If it hasn't become painfully clear already, the upcoming Association of Alumni executive committee election has devolved into a bitter us-versus-them strife between the petitioners and the administration-backed slate over who actually loves Dartmouth.
Admittedly, obnoxious tactics are part and parcel of every political campaign, but this AoA election is shrouded in more than its fair share of polarizing and alarmist rhetoric. Campus publications, mass mailings and partisan blogs have featured much mudslinging from both sides. The AoA's lawsuit against the College, brought forward by the consistently nastier of the two sides, is just an extreme example of this antagonism between the two groups.
Instead of concrete, constructive suggestions of how to improve the College, the critics have clung to vague euphemisms -- after all, who isn't in favor of free speech or improved faculty retention? The elusiveness of these claims, coupled with recent evidence that the suit is being funded by outside interest groups, only reinforces accusations that they serve merely as a disguise for broader cultural and ideological objectives. To make matters worse, nobody -- not students, not a vast majority of the alumni, not faculty -- has complete information about the actual points of contention, not to mention any of the potentially far-reaching implications.
Ironically, much of the language surrounding the election has focused on the strength of Dartmouth's alumni body. Instead of harnessing that strength, the alumni stand divided.
So what will the election actually decide? The conflict has telescoped so far from the real issues that it is difficult to even pinpoint what was originally at stake. The debate has become the issue itself, with each side desperately seeking funds and support to stay in the fight. But Dartmouth isn't a place that needs to be "saved" -- not by a long shot.
And this supposed "democracy" espoused by supporters of the petition slate -- what does it actually mean? Dartmouth is not a political entity, and we should be grateful for that. Contrary to what many civic-minded Americans believe, many political scientists concede that governmental elections do not establish a mandate or uncover the aggregate will of the people; rather they simply provide the people with a mechanism to throw tyrants out of office. Luckily for Dartmouth, the chance that Vladimir Putin will ever reside at 14 Webster Avenue is slim to none. Perhaps everyone should stop pretending that's what's at stake.
