Dartblog

As the Association of Alumni election continues, some Dartmouth alumnae have attempted to obscure the issues with references to gender and ad hominem attacks. Recently, Joe posted on Dartmouth Undying’s desperate efforts to pay undergraduates to push their slate of candidates. In addition, emails from the “Women of Dartmouth” have been sent, claiming that only the Dartmouth Undying slate represents the interests of females at Dartmouth. I would like to make it clear that the Dartmouth Undying slate does not represent my interests. I am a woman of Dartmouth. Frankly, I find these emails insulting to the intelligence of all Dartmouth females who are clearly capable of understanding the issues on their own.

Dartmouth Undying’s email is embarrassing not only because of the author’s ignorance, but also because of her grammatical mistakes. I place my trust in my female peers to decide for themselves. Current Association of Alumni Executive Committee member Tim Dreisbach ‘71 sent a response to Martha J. Beattie ‘76 and Kate Aiken ‘95, two signers of the latest “Women of Dartmouth” email. I reprint a portion of his response below as it addresses important concerns regarding both the tone and content of the email. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the email for easier reading, removing the excessive asterisks used by the female authors. I have also included the opening response from Dreisbach and italicized his line by line reactions.

Martha and Kate: I recently received a copy of the following letter and see you are two of the co-signators. I am saddened. While we have had differences of opinion, I had believed our past interactions were in fact “collegial debate”. Now I see a letter full of “negativity” and falsehood.

Kate: You know I have remained a vocal proponent of parity, and a defender of the actions by the Association. While there is an obvious alignment between these and the platforms of the two competing slates of candidates, I have not formally endorsed either of those slates, being a member of the Ballot Committee. As another member of that committee, your open endorsement of one slate sets an interesting precedent.

I will intersperse the words of Martha/Kate’s letter with my reactions:

Dear Women of Dartmouth,

It is about us. This year’s election of the Executive Committee of the Dartmouth Association of Alumni is about women — and our role at Dartmouth, past, present and future.

Gender is obviously a distant second issue, if one at all, in this election.
To use it as a playing card is the ultimate in the “political campaigning”
you decry.

…There are two slates running for the eleven positions. One slate is
supported by the Dartmouth women who have signed this letter.

Including a member of the Ballot Committee.

… The other slate is endorsed by the Dartmouth Review and a sad number
of alumni intent on stirring up controversy with negative misinformation and
lawsuits.

Martha: As a math major, can you please define what a “sad number” is? Big, small;”real”, imaginary? Kate: Do you really believe we of the “sad number” filed a lawsuit because our intent was to stir up controversy?

The Review and its candidates say they are for preserving Dartmouth’s traditions. As you well remember, their traditions have not always included respect for women as equal members of the Dartmouth community.

The Dartmouth Review has a long history of active participation by women. [The just-elected Editor in Chief is a woman.] What traditions, disrespectful of women, are the traditions of the parity slate? Are these the traditions of the two women on that slate?

… without our consent, four of the candidates on the Review slate filed a lawsuit against our College and its Trustees over the recent changes in election procedures.

You mean the slate petitioned by alumni. The Review endorses but does not own this slate. The four candidates you refer to voted for the lawsuit after consideration and debate in a representative body to which they were elected by all alumni. Kate, another member of that body, elected to absent herself from that session. You reference here the dispute over not Board composition and parity, but over election procedures; do you really believe it is the Board and not alumni who ultimately decide the rules for an election conducted by and for alumni?

They also supported legislation in the New Hampshire legislature, which was defeated overwhelmingly, to give the legislature power over Dartmouth’s Charter, in effect repealing the Dartmouth College Case.

This is a falsehood. Only one of these four did so. Kate participated in their considerations of whether or not to support or condemn this legislation, and knows the truth. This is a false allegation previously made by Dartmouth Undying, which has never responded to my request to issue a correction. Martha is one of the Undying leaders. There is another word for knowingly making false statements.

While I did not support and do not defend the proposed legislation, it was not a “repeal” of the Dartmouth College case, which established that one party of two in an agreement can not change it without the consent of the other. Hmmm, sounds familiar to a more current dispute.

Confrontation, not collegial debate and negativity, not positive engagement, are the operating procedures for advancing their agenda.

What “agenda”? Parity in Board composition? Or do you imply more through innuendo? Of course this letter is itself nothing but positive!

…The slate that represents the Review’s opinions has two women who list no current Dartmouth activities on their campaign biographies. The same situation is true for five of their male candidates — no current Dartmouth activities.

Why do you say they do not list activity, yet don’t say they have no such activity? Oh, yes… because that would be incorrect. At the most obvious, one of those women serves as a peer to Kate, volunteering her time as an active member of the Association of Alumni of Dartmouth College’s executive committee. For the males, what about the other candidates? What about past versus current Dartmouth activities?

Why are they running? They are running for their agenda, not for Dartmouth.

We cannot allow our College to go backward. Dartmouth’s women have too much at stake. Going backward insults our Dartmouth experience and our traditions. Going backwards devalues the contributions alumnae are making to Dartmouth today.

What is all this stuff about an “agenda to go backwards”? Without some specifics, it is nothing but false propaganda.

… We need your vote today. Please go to Dartmouth Undying and vote now.

Vox-the-Vote is the voting site; Dartmouth Undying is a campaign site.

Thank you for your support. With respect and gratitude,

Martha J. Beattie ‘76
Kate Aiken ‘95