|
December 1, 2006
Welcome to the 193rd Meeting of the Alumni Council of Dartmouth College!
Susan and I are very pleased to be here with you. And it is great to have Board
of Trustees chair Bill Neukom here along with trustee Al Mulley. They are
tireless in their volunteer efforts on behalf of the College.
I would also like to thank Martha Beattie for her energy, commitment, and
leadership-another tireless and dedicated volunteer, in a room full of them.
And before I move on, I want to acknowledge and to thank Bill Walker, the Vice
President of Public Affairs and an adopted member of the Class of 1971, for his
service to Dartmouth. This week President Shirley Ann Jackson of Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute announced the appointment of William Walker as Vice
President for Strategic Communications and External Relations. Thank you, Bill,
for all you have done.
I especially enjoy the opportunity to salute the alumni award winners -
Kelley Fead '78 and Otho Kerr '79. Kelley, you have my thanks and appreciation
for the many long hours you devoted to the Alumni Constitution, to your other
volunteer work including the Alumni Council, and to your support of our
students - offering words of wisdom, and inviting them to join you in your
passion for writing.
Otho, over the past several years your enthusiasm and dedication brought
participation in the College Fund to amazing new levels - thank you for your
motivating spirit. You give so generously of your time to Dartmouth student and
alumni causes, and your quiet leadership on the Council and in all other areas
now deserves to be proudly acknowledged.
This College depends upon committed energetic volunteers. These two
graduates define that, and you have done well to recognize them.
We have had a full term, including a conference on the politics of memory to
honor President Freedman, and another on ethics across the curriculum. Romila
Thapar, the Indian historian, was here as a Montgomery Fellow, taught a very
successful course, and gave a public lecture. Susan and I have attended many
athletic events, and I joined a large group of Dartmouth alumni at the final
football game of the season at Princeton.
We dedicated eight new dormitories (Berry, Bildner, Byrne, Goldstein, Rauner
and Thomas in the McLaughlin Cluster), a new social space called Occom Commons,
(provided by a donor who wished to remain anonymous but who was willing to name
the facility after Samson Occom, one of the founders of Dartmouth), Fahey and
McLane Halls on Tuck Mall, the MacLean Engineering Sciences Center, Kemeny
Hall, and the Haldeman Academic Centers. These are all wonderful buildings, and
I hope you get a chance to see them. They have already added immeasurably to
the academic and residential experience of our students and will help Dartmouth
maintain the quality of a Dartmouth education. We also had the groundbreakings
for the Tuck Living and Learning Center and the Whitey Burnham soccer facility.
These dedications have underlined for me the importance of people, of
relationships, of community in the Dartmouth story as the names of new donors
mixed with historical supporters of the College and three Dartmouth presidents
were recognized, by the McLaughlin Cluster, Kemeny Hall, and the Dickey Center
for International Understanding, housed in Haldeman.
How lucky we are to have such generous friends. Indeed, community has been a
constant theme this term. We pride ourselves, rightly, I think, on the special
sense of community that exists at Dartmouth. It is something that attracts
prospective students and faculty to come here, it is something that keeps
faculty and staff here year after year, and it is something that binds
Dartmouth alumni to this College for a lifetime - indeed, in the Dartmouth
fellowship there is no parting.
I have been working on a revised mission statement this term as well. It is
not that Dartmouth's mission has changed - it has not. The College aspires to
offer the best education possible to its students and to encourage the creation
of new knowledge by faculty and students. But it is good to revisit these
things and ensure that our statement of purpose continues to be relevant and
useful to the community. Our current mission statement dates back to the 1980s
and is a good statement - but it is long and descriptive where I would like
something that is crisper, shorter, and more aspirational. I have met with many
different groups of students, faculty, alumni, and staff, and discussed this
with the trustees in September and again at our November meeting. One of the
values that came through in every meeting was the special sense of community.
It was very gratifying. Although we often talk about "Dartmouth as a
community", it was wonderful to hear others affirm it is a real thing.
We have had occasion recently to consider what community means here.
Unfortunately, this term we have had a series of thoughtless acts that have
hurt some members of our community. Native American students in particular have
experienced a number of incidents where they have been ridiculed or
caricatured.
This week, students held a rally to protest some of the incidents that had
occurred and to affirm the values that distinguish Dartmouth. It was a very
positive experience with lots of students and other members of this community
talking about what we valued. I was pleased to participate. I affirmed that
this College was founded for Native American education - and, implicit
assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, while Dartmouth is not the property
of any group, it was, and is, their College as much as anyone's. I was
delighted that Martha Beattie could also speak. Martha talked about her
experience as a member of the first coeducational class at Dartmouth and the
powerful bonds that unite the Dartmouth family.
This rally in front of Dartmouth Hall on Wednesday was unlike others that I
have seen over the past 37 years. The speakers were often hurt and angry, but
they stressed our common obligation to reach out and to affirm that this
community belongs to all of us - and we are all responsible for protecting
it. They embraced their College and they defended it.
Obviously, this fall we have also seen some divisions within the alumni body
as well, as alumni debated the proposed constitution. In retrospect it
was a curious thing, having as it did some national interest. The New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal seemed quite taken by it
all.
If you follow some of the blogs, I understand there was hand-wringing and a
sense that democracy, as well as the future of the College, was at stake.
The emotions picked up and some hurtful accusations flew about. And this debate
circled around a complicated set of constitutional changes that few people
outside of the committees or their most vigilant and tireless opponents could
have described in any detail.
Yet...this was not a major matter on campus really, except The
Dartmouth ended up being a forum for debate and accusations. I am not sure
how many students read these and followed the disputes, but the volume and
intensity seeped through a bit. Some students, faculty, and administrators
expressed concern about the future of the College. If some of our graduates
believed they were engaged in a battle at Armageddon, if the editorial page of
the Wall Street Journal described it as a contest to regain control
over the College from the leftists who were running things with the connivance
of "ornamental" trustees, then I guess it is not surprising that
people here started to worry. Even if few of them could have really summarized
what it was all about. And some of my Board colleagues who supported the
constitution found themselves described as leftists for the first time in their
lives!
What was it all about? You will know that while I and the administration did
try to stay out of the campaign, I supported the proposed constitution. I
respected the hard work that went into it over the last few years. And I
respected the people who tried to find ways through some of the conflicts and
criticisms to develop a product that would advance alumni governance.
I would like to thank the many people in this room who contributed to this
effort including Jim Adler, J.B. Daukas, Kelley Fead, and Joe Stevenson, who
headed the committee.
It lost. Following a vigorous campaign on all sides and a historic level of
participation, alumni did not give it a majority, much less the two-thirds
support it required. Basically, we split down the middle. It is my view that
all of this signals that it is time to give the efforts at alumni governance
reorganization a rest. Let us work with the existing structure.
Does this mean that alumni are split down the middle on the direction of the
College? I think not - surely we are not split down the middle on providing
here the strongest comprehensive student learning experience in the country; we
are not split down the middle on the need to recruit, retain, and enable
faculty who are leaders in their fields and share in a passion for teaching and
mentoring Dartmouth students; we are not split down the middle on the need to
protect need-blind admissions and make Dartmouth truly welcoming to all
students, regardless of their background or their family's means. We are not
split down the middle because these values and this sense of purpose are the
center of our legacy and are at the core of our shared responsibility. Alumni
survey results confirm regularly that support for the College is far more
substantial than is disenchantment. Far more. We are not split down the
middle. In fact a number of voters who are supportive of the College and
its direction said that they did not support the new constitution.
This College has always had sharp edges and those of us who care for
Dartmouth have always had sharp elbows. We debate and dispute
energetically.
This has been an essential quality of Dartmouth and of the loyalty the
school engenders. But we have seldom been at war with ourselves nor have we
ever embraced a culture that assumes this state of affairs will be the norm. As
we go forward now, I worry about institutionalizing a state of conflict.
I believe that under the proposed constitution, the change in trustee
nomination process was an improvement over the existing system. It was based on
an important assumption, one that I do not like but that I reluctantly have to
admit that I could not deny: that we may now be in a mode of constantly
contested elections. I do not mean the conflict inherent but never material in
the multiple candidate system we have had for 15 years. I mean the conflict
that follows when petition candidates challenge the entire slate and run
against the state of the College. The presumption that the Alumni Governance
Task Force seemed to share was that there will regularly be a petition
candidate for alumni nomination to the Board of Trustees. If this is going to
be the case, providing for a clear head-to-head election as proposed in the new
document would be preferable to the current system, where the nominated
candidates split the votes in the face of a well-organized and disciplined
petition bullet vote effort. No one can deny that the current voting system as
it is understood and practiced favors the petition candidate.
Over the years, alumni voting on trustee nominations has resulted in very
strong trustees who have served the College and the Board well. The first three
chairs under whom I served, Steve Bosworth, Bill King, and Susan Dentzer, were
all nominated by you, and the College is the better as a result of their
work.
I have some concerns about trusteeship under the current and continuing
system -acknowledging that I get on well with all of the three trustees
nominated as petition candidates, Peter Robinson, TJ Rodgers, and Todd Zwyicki.
So let me be very clear that my concern is not with them - they were nominated
fairly and I voted along with my Board colleagues to elect them to the Board,
unanimously - but it is with the prospects of this selection process longer
term on the governance of the College.
Perhaps a fundamental question, one that was only implicitly engaged in the
debate just concluded, is how do we govern Dartmouth? And this relates to
my earlier observation that a number of groups and constituencies will claim
proprietorship over the College. I would deny any such claims. The
Board of Trustees is responsible for the College. This is a $4.7 billion
organization that is considered one of the top institutions in the country
despite being less wealthy than our competitors and despite - I might say
because of - being smaller than they are. Can we continue to recruit the
strongest students, the faculty who are our lifeblood? Can we secure the
financial support we require and sustain the public support and recognition we
deserve, if we are viewed as at war with ourselves? Can we run an audacious and
essential $1.3 billion capital campaign if annually we face petition
candidacies essentially running against the direction of the College? Can
we manage Dartmouth if we are now institutionalizing a polarizing party
system?
We have the smallest Board of any of our competitors and we have
traditionally turned to alumni to nominate nearly half of the membership, a
proportion significantly higher than any other school in our category or class.
We have varying Board needs - Dartmouth needs, actually - to make certain that
there are trustees who can bring to the Board table experience in fields such
as investment oversight, administration and management, marketing and human
relations, insurance, legal affairs, and real estate management. We need to
have trustees who can represent the interests and purposes of the professional
schools and who have professional experience in higher education.
We are committed to having a Board that is diverse in background and in
viewpoints. Board engagement is absolutely crucial to the success of the
capital campaign. Successful campaigns in any organization or institution
always depend upon Board philanthropy. My fear is that we may soon find
ourselves in a situation where "electability" will also be a prime
factor, perhaps the dominant factor, in alumni nominations-and the College will
be the loser as a result. The Charter seats will simply be unable to
sustain all of the other needs.
I am grateful to the nominating committee for the slate they have proposed
to you this weekend. What a strong and accomplished set of graduates. I am
grateful to the candidates themselves for agreeing to be nominated. It is hard
to imagine an improvement on this group. From what I know of them, each would
be an exceptional trustee. But despite this there apparently will still be
petition candidates - at least some have already professed their intent,
independent of the actual slate. What we all need to acknowledge, and what is a
matter of concern, is that if a petition contest is assured regardless of the
candidates identified through the nominating process established by the
alumni/ae, we should not assume that we will always be able to see such strong
and compelling individuals agree to allow their names to go forward. What an
unfortunate turn of events that would be.
If that would be the case, the Board and the College would be deprived of
trustees such as Bosworth, King, and Dentzer - along with Jon
Newcomb, Peter Fahey, Nancy Jeton, Christine Bucklin, Michael Chu, John
Donahoe, and Jose Fernandez, all of whom were nominated under the current
system.
I am speaking out on this tonight candidly not as a forum to grouse over the
election. It lost and quite frankly the underlying issue would be there in any
event. I speak because I have served this College now for more than 37
years. I have a few more left in me and I have things to do - but the
responsibility I hold as the sixteenth member of the succession established by
Eleazar Wheelock is not one that provides for silence in the face of concern
about the College. I am concerned - despite our obvious strength.
This institution has never been in better condition: our students are
exceptional and they care deeply about Dartmouth; the faculty are committed
scholars and passionate teachers; our athletic programs have never been
stronger; the Greek system is alive and well; the finances and administration
of the College are strong and committed; our commitment to strong two-way
communications with alumni is unequivocal. These have been matters
misunderstood in some of our earlier campaigns. So now I intend to
communicate these qualities clearly when critics distort the strength and
values of the College. The time for silence is over.
We need your help. That same sense of community, of coming together, that we
saw demonstrated this Wednesday in front of Dartmouth Hall, needs to resonate
through our ranks. Our common values and shared purpose must bring us together
in support of our College. We need you to help us to communicate these values
and to engage your fellow alumni so they can participate in conversations and
healthy debate that will contribute to our ongoing need to improve and
strengthen Dartmouth. Doing this is our legacy and now it is our
responsibility.
In 1909 at an alumni dinner, President William Jewett Tucker said to the
assembled guests,
[the] College is not so much an institution as
it is a movement, a procession.... The perpetuity of the College lies in this
ceaseless movement of life, in this ever-flowing stream which reaches the sea
only to replenish the springs.
Dartmouth is indeed a movement. Join and engage. The Hill Winds Call.
Thank you for all that you do to answer that call.
|
