As Dartmouth faces another trustee election, long before choosing which candidate to back, many alumni will decide it's not worth going to the polls. Ten years ago, an election like this made me an alumni-elected trustee, and I served on the Board until last June. Like any other busy alum, I understand why people wonder if it's worth the time to figure out the election. The answer of course depends on what's at stake.
Unlike a state university that is owned by the public, Dartmouth has a private owner, and that owner is the Board of Trustees. Like any owner, it can do just about anything so long as it is lawful. The owner can be wise, nurturing and growing the estate, or stupid, wasting assets while chasing trivial fancies. And past wisdom is no guarantee against present or future idiocy. But unlike estates where ownership is an accident of birth, Dartmouth's ownership is a willful act exercised by the men and women who love her. For nine years, you made me one of Dartmouth's owners. How I implemented that ownership affected our College.
For the better part of my tenure, the ownership of Dartmouth has been torn by two conceptions on how an owner should act. On one hand is the view that a trustee represents all alumni: past, soon-to-be and especially future. In this conception, a trustee's views represent only one of at least 60,000 valid visions for Dartmouth. Ownership is temporary. A trustee needs to arrive to all Dartmouth issues with a truly open mind, where the opinions of other trustees have equal weight in a sincere attempt by all to distinguish the enduring good of the College.
At its core lies the conviction that ultimately Dartmouth is better served by the Board's collective wisdom rather than your own views. I now believe adhering to this is the highest expression of my love for Dartmouth. Believe me, it didn't come naturally.
At the other end is a view that an owner should act like one: if you know what's right, you better make the institution head that way. If you are an alumni-elected trustee, this is even truer because every vote you get should be seen as an affirmation of your views and a rejection of all others. In this conception, your own experience and observations are paramount after all most other people are only advisors to the owners.
Accordingly, success is the degree to which a trustee can bend outcomes to his or her views. By definition, compromise on the Board may be necessary, but it's at the cost of an ideal Dartmouth. Consequently, the dynamics of the Board are driven to resemble legislative politics, where building voting blocs and taking positions with an eye to the next electoral round are eminently logical.
This clash in how owners should behave has pervaded Dartmouth alumni relations. For years, I've seen myself and most sitting trustees remain silent as some of us have attributed to ourselves the progress achieved by collective efforts over long years. While many of us on the Board pressed for changes and alternative outcomes, we were publicly labeled as puppets of the administration. My silence was the result neither of public timidity (of which I have never been accused) nor distance from fellow alumni (whose company I enjoy), but of a different conception of trusteehood.
A private institution is only as good as its ownership allows it to be. This is as true of General Motors as of Dartmouth College. Like in any trustee election, those who love Dartmouth can choose to go to the polls and decide which type of owners should run the estate: those who believe the future of a jewel born in 1769 is best assured by mobilizing the collective wisdom of the family or those who come already armed with what is best for the family.
Or they can choose to take care of other matters. As for me, my ballot is waiting for the polls to open on March 10.
