Concerning Trustee Zywicki and the Alumni Council

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Regarding recent statements, often quoted inaccurately and unfairly out of context, by Trustee Todd Zywicki, the majority of the Alumni Association Executive Committee has voted to issue the following statement:

The Association urges all members of the Dartmouth community to engage in dialog with civility and respect, but condemns the Alumni Council's censure of one Trustee's recent remarks as reflecting selective outrage out of political motivation, by an organization whose members simultaneously have, in their official capacity, issued condemnations of others in the Dartmouth Community that mirror the stridency of the remarks they condemn.

The entirety of Trustee Zywicki's remarks are available online.

******************************************************

UPDATE:

A message from Trustee Zywicki

The condemnation by the Alumni Council,
as published by the Office of Alumni Relations.

77 Comments:

Leave it to the EC to focus on the merely political and ignore the clear violation of a fiduciary duty...

What Zywicki said wasn't remarkable for its political content or even its civility or lack thereof. It was remarkable for who it came from: a trustee, someone obligated to raise money for Dartmouth (rather than for his employer) and to represent Dartmouth positively.

The EC's statement is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction, an unthinking move that typifies its egregious behavior.

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 8:54 AM
And what of the statement by the Council, if not knee-jerk.

If the comments of a trustee have embarrassed, the best thing for the College would be for the Board to handle in a quiet manner. By making a public display, the Council has elected to put their own organization's political interests... demonstrating that they can represent alumni... ahead of the College.

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 9:28 AM
"the Council has elected to put their own organization's political interests... demonstrating that they can represent alumni... ahead of the College."

And how, in practice, would you be able to tell the difference between "representing alumni" from "demonstrating that they can represent alumni"?

Zywicki is an Alumni Trustee. The legitimate representative of alumni sentiment should be able to make a statement about his ill behavior. The Association should keep quiet and stick to its own legitimate business -- which is counting the votes. If it speaks up, it should never defend the way Zywicki appears to have violated his obligations.

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 9:45 AM
Well, if it were not clear before, it is certainly so now. The AoA EC majority is firmly in the grasp of the Hanover Institute. This is a very serious situation.

The word must be spread to all alums concerning the AoA EC's condemnation of the Alumni Council rather than uttering even a word of disapproval for the egregious misconduct of Trustee Zywicki. This is not Dartmouth at work. this is an assault by outside interests upon our fundamental values.

Zywicki was not quoted out of context. The text of his entire speech has been printed, linked, broadcast, YouTubed, and made available by audio. Even The Valley News found his comments highly offensive:

Unnecessary Evil: A Trustee Goes Over the Top http://www.vnews.com/12042007/4409578.htm

The Hanover Institute is circling the wagons around Zywicki, and all the AoA EC majority have been called back into battle formation. These folks could care less about Dartmouth.

By john mathias '69, at 12/05/2007 10:19 AM
Who voted in this majority?

The AoA EC has lost all respect in my eyes.

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 10:24 AM
What are Alumni Councilors saying. Beyond their politicized formal statements, consider the following from one individual, forwarded on to multiple classes:

"I was honored to be selected as a member of the Alumni Council and delighted to have an excuse to visit Hanover twice each year. At the same time, I have been heartsick about the disputes among the alumni and their distractions from the College’s mission, the education of current students. That distress is one reason I have procrastinated about writing this final message. Let me hasten to add that what I express here are personal thoughts, not those of the College or the Alumni Council, neither of which have seen or in any way reviewed this message in advance.

"First, the good news. Dartmouth is still Dartmouth! Despite the tremendous and necessary investment in bricks and mortar over the past few years, Dartmouth still looks like Dartmouth. To paraphrase President Eisenhower, the College continues to look like a college should. [Unless you visit the university's North Campus]. As the green copper roofs appear through the trees, and Baker Tower rises above, you can feel in your chest that you have come home once again.

"Current students love being at Dartmouth. They possess in abundance the tremendous excitement that has always made the College special. [Very True]They still work incredibly hard. The Alumni Council met last December just before final exams, and as I walked through Baker-Berry, the students’ nervous energy charged electric through the air.

"But never fear, Dartmouth students still play hard too. The meeting last May was held during Green Key weekend, and some of we councilors from the late ’70s and early ’80s took it upon ourselves to investigate the Row on Friday night. Beer pong remains a popular pastime, and after a certain hour, the tunes crank up for dancing the night away. [Thanks to combined student-alumni push-back to the SLI]. One fellow councilor, who shall remain nameless, had the weird experience of running into his freshman daughter more than once that night.

"High school students still apply to Dartmouth in record numbers. This year, early decision applications rose by 8.7% over last year, and the College received the largest number of early applications ever. [Claims that debate in trustee elections and over alumni governance hurts applications are overblown.]

"The applicants who are admitted and who decide to attend are more talented then ever. The Class of 2011 had an SAT median score of 2180. High school valedictorians comprise 31.6% of the class, and salutatorians are 10.1% of the class. Legacies remain an important part of the mix--10.6% of the 2011 class are the offspring of alumni.

"But what about the Alumni Council? The Alumni Council is primarily a forum for communication between the College and the alumni. Importantly, the Alumni Council has also been charged with nominating the alumni candidates to serve on Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees. [Not true. The Council is charged with recommeding individuals who stand alongside independent candidates for Association election to be the alumni nominee for a Board seat. The Councilor should know this.] The Alumni Council is not charged with the governance of the College. [As the Court has and will again confirm, alumni have a right to participate in College governance through the selection of some trustees.]

"The responsibility for governing the College and setting its strategic vision lies with the Board of Trustees, as would be true with any corporation. Each and every trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the institution as a whole, not constituent groups. Demagogic assertions to the contrary, no corporation is a democracy. As so succinctly explained by John H. Mathias, Jr., Class of 1969, in his September 21, 2007 letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal, “Those subject to the governance of the trustees are: the administration, the faculty, and the students--not the alumni . . . .” Mathias further explains:

[T]he administration, faculty and the students do not vote for any trustee, charter or alumni. Accordingly, there is not now nor has there ever been ‘democracy at Dartmouth’ as is currently being mistakenly argued by those who so stridently oppose the recent board action. Alumni do not have any legal or moral right to govern Dartmouth. [Opinion, not fact.]The notion that simply by virtue of their having attended Dartmouth alumni have a perpetual right to govern the college is preposterous. [No one made this "simply" argument.]

"Although we alumni will always be part of Dartmouth, and Dartmouth needs her alumni, our time is past. The College is not the same as it was when we were there, for which I am grateful. I loved the College then, but I love it more now because it is a better place. Again, the mission of the College and its proper focus is the education of current students and those yet to come.[That educational emphasis is stronger because petition trustees have forced a refocus on that mission.]

"If you have read this far, you have probably already concluded, correctly so, that I am opposed to the “petitioners” and their opposition to the Board of Trustees and the College.

"The petitioners are angry and upset and act as if they been deeply hurt by the College. I regret that they feel so mistreated, but I do not understand the reason for their anger. [It is not that difficult if one listens with an open-mind.]What I have come to understand is that the dispute is about politics.

"The petitioners are conservative in the worst sense of the word, to the exclusion of common ground and compromise. They are about the politics of division and exclusion and destruction. [Wanting differing opinions, true; "exclusion", how so? "destruction", of what?] To illustrate the point, I invite you to read petitioner-trustee Todd Zywicki’s comments to the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, North Carolina on October 27, 2007, reprinted at www.alumni.dartmouth.edu\default.aspx?id=736. In his remarks, Zywicki called President James Freedman a “truly evil man.” Zywicki stated that those who control the College “don’t believe in God and they don’t believe in country.” [He did not; he made a general comment about those who set the agenda for all of higher education, in the "university".] He encouraged people to invest in “alternative institutions.” [No, he said how gifts to smaller alternate institutions can have a great impact. He never solicited donations, and he never stated people should stop giving to Dartmouth.] (The Alumni Council that just met expressed its “disappointment and disapproval” of Zywicki’s behavior.)

"And finally, what this dispute is about is control. The petitioners may love Dartmouth, but they love control even more. [Arguably that is true more of the Council, who wants to wrest control from those whose opinions they do not share.] That is why they have turned to the courts and sued the College. [Opinion, and a false one according to the stated motivations of those who believe the legal battle is to protect alumni and Dartmouth interests. Further, it was the Council and not the Association that made control over who represents alumni a legal issue, with the Council's unsolicited filing of a brief.] (I guess “activist courts” are okay if you can get them to be “activist” in your favor.) That is why they have gone to the New Hampshire legislature to ask it to re-examine and amend Dartmouth’s Charter. [Absolutely untrue, although stated here as fact with no substantiation!] Daniel Webster must be spinning in his grave. [Indeed]"

By Council Constituent, at 12/05/2007 11:32 AM
Into a discussion of the illegitimacy and ill-advisedness of the AoA's condemnation of its fellow alumni body, the Alumni Council, someone has chosen to snipe at a few points in a long email sent by an individual Councilor. That's not a strong defense for the EC, the Hanover Institute, or Todd Zywicki, but it deserves correction anyway:

A. The Councilor wrote: "Importantly, the Alumni Council has also been charged with nominating the alumni candidates to serve on Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees."
B. The sniper wrote: "Not true. The Council is charged with recommending individuals who stand alongside independent candidates for Association election to be the alumni nominee for a Board seat. The Councilor should know this."
C. Me: Well, is the Councilor really trying to say that there are no petition candidates? It doesn't look like it.

A. "The Alumni Council is not charged with the governance of the College."
B. "As the Court has and will again confirm, alumni have a right to participate in College governance through the selection of some trustees."
C. What? When has any court confirmed alumni have a legal right to participate, or that such a right lets them "select" trustees? You're crazy. Can't you see that the alumni are trying to get this kind of right in their lawsuit? When they fail, will you admit that alumni have no right to select trustees?

A. [quoting Mathias] "Alumni do not have any legal or moral right to govern Dartmouth."
B. "Opinion, not fact."
C. No, it's a fact. Alumni have no right to govern Dartmouth. At most (and this is debatable) they have a right to nominate some alumni trustees whom the board may decline to elect. If this nomination right exists, would you call it a legal right "to govern"? Most people wouldn't. It's a form of influence, nothing more.

A. [Mathias again] "The notion that simply by virtue of their having attended Dartmouth alumni have a perpetual right to govern the college is preposterous."
B. "No one made this "simply" argument."
C. Then what argument did they make? Why do they say that alumni have a right to govern the college if not because they are alumni?

A. "Again, the mission of the College and its proper focus is the education of current students and those yet to come."
B. "That educational emphasis is stronger because petition trustees have forced a refocus on that mission."
C. Even if that were true, who cares? Are you saying the ends justify the means?

A. "I regret that they feel so mistreated, but I do not understand the reason for their anger."
B. "It is not that difficult if one listens with an open-mind."
C. Okay.

A. "They are about the politics of division and exclusion and destruction."
B. "Wanting differing opinions, true; "exclusion", how so? "destruction", of what?"
C. You obviously haven't read the Zywicki rant. He wants to destroy (or at least massively "reform") higher education, specifically Dartmouth's administration.

A. "Zywicki stated that those who control the College “don’t believe in God and they don’t believe in country.”"
B. "He did not; he made a general comment about those who set the agenda for all of higher education, in the "university"."
C. Zywicki was referring to higher education in general in that sentence, with specific reference and application to Dartmouth in that paragraph and in his overall talk.

A. "He encouraged people to invest in “alternative institutions.”"
B. "No, he said how gifts to smaller alternate institutions can have a great impact. He never solicited donations, and he never stated people should stop giving to Dartmouth."
C. Here you're taking Zywicki's words out of context. He really did solicit donations for alternative institutions instead of Dartmouth. He said:

we need to think about investing in alternative institutions or simultaneously or alternatively. ... I will just tell you about George Mason Law School, at George Mason Law School we are a top twenty-five faculty. ... What we lack , though, is resources. You know $10 million or a million dollars is chump change at Dartmouth; that's a transformative gift to a place like ... George Mason Law School or the George Mason Economics department or these other pearls, these other places around the country, these alternative institutions that I think need to be supported. Why? Because if reform is going to come I think it's going to come from these new institutions, not from those that are already within the elite institutions. ... you've got to start thinking about getting institutions like George Mason Law School or wherever and building those programs and investing in them if it is going to be a multigenerational project of bringing them up to prominence so that they can compete.

A. "The petitioners may love Dartmouth, but they love control even more."
B. "Arguably that is true more of the Council, who wants to wrest control from those whose opinions they do not share."
C. This is false. The Council has done far too little to assert its legitimate control in the face of attempts by the AoA to usurp it. Why do you think the AoA, in every press release, protests too much about how it's the only elected body and the only one (it pretends) to represent all 68,000 alumni?

A. "That is why they have turned to the courts and sued the College."
B. "Opinion, and a false one according to the stated motivations of those who believe the legal battle is to protect alumni and Dartmouth interests. Further, it was the Council and not the Association that made control over who represents alumni a legal issue, with the Council's unsolicited filing of a brief."

C. You're verging into stupid territory here. "Protecting alumni interests" is precisely about control, otherwise it would not be important. Do you think the Gang of Six is suing for the fun of it? No, they are suing to obtain or (they would say) retain power or influence over the trustees. And it was the AoA that made alumni groups a legal issue by filing the lawsuit in the first place without any authority from alumni. That's why the EC feels the need to say that the bare majority who voted to let the Hanover Institute sue, erm, let Frank Gado sue Dartmouth were elected by alumni. And what does "unsolicited" mean? Should Dartmouth be criticized because the lawsuit was "unsolicited"?

A. "That is why they have gone to the New Hampshire legislature to ask it to re-examine and amend Dartmouth’s Charter."
B. "Absolutely untrue, although stated here as fact with no substantiation!"
C. Rep. Mooney herself has stated that alumni have asked her to propose that the legislature interfere, and she has also stated that she has had discussions with leaders of the AoA. Do you think it's "absolutely untrue"? Frank Gado's hatred of Dartmouth seems to know no bounds, and we should not put it past him to have requested a charter amendment.

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 12:32 PM
EC, what makes you think the Council's statement is "reflecting selective outrage out of political motivation"? Unlike your statement, the Council's statement actually addressed the content of Zywicki's speech and its implications regarding his duties as a trustee.

Your statement, on the other hand, especially following so closely on John MacGovern's email, is purely and only political. It's whiny and quibbling and doesn't address the merits of any of the points it raises or should raise. Could you at least try to defend Zywicki?

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 1:01 PM
A seated Dartmouth president once accused a student publication as having racist tendencies, even though the paper in question had a black editor. The NH courts upheld the students and not the administration in related litigation over vexatious oral exchange.

The Council was silent. The President's charges at the time were outrageous, so the Council is now being selective in its behavior. If formal criticism of the President by an alumni group would have been detrimental to the College, so is similar public censure of one of her trustees. The Council is being selective, for political purposes, that transcends the interests of the College, which would benefit from putting this incident in the past.

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 1:36 PM
The last post has nothing to do with the issue. The alumni Council put out a reasonable statement that adressed what Zywicki actually said.

The AoA EC is content to parrot the hanover institute and attacked ther council withoput adressing the specifics. Of course, since the specifics are out there in the open, they may be hard to adress.

John Bruce correctly sums this up:

Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Valley News Condemns Zywicki Speech

Apparently the Valley News' stance is better late then never:

It is the nature of insurgencies to seek to offend orthodox opinion, and perhaps that is the spirit in which Todd Zywicki, Dartmouth trustee and professed higher-education reformer, delivered recent remarks during a conference in North Carolina. If giving offense was the goal, he certainly succeeded in at least one respect with us -- by referring to the late Dartmouth president James Freedman as a “truly evil man.”

[. . .]

Zywicki asserted in a subsequent interview with Valley News political editor John Gregg that Freedman “bullied and intimidated” some students during campus controversies. We know of no evidence supporting that allegation. (And, conveniently for Zywicki, Freedman is not around to defend himself.) But even if what Zywicki says were somehow true, that would not make Freedman a “truly evil man.”

Using such a phrase in these circumstances demeans the speaker, to be sure; but it also devalues the language itself and the very idea of evil that the last century did so much to shape. Certainly evil is still abroad in the world, but we lose our ability to articulate it when such a term is casually applied to people with whom we have some ideological differences. That is not moral clarity but rather a Manichaean view of the world that is at odds with experience and reality. Most of us are guilty of rhetorical overreach now and again; it's good to be reminded of just how offensive it can be.

If the Valley News can't think of any instances where Freedman intimidated (or attempted to) students then they were living under a rock.

Posted by A. S. Erickson at 11:15 AM

Comments

As I said on my blog yesterday, and in a second post today, it may be possible to parse out actual references to historical occurrences in Zywicki's "speech" (better termed an extemporaneous rant). Indeed, about 20 years ago, the late President Freedman did in fact intimidate some students.

But to trot this out as something that mitigates, even minimally, Zywicki's extremely damaging performance at the Pope conference is to engage in wishful thinking. This is not the level of performance we expect from any Ivy grad ("He went to Dartmouth?? You're kidding!") This goes also to the basis of John Leo's attempted rehab job on Zywicki: maybe he really f**ked up, but that really needed to be said!! Right! It's the job of Dartmouth to produce Archie Bunkers!!

Add to that the accusation by Zywicki, a libertarian, that the university establishment is insufficiently religious!! Last I checked, libertarians are described as materialistic at the very least and certainly opposed to the idea that people might be legitimately motivated by a sense of religious obligation, not least in areas involving sexual conduct or drug use.

My conclusion is that Zywicki spent four years in Hanover, took all the right courses, got all kinds of good grades, was a big wheel in his fraternity, and left without an education. The thing to be said on behalf of the non-petition members is that, even if this applies equally to them, they've managed over 230+ years to conceal it. We do not want a jerk who can't on our Board of Trustees."

I am in full agreement with him.

Zywicki, like the majority of the EC, was nominated on a platform, to champion some "cause" or "issue," or as "representative" of some "constituency." The Zywicki problem is a direct result of the alumni trustee nomination process and could not have provided a better justification for the board's recent reduction in the proportion of alumni trustees. No corporation should give any part of the selection of board members to outside groups, and the AoA sghould be independent of the Hanover Institute.

By Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 12/05/2007 1:59 PM
Anon. 1:36 is playing fast and loose with the facts:

"A seated Dartmouth president once accused a student publication as having racist tendencies, even though the paper in question had a black editor."

And we all know that only white people can be racist...

"The NH courts upheld the students and not the administration in related litigation over vexatious oral exchange."

The litigation was not related to the alleged racism of the publication though, nor to the publication itself, nor to the oral exchange itself. It was related to Dartmouth's disciplining of the individual students. Have you been reading "The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent"? Does that book even say that the Review itself was ever on trial for anything, or does it just tell of the lawsuits the Review filed as a plaintiff?

"The Council was silent."

About what? Freedman's Rally Against Hate? The "oral exchange"? The lawsuit the students filed after they were disciplined?

"The President's charges at the time were outrageous, so the Council is now being selective in its behavior."

What charges, his charge of racism? Are you getting this idea (which I think is "Freedman was evil because he used a single Hitler quotation as justification for wielding charges of anti-Semitism as a weapon") from the New Criterion, or Jeff Hart, or something? It's incorrect, whatever its source.

"If formal criticism of the President by an alumni group would have been detrimental to the College, so is similar public censure of one of her trustees. The Council is being selective, for political purposes, that transcends the interests of the College, which would benefit from putting this incident in the past."

Are you saying you think Freedman had a legal duty not to criticize the Review, and that he violated that duty? Because Zywicki is being criticized for violating his duties as a trustee. You don't have the facts to support your analogy, and you haven't said where you draw the line for trustee behavior that you think is deserving of criticism. Again, instead of criticizing the Council for simply being in the fray, can you say that its criticisms are actually unfounded? Would you defend Zywicki's behavior?

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 3:05 PM
Question: Should we be surprised that an Association of Alumni Executive Committee run by Tim Dreisbach, Frank Gado, and others has not only (a) come to Zywicki's defense, claiming that he has been treated unfairly and inaccurately; and (b) criticized the Alumni Council for a perceived political bent (how, I wonder, could Zywicki's remarks not be considered within a political context?) in its condemnation of Zywicki; but has also (c) chided and wagged its holy finger at thousands of shocked and flabbergasted alumni?

Moreover--perhaps it's just me--but I don't even find this statement to be mildly comprehensible:

The Association urges all members of the Dartmouth community to engage in dialog with civility and respect, but condemns the Alumni Council's censure of one Trustee's recent remarks as reflecting selective outrage out of political motivation, by an organization whose members simultaneously have, in their official capacity, issued condemnations of others in the Dartmouth Community that mirror the stridency of the remarks they condemn.

Tim, Frank, and others seem to think that they know what's best for us. From their other statements, they also seem to believe that democracy ends at the ballot box. Considering that they seem obsessed with advancing the heroic narrative that they are defending free will, participation, openness, and reasoned intellectual discourse, it's quite confusing that their actual positions and decisions typically encourage secrecy, complacency, condescension, and insults.

Something stinks.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/05/2007 9:45 PM
The fact is that the gang of 6 (no capitalization deserved) have absolutely no care and concern for what their constituents actually want. (Remember: they stress that they are the ONLY democratically elected represetatives of the Alumni body.) These guys are like little Machiavellis in LL Bean sweaters. It is truly shocking.

Do I think that my comments on this post are going to make a difference? NO. Am I having fun in a passive/aggressive sort of way? YES.

By Anonymous, at 12/05/2007 10:12 PM
Their constituents are no longer the 68,000 alums they say they represent by democratic election-Their constituents have morphed into the Hanover Institute, the CEHE and anyone else who is taking pleasure in making Dartmouth the laughing stock of the Ivy League.

Alums are angry at them- but mostly they are saddened.

By Anonymous, at 12/06/2007 9:20 AM
Here is part of what Trustee Zywicki said to the Pope Center audience in his anti-Dartmouth diatribe (quoted accurately and in context):

And what we saw in September was that the Empire struck back. They rolled the tanks into Tiananmen Square. And basically they couldn't win at the ballot box and so they got rid of the ballot box. The entrenched powers are well, well entrenched and very powerful and they are formidable. And I think that the largest lesson I have drawn from this is that academic reformers have to decide whether or not they are serious or not about the project of reforming higher education. It's going to be a multigenerational battle; it's going to take a lot of resources, and a lot of struggle. And I think what you have to understand is that those who control the university today they don't believe in God and they don't believe in country. University is their cathedrals. Their entire being, both those who fund it and those who teach within it, are tied up in the universities. It is basically their religion and its supported by those who, the Medicis of the earlier age built academic buildings rather than cathedrals today and they call the shots.

* * * *

Secondly, it's sort of left liberal religion in a second way. Which is, my perception is, that those who bankroll these institutions basically use this to buy indulgences for being rich which is that they are fully embracing and happy to embrace all the multiculturalism and all the other stuff because this is their way of getting forgiveness. Of showing how virtuous they are despite the fact that they make a lot of money. So they have no quibble with the apparatus. Either they don't care about it because all they care about is the reputation of the institution or they're kind of happy with it because it allows them to deal with their conscience.

Trustee Zywicki appeared at the Pope Center conference in his capacity as a Dartmouth Trustee. That's obviously the only reason he was invited to speak, as it is the only meaningful credential he has to speak at a forum like that. There can be no mistaking that he was including Dartmouth and its financial supporters in the remarks quoted above.

Of particular relevance is the antipathy he demonstrates to those who make large donations to Dartmouth. He assigns the lowest order of motives to them.

Great trustee. He should resign.

The AoA EC majority is apparently siding with the Hanover Institute and its CEO, who praised Zywicki for his courage and referred to his Trustee oath as "odious." Great AoA officers. They should resign.

This is not about free speech. People can say what they want, and Zywicki has done so. No one stopped him, and no one will stop him when he speaks again. He just has no business being a Dartmouth Trustee, and he has done us all a tremendous disservice by brandishing this credential in order to get himself an audience.

By john mathias '69, at 12/07/2007 8:46 AM
Mathias... Thanks for posting Zywicki's comments (selectively). I see nothing there that is "anti-Dartmouth". His comments seem directed to higher education in general. Please point out exactly what he said that is disloyal to Dartmouth College. Even if we assume Dartmouth is included among the broader field he is critical of, what of those who agree with him. Speaking out for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth is not a crime, but for a trustee, a duty.

By Alternate Viewpoint, at 12/07/2007 9:02 AM
Alternative, those comments were accurate, full quotes in context. If you think Mathias was being selective, then read the whole thing for yourself, you whiner [bottom of this comment].

Why do you "nothing there that is "anti-Dartmouth"? Do you think saying the board (his own board!) "brought in this fellow, truly evil man, James Freedman" is not anti-Dartmouth? Do you think raising money for his own school as an alternative to elite institutions including Dartmouth is not anti-Dartmouth (when he's previously promised to raise money for Dartmouth and not benefit himself)? What about saying of his board: "this didn't sit very well with the powers that be, so the next thing they decided to do was to try to ram through a new alumni constitution"? "And they brought out the long knives against Stephen"? And "So Democracy having not worked properly, this fall they decided to follow the Hugo Chavez form of democracy"? What about his admission that he's a representative of outside interests? ("Now what has happened since we've been there? We've definitely made some progress. We've gotten the speech code repealed, which was very important" [and also false])?

What about his previous activities, which include writing a legal brief in support of those who would later sue his own board, and meeting with a secret political-action society whose express goal is the removal of the board's chosen executive officer?

---
The following is a transcript of a speech given by Dartmouth College trustee Todd Zywicki '88
at a conference at the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C.,
on October 27, 2007. Mr. Zywicki was a panelist on the topic "Trustees in the 21st Century."
The transcript was provided to the Dartmouth Alumni Council by William Montgomery '52.

---

I'm going to talk about two things today which is basically my experience at Dartmouth and secondly what lessons that leads me to think about reforming higher education. And I'm certainly in a funny position to some extent like some other members of the panel my vocation is as a professor but my avocation is as a trustee which I think of as meaning I know all the tricks of the professors when I sit on the board, but I kind of switch hats. I'm going to spend a couple of minutes on the background of the Dartmouth situation and an update on it and then talk about sort of the more general questions.

How did I end up on the board of trustees? On of my colleagues in the economics department when he heard I'd gotten elected to the board of trustees said, "I didn't realize you were independently wealthy. Then I had to explain to him the off way in which I got elected. That basically what happened was Dartmouth over the past 25 years, In the 1980s we had a fellow named David McLaughlin was president of the College. He had come from the private sector as a corporate officer. He got fired by the faculty because he brought back ROTC, primarily. They then brought in this fellow, truly evil man, James Freedman, who basically, simply put, his agenda was to turn Dartmouth into Harvard. Freedmanism basically had four planks.

1. That Dartmouth should be a university rather than a college.

2. Political correctness in all forms -- speech codes, censorship, and the whole multicultural apparatus.

3. Comprehensive social engineering of student life and replacement of the Greek system for instance.

4. And a de-emphasis on Dartmouth's traditional values of educating well rounded leaders in favor of creative loners.

He basically spent ten years trying to bring that about and that has been sort of the guiding light for Dartmouth since that time.

Let me tell you a little bit about the Dartmouth board.

In 1891 a historic compact was reached where the alumni at the time, the college needed money, the alumni refused to give more money unless they had greater accountability and greater control over how the college was spending the money. So a deal was reached. There were at the time 12 members of the board, the governor and the president of the College were ex officio so there were 10 appointed members. They reached a deal and the alumni were given the right to elect half, five members of the board of trustees, five of them would be appointed and in exchange, basically the alumni would go out and solicit funds and give support to the College. The board has been expanded twice since then and each time they preserved the principle of parity. That interacts with a second factor which, so half the board traditionally has been elected by the alumni in contested elections. That intersected with another practice at Dartmouth which is the practice of petition trustees...basically what happens is the Alumni Council would nominate some people and you could vote for, they would nominate three and you could vote for one of them, or if you didn't like

them you could try to get on the ballot as a petition candidate. In order to get on the ballot as a petition candidate you have to get 500 signatures from alumni. In the past that was, by and large, an insuperable hurdle basically because the College wouldn't give you a mailing list or anything like that. In 1980 a fellow was elected as a petition trustee; quickly thereafter they changed the rules and basically kept the door shut for the next 25 years until T. J. Rodgers, an unusually determined and brilliant man, got on the ballot as a petition trustee and won in 2004.

The next year there were two seats open and me and Peter Robinson, a fellow at the Hoover Institution both put our names forward as petition trustees. What they didn't realize when they created the 500 signature rule was that eventually something would be invented which we would call the internet. And so I announced my candidacy for the Dartmouth board on my blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, I needed 500 signatures I got that in about a week and a half. When it was all said and done I got about 5,000 alumni to download a petition, sign it, stamp it and send it back to me and then went on to win.

Peter and I both got elected that time around. So that didn't sit very well. Basically we all ran on the same thing which was we ran on strengthening Dartmouth's undergraduate education, repealing Dartmouth's speech code, greater transparency and openness in College governance, and that sort of thing. All of this didn't sit very well with the powers that be, so the next thing they decided to do was to try to ram through a new alumni constitution, which would change the way in which trustees were elected. They needed a two-thirds majority in order to get that. 38 percent of Dartmouth alumni voted and not only did they fail to get two-thirds, they failed to get a simple majority. So that was fall 2006. Fall 2007, or Spring 2007, another alumni trustee seat was open, alumni trustee being the elected, the other half charter being appointed. So in the spring of 2007, the fellow who ran in spring 2007 was a fellow named Stephen Smith. And they brought out the long knives against Stephen. He's a friend of mine and classmate from Dartmouth. They said he was opposed to diversity and opposed to research, which was somewhat ironic considering that Stephen is a black man raised in a single parent family in Anacostia in Washington DC. They added the fact that it wouldn't add diversity to the board notwithstanding that, because that would mean we would have two law professors from Virginia on the board. Secondly, Stephen is a tenured law professor from the University of Virginia. So they decided that he was opposed to diversity and opposed to research. And the response was that he got 55 percent of the vote from the alumni, the largest total that anyone had gotten at that point.

So Democracy having not worked properly, this fall they decided to follow the Hugo Chavez form of democracy and simply impose this fall the board of trustees adopted a new governance plan to add 8 new seats to the board, breaching the principle of parity that they had promised in 1891, such that now if it goes through they would have 16 appointed trustees and 8 elected. And they said that the alumni should be pleased with that because they had decided not to get rid of all the elected seats. So they reaffirmed the principle of this and then gave instructions on how to run elections going forward.

The executive committee of the Association of the Alumni who were elected last Spring in the first time that all alumni could vote by internet and mail and that sort of thing is also the majority of the executive committee of the alumni association has 7 petition candidates and 5 non petition candidates, they voted to sue the college to enforce the 1891 agreement and asked for a temporary injunction and on Friday the College filed a document that said that they would refrain from adding any new seats, they were originally going to do it at the November meeting, and they said they were going to postpone it until February so the court need not rule on the motion for a preliminary injunction. And I will let you think about whether or not they would be opposed to litigation depending on how confident they were whether they were going to win or not.

But that's basically where things stand. Now what has happened since we've been there? We've definitely made some progress. We've gotten the speech code repealed, which was very important. We've, I think, really focused on a reemphasis and reinvestment in undergraduate education. We've gotten the college to loosen the screws on its social engineering program, which was called the student life initiative at Dartmouth, and allow and respect principles of freedom of association and that sort of thing. A renewed commitment to the athletic program, which is an important part of the Dartmouth experience. And so I think we've done a lot, but there is still a lot to be done and obviously it's going to be more difficult at this point.

So what are the lessons? The lessons are that progress is slow and difficult. My wife has basically told me that if I take another Dartmouth conference call she's going to leave me. It takes a huge amount of time, a huge amount of energy. If you read the interview with TJ Rodgers in the Wall Street Journal this fall you will see the kind of abuse that one has to deal with in a situation like this. And what we saw in September was that the Empire struck back. They rolled the tanks into Tiananmen Square. And basically they couldn't win at the ballot box and so they got rid of the ballot box. The entrenched powers are well, well entrenched and very powerful and they are formidable. And I think that the largest lesson I have drawn from this is that academic reformers have to decide whether or not they are serious or not about the project of reforming higher education. It's going to be a multigenerational battle; it's going to take a lot of resources, and a lot of struggle. And I think what you have to understand is that those who control the university today they don't believe in God and they don't believe in country. University is their cathedrals. Their entire being, both those who fund it and those who teach within it, are tied up in the universities. It is basically their religion and its supported by those who, the Medicis of the earlier age built academic buildings rather than cathedrals today and they call the shots.

So what does this mean? I draw four lessons that I think are important for people in this room to think about. I try to remain hopeful, but I'm often skeptical about the prospect for reforming higher education, the way things stand today.

The first point that I cannot emphasize enough, we have to reach a point where we have to reach a point where we decide if we are serious about this or not. By which I mean that, we've heard of a lot of good things that are going on but they are basically guerilla warfare, they're basically defensive, they're basically to try to create a remnant on the campus where there is some light for students. But that in and of itself isn't going to transform the culture. It's a defensive culture, its guerilla warfare and so a couple of hundred thousand here or there or a million dollars here or there is certainly going to make a difference to some students, but when you are up against people who are writing 8 or 9 figure checks, they're the ones who are calling the shots and they're not asking questions. And we have to decide whether we are going to be all in or not because a little bit of nibbling here or there isn't going to roll back the tide. It might stop the tide a little bit but it isn't going to roll it back.

Secondly, it's sort of left liberal religion in a second way. Which is, my perception is, that those who bankroll these institutions basically use this to buy indulgences for being rich which is that they are fully embracing and happy to embrace all the multiculturalism and all the other stuff because this is their way of getting forgiveness. Of showing how virtuous they are despite the fact that they make a lot of money. So they have no quibble with the apparatus. Either they don't care about it because all they care about is the reputation of the institution or they're kind of happy with it because it allows them to deal with their conscience.

The third way in which it's a religion and I'll take a small grievance, virtually everything our speaker said at lunch there is one place I'll slightly disagree.with Dean Lewis is that the establishment within these academies is vicious, they are vicious people, they have their own dogma. If it were the case that there was no morality and there were no values being taught in the academy that would be better than what we have, which is that there is a new dogma. The new dogma is environmentalism and feminism and that is the dogma and they will enforce it viciously. We have the Spanish inquisition and you could ask Larry Summers whether or not the Spanish inquisition lives on academic campuses today. So that's why the first point is that we are either all in or we're not. It's going to be a long and vicious trench warfare, I think, if we are serious about taking the academy back.

Secondly we need to think about investing in alternative institutions or simultaneously or alternatively. Which is, that is we need to start thinking about creating and supporting alternative institutions. Elite institutions matter, absolutely, that's where the leaders of society are disproportionately going to be found. But we need to find the shining lights elsewhere and start nurturing these. I will just tell you about George Mason Law School, at George Mason Law School we are a top twenty-five faculty. We have done, you know, there was a profile of us in the National Review a while ago that was very good; but, we are leaders in law and economics. We now have a new compulsory class that first years have to take on the founders Constitution where they have to read Madison and Hamilton before they are allowed to read Brennan and Ginsberg. And we take seriously the principles of a free society in a way in which the rule of law intersects with that. Our faculty are willing to engage on leading issues of the day, the second amendment, affirmative action, those sorts of things. We were the ones who sponsored the brief supporting the military, we wrote the brief supporting the military in the Fair v. Rumsfeld case, which we were then vindicated in eight to nothing in the Supreme Court. All the other law schools were on the other side of that issue. Whatwe lack , though, is resources. You know $10 million or a million dollars is chump change at Dartmouth; that's a transformative gift to a place like Dartmouth, I'm sorry a place like George Mason Law School or the George Mason Economics department or these other pearls, these other places around the country, these alternative institutions that I think need to be supported. Why? Because if reform is going to come I think it's going to come from these new institutions, not from those that are already within the elite institutions. People like Michael Monger and Robbie George, these people are sui generis right, you can't replicate them. If they come along, grab the opportunity and ride it. You have to invest in people and not just programs.

Having said that, the third point is that institutions do matter. Institutions matter a lot, which is what we've done is build institutions around the periphery like these centers, which again I think are very, very important and very, very useful. But fundamentally institutions matter. Jesus was great but Peter was just as important. Right? It's great to have people out doing these things but institutions are where the actions are, institutions is where you draw kids in and educate them with a fundamental curriculum and that sort of thing. People don't want to invest in overhead, for instance. But you've got to start thinking about getting institutions like George Mason Law School or wherever and building those programs and investing in them if it is going to be a multigenerational project of bringing them up to prominence so that they can compete.

The final thing, and I can be brief on this because Candice made the point is that trustees have to take a leadership role in this. When Trustees don't act, the void gets filled by the permanent constituencies on campus, which are the faculty and the administrators. The trustees are the only ones that can look out for the institutional mission. And I am proud that I can say that in my time that I've done at Dartmouth on the board is that we trustees through the alumni who voted for us, have made student education our primary focus. That I see my view as being the voice of students today and in the future and the best representatives of the students are the Dartmouth students of the past who are the alumni. And so I think that trustees perform the key role in preserving that and that's one of the reasons why I think Dartmouth today despite my qualms still has the premier undergraduate experience of any school in the country. And I believe that is because of this institution of alumni being able to elect half the board and I fear that's what is going to be the primary casualty of this new governance regime. A final word on that is that I met a president from a prominent university once and he said to me, "Look Todd, you need to understand. When I was president, the way I saw trustees was that they were a constituency to be managed. They're a constituency to be managed just like the faculty, the alumni, the employees. They didn't run the school. I ran the school and they were a constituency to be managed." So long as that is the view of presidents of universities and that sort of thing then I think reform is going to be fleeting.

Thanks.

Question and Answer Session. Questions from the (unseen) audience Note, disregard punctuation in the Q&A. Text is accurate and unabridged for Mr. Zywicki.

Question (male): I'd just like to ask a question, Todd, could you explain what the speech code was at Dartmouth and why you objected to it?

Answer: (Zywicki) Well, it was a pretty standard speech code which was that basically what it is that the incident rose from something involving a fraternity and the president and dean of the College said, infamously, the president said, I can't believe in this day and age we still live in a world where people think that their "right" to free speech outweighs feelings of others on campus and so they punished this fraternity and basically instituted the new rule which was that your speech will be limited if it hurts, if it might be perceived as hurting the feelings of others on campus. FIRE downgraded the College to 'red' speech code rating at that point. Right when Peter and I were going to get elected, when it was clear that we were going to be elected, we found out later the College was able to find out what was going on with the voting during the whole period, they repealed the speech code and now Dartmouth has a 'green' rating. We still have a lot of problems with free speech at Dartmouth; now it just is a culture of bullying and intimidation, but it's not one where you can be kicked out or disciplined formally for offensive speech.

Question (male): I have a question for Todd. You made a comment about guilt ridden entrepreneurs and I'm reminded of a wonderful scene from Tom Wolfe's "Man in Full" in which the scene at the High Museum in Atlanta in which this limited director gave a post-modern lecture about art and post-modernism and the wives nodded their heads and the poor entrepreneurs sat there staring blankly at this ludicrous lecture and, of course, there was a lot of other hidden motives going on in the way Wolfe could portray it so brilliantly. What can be done about the question of guilt and the question of the idea that an entrepreneur isn't convinced of the moral goodness of what he or she does to the creation of value isn't something to be lauded? The entrepreneur is a hero and why they internalize this negative self-perception?

Answer: (Zywicki) Yeah, I mean I can't really say much about that where people get their values and that sort of thing. The only thing I meant to stress was, perhaps I was being unduly hard on those folks, which is that certainly people who accomplish things want to give back, starkly a lot of people have given back through the arts or, you know, through their churches to their religions building churches and that sort of thing. What motivates that are a variety of motives and often is guilt regardless of which side it is. All I'm suggesting is that for these folks these are their churches, number one and, number two, that they've bought into a world view where they're not hostile to the kind of things, the assault on capitalism and that sort of thing that go on in there. So where those values come from obviously are partly from their education they received. It's just extraordinary, environmentalism is the one that's just mind boggling on campuses today. I mean it really is a religion. I teach kids and when they come out the other end when they get into law school and they're simply unable to think in any critical or analytical way about that question. It's just an example and obviously that gets rolled up with antipathy toward capitalism on that particular issue.

Question (Male); Candice, you point out that trustees are afflicted by the common decadence as such and, Todd, you followed up with something that came very close in my mind to a rejection of the notion that ideas have consequences. I know you don't believe that, but it seems to me that one of the key things that does need to be done is to focus on the education of trustees. We've talked about the fact that there have been so many decent books that have been written over the past forty years criticizing the kinds of things that have happened in higher education, and, yet, those books seem to have been thrown over the transom and then directly into the waste basket of ideas rather than having the kind of consequences that many of us had hoped that they would have. I wonder if you might comment, in effect, the strategy of how we can, in fact, make a difference with what is naturally limited funding.

Candice answers the question first, then Mr. Zywicki speaks:

(Zywicki) I'll just add two quick thoughts, just to elaborate on what Candice said. Trustees have neither the expertise nor the incentive to really seriously think they can govern the institution today, which is to say they don't have the expertise and they have no interest in gaining the expertise. You become a trustee because you get good seats at the football game and you get wined and dined and everybody pretends like you're a genius and all that sort of thing. Read David Brooks chapter on the status income gap in 'Bobos in Paradise' and you get a flavor of this. They also don't have the incentive to actually govern institutions, which is to say that to actually govern the institution will require them to be will to deal with controversy. People don't work 90 hours a week on Wall Street to go back to their alma mater and argue. They don't want to figure out what's going on inside the classroom and they actually try to bring about reform that would open them up to a lot of controversy that has nothing but downside as far as they're concerned and especially once the faculty gets their long knives out. Then they can control what goes on; it's just not worth it to them. That underscores what Candice said is that they really don't care what goes on inside the classroom, by and large.

The second thing is that the education of trustees is an abomination. I've just been stunned, there's this one group, the Association of Governing Boards, is that who these clowns are?, ah jeez, I mean they've got this group that you automatically become a member of when you're a trustee and they just send you this garbage, it's unbelievable. They actually issued a press release that Dartmouth basically adopt a board reform that every sector of American society is becoming more transparent especially when it comes to governing boards. More independent directors, that's the lesson of Sarbanes-Oxley and everything else. Dartmouth adopts the exact opposite, right, and shuts down transparency, makes boards less independent. The Association of Governing Boards, Boom!, out the door comes a press release endorsing Dartmouth for its actions, right. I mean these are the kind of characters who send out this propaganda that's just the most brain dead stuff you've ever read that says the job of the trustees is to shut up and write checks; that's basically what it comes down to, and you wring your hands a little bit and that sort of thing, so (Candice interrupts)

(Candice) And keep in mind, who pays the dues of the AGB? Presidents!

(Zywicki) Right, so basically, your job is to support the president; that's what the AGB says your job is. Yeah, so the whole thing is a fiasco.

Velma Montoya answers further...

(Zywicki speaks again) Let me just add one footnote to that, which is, when I got elected to the board, I got a lot of friends on the faculty and I was informed very quickly by the members of the board that I shouldn't be going around meeting outside the proper channels with people on the faculty and meeting with students; that I was too high profile around town because I was seen out meeting with students and faculty and that sort of thing. That my job was to receive what was given to me as the official line and that I was acting inappropriately as a trustee by going out and soliciting information on my own. I, ah, listened to their, ah, to their advice carefully..... and then rejected it.

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 9:17 AM
Mathias... Thanks for posting Zywicki's comments (selectively).

That maleficent action known as "quoting."

I see nothing there that is "anti-Dartmouth".

That is quite a feat of (selective) reading.

Speaking out for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth is not a crime, but for a trustee, a duty.

Trustees are not elected to "speak out" to the public at large about problems and perceived necessary changes at their institutions. They are meant to present the kind of strong, unified front to the public that is indicative of a healthy, robust institution. They most certainly are not meant to use their positions as trustees to further personal and political agendas.

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 9:53 AM
Trustees are elected with a duty to do what they believe to be in the bests interests of the institution. This may at times require speaking out publicly; not doing so can also be an abdication of responsibility.

A healthy robust instutituion is one that can withstand, and even encourages, debate. Presenting a united front when one disagress strongly with the party line is dishonest, and a disservice to all. Why are people so viscerally affected by hearing opposing views?

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 10:05 AM
I challenge anyone to convince 68,000 alums that what Zywicki said was in the best interests of the Institution. He was elected to be a steward of the College- how do his comments uphold that duty?

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 10:16 AM
Trustees are elected with a duty to do what they believe to be in the bests interests of the institution. This may at times require speaking out publicly; not doing so can also be an abdication of responsibility.

That is completely factually false.

A healthy robust instutituion is one that can withstand, and even encourages, debate. Presenting a united front when one disagress strongly with the party line is dishonest, and a disservice to all. Why are people so viscerally affected by hearing opposing views?

This rhetorical tactic is getting very old. Of course a healthy and robust institution encourages debate. But what Zywicki did hardly constitutes debate. It involved histrionics, character assassination, the comparison of people to Nazis and to fascists, unfounded ideological assertions, harmful generalizations, the labeling of people as "evil," the insulting of people for their religious and political beliefs, blatant falsehoods, and more. If you think that's good for Dartmouth, or the sign of a "healthy and robust" institution, then you're an idiot.

Second, what in the world is this "party line" that you speak of? I am really getting fed up with some people's choice of language. I don't understand what it is with people like yourself who apparently always need to frame issues in terms of black-and-white battles between good and evil. That you suggest that there is some "party line" supported by "loyalists" against whom "rebels" oppose themselves belies the very difference in world-view between yourself and your imagined enemies. A stark difference it is indeed.

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 11:00 AM
"Trustees are elected with a duty to do what they believe to be in the bests interests of the institution. This may at times require speaking out publicly; not doing so can also be an abdication of responsibility."

No, it may not, especially when each trustee has agreed to abide by a specific elaboration of that duty to uphold the best interests of the institution: the oath and the bylaws required Zywicki to represent Dartmouth positively to the public, to not disclose its business, and to raise money for it. There is no room for your relativistic interpretation of a vague sense of "duty" when the board has said in particular terms exactly what that duty entails.

"Presenting a united front when one disagress strongly with the party line is dishonest, and a disservice to all."

Is that true when you'd already promised to present a united front? Let's see, we have a specific, particular, legally-binding promise on one hand, and your vague and general sense of "dishonesty" on the other. Which should win? Which creates a greater "disservice" when violated?

"Why are people so viscerally affected by hearing opposing views?"

Why are you changing the topic to "opposing views" rather than the violation of a trustee's duties? It's not what he said, it's who said it -- a sitting trustee who had voluntarily bound himself not to say those things.

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 11:01 AM
"Speaking out for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth is[,] for a trustee, a duty."

You've got it backwards, since it's refraining from speaking out for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth that is, for a trustee, a duty.

Zywicki was required to:

Act as a responsible fiduciary
-Act in the best overall interest of Dartmouth.
... work on behalf of Dartmouth between Board meetings; and attend as many Dartmouth functions as feasible. ...
-Participate in rational, informed deliberations by considering reliable information ... in order to reach decisions on the merits that are in the best interests of the institution. ...

Advance the mission of Dartmouth
-Represent Dartmouth positively in words and deeds, particularly and proactively to Dartmouth constituents.
-Serve Dartmouth as a whole, rather than the interests of any constituency.
-Help Dartmouth secure the financial, human and other resources necessary for the institution to achieve its mission.
-Contribute financially to the annual fund and to capital campaigns, within one’s means, at a level that demonstrates Dartmouth is a high philanthropic interest.

Uphold the integrity of the Board
-Maintain strict confidentiality of Board and committee meetings and of all information proprietary to Dartmouth. ...
-Avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof, in accordance with the Board’s Conflict of Interest Policy.
-Adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional behavior so as to reflect favorably on Dartmouth.

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 11:11 AM
You Board Loyalists are just so sickening with all of your logic and firm grasp on reality. This isn't fun at all. I want my revolution! From the comfort of my swivel chair, that is. Help an old man out.

By T. Achilles Poindexter '48, at 12/07/2007 11:44 AM
Did Anon 11:11 above really mean to say "it's refraining from speaking out for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth that is, for a trustee, a duty."

Remarkable.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/07/2007 11:46 AM
Did Anon 11:11 above really mean to say "it's refraining from speaking out for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth that is, for a trustee, a duty."

Remarkable.

A willful misreading of his meaning would indeed make it remarkable, Tim. But it's quite obvious to most people that he was suggesting that it is the duty of a trustee to not: be publicly critical of Dartmouth, further political agendas in one's capacity as a trustee, compare Dartmouth administrators to Nazis and fascists, and the like. You know, blatantly stupid and unthinking abuse of the trust that was placed in him by his peers.

What's remarkable, Tim, is that you, in your capacity as our representative, have not only decided to tut-tut your fellow alumni for reasonably reacting to Zywicki's insane rhetoric, but have actually come to his defense.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/07/2007 12:16 PM
Aaron: Some of Todd Zywicki's comments were undiplomatic and not appropriate for a public setting. I do not know anyone defending him for that. If anyone should be upset, it is those of us who fight for the alumni's right to participate in trustee selection.

On the other hand, what this imbroglio has surfaced is the belief, false in my view, that trustees must remain totally silent and never offer any opinion, no matter how constructive or diplomaticly presented, even when intended to improve Dartmouth, simply because others on the Board disagree.

There is nothing wrong with having an educational agenda (versus a "political" one) that colors what one believes is good for Dartmouth. Simply because you disagree with that view does not make you right and Zywicki wrong, or vice versa.

Comparing Dartmouth administrators to fascists is also extreme and indefensible. Pointing out anti-democratic behaviour has some real justification in the present context.

Regardless of his subsequent reciting of the trustee oath, I still find Anon's opening comment remarkable.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/07/2007 12:41 PM
Aaron: Some of Todd Zywicki's comments were undiplomatic and not appropriate for a public setting. I do not know anyone defending him for that. If anyone should be upset, it is those of us who fight for the alumni's right to participate in trustee selection.

"Undiplomatic" is generous. They were vitriolic, destructive, and hateful, not meant for any setting, expect perhaps for Zywicki and his friends. They can complain amongst themselves about the secular-progressive Fifth Column and the decline of the American republic into decadence and immorality (themes taken, it would seem, straight from a Robert Brasillach article), but, anywhere else, it isn't very constructive.

On the other hand, what this imbroglio has surfaced is the belief, false in my view, that trustees must remain totally silent and never offer any opinion, no matter how constructive or diplomaticly presented, even when intended to improve Dartmouth, simply because others on the Board disagree.

I couldn't disagree more. What you describe is but the overreaction of you and some others to the understandable shock and dismay displayed by your peers. Nobody has ever suggested that debate and critique are bad. Such a notion only comes up in the asinine slippery slope arguments presented by a few people who seem quite incapable of cognizing any form of criticism of their "cause," a point of view that you reproduce perfectly here. The ultimate irony is that your blatantly obvious elementary rhetorical strategy--to portray your detractors as close-minded people who cannot or will not allow debate or discussion--is but a means to defend yourself from the very discussion that they propose and to close off debate! It's an amazing feat of doublethink.

There is nothing wrong with having an educational agenda (versus a "political" one) that colors what one believes is good for Dartmouth. Simply because you disagree with that view does not make you right and Zywicki wrong, or vice versa.

Yes, we all understand what disagreement entails. There's no need to speak to us like children. Zywicki's agenda, however, is clearly political, and I can't imagine how it could be taken out of such a context. He is a right-wing partisan whose rhetoric, unlike that of those whom he disparages, actually very much does mirror the fascist, nationalist grumblings of his ideological predecessors. He appears to adhere to the Straussian perception that a liberal democracy will cannibalize itself if it does not maintain a sense of morality and tradition inculcated by an elite (like the 'noble lie' of Plato's republic). He feels that the purpose of the university is not to produce new ideas and to be skeptical of old ones, but rather to mold every generation in terms of an established set of received ideas whose ends are the maintenance of social order. It would be a wonderful thing if this paraphrasing of his positions were false; unfortunately, it's too close to the truth.

Furthermore, and most of important at all, he perceives the "back-door" means to power provided by the Dartmouth Board of Trustees as a means to enacting this political agenda.

How, Tim, are we to view such ideas from a purely "educational" perspective?

Comparing Dartmouth administrators to fascists is also extreme and indefensible. Pointing out anti-democratic behaviour has some real justification in the present context.

Tim, how is rule by alumni democratic? Isn't it, quite to the contrary, oligarchic? Why are we bandying about these distinctly political terms within the context of a private educational institution that is not a sovereign state?

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/07/2007 1:26 PM
Aaron S. said "Nobody has ever suggested that debate and critique are bad. ... The ultimate irony is that your blatantly obvious elementary rhetorical strategy--to portray your detractors as close-minded people who cannot or will not allow debate or discussion--is but a means to defend yourself from the very discussion that they propose and to close off debate!"

In at least some cases, the portrayal is accurate.

His colleague John F. said: "I wish someone would pull the plug on this "blog" and every other blog that gives the gang of six a voice. If they were cut off maybe the rest of us could get back to doing something worthwhile..."

How can those who put up discussion threads here, even those suggested by their opponents, be accused of closing off discussion and debate?

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 1:55 PM
Mr. Dreisbach writes:

Pointing out anti-democratic behaviour has some real justification in the present context.

There he goes again reprising the petitioner candidate/Hanover Institute contrived democracy fallacy. These folks will say anything to get elected. As has been repeatedly pointed out, democracy ordinarily refers to government by the governed. Those governed by the Board of Trustees are the administration, the faculty, and the students--not the alumni. If the administration, faculty, and students could vote, Todd Zywicki and the other petition trustees would never have been seated on the Board in the first place.

Todd Zywicki is a demagogue. He fooled the Dartmouth alumni community once with his baloney about speech codes and democracy. We won't be fooled again.

By the way, it appears that the Hanover Institute and the AoA EC majority are far more concerned with figuring out ways to get Zywicki a second term than they are with anything even remotely related to Dartmouth's best interests.

We need to spread the word by every means possible as to what these folks are really all about. Under no circumstances should they be reelected. They are already positioning themselves on the AoA balloting committee and scheming about how to preserve power.

The Hanover Institute has money and a mailing list. They have done it before, and they will certainly be trying harder than ever to do it again. We simply cannot be apathetic this time around. Too much is at stake.

By john mathias '69, at 12/07/2007 2:04 PM
And Mathias has hutzpah. He says Dreisbach is "reprising the ... contrived democracy fallacy." and in the next breath says "These folks (i.e. Dreisbach) will say anything to get elected." (Note to John: They already have been, in an open democratic election.)

If Mathias had any respect for his fellow alumni to be discerning voters, or any confidence in his own ability to convince them of an evil plot by the Hanover Institute, he would happily support requiring Zywicki to stand before all alumni for re-election.

By Anonymous, at 12/07/2007 3:01 PM
If Mathias had any respect for his fellow alumni to be discerning voters, or any confidence in his own ability to convince them of an evil plot by the Hanover Institute, he would happily support requiring Zywicki to stand before all alumni for re-election.

If you had any respect for your own ideas, you'd identify yourself.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/07/2007 3:09 PM
Aaron: You make an excellent point! So does Anon before you regarding Mr. Mathias. Rather than quibble with each other personally, why not have some discussion on the merits of alumni re-electing trustees?

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/07/2007 3:36 PM
Aaron: You make an excellent point! So does Anon before you regarding Mr. Mathias. Rather than quibble with each other personally, why not have some discussion on the merits of alumni re-electing trustees?

Because I have asked you another question. Why did the Association of Alumni Executive Committee, when given the opportunity to condemn Zywicki for his remarks, instead choose to "condemn" the Alumni Council with the vague and weak charges of "selective outrage" and "stridency"? First, I would hope that the Council's outrage would be selective as opposed to general and indiscriminate--that would quickly get old and tiresome. Second, is Zywicki lamentable for his "stridency," or rather for his insane assertions regarding the supposed existence of a Nazi-like conspiracy of atheists and nihilists at the heart of higher education?

When faced with obvious wrongdoing, the Executive Committee, as always, remains fixated on its profound hatred for the Alumni Council, and wastes an opportunity to prove that it maintains even a shred of respect for its own institutional mandate.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/07/2007 4:40 PM
Mr. Dreisbach:

My quarrel has to do with your repeated invocation of "democracy" in connection with alumni trustee elections. Conducting these elections is fine with me, but it has absolutely nothing to do with "democracy" at Dartmouth. You applaud Trustee Zywicki for "pointing out anti-democratic behaviour" and maintain that this "has some real justification in the present context." I assume by this you mean the recent Board action, which again has absolutely nothing to do with "democracy" at Dartmouth. The administration, the faculty, and the students are subject to Board governance--not the alumni--and none of them vote.

I just read Trustee Zywicki's defense of his shameful behavior at the Pope Conference. Nowhere does he apologize for disparaging the motives of Dartmouth's financial benefactors. The rest of it amounts to saying that none of us understood what he really meant. He even lays off blame on Professor Hart.

Great trustee. He should reesign.

By john mathias '69, at 12/07/2007 6:17 PM
The complete amateurishness of Zywicki's "explanation" or whatever it is bothers me a great deal. I agree with Mr. Mathias that blaming Jeffrey Hart for the "evil" characterization is inexcusable -- in fact, it's juvenile. But in addtition, we have a libertarian -- an adherent of a philosophy often characterized as materialistic and atheistic (and based largely on the beliefs of the Ayn Rand cult) scolding the educational establishment for not believing in God!

On top of that, he acknowledges in one place that his talk was "extemporaneous", in another that he was "speaking from notes" (so which is it, Z-man?). He acknowledges he didn't know he was being taped. (You're 40 years old and a lawyer, and you didn't consider that? You're not ready for prime time, dude.)

I'm sorry to say that at this point, the Executive Committee has drunk the Kool-Aid. There's been a lot of idiocy on both sides of this debate, but at this point the Association is trying to defend the utterly indefensible.

By John Bruce '69, at 12/08/2007 12:49 PM
John Bruce and I are classmates nearly forty years past graduation. We have never met and know each other only from what has been written in the various threads on this blog. In most respects, we seem to be polar opposites, and I know I have been agitated more than once in opposition to the provocative things he has written here. As far as I know, we share only three bonds (i.e., the still North, the hill winds, and the granite of New Hampshire). That's good enough for me.

I want to apologize to him openly here for anything I have written in the past which may have been unduly harsh or personally critical. Through my own fault, I was blind to his basic intellectual honesty, and I mistakenly assumed that he was always motivated by a dogmatic political allegiance to the Hanover Institute and what I believe to be an anti-Dartmouth agenda sponsored by its non-Dartmouth financial supporters. I confused the passion of his arguments with what I mistakenly thought was just plain crankiness. I'm sorry, Mr. Bruce. Please accept my apology.

Now don't get carried away. I still disagree with Mr. Bruce on virtually every other thing he has posted here, and I still think he was unduly rough in some personal attacks he made on other posters. He and Dartmouth parent Eve Wallace both could stand some apologizing to each other for things said back and forth-- without getting into who took the first shot.

My point here is that the recent misconduct of Todd Zywicki coupled with the unapologetic support he is getting from the AoA EC petition candidate majority and its client, the Hanover Institute, should have all Dartmouth alums, even those as divided in opinion as John Bruce and myself, reuniting in unshakable opposition to the anti-Dartmouth agenda they are advancing on behalf of their non-Dartmouth financiers.

These folks must be stopped.

Maybe there are other ways that alums with differing viewpoints can find of reuniting in undivided loyalty to our alma mater, but they will surely not come via the current AoA leadership or the Hanover Institute. If there are bridges to be built, John Bruce has made a good start.

By john mathias '69, at 12/08/2007 3:45 PM
It's hard for me to characterize Zywicki's misconduct as anything other than that, and I agree that this is an area where Dartmouth alumni should be united. As far as the other petition candidates go, this is a matter of Board business, and by and large they've observed the correct decorum in this matter.

But I simply don't see how it serves the Executive Committee to endorse Zywicki's boorish behavior and outright misconduct, as well as the intellectual sloppiness of his "explanation" or whatever it is.

This is not in Dartmouth's interest, and in fact it isn't even in the interest of future petition candidates. The prospect of another Zywicki has probably damaged the possibility of more such candidates for at least a generation.

I will not be voting for the petition incumbents in next year's Executive Committee balloting. If an opportunity arises to work constructively for their defeat, I'll see what can be done.

By John Bruce '69, at 12/08/2007 5:23 PM
John Bruce: I am sorry if I and my colleagues have lost your support, but I wonder why you claim we have endorsed the behaviour of Todd Zywicki. I am unaware of any statements by any member of the EC other than myself.

My personal comments include the statement: "Some of Todd Zywicki's comments were undiplomatic and not appropriate for a public setting. I do not know anyone defending him for that. If anyone should be upset, it is those of us who fight for the alumni's right to participate in trustee selection.
... Comparing Dartmouth administrators to fascists is also extreme and indefensible."

The statement of the full EC was also not an "endorsement": "The Association urges all members of the Dartmouth community to engage in dialog with civility and respect." That applies to trustee Zywicki along with all of us.

It went on to condemn "the Alumni Council's censure of one Trustee's recent remarks as reflecting selective outrage out of political motivation, by an organization whose members simultaneously have, in their official capacity, issued condemnations of others in the Dartmouth Community that mirror the stridency of the remarks they condemn."

In particular this resolution was adopted in reaction to intemperate, inaccurate, inflammatory words that have been hurled our way in public statements and emails by members of the Council itself, with no evidence of disapproval by that body or its leaders.

Statements that we are misguided, wrong, unwise, hurting Dartmouth are all OK to be voiced as the opinions of others. But we have also been called liars, dishonest, having agendas wanting to harm our College, etc. that are abominable aspersions that have no place in the Dartmouth family.

We support and defend the rights of alumni to speak out against us (this blog being an example), to vote us out of office (thru open elections without leadership arc holdovers), to vote to unseat trustees in second term elections, and recently to allow alumni by petition to survey themselves without content control by either the administration or ourselves. Ask yourself if you will find another "slate" willing to do these things.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/08/2007 7:00 PM
We support and defend the rights of alumni to speak out against us (this blog being an example),

Speaking out is meaningless if it falls on deaf ears. You've demonstrated no desire to listen to your constituents. Some of your buddies have even treated us quite disrespectfully.

to vote us out of office (thru open elections without leadership arc holdovers),

Yes--your understanding of democracy really does end at the ballot box. The object of democracy is not to elect temporary despots and then hope that their aims align with those of the majority. It is to elect representatives, who, in their capacity as representatives, will at all times represent popular will.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/08/2007 8:29 PM
Aaron: We are offering you the ability to speak not only to us, but to all alumni. If they have deaf ears, it cannot be our fault. This is the first administration that has allowed you or any alumnus the ability to initate brand new topics, and they are not always in sync with what "we" want. Look at ones by Anton A. and Scott M. for example. Did we not listen and honor their requests?

But listening does not mean we always do exactly what you wish. It is not the principle of representative democracy that the elected at all times follow the masses and act based upon polls. We are elected to do what we think is best. We tried in advance to present what actions we favored; not all circumstances were known before we took office. We try to listen, and I assure you there are opinions other than your own. It is impossible for us to do what everyone wants. Would you like a long list of inputs in email correspondence from other constitutents exactly opposite from your own?

The founding fathers of this country would be rolling in their graves if they heard your comment that "elected representatives will at all times follow popular will".

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/08/2007 9:19 PM
Aaron: We are offering you the ability to speak not only to us, but to all alumni. If they have deaf ears, it cannot be our fault.

That's not at all the point.

But listening does not mean we always do exactly what you wish.

I never suggested as much.

It is not the principle of representative democracy that the elected at all times follow the masses and act based upon polls.

That actually is the principle of representative democracy.

We are elected to do what we think is best.

Quite to the contrary, the constitution of the Association of Alumni says that you are elected "have charge of the general interests of the Association." You have stated in the past that you believe that the Association is synonymous with all living alumni, and I think that some would take exception to the idea that it is for you to determine their interests.

It is impossible for us to do what everyone wants.

But it is certainly possible for you to do what a majority wants.

Would you like a long list of inputs in email correspondence from other constitutents exactly opposite from your own?

No.

The founding fathers of this country would be rolling in their graves if they heard your comment that "elected representatives will at all times follow popular will".

I don't believe that you figure in the company of the framers of the U.S. constitution. You are aware that the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College is not a federal republic with sovereign power over millions of people, are you not? I hope so.

As many have already pointed out, you seem to perennially confuse your position in a small association of college alumni with that of an actual politician in a real world political association of citizens.

I can't imagine why you would assume that your role consists of anything greater than that of a delegate of alumni interests. There is nothing within even the largest, most generous conception of the realm of your responsibilities that would in any way necessitate the role of "steward" that you have proclaimed for yourself. There are no "tough decisions" for you to make; you needn't convince us to fight a just war, nor protect a minority against a majority.

We clearly disagree as to the relative nature of your importance.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/08/2007 11:32 PM
Can anyone who knows Zywicki get him to explain, apologize for, or at least address the most egregious part of his remarks?

His recent emailed apology says nothing about his fundraising for and promotion of alternatives to Dartmouth, including the George Mason University Law School, which employs him.

By Anonymous, at 12/09/2007 8:28 AM
Deconstructing Schlosser:

You all do not listen. You make a comment about alumni speaking to alumni, it is not what I want to hear and twist in a different tack, and when you bring us back to what you said, I claim you do not get my point.

It is the principle of representative democracy that elected leaders always follow the masses based upon polls and not do their duty... to protect the laws of the country or the general interests of alumni... when unpopular.

Your comments that all alumni have an obligation to serve as stewards of the College means that you presume this as a right for yourself and no others.

I know without evidence that my opinion is that of the majority, and I have no interest in hearing opposing opinions of others, no matter that there may be more people of that viewpoint.

Minorities of Dartmouth alumni do not deserve any respect, or "defense".

There are no "tough" decisions before alumni, as the decision to sue is inconsequential.

By Anonymous, at 12/09/2007 9:22 AM
Zywicki, in commenting on the general state of elite higher education, suggested people should consider donating alternatively or simultaneously to less-affluent institutions, where the dollars have a proportionately-greater impact. He did not say stop giving to Dartmouth College.

How is this less loyal than Robert Reich '68 saying there should be limits on the tax-deductablility of gifts to elite schools, which by implication include his Alma Mater.

By Anonymous, at 12/09/2007 9:30 AM
Here is what Trustee Zywicki said to his Pope Center audience:

It's a defensive culture, its guerilla warfare and so a couple of hundred thousand here or there or a million dollars here or there is certainly going to make a difference to some students, but when you are up against people who are writing 8 or 9 figure checks, they're the ones who are calling the shots and they're not asking questions. And we have to decide whether we are going to be all in or not because a little bit of nibbling here or there isn't going to roll back the tide. It might stop the tide a little bit but it isn't going to roll it back.

Secondly, it's sort of left liberal religion in a second way. Which is, my perception is, that those who bankroll these institutions basically use this to buy indulgences for being rich which is that they are fully embracing and happy to embrace all the multiculturalism and all the other stuff because this is their way of getting forgiveness. Of showing how virtuous they are despite the fact that they make a lot of money. So they have no quibble with the apparatus. Either they don't care about it because all they care about is the reputation of the institution or they're kind of happy with it because it allows them to deal with their conscience.

* * * *

You know $10 million or a million dollars is chump change at Dartmouth; that's a transformative gift to a place like Dartmouth, I'm sorry a place like George Mason Law School or the George Mason Economics department or these other pearls, these other places around the country, these alternative institutions that I think need to be supported. Why? Because if reform is going to come I think it's going to come from these new institutions, not from those that are already within the elite institutions.

Dartmouth is in the middle of a major capital campaign right now. For a sitting trustee to disparage Dartmouth's major benefactors, assigning to them the lowest of motives for their philanthropy, is inexcusable.

By john mathias '69, at 12/09/2007 10:02 AM
Deconstructing Schlosser:

Perhaps you should read more Derrida. Deconstruction, despite what its critics might suggest, has nothing to do with creating straw men, purposefully misconstruing people's positions, and putting words into their mouths. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/09/2007 10:18 AM
9:30, the answer to your question is that Reich isn't a Trustee. That's the key to a great deal here, Zywicki has clearly violated several Trustee obligations.

By John Bruce '69, at 12/09/2007 10:57 AM
Tim, you're playing word games in your 7:00 post. Zywicki's destructive and intemperate comments were made as a Trustee. No one else, whatever the vigor of their remarks, has spoken as a Trustee. You're trying to draw moral equivalence by saying you're castigating all parties, but only one party is embarrassing all of us by speaking as a Trustee.

By John Bruce '69, at 12/09/2007 11:01 AM
John B. I agree trustees must be held to the "highest standard", but that does not mean ad hominem attacks by alumni upon their peers should not also embarrass us all, and the College. I believe there is a moral equivalence in behaviour, regardless of title or position.

You are the one who has played a word game by stating we have endorsed Zywicki. Sorry.

By Tim Dreisbach '71, at 12/09/2007 11:22 AM
John B. I agree trustees must be held to the "highest standard", but that does not mean ad hominem attacks by alumni upon their peers should not also embarrass us all, and the College. I believe there is a moral equivalence in behaviour, regardless of title or position.

But you have not condemned the poor behavior of your peers on your own executive committee. Gado and others have had no issue with flinging vitriol at fellow alumni, and it doesn't seem to bother you at all.

The "attacks" against Zywicki have hardly universally constituted ad hominem assassinations of his character. There is no doubt in my mind that his behavior does in fact reflect poorly on his character; however, the point is that many have addressed the outright opprobrious nature of his remarks and his betrayal of his oath as a trustee, asking the Association to condemn him.

You are the one who has played a word game by stating we have endorsed Zywicki. Sorry.

I do not think that Bruce is unreasonable to believe that your inaction and defense of Zywicki constitute a tacit endorsement.

By a. schlosser '07, at 12/09/2007 11:45 AM
Tim, as the first post here has correctly pointed out, you and the others on the EC are sidestepping clear violations of fiduciary duty. This is aside from any non-adherence to any other high standard.

Instead, you're playing nanny and telling everyone to make nice, which is utterly beside the point. Reich 68 can say what he wants about fundraising. Gado can say Freedman is truly evil. Neither is a Trustee. The AoA has deliberately ignored this, while the Alumni Council is spot on.

By John Bruce '69, at 12/09/2007 12:52 PM
Dartmouth filed its reply brief on Friday:

"Having failed to persuade the Board of its preference, the Association now seeks to overrule the Board's decision by recasting its policy disagreement as a breach of contract action."

The frequency with which some of the Gang of Six make policy complaints (whether about Dartmouth class sizes and university tendencies, or about what a bad idea the Board's expansion was) supports Dartmouth's position. The Gang of Six says it is merely trying to hold onto certain rights, but really it and the Hanover Institute want to change the direction of Dartmouth. Only the Board is allowed to do that, though.

By Anonymous, at 12/10/2007 12:40 PM
Would any member of the AoA Executive Committee care to say whether he has discussed Zywicki's speech with him? Did the AoA issue its statement at his request?

By Anonymous, at 12/10/2007 1:22 PM
More ties between Trustee Zywicki and radical groups are appearing. He is apparently a member of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), who openly advocate programs to:
• enhance the quality and content of the curriculum
• recall higher education to its classic function of grounding students in the rich heritage of their civilization
• maintain rigorous standards in research, teaching, and academic self-governance
• encourage intellectual balance and realism in campus debate on contemporary issues
• provide informed comment on issues and trends in higher education
• preserve academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas on and off the campus
• create professional forums in which curriculum issues can be discussed in a responsible and sophisticated way
• build an academic leadership dedicated to the ideal of reasoned scholarship

The NAS agenda and its defense of Zywicki, comments on Dartmouth Board composition, and prior statements regarding Dartmouth petition trustees all make interesting reading.

By Organization Patroller, at 12/13/2007 4:50 PM
Yes, the National Association of "Scholars," with such uncontroversial figures on their Board of Advisors as Irving Kristol (father of neoconservativism, reason for the existence of William Kristol) and Harvey Mansfield (idiot).

Let me translate their platform for those unfamiliar with neoconservative inauthenticity.

• enhance the quality and content of the curriculum

Get rid of all the feminist literature.

• recall higher education to its classic function of grounding students in the rich heritage of their civilization

Get rid of all the Black literature.

• maintain rigorous standards in research, teaching, and academic self-governance

Police what scholars choose to research and teach, ensuring that it's neither feminist nor Black literature.

• encourage intellectual balance and realism in campus debate on contemporary issues

Teach creationism and question global warming. Teach "the controversy."

• provide informed comment on issues and trends in higher education

Periodically condemn liberals and come to the defense of conservative martyrs.

• preserve academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas on and off the campus

Let us teach our doctrine. Reject reasoned inquiry in favor of the application of our own ideology.

• create professional forums in which curriculum issues can be discussed in a responsible and sophisticated way

Give Zywicki a chance to make an ass of himself at the Pope Center.

• build an academic leadership dedicated to the ideal of reasoned scholarship

Divide and conquer!

By zywicki did it for the lulz, at 12/13/2007 7:14 PM
We have all read, heard, and watched precisely what Todd Zywicki said at the Pope Center, so thankfully we don't have to rely upon his apologists to form our own opinions regarding his performance. Todd Zywicki can say whatever he wants, and nobody is going to stop him from doing so. He just has no business using his position as a Dartmouth Trustee to get an audience for himself.

The author of the "Zywicki defense" cited above by "organizational patroller" is Stephen H. Balch, who is described in at least one bio as: now engaged in a nationwide effort to encourage the creation of new academic programming designed to revive the study of the American Founding, free institutions, and Western Civilization in America’s colleges and universities. http://www.safs.ca/SHBbio.html

I'm not taking any counsel from Dr. Balch, thank you, about what he perceives as the failings of higher education in America. I will continue to trust the faculty and administration at Dartmouth in this respect, but hey, there are those who would disagree with me. So be it.

By the way, is anyone besides me getting tired of the unrelentingly juvenile pseudonyms of the anonymous poster with "organizational patroller" type lead ins? The risk that anonymous posters take is that readers like me will invariably make assumptions about who they really are--and often these assumptions will be wrong. For example, from the content of the texts of the many posts made by "organizational patroller" under various pseudonyms, I have come to believe that this is actually a student rather than an alum, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.

By john mathias '69, at 12/13/2007 7:16 PM
Zywicki has stated publicly and in one court filing that he believes alumni "threatened" to withhold money and then "promised" to try to raise money for Dartmouth in the 19th century. Exactly when or how the alumni conveyed these messages Zywicki cannot say, but he seems to think vague generalizations count for historical narrative or even legal precedent.

No Zywicki loyalist or apologist can now claim that his Pope rant was too vague in soliciting funds for his employer at the expense of Dartmouth. He was perfectly clear, and he clearly violated his duty to raise money for the college.

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2007 1:59 PM
Tim, assuming Zywicki really believes that his expression of his idiotic sentiments is “in the best interest of Dartmouth,” would you say that he can nevertheless say things that do not adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional behavior so as to reflect favorably on Dartmouth, do not represent Dartmouth positively in words and deeds, do not serve Dartmouth as a whole, do not help Dartmouth secure the financial, human and other resources necessary for the institution to achieve its mission, do not contribute financially to the annual fund and to capital campaigns, do not uphold the integrity of the Board, and do not avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest?

Because however his rant might be justified, vaguely, by his belief that it is in Dartmouth’s interest, the duty to refrain from doing all of the things listed above is concrete. It is clearly spelled out and unambiguous.

Refraining from speaking out publicly for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth is absolutely a duty of a trustee. Why in the world would you think otherwise, Tim? Do you not recognize the distinction between speaking in a board meeting and speaking publicly?

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2007 2:10 PM
"Refraining from speaking out publicly for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth is absolutely a duty of a trustee."

Love these insights!

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2007 3:05 PM
"Refraining from speaking out publicly for changes one believes will improve Dartmouth is absolutely a duty of a trustee."

Love these insights!

You don't quite understand how a private corporation works, do you?

Speaking publicly without first receiving authorization from the Board seems to be the quickest route to politicization and trivialization in a situation where politics has no place.

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2007 3:12 PM
"Love these insights!" wrote anon.

Are you saying you agree, disagree, or don't understand?

If you disagree, you need to find an exception to the trustees' bylaws or corporate law that would allow a trustee to breach those duties if he believes it is in the best interest of the institution. Sort of an "end-justifies-the-means" exception, relying on idiosyncratic judgments (rather than the board's democratic vote) as to what is best for Dartmouth. A personal, relativist approach. Can you give a link to this exception, if it exists?

By Anonymous, at 12/16/2007 5:11 PM
Zywicki could claim that he was not speaking as a Trustee at the Pope Center, although it's apparent that he was.

But in the recent amicus, Zywicki, Robinson, Smith and Rodgers spoke as Trustees, using their positions in an attempt to influence the litigation against their own Board. They did so completely of their own volition and without authority to represent Dartmouth on the matter. Just signing their names made a statement: "I want to be kicked off the Board."

By Anonymous, at 12/18/2007 9:53 AM
How can co-defendants write an amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs ?

By Anonymous, at 12/20/2007 10:52 AM
There are no co-defendants in this case. There is only one defendant, the board. There is only one plaintiff, the association. The four failing trustees are members of both groups and owe high duties to one.

By Anonymous, at 12/21/2007 2:00 PM
I am repostring open letter to Zywicki published in "D" as ad on Friday of alumni weekend.

It clearly demonstrates how the EC is in the wrong and why the Alumni

Dear Professor Zywicki:

I recently read the transcript of your remarks at the John William Pope Center on October 27, 2007. As a professor of law I assumed you valued truth and the facts. After reading the transcript, it is clear that the only things you value are the arguments that support your positions or philosophy. Of course, you are entitled to your opinions (and more about those later); you are not entitled to play fast and loose with the facts.

*You state that Dave McLaughlin was “fired by the faculty because he brought back ROTC, primarily”. In fact, Dave McLaughlin announced his resignation following a threatened vote of no confidence by the faculty. While many faculty members opposed the return of ROTC, their primary issues with President McLaughlin were his leadership style – top down decisions, rather than more collegial discussions of the issues with the various Dartmouth constituencies, including the faculty; and his handling, or mishandling, of the shanty incident.

*You state that during the tenure of President Freedman he made attempts at social engineering, including “the replacement of the Greek System”. There was never any attempt by Freedman’s administration to replace the Greek System. In the winter of 1999, after Jim Wright had become President, the Student Life Initiative was announced. Part of that Initiative included an assault on the Greek System, which proved so unpopular that within a month or so of its announcement, the Trustees and Administration backed away from their plans and began a very fruitful collaboration with the alumni and the Greek System to institute reforms so that these organizations better reflected the values of the Dartmouth community. All this occurred well before the election of any petition trustees, and the system is now stronger and has a better relationship with the Administration than any time in the past 50 years.

*You accuse the College of having a “speech code” which was only repealed following the election of petition candidates to the Board of Trustees. In fact, Dartmouth never had a speech code. FIRE had assumed there was a speech code due to a statement that appeared on the College’s website. Upon being made aware of this by T.J. Rodgers, President Wright had that statement removed from the website, and Dartmouth’s rating with FIRE went from a “red light” to a “green light”. The speech code issue was a misunderstanding that was corrected with no change in policy.

*You take credit for the renewal of the commitment to the Athletic Program. That commitment, which was allowed to founder during President Freedman’s administration, became a priority under President Wright with the completion of Scully-Fahey Field and the Boss Tennis Center in 2000, well before the election of any petition trustees, and has proceeded apace ever since, with now more than $80 million in new and renovate facilities. For you to take credit for this is the height of irresponsibility and displays an arrogance and self-righteousness that is staggering.

*You state that ‘those who control the university today don’t believe in God and they don’t believe in country.” That is probably the most asinine statement coming from you, and that’s saying a lot. Neither you nor I have insight into the religious beliefs of the Trustees and the Administrators, so let’s leave the “God” part of that statement aside. I would remind you that it was President Wright who initiated personal visits with wounded men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, encouraging them to complete their education; who worked with the Department of Defense and raised funds from private donors to set up counseling for these veterans in their pursuit of higher education; and who welcomed this fall three veterans to campus as they enrolled at Dartmouth. Jim Wright is a Marine whose commitment to the College and the Country should not be called into question by a man such as you.

Now let’s look at some of your opinions.

*You call Jim Freedman a “truly evil man”. Adolph Hitler was a truly evil man. Pol Pot was a truly evil man. Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer were truly evil men. You may not like Jim Freedman, and you may not agree with his educational philosophy or the direction he set for Dartmouth, but to call him a truly evil man is irresponsible hyperbole and you should be ashamed of yourself.

*You stated: “those who bankroll these institutions basically use this to buy indulgences for being rich…because this is their way of getting forgiveness”. How silly. I know many of these “bankrollers” and they are men and women of good will and high ideals, who are grateful for what Dartmouth has given to them; who believe in the mission of a liberal arts institution and the role it can play in educating the leaders of tomorrow. Given the paltry financial support that you and your fellow “petition trustees” have demonstrated towards Dartmouth College, you have a lot of balls questioning the motives and purposes of these outstanding benefactors of the College.

Professor Zywicki, you are a Trustee of Dartmouth College. You have taken an oath to act in the best interests of the College. You have a fiduciary responsibility to provide wise stewardship, and yet you publicly denounce the College in a speech filled with misstatements of the facts (some would even call them lies), and opinions that rise to absurdity. You are an embarrassment to Dartmouth, to the Board of Trustees, and it would be in everyone’s best interests for you to resign from the Board.

Most sincerely,

John Engelman ‘68

By Andrew E. Lewin '81, at 12/21/2007 4:20 PM
Thank you, Mr. Engelman, for writing that letter to Trustee Zywicki. Although loyalty to alma mater is something Dartmouth alumni are famous for, there are only 18 people in the world who are legally required to act with loyalty, and Trustee Zywicki is one of them.

His behavior after you wrote the letter is even more disloyal than before. He has attempted to file a legal brief that publicly attacks a decision of his own board and offers express support to a plaintiff in litigation against the board -- a plaintiff that is trying to use the judicial system to overturn a legitimate board decision.

There can't be many non-criminal acts that would require dismissal or discipline more than Trustee Zywicki's attempt to file an amicus brief against the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College.

By Anonymous, at 12/27/2007 1:16 PM
Remember- Smith, Robinson and Rogers also signed the amicus brief. They are equally guilty of violating their fiduciary duties as Trustees of the College.

By Anonymous, at 12/27/2007 1:32 PM
Stephen Balch's disgusting apologia for Zywicki is not only misinformed but spreads misinformation of its own.

Balch asks "Will Dartmouth become Shutmouth?"

He writes of the speech for which Zywicki was appropriately (some say lightly) disciplined: "To be sure, there was occasional hyperbole, but Dartmouth had opened itself to the political process and -- just give a listen to our current presidential wannabes -- hyperbole is politics' meat and potatoes."

Balch is unable to say how Dartmouth has opened itself to the political process, though, or what would make him think that it had. Is he talking about the balloting contests that are run by the alumni association (not the college)? He might be: he says Zywick's talk "was an extension of the discourse that had won him his trusteeship." Again, Balch doesn't say why he thinks the alumni ballot "won" the trusteeship (rather than the vote of the trustees, as was the case with everyone before Zywicki), but Balch was a speaker at the same Pope Center affair where Zywicki talked, so we shouldn't expect him to be informed about what he's talking about.

Balch concludes by claiming that "There's a difference between democracy, which involves opposition both inside and outside governing entities, and democratic centralism, a Bolshevik twist that dissident officials must bow to the controlling clique." It's ironic that by seeking to limit private property rights -- supporting Zywicki's request that the state judiciary overturn a legitimate corporate decision on the basis of ideology or the good of the state -- Balch is much more a Bloshevist than the Dartmouth board.

By Anonymous, at 1/02/2008 11:34 AM
Haldeman said on Dec. 18 that Zywicki "has indicated that he would like to retract other parts of his speech" than the "evil man" part.

But Zywicki has not retracted any part of his speech since then. Instead, his friends have been attempting public exonerations. When will Zywicki do what he told the board he would do?

By Anonymous, at 1/04/2008 1:56 PM
The Board needs to hold his feet to the fire, as publicly as possible.

By Anonymous, at 1/04/2008 2:01 PM
At their March meeting, the Board should take up (1) the occurrence or nonoccurrence of Zywicki's promised retraction, which deserves another reprimand if it has not occurred; (2) the "conflict with the fiduciary obligations they acknowledge" by the four bad trustees in filing the amicus brief, which deserves at least a reprimand; and (3) whether Zywicki's two strikes together mean he deserves the boot.

By Anonymous, at 1/06/2008 1:24 PM
Amen to the last post, without bringing religion into it.

Whatever actions the Board takes, they need to let the Alums know what they did; stop trying to protect the ivory tower i.e. "Oh, our Board meetings are always pleasant, there's never any rancor." Who are they trying to kid? Four of your members filed a brief in favor of a lawsuit against your actions...

Be public about the much deserved reprimands, trust returns, a whole new day.

By Anonymous, at 1/06/2008 7:43 PM
Interesting that the posts are increasingly critical of the Board for non-action and now for not being more public. Sounds a bit like what the petition trustees were saying.

"Stop trying to protect the ivory tower." Amen.

By turnabout, at 1/07/2008 8:13 AM
Anon. 7:43 uses logic that is more than a little twisted in order to find a way to criticize the board regarding Zywicki's actions.

The board doesn't have to earn your trust unless it thinks that would help Dartmouth (which it surely would). But the board has been conspicuous in making recent controversies public and not hiding them. The board issued a statement regarding Zywicki's original punishment, and there is no reason to think they will not do so again in the future.

Even Rodgers says board meetings really are calm. Haldeman's account of the retreat says that everyone was calm. If, in the first meeting following the filing of the brief, the discussion turns rancorous, let's give the board a chance to say so if it wants.

The board isn't scheduled to meet again until March. You should give it a chance to succeed or fail at following up on Zywicki's reprimand and at meting out the right punishment for the amicus brief before criticizing its candor.

You can't interpret the 1:24 post as a critique of the board: it is a plan of attack against the four bad trustees.

By Anon. 1:24, at 1/07/2008 12:41 PM
It's nearly March and Zywicki still has not made the further apology Haldeman said he'd agreed to make. Not only that, but Zywicki signed the amicus brief supporting the plaintiff's position in litigation against his own board.

Why hasn't this guy resigned yet?

By Anonymous, at 2/29/2008 5:14 PM
Frank Gado told him not to. Plus, he is too busy doing some male bonding with his Phyrgian friends and giving more fact laden, articulate speeches to conservative groups.

By Anonymous, at 2/29/2008 5:48 PM

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Concerning Trustee Zywicki and the Alumni Council

77 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous posts

Archives