When the polls close on April 7, the alumni will have elected two new members to the Board of Trustees and a slate of officers to the Executive Committee for the Association of Alumni. While the purpose of these elections is to select the best leadership for the College, the aggressive political campaigns that have defined the election have been in conflict with the goals of an institution of higher education.
Months of bitter and divisive campaigning in both tactics and rhetoric have dominated the headlines and discussion. This off-putting atmosphere stemmed from actions such as the creation of web sites that presented smear campaigns ("Critics target candidates online," March 29) and the massive fundraising and spending efforts of two nonprofit organizations, the Hanover Institute and Dartmouth Undying ("Orgs. fund Trustee, AoA campaigns," March 31). Employing these tactics ultimately undermines the goals of the candidates who intend to better the College.
JoeVsDartmouth.com, a web site with ties to the campaign team of Alumni Council-nominated trustee candidate John Replogle '88, and Fairdartmouth.com, which presented "facts" of questionable merit, represent some of the needlessly prevalent politicking in the current election. Most recently, Trustee Steven Smith '88 sent a letter to several thousand alumni that champions Asch's candidacy and assails Replogle as someone who supports an "Enron Board" ("Smith '88 endorses Asch '79 in letter," April 2). This malicious campaigning has limited the discussion of substantive issues and perpetuated unnecessary mud-slinging.
With the recently increasing division in the alumni body, attacks have regrettably become the political norm in these elections. The Hanover Institute and Dartmouth Undying despite vague declarations of support for the College have engaged in an arms race of donations and electioneering that does not promote the election of sound leadership for the College. The two organizations unnecessarily spent approximately $1 million in 2008 alone on efforts including redundant e-mail and mailing campaigns to further the political agendas of different sects of Dartmouth's alumni body. Alumni could put their donations to better use. Dartmouth graduates are able to judge candidates on their merits without a flood of biased campaign literature. Moreover, if Dartmouth's politicos truly have the College's interests in mind, they would rather see donations put toward projects that will truly benefit students facilities, faculty endowments or financial aid at a time when our institution is treading financially precarious waters. Pouring money into the current polarized melee provides no such lasting benefits, but instead fuels a vicious campaign that draws negative national attention and may discourage the participation of less involved alumni.
If these were national political elections, due to their status as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, Dartmouth Undying and the Hanover Institute would be "absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in" campaigns and elections, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Furthermore, the current College elections are decidedly not analogous to those for national office, because the interests of a college are educational in nature and should not be political. The atmosphere of this election threatens to hurt Dartmouth, which these organizations and campaigners propound to support, and they should not continue to compete for alumni donations that could benefit the College and its students.
