I have critiqued the College and its administration in the past. The constant theme of my critiques has been a resistance to change. This is not to say there aren't things that should be changed, because there are -- reduction of administrative bloat and fully staffing popular departments are two such examples that come to mind. When I first read Dave Glovsky's column ("In All But Name," Apr. 4), I strongly disagreed. Having taken some time to reflect I now realize that our point is essentially the same -- we differ only on the details.
All of this governance hoopla has created a fire storm of accusations and misinformation on both sides of the debate. Most of this has focused on the current state of the College, which is in turn used to address the future direction of the College. Glovsky makes a point that we can all agree on: Dartmouth is still a college and not "a university in all but name" as President Wright has claimed. All who now attend this fine institution or who moved on to call it their alma mater should be able to say confidently that they attended a college, not a university. However, the perceptions and misperceptions of the state of the College now cause us all to question its direction.
Groups such as Dartmouth Undying are raising their battle flag and calling for the defense of the College from a "minority" group of alumni who are out to destroy it. The group so accused has now rallied more firmly around its banner (embodied in a lawsuit) with the creation of Dartmouthparity.com. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which is using a more sensationalist form of rhetoric to gather foot soldiers.
Dartmouth Undying claims the "College is being attacked. Its reputation is being sullied," and that "outside interests ... have sued the College." "Destructive forces" have caused "damage" to Dartmouth; damage that Dartmouth Undying needs to "repair." But if we take a step back from this persuasive rhetoric, the truth shines through.
What are the supposed changes that could be classified as "damage?" There's this whole governance thing. Last year, the current Board of Trustees reviewed itself and its structure. Curiously, the man who is subordinate to the Board, President Wright, was on the review committee. The result of this review is well-known; a Board-packing plan that greatly reduced the influence of alumni, who have participated in College governance for the past 117 years, while simultaneously adding hand-picked members who would face only the approval of the current Board. There's the administrative bloat, which was pointed out by an external consulting company, the shortage of faculty in some of the most popular departments and the troubling news that the president of our College sees it as "a university in all but name." ("Occasional" statements unmask ideology.) And, oh yeah, there's that whole lawsuit thing.
But wait, that lawsuit was a direct result of the board-packing plan, which was a direct move to counter the influence of alumni-supported petition trustees who ran for and were elected to office on the promise to combat all of the aforementioned problems.
Dartmouth Parity has it right; the attempt at Board-packing is the "radical plan." Its web site is very simple: It uses easy language to refute each of Dartmouth Undying's claims against it. The Association of Alumni tried to negotiate a settlement with the administration multiple times before reverting to a lawsuit. A poll of alumni opinion was conducted albeit with an out-of-date list (the College wouldn't provide the Association of Alumni with a current list). Dartmouth Parity agrees that the general state of the College is good. No petition trustee has radically changed Dartmouth; their focus has been small but important change.
Glovsky says Dartmouth remains a college. Dartmouth Undying says nothing is wrong with the College and current students are satisfied. Then why change it?
John F. Kennedy said, "There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction." In this case inaction is the blind obedience to the will of the Board against tradition and conscience. Once alumni vote to give up power, it will be gone forever.
