After the "Unity" slate's sweeping victory of the Association of Alumni election, the question is no longer whether the Association's lawsuit, filed against the College last October, will be withdrawn, but when. It is time to abandon all divisive legal action in favor of collaborative discourse.
Not everyone considers the legal battle to be over, however. John MacGovern '80, the founder of The Hanover Institute, a non-profit organization that raised money for the Association's lawsuit, recently said that some alumni have expressed interest in pursuing separate legal action -- and that the Institute retains funding that could be used for such suits ("Anti-suit 'Unity' slate sweeps ex. com. seats," June 20). Frank Gado '58, a former member of the Association's executive committee who voted in favor of the lawsuit, said he has also been contacted by alumni interested in further legal recourse.
If the Association election was a referendum on the suit, as Gado himself wrote this spring ("Letter to the editor: Split Decision," April 29), then further legal action would contradict alumni sentiment and the very democratic values championed by the pro-lawsuit, pro-parity slate.
Continued legal action could only detract from Dartmouth's well-being. A lawsuit calls into question not only the direction of the College, but also the very rules under which it operates. Regardless of whether such questioning is warranted, it could paralyze the College's administrative capabilities, as evidenced by the Board of Trustees' recent decision to "freeze" its membership until the termination of the present suit. And, in the midst of Dartmouth's search for a new president, individual lawsuits will mar the potential candidates' perception of the College. Attracting the best and brightest will be difficult if the prospect of future lawsuits threatens to restrict the next president's ability to implement his or her vision for the College.
While 60 percent of the voting alumni has spoken against the suit, this same 60 percent has not necessarily renounced the general notion of parity. The 11 newly elected "Unity" slate members of the executive committee should not view their obvious victory as a mandate for ending discussion about the composition of the Board.
Alienating 40 percent of the alumni who voted in the election would detract from Dartmouth's incredible tradition of alumni involvement. Both slates drew on the generosity of alumni who gave money and time to their respective causes. The College must be able not only to capitalize fully on the entire range of alumni financial resources, but also to draw upon the wealth of experience offered by an engaged alumni body.
As the College moves forward with the changes to the composition of the Board of Trustees, it must avoid the disaffection of her alumni, a phenomenon that occurs all too often at peer institutions. As the new executive committee endeavors to accomplish its vision, it must also strive to engender the unity from which it took its name.
