Time for Women to Speak Up

Friday, September 21, 2007

I've seen several (dozens of ?) posts back and forth regarding why women have not blogged here, particularly the women on the Executive Committee. Along with those questions have been some absurd, not to mention insulting, assumptions about what that "silence" means.

For starters, for me at least, it means I'm not much of a blogger, and don't have much free time to post my thoughts on line. But since some bloggers seem to think that my silence is a result of either my fear of speaking my mind, or my inability to create a coherent opinion for myself, it's time for me to be quite clear.

I believe the recent decisions by the Board of Trustees are reckless, arrogant, harmful to the College, completely dismissive of the alumni, and disloyal to the tradition of Dartmouth. I believe Dartmouth stands alone as the best example of how alumni and administration can work together for the good of the College -- at least, it DID stand for that, until September 7th. I believe it is foolish to emulate other institutions' governance when Dartmouth has been a leader in this field (it reminds me of those Supreme Court Justices who want to base their decisions on international law, rather than our own Constitution). And I believe the Board has been terribly misleading in their descriptions of what they passed, and what the ramifications of those changes will be.

I urge the alumni to speak up, to voice their strong objection to being robbed of our voice and being forced into a permanent minority on the Board of Trustees. It's disingenuous for the Board to say they kept the alumni-elected positions intact -- the fact is, they packed the court by doubling the number of Charter Trustees, and thus relegating alumni-elected Trustees to a permanent one-third position. I think it is shocking that the Board of Trustees would so baldly insult the intelligence and judgment of the alumni by stating that we cannot be trusted to elect the best Trustees for the College. What I think the Board of Trustees really meant is that we cannot be trusted to elect Trustees who will rubber-stamp the Board's wishes. In that, they are entirely correct.

Marji Grant Ross, '81
member, Executive Committee of the AoA

37 Comments:

I'm glad that Marj has spoken out. Though I don't agree with her, she has let us know where she stands and that's good.

The Trustees though have a made a decision and at some point for the good of the College, we must all close ranks and show the outside world that we can work together.

John Fitzpatrick '65

By Anonymous, at 9/21/2007 2:34 PM
John: I would like to hear from just one of those 45 women you said were unanimous in their opinion. Surely we would not want to presume anything by their silence. Readers might be interested to hear an alternate opinion having as much eloquence and thoughtfulness as Marji's statement. Then we can decide in which direction we all pull together, to the long-term benefit of the College.

"Closing ranks" is a defensive strategy; Dartmouth and her alumni have nothing to be defensive about. We should be more concerned about doing what is right for the College than to be worried about what the outside world thinks short-term. Besides, what I hear most from outsiders is not "Why is Dartmouth in such a shambles?", but rather "What is so special about Dartmouth that uniquely inspires such passionate engagement by her graduates?"

Do other women alumnae wish to "vox" on this?

(Apologies to Prof. Gado and other students of English/Latin languages. While the world emails and blogs, only one special place in the wilderness Blitzes and Voxes.)

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/21/2007 3:18 PM
I have just discovered this site, after wasting too much time posting on the blog of a commercial newspaper.

The writing and thinking going on here is of much higher quality!

I will say that I am very sorry to see controversy continuing to swirl around Dartmouth, as too much of just that made my undergraduate experience at the College less happy than it might and should have been.

I think it's terrible when alumni try to inject their rigid ideologies into the campus life of current students.

Christopher C. Schons '88

By Anonymous, at 9/21/2007 3:35 PM
The claim that we are "being robbed of our voice and being forced into a permanent minority on the Board of Trustees" seems unnecessarily inaccurate and inflammatory.

Before the present decision, the alumni already had "a permanent minority" by nominating eight of eighteen trustees. Doubling the Charter Trustees reduced the proportion from a 4/9 minority to a 4/13 minority while increasing the proportion of alumni from a likely 8/9 to a likely 12/13.

It is not disingenuous for the Board to say it kept the alumni-nominated positions intact. There was a minority of eight before, and there is a minority of eight after.

The Board, which includes Zywicki, Robinson, Rodgers, and Smith, has not decided to "baldly insult the intelligence and judgment of the alumni." The Board is required to choose certain people or certain skills to fill certain seats. It is required to refuse to be democratic and to refuse to open nominations to outsiders if it believes that those things are not in Dartmouth's interest. The Board says, in its a fairly extensive and not obviously misleading explanation, that it cannot reliably predict that the desired people will enter and win alumni elections. That is not insulting, it is pragmatic.

It is a potential decision by the Association's Executive Committee to sue Dartmouth that would be reckless, arrogant, and harmful to the College, and it would also be harmful to alumni and the Association.

By scott m. '95, at 9/21/2007 4:15 PM
Good heavens! What "rigid ideologies"?

By Tom Paine, at 9/21/2007 4:19 PM
Christopher: This is a thread intended for women to speak up. There are other threads more appropriate for your comments.

Scott: Ditto. You have been a very regular blogger... do you have anything NEW to add?

Tom P.: Good question. Perhaps Chris can put up a more specific answer, but both, please choose a more appropriate thread.

By moderator, at 9/21/2007 4:47 PM
Good heavens, Ms. Moderator, what bias! I see you reprimanding the two people who disagree with your opinion for being male and writing on this thread but not Tim Dreisbach or Tom Paine. Instead you say to both "choose a more appropriate thread". So this thread is appropriate for "women to speak up" AND for Tim and Tom. Very interesting.

I am only a parent, but when I asked my daughter, who is currently a student at Dartmouth to speak up she laughed, like who has the time! She is not too involved with this issue but really likes the President a great deal. He and his wife pay out of their own salary a full scholarship for a friend of hers. From what I hear they are not terribly wealthy either since he was a professor his entire life.

One thing my daughter did mention was that she resented all the "old alumni making Dartmouth look bad". I think she feels protective of the college and does not like what her friends from other colleges are saying to her about Dartmouth (some still make Animal House jokes and ask if she goes to frat parties every weekend).

Like I said, I am just a parent, so take my views however you see fit.

Eve Wallace

By Anonymous, at 9/22/2007 10:37 AM
Eve:

Here is male Tim posting again. Marji started this thread, and I encourage other women to speak up. That should not preclude males from responding, so long as it is in reply to the topics introduced here.

I encourage your daughter to take the time to speak, though I also understand that most busy students, like most busy alumni, simply do not have the time. Students should be encouraged to "care" though, and recognize that alumni are voluntarily paying for half of their education, even for students who pay full tuition.

Jim and Susan Wright do make personal contributions, and that is incredibly admirable. He is by no means a "poor" college professor. His salary is in the range of $500,000 per year. That is a lot less than others in the Ivy League and arguably insufficient given the complexities of the job, especially in comparison to some for-profit CEOs. But he is not impoverished.

Your daughter should not assume this is about "old alumni making the College look bad". Rather it is about many alumni of all ages who feel a personal sense of stewardship for the future of the College, and through active, passionate engagement after graduation, show for all how unique Dartmouth is.

The "animal house" image was not created by this governance debate, and is not really relevant. Perhaps your daughter will understand this better after a few more weeks on campus. If the Names Directory is accurate, I understand she is just now matriculating. After convocation this coming Tuesday, she will be an official '11 and you should feel free to adopt the P'11 moniker with pride in both your daughter and "our" College.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/22/2007 11:33 AM
it reminds me of those Supreme Court Justices who want to base their decisions on international law, rather than our own Constitution

Well said!! I was aghast when the governance committee presented a list of "peer institutions" and said how Dartmouth needed to ape them. I went to Dartmouth precisely because it wasn't like other institutions of higher education. Since when is Case Western Reserve a "peer" of Dartmouth?

By Jon '94, at 9/22/2007 8:25 PM
Mr. Dreisbach,
I feel that by trying to look up my daughter's name in the directory you crossed a line between appropriate and inappropriate. I consider that act quite invasive.

First of all, whoever you found in there is not my daughter because my daughter does not share my last name and certainly is not a freshman. Many women choose to keep their own names in this day and age, as you know!

Second of all, I find your snide insinuation that my daughter needs to "care" more just insulting! I don't think blogging here will be the way she will show she supports or does not support the administration. I also do not think she owes it to you or anyone else on this blog to speak up.

And finally, do not minimize the impact Stephen Smith's criticism and now the SaveDartmouth.Org and Wall Street Journal vitriol has on current students. They are frankly quite tired of the bad press Dartmouth gets when they are see so much good at the school. It hurts them to see their college get "hurt" in the papers and online.

I am done with this blog. I knew it was for alumni/ae, but I thought I could give a different perspective. Instead the Executive Council has taken their need for control too far and tried to track down my daughter. She is not fair game! How much information do you gather on all the posters here? And why?

E. Wallace

By Anonymous, at 9/22/2007 9:49 PM
Eve: My apologies on the name confusion. It began after other alumni inquired as to her class, and one pointed out to me(apparently incorrectly) that she was an incoming freshman.

I also never said your daughter needs to "care more" than she does, or that she somehow "owes" it to others to post here. Please do not put words in my mouth.
All I stated was that students in general should care about the governance of their College, and should feel free to speak out if they have strong opinions.

Marji started this thread after several people asked to hear from women. Readers will likely appreciate hearing directly from your daughter and her friends. No obligation was ever implied.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/22/2007 11:45 PM
'Students should be encouraged to "care" though, and recognize that alumni are voluntarily paying for half of their education, even for students who pay full tuition.'

Money, money, money. Jeez: do you give to the College so that students will feel grateful? That's the wrong reason.

Like Eve Wallace, I don't like this blog, either. The tone is nasty.

And the Dartmouth "patriotism" that shows here is unhealthy.

I guess my search for a worthwhile blog to post on will continue . . .

Christopher C. Schons '88

By Anonymous, at 9/23/2007 12:10 AM
Oh, and Marji, when you say this:

"I urge the alumni to speak up,"

it means men, to.

Sorry for not realizing you meant to say "alumnae."

Ciao.

Christopher C. Schons '88

By Anonymous, at 9/23/2007 12:13 AM
"too."

And, lastly, I though no posting was allowed here unless accompanied by a real name and class year.

So why do "Tom Paine's" comments remain?!!

Christopher C. Schons '88

By Anonymous, at 9/23/2007 12:22 AM
Mr. Schons,

I have explained several times why I appear as Tom Paine; in addition, I have signed my name repeatedly in posts under the Tom Paine rubric.

The fact is that, for some reason I do not understand, I was suddenly shut out by the system after having previously posted successfully under my own name. After trying several permutations, I typed in Tom Paine to see if that would work. It did. And I have since been unable to reenter under Frank Gado, even though I type in that name in the User box.

I hope this puts the matter at rest and that you will not follow the practice of Mr. Meacham.

By Tom Paine, at 9/23/2007 1:02 AM
Chris: First, the overall policy of the Association blog site is to allow anonymous postings, though it is something we may reconsider. As an experiment, we are restricting postings on the one "no anon" discussion topic. It does not apply here.

Second, long-time readers know that Tom Paine and Frank Gado '58 are one and the same, as Frank has pointed out repeatedly. And he did not even have a comment in need of anonymity... merely a question. Before you go elsewhere, how about an answer:
What "rigid ideologies"?

Can we all please move back on topic? So far we have heard from one active female alumnae, and from one female parent. I am still not sure why gender should be an issue, but some raised it as somehow important.

Any other female perspectives? Any replies to the detailed points made by Ms. Ross or Ms. Wallace specific to governance?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/23/2007 1:13 AM
Tim,
One alumna, two alumnae. To make things more confusing, the latter is pronounced "alumni" in Latin, while the English "alumni" is properly pronounced "alum nee"

By Tom Paine, at 9/23/2007 1:25 AM
I agree with Eve Wallace and Christopher. There is unfortunately a "mean" spirit expressed in posts by Tim and Frank. This "mean spirit" has unfortunately been reinforced through rhetoric by Stephen Smith, Todd Zwyicki, TJ Rodgers, and the AoA.

Tim's comments to Ms. Wallace were condescending, at the least. Tim and Frank, you might want to look to the President of the Alumni Council, Rick Silverman's posts, for guidance on how to handle the responsibilities of a "representative" officer and how to constructively moderate and discuss among "many" voices.

My support is now with the Alumni Council and not the AoA. The fellowship of Dartmouth has not taught us to be "mean spirited" toward our fellow graduates and parents of graduates, for that matter.

By Anonymous, at 9/23/2007 6:47 AM
Frank: You are the English professor, but I also studied Latin. I know my endings well... the problem is typing them when it is way past bedtime. Your pointing out my obvious error was mean-spirited and hurt my feelings. Why do you think facts and being correct are so important? And can you please stay on topic? :-)

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/23/2007 8:42 AM
Anon: I suggest that the one being disrespectful here is someone like yourself who puts forth a personal criticism (without supporting examples) yet does not provide the courtesy of identification.

I was elected because the opinions I had openly put forward prior to the election resonated with those who voted. Once elected we have a duty to support and encourage communication by all, while at the same time a personal obligation to continue to speak as individuals.

We have strived to open this blog up to all posters, with respect, even to the point of allowing, for the first time, anyone to create brand new topics. If you believe a better job could be done as moderator here, please contact me... I would be happy to hand over the task.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/23/2007 10:30 AM
Hello, my name is Ken Larrey. I am a Duke student, and my organization is considering promoting a system of electing trustees similar to that which Dartmouth has. We are hoping ultimately to contact Mr. T.J. Rodgers, who we admire a great deal, but we would like to speak with anyone who can provide insight into the pros and cons of Dartmouth's situation. We are hoping to bring Mr. Rodgers to Duke for a speech or a Duke Conversation (a program of ours), but even if that is not possible, we still hope to correspond with him.

If anyone can provide me with an email address and/or a phone number at which I can reach Mr. Rodgers or an executive assistant of his, we would be grateful. My email is kcl10@duke.edu.

Many thanks,
Ken Larrey
Duke Students for an Ethical Duke

To learn more about our organization, see www.ethicalduke.com (we're still working on the site)

By Ethical Duke, at 9/24/2007 12:32 PM
Mr. Dreisbach,

I thought Professor Hart had an interesting analysis of the current trustee situation that would make for a good new discussion thread. His analysis was posted on the Dartmouth Review web-site, dartlog.net.

Would you consider starting a new discussion thread based on his post?

Also, a sincere thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Association and moderating this web-site.

By Anonymous, at 9/27/2007 4:19 AM
Anon: I will be happy to initiate any new discussion thread on your behalf... what is your name and class that I may credit it to? You can post here or send me an email.

Hart’s commentary and associated comments are on the Dartmouth Review website. It is of interest because he endorses the Board action.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/27/2007 6:49 AM
A question not so much on the initial subject of this thread, but relevant nonetheless:

I agree that the analogy of Dartmouth's board to a representative democracy is fallacious. We alumni are not the governed and so have no legal or philosophical right to choose the board.

However, there's more at stake here than rights. There's a tradition of alumni involvement, caring and giving to their school. What I fail to understand is why I should be expected to give money to the College if I do not feel valued as an alumnus beyond my financial contribution? Certainly, I am pressured to donate, and made to feel that it is the right thing to do as a devoted and loyal alumnus. So, if that is a moral obligation on my part, why is there no concomitent obligation to listen sincerely and respect the opinions of the many (majority?) who feel the same way as I do.

The cessation of donations from me will hardly cause anyone at the College to lose a moment's sleep. Nor is my decision to stop giving an angry response. It is merely a sad conclusion that my College does not really care about me, so what use is there to keep giving? Like a spoiled and dependent child who continuously asks and asks and greedily takes and takes, Dartmouth has behaved without respect, appreciation or maturity to its alumni donors (who act like generous parents in this way). When this child refuses to live up to its responsibilities to those who support it, the only choice is to stop helping it. It is this relationship -- not a legal one, but a role of historical support and loyalty from alumni -- that the trustees have breached.

By A '97 Alum, at 9/28/2007 6:47 PM
'97 Alum: The original agreement between the College and her alumni was created to perpetuate exactly the type of relationship you describe, and it has worked well for many many years.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 9/28/2007 6:56 PM
A question for anyone who cares to answer it:

I am under the impression that the Alumni Council is the official respresentative body of Dartmouth alumni. What I do not understand then, is why that body is so unrepresentative. Forgive me in this post for not knowing the exact size of the Council, so I use the number 100 merely for illustration, not because I know that to be the size.

If the body's aim is to represent alumni, then its members should surely be chosen democratically from the entire univere of alumni, as elected by all alumni (e.g., if there are 100 seats, we should elect 100 at-large reps from the entire universe of alums).

More palatably, as members from classes part apart in time likely have no knowledge of one another, perhaps a system more akin to the House of Representatives is appropriate, where each class (akin to a state) chooses members in accordance to the size of that class. After all, members of the class of 2000 are unlikely to do a good job of voting for alumni from the entire alumni body when they only know those from their own class and a few on either side; they can however quite knowledgeably elect from their own ranks. This system would create a reliable and representative, democratic Alumni Council.

How on Earth though, is the present system justified, where representatives come not just from classes but from groups, clubs, regions, etc.? This seems fundamentally non-representative and unjustifed. After all, all Dartmouth alums are members of a class (and of the alumni body as a whole), so why do we need additional representation from clubs, groups, etc.? Surely these organizations should only be represented in proportion to their membership in the alumni body as a whole, which is fairly taken care of by allowing members of class to select from their own ranks. After all, ever club/group member is also a member of a class, so why allow multiple representation from these alums merely because of their affiliation beyond their class? Why, for example, should the a particular club have 2 reps, when they do not represent 2% of the alumni?

I just do not understand the need for this additional representation of groups/clubs etc. if the Alumni Council hopes me a true representation of the alumni body. If the Council was a democratically-elected body representative of the alumni, I would have great faith in it. As it is not, I do not. Were there any body that were a true representation of alumni, I'd be very happy to have them take care of our affairs. As it is, the Alumni Council is not representative and the AOA seems to have too small a governing body, so no wonder there is a conflict for who truly (rather than officially) represents someone like me.

I would love to hear a spirited defense of the Council's make-up, as I cannot imagine one that will not make it seem more akin to a Bizarre House of Lords rather than the Congree.
Even a Senate system, where each class would elect a fixed number of repref

By Puzzled Alum, at 9/28/2007 7:06 PM
Tim:

The elimination of that historical relationship will no doubt throw things very much out of whack, and I am shocked the trustees don't see that. I am not am alum who thinks that the College is a sinking ship or who bemoans the liberalization of academia there. I am fairly moderate, but I absolutely will not give a dime to an institution whose owners (the trustees) do not respect my intelligence, opinions, loyalty or generosity. I am sure there are thousand more like me, and many more who have much stronger feelings that I do.

By A '97 Alum, at 9/28/2007 7:10 PM
I am posting in response to a previous post, though this does not really seem to be the right thread for this issue:

Puzzled alum,

I invite you to visit the Alumni Council website for information on the details of the representation on the Council, but I will point out a few issues here.

First of all, the Alumni Council has served in the role as a representative body since it was created by the Association of Alumni in 1913, and its character has changed in adaptation to the College over the course of that existence. Certainly, in 1913, the alumni body was fairly homogeneous, and the represented views on the Council would have similarly been fairly uniform. That is no longer the case. Diversity among alumni has brought with it the requirement of recognizing the different ways in which alumni connect to the College and acknowledging those connections with representation on the Council. The attempt is to reach all alumni (or as many as possible) through this approach, but this does not necessarily mean that each representative will reach the same number of alumni in their given constituency. In this way, it’s probably more like the Senate than the House of Representatives, since each group, for the most part, gets one representative.

Currently, the Council is in the midst of a renovation (much of which was laid out in the failed constitution) to create mechanisms that improve the way representatives are elected and to refine that representation. For example, with the new proposal each class up to 55 years out will have a representative. The 10 major metropolitan clubs will have representatives. There will be regional representatives, representatives for the various class and club officers groups, the affiliated groups, representatives of the graduate programs, and so on. Most of these representatives are already in place, but the expansion of the class representatives and the focusing of some of the other constituencies will help to optimize communications among alumni.

You have indicated that everyone has a class, and that is how each alumnus and alumna should be represented, but there are many alumni who don’t identify with their class as you or I might. Instead, as an example, he or she might be involved through a club, and feels more of an attachment with the College through that club. Further, communication to and from the College for that individual may be through the club, and he or she has perhaps chosen to limit involvement with their class. This might similarly be through an affiliated group, where some alumni feel much greater affinity. Our goal is to provide the broadest representation in order to fulfill the mission of the Council: “To sustain a fully informed, representative, and engaged exchange of information and sentiment between alumni and their College, and to enhance and inspire alumni involvement that furthers the mission of the College. “

As noted, we are working on improvements to provide for more “democratic” election of representatives to deal with the complaint that the Council is somehow not representative since not all councilors are elected. Additionally, great strides have been made in creating stronger lines of communication both to and from alumni councilors, and with the creation of the Trustee Alumni Relations Committee, a more direct connection between the alumni and the trustees via a reformulated “Alumni Liaison Committee” will be established, incorporating Association leadership as well.

I hope that goes a little way toward answering why class representatives alone would not provide adequate coverage for all alumni voices.

Rick Silverman ’81
President of the Alumni Council

By Rick Silverman '81, at 9/29/2007 10:53 AM
Rick, thank you for the background on how the Alumni Council provides for representation for every alumnus. I went to the Council's website and I see that I actually have three reps who I could speak to when I have concerns.

You and the Council are doing a great job of responding in a positive manner to the Trustees' decision..

Thank you.
John Fitzpatrick '65

By Anonymous, at 10/01/2007 1:27 PM
John gets three reps to be present (AND TO VOTE), and I only get two.

My friends and I share in common the fact that we are women who get no representation. How can our representative speak up at Council meetings when we do not have one?

We should get at least one rep, if not a full half of the room.

By Anonymous, at 10/01/2007 2:33 PM
Of the two council representatives this woman apparently does have, presumably from her class and regional club, neither are guaranteed of being of a woman. Asking a male to represent female interests, and there are many such issues in the Dartmouth context, is no different than accepting a white person as representative for black alumni.

Hence the challenges of trying to fairly represent groups in a governance context. Giving "voice" to divergent opinions, and insuring that minority voices are not drowned out by the majority, is not the same as creating a fair and equitable system for alumni decision-making. Freedom and open opportunity for speech are not the same as equality to participate in decision-making.

Does anyone have an acceptable answer to this dilemma?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 10/01/2007 8:04 PM
As Rick Silverman suggested above, the topic of how the Council (and the Association) "represent alumni" merits a separate discussion. One has been created here. Let's return the discussion here to its original intent... women speaking up on the trustee decision.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 10/01/2007 8:21 PM
After reading your recent email announcement I feel compelled
to address the association. As an alumna of Dartmouth college I'm ashamed of your lawsuit. This lawsuit not only divides the college further but brings the nation's attention to this division and takes away from what people should know about the school, that is an amazing academic institute with a beautiful
campus, strong athletic teams and students who are happy to be there.
Please take a moment to put aside your anger and think how your actions are affecting the school's reputation and affecting all the alumni that may or may not agree with you.
While the changes in the board may make you feel disenfranchised
or worried that you will lose some power, adding more qualified charter members to the board will only make a more positive experience for Dartmouth students. The composition of Dartmouth students is different from when many of you attended Dartmouth. This diversity requires a larger more comprehensive board that is not just made of alumni but qualified professionals who understand the needs of a top acedemic institute in this changing world. Additionally, there is still a solid group of 8 alumni on the board to ensure that Dartmouth's core essence that we all love is preserved.
Lastly, to your email's point of democracy being defaced by the
trustees' changes, I would like to point out that Dartmouth was not founded as a democracy, it has never been a democracy and it should not be a democracy. A school is not a government, and while democracy is an ideal system for America, it would be an ineffective way to run a school.
I urge you to stop thinking of yourselves for one minute and think of the students, future students, and all the alumni. You are bringing shame to the College we love so much. Why don't you use the money spent on your lawsuit and newspaper adds for a scholarship... or five.

-Charlotte Curzon Lord '06

By Charlotte, at 10/04/2007 10:16 AM
Charlotte:

The issue is not about having alumni sit on the Board.

You said: "This diversity requires a larger more comprehensive board that is not just made of alumni but qualified professionals who understand the needs of a top acedemic institute in this changing world."

I agree. The issue is not about having alumni on the board, but on agreeing as to who should select those people and hold them accountable.

It is the trustees who have meddled in the process of how alumni select trustees; the Association of Alumni is not in any way meddling in how the trustees direct or the administration runs the institution.

No one wanted a lawsuit. But it is not what has created a divide... it is sadly the last resort on how to resolve the dispute of the alumni's right to an equal number of trustee seats, once and for all. Let's in fact reach this resolution, and then we all can move on in our support for Dartmouth.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 10/04/2007 12:05 PM
Charlotte,

I think that the goal of more diversity in the Board of Trustees is great. However, based on past performance of the board, I have no confidence in their achieving this.

Last 8 Charter Trustees at election.
1 under 40, 4 over 55
6 investments, investment banking hedge funds
6 Northeast, 2 California
2 women, 1 minority

Last 15 Charter Trustees at election
3 under 40, 5 over 55
6 investments, investment banking hedge funds, 2 journalists, 2 academic medicine, 2 with senior corporate line experience (last in 1991)
9 Northeast, 2 California
3 women, 2 minority

Last 8 Alumni Trustees at election.
3 under 40, 1 over 55
1 investments, investment banking hedge funds, 2 law professor, 1 with senior corporate line experience, 1 PhD
4 California
1 women, 3 minority

Last 15 Alumni Trustees at election
3 under 40, 1 over 55
1 investments, investment banking hedge funds, 2 law professor, 1 with senior corporate line experience
6 Northeast, 4 California
3 women, 3 minority

I hate to disappoint your hopes. Based on past performance, there will be 6 more investment bankers and 5 more Northeast residents. All over 40, 1 black and 2 women,

But all will have pledged $10 million each. The Dartmouth newspaper supports this in an editorial. According to newspaper articles Duke and Brown allegedly "sell" spaces in each entering class. and allegedly in 2005 grades were changed at Dartmouth in a music class because "child of a large donor to the College had his/her parents call the administration to complain about the grade."

Why not? I guess everyone else does it and Dartmouth does not want to be at a competitive disadvantage to its peer group.

Diversity is Great.

By Diversity is Great, at 10/05/2007 12:32 AM
Marji,
A collegue and friend went to Dartmouth.He certainly has more warm memories,loyalty and has given more bucks than I've towards Name Deleted.
Regarding Sullivan and Cromwell being retained.Perhaps the ghost of Old Dan'l could be retained to argue for the "Insurgents".If I recall the closing scene,the jury finds for Jabez Stone proclaiming "even the Damned can acknowledge the brilliance of Mr. Webster."
Also in the story,supposedly if one goes to DW's grave site in the middle of a storm and calls his name,he'll query,"How stands the union?"And if he's not assured it's rock bottom solid,he'll rise
from his
graveThese days,he might ask."How stands the College?"I'm glad I won't have to answer that one.

By Anonymous, at 10/08/2007 9:46 AM
Yeah, let's do the opposite of what our "peer institutions" do just because we feel the need to be different. Screw the charter and its attempt to compare Dartmouth to "any of our universities, colleges or seminaries of learning in our realm of Great Britain." Why even have a board of trustees, since that's so passe? Why not do something unique, like put Wright in sole charge? If it's contrary to all empirical evidence of success among governing bodies, then it's got to be the right thing to do.

By charterius, at 10/08/2007 4:49 PM

Friday, September 21, 2007

Time for Women to Speak Up

37 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous posts

Archives