The lawsuit brought against the College by six Association of Alumni executives highlights a fundamental point about Dartmouth that seems ironic these days: Alumni love the place. The lawsuit is a result of their deep devotion to the value of community that Dartmouth itself instilled in them.
One does not usually associate lawsuits with love. Few are given as gifts on Valentine's Day. But Dartmouth is not a person; the affection it requires is impersonal. To love Dartmouth is simply to be dedicated to its long-term well-being.
Dartmouth is two things: a non-profit corporation owned by an 18-member board and, much more importantly, a concept in the hearts and minds of many people -- a bundle of values, traditions, experiences and memories that has been collectively molded over nearly 250 years, and that individually molds all who study here.
Devotion to Dartmouth's identity is all that matters, and one's feelings about the two need not be related. It is easy to be utterly loyal to Dartmouth's identity while opposing the particular individuals who happen to hold power in the corporation.
That the lawsuit will harm the corporation is obvious but irrelevant. Its effect on Dartmouth the concept is an important question. The alumni who are now suing have argued time and again that parity on the board is unequivocally beneficial to that Dartmouth. Sure, in the short run the suit will cost some face and some resources; the plaintiffs recognize this. That is why they stressed that the legal route was an absolute last resort. After a cost-benefit analysis, they found the suit worth their trouble and made the tough decision.
Still, how does a lawsuit show love? When I have an experience I dislike, I distance myself from it. When I have an experience I enjoy, I savor it; I try to stay involved. When I have an experience I absolutely love, that changes my life and my view of the world, I do everything I can to honor the memory. Certainly a high-profile suit -- an investment of much time and money -- falls into the last category.
On Sept. 7, The Dartmouth's Editorial Board told alumni that "If you truly love it, you should be able to cherish the College without controlling it" ("An Old Tradition Fails"). But alumni favored board parity because they saw it as good for Dartmouth, not because they wanted to control Dartmouth. It is fair to dispute that board parity is beneficial; it is ridiculous to arbitrarily infer nefarious motives in a group of dedicated people who love the College. Through the whole controversy they have stood sister by brother. Now they are daring a deed for the old Mother, as the Alma Mater demands.
Among Dartmouth's many special elements -- breathtaking physical beauty, green shutters on the dormitories, fraternity pledge rituals that would violate the Geneva Conventions if performed by a government on foreign combatants -- its "sense of community" is consistently touted as one of its highest virtues. It is the strongest glue keeping alumni together and connected to the College. This community is what many alumni feel has been violated in the recent governance controversy. The board killed a 116-year-old communitarian tradition for a selfish reason (its favored candidates were losing), with a transparently disingenuous justification (to "increase alumni involvement" on the board), and in a nasty way (by fiat).
Even before this controversy, several recent policies have been damaging to Dartmouth students' sense of shared experience. The creation of the Office of Pluralism and Leadership in 2001 needlessly fragmented Dartmouth's guidance services. Carving the College's dormitories into "clusters" and assigning each a "Community Director" presumably had a similar divisive effect. These issues were probably major factors in the election of petition candidates in the first place.
The trend continued. Last year, the College president supported a new Association of Alumni constitution that would have eliminated meaningful dissent in trustee elections. During this winter's trustee election, the administration attempted to stifle legitimate debate on Dartmouth's policies by systematically refuting the claims of one of the candidates. On July 6, a public-relations official refused the association access to the alumni mailing list. These blatantly anti-communitarian acts were committed with no apparent embarrassment.
The Alumni Association's recent legal action is not surprising in the least. The six brave alumni are suing because they love Dartmouth, and to uphold a value Dartmouth imbued in them. They are suing because the board has abandoned Dartmouth's ideal of community.
