Dartblog
Special Feature: Give a Rouse
Whither the College on the Hill? Dartblog brings you news and commentary from Hanover and the world at large, including deep coverage of the maturing tenure of Dr. Kim.
Archived post
This is an archived post. Please click here to see the latest entries.
« “The whole thing smells bad to me.” | Home | More William & Mary News »
Rebutting False Claims
Dartmouth trustee Peter Robinson appears in The Wall Street Journal this morning, to defend against factually incorrect charges from constitution drafter John Daukas. The WSJ site is, of course, pay-only, so here is the text of the letter:
Dartmouth Constitution: A Concern for the FutureTo deal with just three of the errors and misleading assertions in J.B. Daukas’s Oct. 25 Letter to the Editor “Dartmouth’s Fight Over New Alumni Constitution”:
Item: Mr. Daukas carefully plucked several provisions out of context to create the impression that the proposed constitution would enlarge, not diminish, the role of the alumni in college governance. I invite readers to peruse the document for themselves, noting in particular that instead of mandating two-person trustee races — a provision that appears nowhere — it would allow a nominating committee to set the field of candidates just as it wished. Q.E.D.
Item: Mr. Daukas claimed that the three petition trustees — T.J. Rodgers, Todd Zywicki and I — refused to cooperate with the task force that drafted the proposed constitution. Nonsense. All three of us communicated with the task force in writing — Mr. Rodgers repeatedly — explaining that we would support any new constitution that respected the petition mechanism and preserved the democratic rights of alumni. What we refused to do was accept Mr. Daukas’s later invitations to open back-channel negotiations.
Item: Mr. Daukas claimed that the Alumni Council endorsed the new constitution unanimously. This is untrue. One member, Bill Carney, voted to reject the document. “Those who fear giving too much democracy to the alumni,” Mr. Carney explained, “do not give them enough credit for being intelligent, reasonable and concerned for the well-being of the college and its students.”
Intelligent, reasonable and concerned for the well-being of the college. That certainly comports with my own experience with Dartmouth alumni. For the good of the institution we all love, I urge them to reject the undemocratic new constitution.
Peter Robinson
Dartmouth Class of 1979
Palo Alto, Calif.
Featured posts
-
October 18, 2009
When Love Beckoned in 52nd Street
We were at San Francisco’s BIX last evening, enjoying prosecco, cheese, and a bit of music. A full year of inhabitation in Northern California has unraveled to me no decent venue for proper lounging, but… -
October 9, 2009
D Afraid of a Little Competish
So our colleague and Dartblog writer Joe Asch informed me that the D has rejected our cunning advertising campaign. Uh-oh. The Dartmouth is widely known as a breeding ground for instant New York Times successes,… -
September 4, 2009
How Regents Should Reign
As Dartmouth alumni proceed through the legal hoops necessary to defuse a Board-packing plan—which put in unhappy desuetude an historic 1891 Agreement between alumni and the College guaranteeing a half-democratically-elected Board of Trustees—it strikes one… -
August 29, 2009
Election Reform Study Committee
If you are an alum of the College on the Hill, you may have received a number of e-mails of late beseeching your input for a new arm of the College’s Alumni Control Apparatus called… -
August 23, 2009
Fare Thee Well, Tom Crady
And now Dean Tom Crady has precipitously announced his departure from the College after only 20 months on the job. How to read this? By way of background, prior to coming to Dartmouth, Crady had… -
May 31, 2009
Kangaroo Court, Indeed
In an interview with The Dartmouth, alumni-elected trustee T.J. Rodgers ‘70 explained his reasons for declining to participate in future evaluations of trustees up for “re-election,” namely the “kangaroo court” nature of such discussion in…