Funnily enough, it seems the only voice lacking from the past few heated Board of Trustees elections and this summer's governance reform brouhaha has been that of those actually governed: current College students.
Disfranchised and voiceless undergrads have passively watched the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, "the Committee to Save Dartmouth College" via the New York Times, and the National Review offer their two cents about the state of the College and the ongoing and well-funded anti-administration insurgency. Yet from the average student's perspective, the recent frenzied alumni disputes -- peppered with alarmist rhetoric suggesting that a small-scale research university has sprouted around the Green and portraying the greater deterioration of Dartmouth -- seem surreal.
This wide disconnect between the opinions of current and former students over the reality on the ground in Hanover underscores the severe shortcomings of alumni democracy, which the board wisely moved to dampen last month.
"As a result of its unique tradition of former students representing current and future students, Dartmouth has remained distinct among its peers," once commented petition candidate-cum-alumni trustee Todd Zywicki '88, explaining the caretaker relationship between voting graduates and disenfranchised undergrads that is central to alumni democracy. ("Honoring the 1891 Agreement," Aug. 3). However, alumni have not been representing well the viewpoints of their younger Dartmouth brothers and sisters at the ballot box.
Unlike alumni long-graduated, current students do not have to be briefed through mass mailing about the impact of Parkhurst's policies on the Dartmouth of 2007. From signing up for classes to romping around Webster Avenue to competing on the athletic fields, we live with President Wright's rules each day. And just look at the numbers. According to the official survey of graduating seniors conducted every other year, more than 91 percent of the Class of 2006 cited their satisfaction with class sizes at the College while 98 percent noted that they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with access to professors -- cornerstones of the Dartmouth Experience that distinguish the Big Green from its Ivy rivals. Offering votes of confidence with their bank accounts, a record breaking proportion of the Class of 2007 recently donated to the Senior Class Gift.
If undergrads are content with the status quo on Hanover Plain, why are our enfranchised alumni representatives electing anti-administration change agents?
Without a doubt, Dartmouth alumni are genuinely passionate about their alma mater, yet this loyalty does not necessarily translate into an expertise on the state of the College of today. Money talks, and it can circulate misleading rhetoric about the Big Green to a largely uninformed -- while well-intentioned -- electorate of alumni. In this electoral environment, right does not make might. Instead, the loudest candidate that inundates the most voters with the most startling talking points wins the day. This past election cycle, petition candidate Stephen Smith '88 spent $75,000 in his victorious campaign, railing against a mythical speech code emanating from Parkhurst.
While an overwhelming 92 percent of Dartmouth grads wish to maintain alumni democracy, according to a September 2007 Association of Alumni survey, less than one-third of eligible alumni cast ballots in the May 2007 election. Only 15 percent of alumni must drink the Kool-Aid for an aspiring trustee to emerge victorious and enjoy the facade of a popular democratic mandate. This "let someone else do it" mentality has paved the way for the success of the most vocal contenders in the race for the board. The College is too important to leave to the dark side of democracy.
And from the eyes of students, the most distressing -- and dangerous -- rhetoric has been the shadowy 1891 Society's threat, "No Donations Without Representation," in response to the Board's breaking of the 1891 Agreement. Alumni must realize that any efforts to financially coerce the board to retract its reforms will harm the students in Hanover, not Wright. One out of every 10 dollars in Dartmouth's budget comes from the wallets of alumni, while over half of students receive need-blind financial aid stemming from the generosity of grads. Undergrads refuse to believe that the fierce loyalty of alumni rests on the ability of one-third of them to vote for a trustee from time to time.
Sure, students will agree that things are not perfect here in Hanover. But this does not warrant the alumni hysteria of recent years that has painted unflattering portraits of the College to the rest of the world. In the future, alumni need to listen less to the William F. Buckleys and listen more to the voiceless.
