Lone oPine

“Packing The Court”

Monday, September 17

Of the handful of analogies applied to this month’s reorganization of the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees, the one which seems most apt is a distinctly American corruption. Comparisons with Idi Amin and Hugo Chavez, which some alumni have suggested to the Trustees through this website, don’t seem quite as on-the-nose as the actions of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in March of 1937.

Setting aside a wealth of nitty-gritty details, here’s the basic history. In 1937, with the Great Depression in resurgence, FDR suddenly turned politically tone-deaf. Discouraged by a Supreme Court that always seemed to defeat his more far-reaching New Deal proposals by 5–4 margins of “state s’ rights” advocates, Roosevelt concocted a plan to add six new seats to the Court.

Claiming that 70-year-old Justices should be encouraged to retire, FDR decided he should be permitted to appoint a new one for every aging Supreme who chose to stay on the job. As there were six Justices over the age of 70, Roosevelt anticipated enlarging the court from nine justices to fifteen.

Of course, as historians now recognize (and as editorial cartoonists pointed out immediately), his real motive was to “pack” the Supreme Court with jurists who would endorse his proposals.

FDR’s court- packing plan, unlike Dartmouth President James Wright’s nascent Board-Packing plan, never got off the ground. But Roosevelt defended his proposal in doublespeak similar to that of Dartmouth Board Chairman Ed Haldeman:

“There is nothing novel or radical about this idea. It seeks to maintain the federal bench in full vigor. It has been discussed and approved by many persons of high authority … This proposal of mine will not infringe in the slightest upon the civil or religious liberties so dear to every American … the balance of power between the three great branches of the federal government has been tipped out of balance by the courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance.”

As a wealth of commentators and historians have since observed, FDR’s attempt to avoid parity of opinion on the Supreme Court by “packing” it was ill-conceived, politically stupid, and ultimately self-defeating. Public outrage was predictable and fierce, and only 20 votes were cast in favor of the idea in the U.S. Senate.

How much more idiotic might the idea have seemed if a majority of Supreme Court Justices were already in agreement with President Roosevelt before he tried to further rig the system? The last time we checked, only four Dartmouth Trustees out of eighteen (those nominated by the alumni themselves, not coincidentally) have publicly expressed a lack of confidence in Dartmouth’s current leadership.

So why the move to “pack” the Board? Surely to avoid balance, rather than to ensure it.

Take Note: New Yorkers Aren’t Afraid to Speak Their Minds

Thursday, September 13

This morning The New York Sun includes a regional feature about threats from the Dartmouth Alumni Association to sue the College:

"The actions of Dartmouth's trustees are more in keeping with the conduct of a totalitarian state than with a college dedicated to educating leaders of the world's greatest democracy," an alumni association officer, Frank Gado, said. "Dartmouth doesn't trust its graduates with a meaningful vote."

Here’s a sampling of alumni New Yorkers who were also quoted in the story.

"I will not contribute to the school until the alumni's voice is restored," a businessman, Joseph Asch, said. Mr. Asch said he has contributed more than $500,000 to the college over the past 10 years. …

"As goes New Hampshire, so goes the nation," a Dartmouth alumus who is the managing editor of the New Criterion, James Panero, said. Mr. Haldeman, he said, "has rolled the tanks of Tiananmen onto Dartmouth Green."

"It's like abolishing the House of Commons and making it all the House of Lords," a journalist who graduated from Dartmouth in 2002, Michael Weiss, said. "There's a great academic tradition, and I wouldn't want to see that legacy diminished, but this raises all kinds of questions about giving money—where's the money going to go? Who's making the decisions about the future of the school?"

A Dartmouth alumnus who graduated in 1997, David Bruder, said he has given several hundred dollars a year to the college for 10 years. "It's very hard to stop giving money and hurt the college that I care about, but since the college has affectively taken away my vote, this might be the only language they'll listen to," Mr. Bruder said.

John Bruce (Dartmouth ’69) took a brickbat to Dartmouth Trustee Chairman Ed Haldeman on his blog yesterday. Noting Haldeman’s explanation of how he ordered a “Governance Review” immediately after being appointed Chairman, Bruce writes:

[E]verything I've heard about successful management says you don't make major changes right away when you come into a job. Pulling tricks where you "show 'em who's boss" in heavy-handed power plays is also a bad idea. In both cases, you're creating a constituency that's going to work against you and take every opportunity it can to stab you in the back.

Brown University physician Dr. Roy M. Poses does yeoman’s work on his healthcare blog too, drawing parallels between George Orwell’s 1984 and Haldeman’s recent statements. It’s worth reading.

This Isn’t Going Away, Folks

Wednesday, September 12

Minding the Campus, a Manhattan Institute website edited by long-time U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo, asked the following yesterday:

What do news outlets have to say about the Dartmouth Trustee fracas?

Dartmouth News: "Dartmouth Trustees Vote to Strengthen College's Governance"

New York Times: "Dartmouth Expands Board, Reducing Role of Alumni"

New York Sun: "Dartmouth Guts Power of Competitively Elected Trustees"

… one of these is less accurate than the others …

The tongue-in-cheek contrarians at IvyGate note how the Dartmouth Trustees’ recent decision seems to ignore (shred, really) last year’s vote that rejected a new Alumni Constitution.

The Dartmouth administration, meanwhile, is frankly up to no good. Last spring they introduced a measure which would have curbed the power of alumni to determine the trustees. Shockingly, the alumni declined to vote away their own voting rights. Now the administration has sunk to a new level of insider skullduggery: They’ve convened an ominous-sounding "Governance Committee" to "reform" the process of trustee-elections.

We’ve noted in this space that after Dartmouth alumni sent last year’s proposed Constitution packing, Dartmouth President James Wright said that it was “time to give the efforts at alumni governance reorganization a rest. Let us work with the existing structure.”

That was last December. How quickly things change.

The Outrage Continues to Mount

Tuesday, September 11

This morning The Wall Street Journal editorializes on the topic of “Dartmouth Diminished”:

[U]nable to convince through argument and persuasion, Dartmouth President James Wright and a band of trustee loyalists forced through a governance plan that will allow them to run the place as they please. T.J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor and one of the alumnus trustee dissenters, had predicted as much on these pages 10 days ago. The exercise went ahead as he had guessed -- behind closed doors, with minimal public debate or alumni consultation. It’s safe to say the vote wasn’t unanimous, but the college is even barring trustees from disclosing that detail. Your average banana republic is more transparent.

The plan will pack the 18-member board with eight more trustees selected by the board itself. With the influence of elected trustees thus diluted, power will be further consolidated in a small executive committee that will control the agenda. For good measure, the college also declared that it will run future trustee elections on its own terms.

The architects at least had the courtesy to acknowledge the real motivations behind this putsch. “We do not believe that having more elections is in the best interests of the College,” they wrote, because of “divisiveness.” In other words, the independent trustees were willing to dissent from the insular uniformity of modern higher education, so they had to be neutered before they might actually make a difference.

And a majority of the Dartmouth Alumni Association’s Executive Committee released a statement of disapproval last night, stunning for its candor about the future legal quagmire into which the Dartmouth Trustees have likely inserted themselves.

As the Board’s action on Saturday effectively wipes out an agreement between the trustees and the Association dating back to 1891, the Executive Committee is consulting the law firm of Williams and Connolly about its legal options. Dartmouth Trustees and administrators have already been advised to preserve all documents related to the Board’s most recent action … The Alumni Association leaders who are preparing for a potential lawsuit insist they are saddened by its prospect.

Stay tuned as successive shoes inevitably drop.

They Said It...

Monday, September 10

“Given the divisiveness of recent elections, we did not believe that having more elections would be good for Dartmouth.”

— Dartmouth Trustee Chairman Ed Haldeman, in a letter to Dartmouth alumni (September 8, 2007)

“Since when did differing views and vigorous campaigns become destructive and divisive? That is the essence of democracy, but, that, regrettably, is exactly what the [Dartmouth] administration and its supporters on the board appear to fear.”

— Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, in Inside Higher Ed (September 10, 2007)

“The most recent election for Trustee was different from anything that we were accustomed to because of heavy campaigning and heavy expense … we did have a concern that this was changing the environment, the culture at Dartmouth, and meaning that only people with substantial resources would be able to consider running.”

— Dartmouth Trustee Chairman Ed Haldeman, in a Dartmouth podcast (September 10, 2007)

“A $10 million gift from Barbara and Charles E. ‘Ed’ Haldeman Jr. of Haverford, PA, will name a new academic center at Dartmouth College.”

— Dartmouth College news release (May 5, 2004)

“Our college is now faced with the prospect of a dramatic reduction in alumni contributions in protest of—or possibly even filing lawsuits to overturn—the action taken by the board today.”

— Dartmouth Trustee Stephen Smith, in Inside Higher Ed (September 10, 2007)

“This is crap, just as the whole (governance reform) process has been a sham.”

— Dartmouth Alumni Association Second Vice-President Frank Gado, in the Valley News (September 10, 2007)

“[I]t is plain and simple that the ‘haves’ are determined that the ‘have nots’ should not be represented on the board of trustees.

— Dartmouth Alumna F. Marian Chambers (Dartmouth’s first female graduate), in The Wall Street Journal (September 7, 2007)

“Alumni sentiment, particularly in response to the Association of Alumni survey
and to ads, was overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the traditional ‘parity’ between
Charter and Alumni Trustees. We weighed this feedback carefully but concluded that
eight additional Alumni Trustee seats would not serve Dartmouth’s best interests.”

— The Dartmouth Trustee Governance Committee, in its report to the Board (page 22)

“What a horrid lesson in democracy to Dartmouth students.”

— Dartmouth alumnus and novelist Roger L. Simon, on his blog (September 8, 2007)

“The board’s action is that of a schoolyard bully. Having failed to secure preferred results through existing procedures and democratic outcomes, it has exercised brute force to change the rules and pack the board. The distinguished members of the Dartmouth board who supported the package of governance recommendations submitted to it yesterday have disgraced the college.”

— Dartmouth alumnus and Minneapolis attorney Scott Johnson, writing on the “Power Line” blog (September 10, 2007)

“[W]e deem unacceptable that the Board should now dictate the election process by which alumni choose trustees, a power which has appropriately and historically been determined and exercised by alumni themselves.”

— A majority of the Dartmouth Alumni Association’s Executive Committee (September 10, 2007)

“This is not a moment but a period, I think, of embarrassment for our once-bold College … Here is Dartmouth trending toward conformity and mediocrity by adopting the Harvard Model. Here are exhibited the deleterious effects of personality on an organization.”

— Dartmouth student Joe Malchow, writing on his blog (September 8, 2007)

Harvard on the Connecticut?

Monday, September 10

It’s bad enough that Dartmouth’s Trustees diluted the voting power of alumni this weekend, making the College on the Hill look more like the University on the Charles. It’s shocking on its own that Trustee Chairman Ed Haldeman would publicly admit that the Board went out of its way to curtail democracy in Hanover, saying that because recent Trustee elections had been “divisive,” he and his friends “did not believe that having more elections would be good for Dartmouth.” But adding insult to injury, Dartmouth’s official press release claimed the Trustees voted “to strengthen [the] College’s governance” and “retain [the] alumni[’s] role.”

Huh? The well-spoken bloggers at Power Line asked just the right question today: “Do Haldeman and the college believe Dartmouth alums are stupid, or do they just treat us that way?”

In a nutshell, here’s what the Trustees actually did:

They increased the size of the Dartmouth Board of Trustees by eight, from 18 to 26;
Instead of designating half of the new Trustee slots for election by the alumni, in keeping with the practice since 1891, they kept that power entirely for themselves;
They left open the possibility of adding more “Charter” (read: appointed) Trustee slots in the future; and
They hijacked the entire process of nominating Trustee candidates for alumni to vote on. This process has been ably administered by the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College in the past, but no more. Having diluted democracy, “The College” will now decide how best to allow you to vote, if at all.

So setting aside the ex-officio Trustees (the President of the College and the Governor of New Hampshire), Dartmouth alumni used to choose one-half of the remainder. They will now choose just one-third. And that proportion will probably get smaller as time goes forward.

Given reports that the Association of Alumni may soon sue the College, we’re not yet ready to close the book on this battle. We encourage you to use our website to give the Trustees another piece of your mind.

It’s been said that the original “golden rule” is that “he who has the gold rules.” So we will completely understand if any (or many) of you choose to withhold your donations to Dartmouth in protest. But please consider setting the funds aside in an escrow account, and re-committing them to Dartmouth at some date in the future if the Trustees wake up and smell the coffee, or a judge reminds them of their legal boundaries.

Dartmouth just got a little bit less special.

Prelude to a Lawsuit?

Friday, September 7

We're generally not big on reporting rumors, but the implications of this one are too important to ignore.

According to reports coming out of Hanover, a major Washington, DC law firm has written to literally hundreds of Dartmouth employees this week, warning them to preserve e-mails, faxes, letters, and other correspondence related to the current Dartmouth Trustee controversy.

Apparently, the letters are aimed at making sure nobody deletes, destroys, shreds, or revises the recent history surrounding Dartmouth's "governance review," and its implications for the voting rights of alumni.

This sounds like a warning shot across the bow of Dartmouth's Board of Trustees. It appears as though someone (perhaps the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College?) may be preparing to sue the Trustees if they disenfranchise the alumni during this weekend's retreat.

If anyone out there in Internet-land has a copy of such a letter, we would love to see it. And we'll guarantee your anonymity. Our e-mail address is SaveDartmouth@gmail.com.

Express Mail to Squam Lake

Friday, September 7

Last night we posted an Express Mail envelope to Dartmouth Trustee Chairman Ed Haldeman, in care of the Dartmouth Minary Conference Center in Holderness, NH (on the shores of Squam Lake). Along with 18 copies of yesterday's Wall Street Journal advertisement—one for each Trustee—we sent the printed names of nearly 1,250 alumni and alumnae who had signed our petition. (That number continues to grow.)

Our cover letter to Ed Haldeman is available for download. Here's the meat of the matter:

Dear Chairman Haldeman,

We present herewith the names of nearly 1,250 of your fellow Dartmouth alumni and alumnae, each of whom has used our website to indicate their agreement with the statement appearing below. Also enclosed are 18 copies of the ad we ran in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Our ad quoted the specific concerns of 33 well-spoken alumni/ae, including former Maine Governor Angus King and Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker.

We trust you will share these materials with your fellow Trustees, and that they will inform your thoughtful deliberations.

Check back here often. We'll let you know the minute we learn verifiable details about what your Trustees are up to this weekend.

We Fear The Worst

Thursday, September 6

Many Dartmouth alumni are telling us that a group of Trustees responded yesterday (September 5) to their messages of concern that were e-mailed during the past five weeks. Below is the impersonal form letter that these Trustees are sending en masse:

Dear XXXXXXXXXX,

The Governance Committee appreciates your taking the time to write to us about Dartmouth governance. Please feel confident that we heard your views, as well as those of other alumni, and we took them into account as we made our recommendations to the Board. We are working hard to determine what governance structure will best allow Dartmouth to maintain our proud tradition of excellence and our unique position in higher education.

We have heard from many alumni who care deeply about Dartmouth. There are strongly held views on all sides of this issue. We believe a shared love for and dedication to Dartmouth drive these passionate views. Indeed we approach this task with a deep commitment and love for Dartmouth ourselves. Although not everyone will agree with all of the actions the Board will eventually take, regardless of what they are, our hope is that Dartmouth alumni will continue to feel the special bonds that make our College unique.

Thanks,

Christine, Michael, John, Ed, and Jim
Dartmouth College Board of Trustees Governance Committee

Christine Bucklin '84, Chair
Michael Chu '68
John Donahoe '82
Ed Haldeman '70
Jim Wright '64A

We note with sadness that there's no acknowledgement (at all) of the traditional role Dartmouth alumni have had in choosing Trustees. No indication that alumni will end up with anything more than token representation in Hanover. No reassurance that some sliver of democracy will survive.

As Dartmouth's Trustees meet this weekend, we would like to believe saner heads will prevail. We hope for the best. But we fear the worst.

A Banner Day For Saving Dartmouth

Thursday, September 6

This morning, newspapers across America are buzzing with reports about what Dartmouth's Trustees will reportedly consider when they convene a quarterly meeting this weekend. The Wall Street Journal is carrying our full-page advertisement, right opposite the widely-read political reporting on page A-6.

Our ad compares Dartmouth President James Wright's apparent conflict of interest with those of Wall Street CEOs who have been publicly cautioned to steer clear of meddling with their Boards of Directors. We also include quotes from 33 of the hundreds of Dartmouth alumni who have used this website to submit comments to the Trustees–including a former Governor and a sitting State Supreme Court Justice. We understand that not everyone has time to write a letter; but as of this morning, over 1,150 alums have chosen the quicker option of signing our petition.

Also, the Associated Press reported nationally last night that the Dartmouth Trustees will soon “consider changing how the school is governed”:

The debate for the bucolic Ivy League school of 4,100 undergraduates is whether the high level of alumni democracy is a good thing — or whether graduates' influence should be curtailed. It will come to a head when a long-awaited report on governance is presented at the board retreat.

Three Trustees are quoted in the AP story. Chairman Ed Haldeman refused to share any specifics of his plan, other than to insist that “democracy” will continue to be “an important part of governance at Dartmouth.” But he also added that “it's all a matter of degree.”

Trustee Todd Zywicki isn't so sure.

“The board has always been committed to the principle of democracy,” said Todd Zywicki, a George Mason law professor elected to the board in 2005 after being nominated by an alumni petition. “This time around the board seems committed to the principle of dictatorship.”

Trustee Stephen Smith, another who was nominated directly by alumni petition, spoke to the end result of alienating alumni from the process of governing their alma mater:

[Smith] says Dartmouth is frustrated its in-house candidates keep losing elections, and now wants to stack the deck.

“I think many colleges and universities treat alumni as ATM machines,” donating money and letting the administration do whatever it wishes, Smith said. By contrast, Dartmouth has built a genuine partnership with its alumni. But that partnership, Smith said, “is in grave danger right now.”

One final tip of the “Save Dartmouth” hat goes to National Review Online writer Michael O'Brien, who filed a column yesterday titled “Double-Secret Probation.” O'Brien didn't go to Dartmouth, but we hope his take on the situation reaches many who did.

News Flash: 92 percent of Dartmouth Alums Want Their Voting Rights

Wednesday, September 5

Word comes from the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College that its postcard-survey results are in. And the news is not good for any Dartmouth Trustee who might use this weekend's meeting to limit (or perhaps eliminate) alumni input in future Trustee elections.

According to a press release from the Alumni Association, 4,156 alums returned postcards during a two-week period in August. And 92 percent of these (3,740) agreed with this statement:

"I believe that the Board of Trustees should maintain its current balance of 50% charter trustees and 50% directly-elected alumni trustees (excluding the two ex officio positions)."

Ninety-two percent. That's a public-opinion landslide. If we were the Dartmouth Trustees, we wouldn't want 92 percent of any group displeased with our performance—much less our main constituency.

The Committee to Save Dartmouth College has seen a similar (if not higher) rate of approval for our efforts. As of this writing, more than 900 alums have signed our online petition. And nearly half of them have also taken the time to send their thoughts to the Dartmouth Trustees.

Ahandful of these (fewer than a dozen) have expressed support for the Trustees' reported plan to disenfranchise alumni and move toward an "appointed" (rather than "elected") Board. But a tremendous majority are dissatisfied with the idea.

Tomorrow you'll have a chance to read some of their thoughts, as a full-page ad in a major national newspaper will quote close to three dozen Dartmouth alumni who have shared their displeasure with the Trustees. Once we're confident the ad can't be "Parkhursted," we'll let you know where to look for it.

Campaign to Save Dartmouth College Gets Serious Ink

Tuesday, September 4

Late last week The Boston Globe ran a feature article outlining the many gripes some Dartmouth alumni have with the looming crisis surrounding the future selection of College Trustees. Current Trustee (and University of Virginia Law School professor) Stephen Smith expressed his dismay at the plan of some Trustees to cut all alumni out of the discussion about how Dartmouth is governed:

“This has become very polarized, and that's not good for Dartmouth,” said Stephen F. Smith, a University of Virginia law professor who was elected to the board by alumni in May and has consistently spoken out against the administration. “The governance approach of the Dartmouth administration is if you can't beat them, disenfranchise them ... If they go ahead and take this drastic step and disenfranchise alumni, I don't know if Dartmouth will ever be the same.”

This weekend The Wall Street Journal followed up with a scathing (if over-written) editorial correctly calling the current plan to disenfranchise the Dartmouth family “a power play against its own alumni.” Elsewhere in the Journal, an interview with outspoken Trustee T.J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, has a good deal more to recommend it.

Discussing the campus clash between Trustees who want to continue Dartmouth College's historic relationship with its alumni and those who don't, Rodgers says: “This is not a conservative-liberal conflict. This is a libertarian-totalitarian conflict.”

Though he cannot say for sure -- “I'll be kept in the dark until a couple of days before the meeting on what they're planning on doing” -- a five-member subcommittee, which conducts its business in secret and includes the chair and the president, has embarked on a “governance review” that will consolidate power. “It looks like they're just going to abandon, or make ineffectual, the ability of alumni to elect half the trustees at Dartmouth,” Mr. Rodgers says.

He believes that the model is the Harvard Corporation, where a small group “makes all the decisions. They elect themselves in secret. They elect themselves in secret for a life term. How's that for democracy?”

The rest of the Dartmouth trustees, Mr. Rodgers says, “will go to the board meetings to have a couple of banquets and meet a few students and feel good about ourselves and brag to our compatriots that we're indeed on the board of trustees of Dartmouth College.”

Saving Dartmouth on a Big Stage

Tuesday, August 28

This morning The New York Times ran our full-page advertisement. We would like to express our gratitude to the publicity-shy alumni who paid for it, but they have asked us to avoid thanking them by name. So be it.

Buying a Times ad is no small undertaking. In addition to raising the funds for such a venture, you need a message that will appeal to the hundreds of thousands of people who pick up the Grey Lady each morning. Given Americans' current quadrennial fixation with politicians and elections, can you imagine a more compelling subject than the right to vote?

We couldn't either.

We hope our ad—which will, by the way, be followed up by others of national scope—will put appropriate pressure on the Dartmouth College Trustees to do the right thing. Preserve the traditional relationship between alumni and their alma mater. Keep the donors in the loop. (Remember that $1.3 billion capital campaign?) And encourage Dartmouth President James Wright to avoid tainting his legacy with the bitter taste of mass disenfranchisement.

Dartmouth alumni/ae: If you haven't yet weighed in, please talk to the Dartmouth Trustees. Share your thoughts with the small group of men and women who may soon cut you out of the loop for good. Tell them why eliminating alumni voting rights is an idea that's not worthy of Dartmouth.

And Now, A Few Words From Ordinary Dartmouth Alumni

Wednesday, August 22

In the six days that SaveDartmouth.org has been online, we have received tens of thousands of visitors. The overwhelming majority of this correspondence to us and to the Trustees has been against eliminating alumni participation in Trustee elections. The following is a sample of the letters we have forwarded.

The Dartmouth Trustees need to support the compact they have with the past and the future by continuing to honor the role of the Alumni in the affairs of Dartmouth. Breaking this compact will slowly undermine the future of this beloved institution. I for one will not support any decision that deprives the alumni from electing at least 50% of the College Trustees.

      —Theodore Baehr '69

Your actions to change the compostion of the Board will result in further alienation from alumni. It appears to be another move to entrench the Administration and reinforce the agenda of those persons who have worked to move the College away from its traditional values.

      —Mike Hills '69

That half of the Dartmouth trustees have been elected by the alumni of the College is probably the number one reason Dartmouth's undergraduate education is the finest in the country. This arrangement has obtained for over a century. Our College would not be well-served by an insider committee appointing only those who would go along with whatever fads or whims that they would wish to propagate. Please let Dartmouth remain Dartmouth!

      —Michael Biggs '54

Dear Trustees, Are you really going to overturn a governance enacted in 1891 which has served the College well all these years? I would not like to be the man who does this. Please...think about this.

      —Daniel Jackson '49

Maintaining a portion of Trustees voted in by Alumni is something that should definitely be preserved. We will always have the long-term interests of the college at heart.

      —Allistair Fraser T'07

The Dartmouth that I know and love is one wherein the voice of each student, each alum, and each member of the ever-growing Dartmouth family is valuable. Please do not take steps to eliminate this unique and vital part of our communication.ù

      —Andrea Arata '98

I am strongly in favor of maintaining the present system of electing Trustees and I am astnished at the clumsy attempt to misrepresent the long-standing arrangement by the College administration.

      —Dr. George Rutler '65

Dartmouth could continue to be an academic wisdom center by building a consensus rather than dividing the family. Keep Dartmouth Dartmouth: keep alumni on the board of trustees and become a wisdom center.

      —Gregory Sinner DMS'69

The letters I get describing the candidates are one of the few tangible ties I have to Dartmouth, and I think many alumni feel the same way. To lose that tie would be a loss. I also suspect that the college is better off in the long run having the alumni engaged.

      —David Greenberg '90

If you proceed to disenfranchise alumni like me, I can promise your capital campaign will not receive another cent from me. I'd rather give my money to my wife's Alma Mater if it comes to that. Part of what I signed up for as a member of the Dartmouth family is a life-long relationship with the College on the Hill. If you pull out of that relationship, I imagine thousands of alumni like me will, sadly, move on.

      —David Martosko '91

For over 100 years, Dartmouth alumni and alumnae have enjoyed the assurance of direct input into the selection of one-half of the Trustees. This is part of what we expect as members of the Dartmouth family. We deserve nothing less.

      —Sopitsuda Tongsopit '00

I′m writing to encourage you to abandon any future plans that will dilute the voices of Dartmouth alumni ... As Trustees, you represent all of the Dartmouth family. You hold the legacy of Daniel Webster, Salmon Chase, Ernest Martin Hopkins, John Sloan Dickey, and John Kemeny in your hands. Please do not take this responsibility lightly.

      —Nancy Zhao '00

The efforts of the administration and their allies on the Board of Trustees to disenfranchise the Dartmouth College alumni are disgraceful ... I will not support any effort on the part of the administration to limit the alumni's election of less than half of the Board of Trustees.

      —Gonzalo Lira '95

Though I am not one of the people who has been happy about some of the more recently elected Trustees, I think that preserving the system is of the utmost importance. I think we all agree that Dartmouth College is a special place, and there are few more rabid alumni than Dartmouth alumni. It would be difficult for me to ever support a decision that would result in me voting for fewer than half of the college trustees.

      —Brooke Lierman '01

Please reject any attempts to revise the constitution in a way that would reduce the number of trustee seats elected by alumni/ae, or that would reduce the power of elected trustees, or that would increase the power of non-elected trustees. The fact that such changes are being entertained is unconscionable, and should be dismissed immediately.

      —Dn Huddleston MD '07

I am a very objective and progressively-minded person who can appreciate the need to balance passion for a place as it currently exists with the need for change in the future. Please don't confuse the alumni/ae's undying commitment to the organization for a stale perspective on change and progress ... Please keep alumni/ae on the Board of Trustees and continue the bold tradition of democracy.

      —Lisa Zeytoonjian Glenn '98

Are you getting the idea that the alumni don't like the idea of the Committee on Governance? We see it as an attempt to change the rules because you're losing the game.

      —Jefrey Hills '07

Your plan to unilateraly change the input of the Alumni is incredibly arrogant . I hpoe you will reconsider.

      —Edgar Kauffman T'60

The issue of expensive elections may easily be resolved by providing candidates free access to Dartmouth's electronic communication facilities. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that this matter has gone from issue to imbroglio. A little adult behavior would be appreciated.

      —Dan Williams '66

Rather than try to abolish the process which can promote diversity of thought on the Board, this process should be welcomed as a way to assure that such diversity is accommodated in decisions affecting Dartmouth's future ... It is inconceivable to me that the College which prides itself on the strong bond with its Alumni/ae would seek to diminish their role in College governance.

      —Bill King '56

Alumni governance and control is essential to maintaining alumni allegiance. Please do not weaken the College because you want to be paternalistic.

      —Gregory Frank '01

I am fundamentally opposed to changing the Trustee system whereby half of the Trustees are elected by the alumni. It is unconsionable that something as time-tested and distinctive would be under threat by a "cabal" of administrators and alumni ... This is a small college, but there are those who love it!!!

      —Eleanor Shannon '79

A decision to silence the voice of your graduates may at the moment seem like the only way to achieve whatever goals you have in mind, but this action will destroy a tradition that strongly binds the alumni community in heart and mind with its alma mater. Please elect to keep this system unchanged. It is something I am proud of.

      —Philip Sullivan '06

I am disturbed that, once again, the College has considered acting against the popular will of its alumni, who seem to generally favor the unique democratic trustee selection process afforded to Dartmouth alums. This proposal, should it survive the current criticism, will have severe institutional integrity and financial implications for the College. If other alums are anything like me, I would imagine that they will be likely to contribute significantly less to the Dartmouth College Fund due to their diluted voice in the College's board. Less representation, less donation.

      —Peter May-Ostendorp '03

Recent developements in the corporate world have underscored the need for an independent board of directors. The same holds true for educational institutions.

      —Kevin Tompsett '00

Let the rules stay as they are. The overwhelming popularity of the petition candidates reveals a strong distrust and dislike of administration policies on the part of the alumni. That's a serious problem for the college, and one that should be corrected by changing policy, not by shutting out the alunni voices.

      —Jeremy Segal '97

Dartmouth will thrive if given the sunlight of good governance. It is unreasonable to suggest that a self-selecting governance body that includes executive management of the college will be open and objective. I urge the board and the governance committee to cease and desist any attempts to reduce the level of alumni elected trustees to the Board of trustees.

      —Bill Huber '83

I can understand why the administration is contemplating this, after three petition candidates in a row winning. I myself disagreed with their assessment of what is happening and don't share their values. But fair is fair and it smacks me as sour grapes or being a sore loser to change the rules at this point and disenfranchise all alumni because the candidates that the alumni governance committees have selected are not winning.

      —Adam Rabiner '88

Are you people out of your minds? What are you smoking? I'm ashamed to have the College even be involved in as ridiculous a proposal as NOT allowing the alums to vote the Trustees.

      —Carlos Ballantyne '07

I have been both shocked and deeply hurt by the most recent news that members of our community wish to disenfranchise its alumni and further break with over a century of tradition ... I ask that you do not forsake the identity of Dartmouth College, and the loyalty of its alumni, in exchange for a short-term, superficial notoriety. Disenfranchising alumni and alumni/ae elected Trustees will inevitably undermine the solid and highly respected foundation the College rests upon.

      —Pooja Sinha '03

None of this stuff benefits the College. Show some leadership and work out a solution. There are many valid concerns on all "sides" that can be confronted addressed. President Wright, thank you for your many years of service, but it may be time for you, in the best interests of the College, to step aside. You are viewed, fairly or not, as a very polarizing force. We can, and must, reach a solution to the government issue and move on.

      —Bob Jorgensen '70

I, for one, have cut off all contributions to Dartmouth until it puts in place an abides by a fair, competitive, and transparent Trustee election process which included at least one-half alumni. Who do you think is giving that $29 million you just trumpeted in the mailing I received today? It is time to wake up and smell the coffee.

      —Marian Chambers '76

The proposed governance changes concern me. What's also bothersome is that it's very difficult to understand the reasons why you would be proposing these changes ... I don't support what you're doing, and it will impact my future contributions to the College.

      —Robert Birge '92

As the parent of an '09 who is thorougly enjoying the unique experience Dartmouth has provided thus far, I would be upset if the "Dartmouth experience" was changed in any way for future generations. Our son chose Dartmouth because of its focus un undergraduates. As parents, we support that experience and recognize the uniqueness of this experience. Our son "bleeds green" and will continue to do so for the remaining time he has there and for many decades to come, long after he graduates. If that experience changes and becomes more like Harvard, it will destroy the fabric of the college that is so different from the rest of the Ivies.

      —Judy Zodda

I do not believe that the current composition of the board should be changed. To have all or most of the members of the Board of Trustees chosen by current board members is contrary to the best interests of Dartmouth.

      —Kristin Lord '80

Part of Dartmouth′s identity is inextricably bound up in its relationship with its graduates. Diluting our voices is unacceptable. It is essential that Dartmouth College guarantee its alumni and alumnae a vote in choosing one-half of its Trustees.

      —Andrew Eastman '07

A Brief Reply To Ed Haldeman

Wednesday, August 22

In Tuesday's Daily Dartmouth newspaper, Trustee Chairman Ed Haldeman made a curious complaint about this website, claiming that we are "listing personal fax numbers and e-mail addresses," an "uncomfortable thing for many people on the Board."

First of all, Haldeman is incorrect. While we were able to find "personal" contact information (including home addresses and telephone numbers) for every Trustee, we have chosen not to publish them out of respect for their privacy. Business contact information, however, including postal contact info, fax numbers and e-mail addresses, seems fair game.

As Haldeman is aware, we even contacted two Trustees before this website was launched because the only contact info we had for them was of a personal (not business) nature. Both of them gave us alternate contact information, and that's what we're using.

Second, it might not be a bad thing if Dartmouth Trustees were made a bit "uncomfortable" about the decision that looms large next month. Reducing—or even eliminating—the right of alumni/ae to vote for future Trustees is no small matter. Dartmouth alums should be making their voices heard about this important issue, and we believe Parkhurst's "official" communications channels are just not sufficient for the task.

In The Dartmouth, Haldeman also allowed that "it is great that we have so many alums at Dartmouth who care so much about their college and are willing to invest so much time and money in making sure that the College remains strong in the future." On that much we agree. And we're glad he approves, since we'll be rolling out more national advertisements soon.

Let's hope Haldeman's enthusiasm for rank-and-file alumni/ae doesn't fade when "crunch time" arrives in September.

Save Dartmouth Ad Appears on The New York Times Homepage

Thursday, August 16

If you're visiting us for the first time, chances are you're coming from the Internet home page of The New York Times, which will carry our ad all day today as well as this Sunday.

Look for more messages like this in major national newspapers during the coming weeks. And by all means, help us spread the word to Dartmouth College alumni, alumnae, and friends.

The College is poised on the brink of changing—and perhaps eliminating—the traditional role of alumni/ae in choosing Dartmouth's future leadership. Whatever your opinion about this development, make it heard today by sending the Trustees a message and adding your name to our online petition.

NYTimes SaveDartmouth.org Banner

A Few Words About The Right To Vote

Wednesday, August 15

“Suffrage is the pivotal right.”
— Susan B. Anthony, 1897

“A man without a vote is man without protection.”
— President Lyndon Johnson (D), 1965

“Vote or die!”
— P. Diddy, 2004

“Voting is fundamental in our democracy. It has yielded enormous returns.”
— Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), 2004

“Voting is the most precious right of every citizen.”
— Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), 2005

“I believe that voting is the first act of building a community.”
— Senator John Ensign (R-NV), 2005

“I urge all Dartmouth graduates to educate themselves on the issues and to vote. Alumni governance is a terribly important matter. Dartmouth has long enjoyed a high level of alumni involvement in helping to strengthen the College.”
— Dartmouth College President James Wright (2006)

“This spring the alumni/ae will be involved in an election to nominate a trustee. The election is important, and I hope that all alumni/ae will participate.”
— Dartmouth College President James Wright (2007)

Some Opening Questions

Tuesday, August 14

From time to time we'll be sharing some observations in this space, with the hope that Dartmouth alumni and alumnae will devote serious thought to the state of their Alma Mater. Here are a few to start with:

First, some particularly legalistic experts have pointed out that the Dartmouth college "1891 agreement" didn't explicitly give alumni/ae the right to elect one-half of the Trustees forever. Fair enough. It actually guaranteed that the next five Trustees would be elected, not selected (a big deal for a British-influenced institution in the Nineteenth Century). But at the time, Dartmouth had a Board of Trustees consisting of 10 people. For anyone who hasn't had a math class since the late William Slesnick's freshman calculus, five is half of ten. More importantly, for the next 116 years the College took seriously its responsibility to keep that arrangement in place. Why the rush to change the rules now?

Second, we can't find anything on the Dartmouth College website, or in the various published materials from the Trustees, to indicate that the "Governance Committee" officially exists. (This is a Trustee committee which first suggested rewriting the rules about how Trustees are selected.) Dartmouth President James Wright serves on this Committee, along with four other Trustees (Bucklin, Haldeman, Donahoe, and Chu). If anyone knows of a piece of paper authorizing an apparently self-selected subset of Trustees to make such recommendations in the first place, we'd like to see it.

Third, there's been a good deal of discussion about whether the College's plan to re-examine the system of Trustee selection is related to the recent election of four candidates who were nominated by the petition of their fellow Dartmouth alums. Are the two phenomena connected, as some suspect? Is the Dartmouth Administration striking back against a few politically incorrect mavericks in order to prevent future petition-candidate victories? Maybe, maybe not. If it is, the College is reacting badly.

In recent years, it's become clear that Dartmouth Trustee candidates nominated by the grass roots are more trustworthy than those placed on the ballot from high atop Mount Parkhurst. Why doesn't the Administration adopt this tactic instead of attempting to neutralize it in such a heavy-handed fashion? If Dartmouth President James Wright wanted to, he could scare up enough alumni petitions to validate candidates of his choosing.

Regardless, the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. President Wright seemed to recognize this last year after a proposed new Constitution failed to attract adequate support from alumni/ae. "It is time," Wright said then, "to give the efforts at alumni governance reorganization a rest. Let us work with the existing structure."

Sounds good. We can't think of any logical reason to disturb a system that works so well to preserve what makes Dartmouth such a unique and effective undergraduate institution.

Welcome!

Monday, August 13

Welcome to the online home of the Committee to Save Dartmouth College. Who are we? Read this, and then consider the fact that we are you. If you care about keeping Dartmouth Dartmouth, welcome aboard. Please be sure to make your feelings known to the College Trustees by using our online e-mail form and by adding your name to our petition.

We also invite you to politely make your feelings know to individual Trustees. We've provided their individual contact information in order to make the task as easy as possible.

Questions? Concerns? Click here to drop us an e-mail.

About | Our Ads | Privacy Notice