As with other conservative movements, the take-over faction who has brought suit against the College is attempting to define its issues by changing the language. Their right-wing kin have biased the language in the discussion of abortion (who, after all, is "anti-life"?) and equal rights (because it is easy to get people to oppose "special rights" even if those rights are no more special when applied to those who seek them than to those who would deny them). Now they are co-opting the notions of "parity" and "democracy" -- again, because if there were truly issues of parity and democracy at risk here, how could one be opposed?
But, of course, those are not the issues at hand.
For there to be an issue of democracy, there must be the notion of a constituency forming a government from its own membership. There is no issue of democracy because there is no issue of membership. Being an alumnus makes one just that: an alumnus, an advocate, a donor -- but not a member who should be represented by election.
For there to be an issue of parity, there must be two interests represented. Unless you count the regressive political and anti-educational agenda of the take-over clique, there are not two interests. There is only the interest of the College.
I serve on the board of several non-profits. None are of the size and impact of the College. But all are governed by a board selected with one interest in mind: Each member of the board should bring to it not an agenda but rather a set of skills that will help drive forward the goals of the managing administration and that equip it to advise and direct on those goals. That this skill set exists among the alumni is clearly shown by the fact that the Board has filled its appointed seats from our ranks. To the extent that those who offer the most to the advancement of the College might be within or without our ranks, the Board must be free to appoint them to fulfill its responsibilities of governance.
The healthy operation of a board -- of directors or of trustees -- requires a long view and a commitment to working with the professional staff in a productive, cooperative relationship. A multi-million dollar lawsuit over a fictional "contract" is strong counter-evidence to the ability and willingness of the take-over slate to continue such a relationship, as is the secretive outside funding for their efforts. (It's laughable that the take-over slate is tossing around its third trigger word, "moneyed," without taking a look at the deep-pocketed right-wing groups that are funding them.)
Trustees should be chosen by the Board to maximize skills as well as inputs. Even with one third of the Board elected by the alumni, Dartmouth would still have one of the highest levels of alumni trustee election of any institution. And the Board has shown that, all things being equal, it will choose alumni to fill the seats for which it has responsibility. But skills and capabilities come first.
This is not Academic Idol.
