The Board was unambiguously wrong in removing Mr. Zywicki, essentially just for criticizing the Board and the College. The point of having a Board instead of a czar or dictator is to assure that stale and unenglightened thinking does not linger over our institution. It is imperative that the Board not be allowed to become homogenous in its thinking. Trustees should only be able to be removed by a vote of the alumni precisely to avoid disgraceful actions like this.
--Raza Rasheed '12
While Zywicki should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech regarding Dartmouth issues as an alumnus, as a trustee he has certain professional responsibilities in the same sense a senator does. That is, he must follow the established system of governance and not become a one-man show. There may even be sympathetic motives behind his supposedly "anti-Dartmouth" comments, but such discourse should remain in the boardroom as long as Zywicki remains a trustee.
--Billy Zou '12
The Board's removal of Zywicki seems, from all available evidence, entirely unjustified. It is not, however, surprising; it is simply the next logical step in the road to complete administrative control. It is just the latest assault on the alumni election system and Dartmouth's democratic tradition. It is only the newest device to limit free speech, especially it if it's speech critical of the administration. It is further conformation, if any was needed, that the administration cares more about politics and power-grabbing than about actual governance.
--Peter Blair '12
In this era of Dartmouth's governance battles, the Board has done itself no favors in removing Zywicki in such a brazen and shadowy manner. It will only serve to reopen wounds for many alumni who already feel that their voices are not being heard, and that Dartmouth's leadership is shrinking away from accountability. If Zywicki needed to be removed due to his words at the Pope Center, or any failure in leadership, it doesn't matter whether he was a petition, charter or whatever trustee. The Board should make the process visible, and if the trustees are in the right, the Dartmouth community will be on their side.
--Isaiah Berg '11
The Board's justification for its decision not to reelect Zywicki seems shaky at best. Giving the Board the unfettered power to remove trustees that were elected by alumni in the first place undermines any semblance of democracy that the elections are supposed to have, and makes possible abuses of power such as the one that appears to have unseated Zywicki.
--Emily Johnson '12
If Todd Zywicki was indeed refused reelection because of controversial comments he made while serving on the Board of Trustees, then that is an inexcusable denial of free speech. But, if this is not an issue of free speech, as Board Chairman Ed Haldeman claims, I suggest the trustees make public the reason Zywicki was not reelected, if only to disprove the notion that the Board is an insular governing body that believes in hoarding power and repressing dissent.
--Ben Gonin '12
If the alumni had the power to elect Zywicki during his first term, they should also have the power to re-elect him. I just cant imagine any rationale for a structure that refuses someone who has not filled his term limits the right to be elected by his or her peers.
--Chris Talamo '11
