what can go wrong in the current system if individuals decide to exploit it. In the age of all-media voting and the Internet, smart people can convince the less informed of many things, true or not, and the current system has rewarded those adept at rhetoric. We want for Dartmouth stewards, not politicians.
Now Dartmouth is at a juncture. It must decide what is best for its future. A big part of that future is the money that will maintain the College. Truly frightening would be a scenario in which the major donors lost their say on the Board to those who undervalue large gifts to the College. If major donors cease to have influence, Dartmouth will cease to have major donors, a scenario that the Board has a responsibility to avoid. Indeed, these financial considerations should be understandable; they were the impetus for the resolution in 1891.
Dartmouth's new Board structure could take one of many forms. Whatever the Board decides, it should place a great deal of the power in the hands of people dedicated to stewardship and to future Boards. It should reward large donors, and it should consist of a range of vantage points and skills. Undoubtedly the alumni viewpoint is vital and should have a place on the Board; T.J. Rodgers '70 shook up the Board positively when he brought Dartmouth's questionable commitment to free speech to its end. But the alumni should not be able to take the Board; it is not theirs to take. We agree with Board Chairman Ed Haldeman '70 that alumni will sometimes resist beneficial change and that tough decisions are not always popular.
Dartmouth is distinctive in its alumni dedication, but that loyalty is the product of our college, not the structure of the Board. To those loyal alumni who love the College so, Dartmouth will always rely on your approval. Your philanthropy or lack thereof will always be a constraint on the Board's decisions. But true love is selfless. If you truly love it, you should be able to cherish the College without controlling it.
