Voices in the Wilderness

Summer Break

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:43:00 +0000

To those still reading this page, all five of you, we Curmudgeons and Neophytes apologize for the lack of posting recently. Suffice to say our satisfaction in the result of the trustee election and the consuming nature of our own lives at present have temporarily stemmed our momentum. As soon as we get a moment free though, there will be more.

As the school year winds down in Hanover, it is important, though, to at least note what we would term an unsettled feeling wafting down on the hill winds. The latest goings on include an e-mail, which we will reprint below, that was sent to several alums we know, but strangely not us. The e-mail touts the giving participation rate of the graduating class of 2005 to their class fund, it is a respectable 53%. It also shames the prior two classes, which came in at 28% and 13% respectively. The most interesting part for us is that the 2005 senior class giving effort was spearheaded by Kabir Seghal, who is most well known for his inferiority complex toward other Ivy league schools. A year or two ago, Kabir created BuzzFlood, an organization whose mission was to raise the profile of the college through branding and advertising, because it seems Kabir felt that Dartmouth simply didn't have to recognition of HYP (Harvard Yale Princeton) set.

Now, it seems, Kabir has used his relentless energy and undernourished ego to whip these graduating seniors into shape, and to donate to their alma mater. Now, despite being a Neophyte and sharing sympathies with a Curmudgeon, we don't want to belittle the fundraising efforts of people dedicated to the college. Their hard work is laudable. However, two points need to be made. First of all, the 53% rate achieved by this class, while high by very recent standards, is still low when you consider even only ten years of history. Second, and perhaps more distressing, is that the only class that Dartmouth can currently reliably attain a 50% giving rate with is the one currently on campus, where they can be effectively badgered, cajoled, and even bribed (there was a competition among greek organizations and prizes for high participation rates) into 'supporting' their college.

Frankly, this is pathetic on the college's part. It speaks to the rank desperation they currently feel, as fewer and fewer alums support the agenda present in the current administration. Our frustration with President Wright and his minions is only met by their feckless attempts to pacify the alumni body, and it is as transparent as it is foolish. When the current students are being bribed into voicing support for an administration, Dartmouth has truly come to an ugly crossroads.

Here is the e-mail:

Dear [Alum],

I am thrilled to announce that 53% of the senior class have made gifts totaling more than $14,000 to the College through the Dartmouth CollegeFund. This is a milestone for the senior gift program; in comparison,overthe last two years, 28% and 13% of seniors made a gift through the Fund.This success comes from the efforts of a volunteer committee of 35students. The average gift was $24, with several seniors joining the1769society with gifts of $100 or more.

Greek houses were especially active in this effort, with eight of themachieving 100% participation: Alpha Chi Alpha, Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha XiDelta, Chi Gamma Epsilon, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Sigma Lambda UpsilonColony, Sigma Nu, and Sigma Phi Epsilon. Three houses raised $1,000 each for financial aid: Alpha Xi Delta, Kappa Delta Epsilon, and Kappa KappaGamma. In addition, the Senior Executive Committee achieved 100%participation and raised $2,000.

Kabir Seghal '05, a member of the gift committee, explained the successoftheir efforts in the Daily D: "Last year was 13% participation, sowe'rereally turning it around," Seghal said. "We're really trying to set thebar for future classes. The total money is nice, but we're looking fortotal participation. It shows that we're appreciative of our educationandwe're willing to give."I want to thank all 35 members of the senior gift committee for theirenthusiasm, commitment, and hard work, and I know that you join me inwelcoming them to the alumni body when they graduate on June 12!

Sylvia R. Racca
Executive Director
Dartmouth College Fund

A Rational Voice Speaks Out

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Wed, 18 May 2005 13:04:00 +0000

There is an excellent and thought provoking op-ed in the Daily D today (link here) by Professor of Economics Meir Kohn. Kohn takes on the notion that teaching and research are mutually exclusive, and argues that at Dartmouth not merely is it possible to be both an excellent researcher and teacher, but that those who are leading researchers are necessarily better teachers. He then goes on to describe how good teaching can be encouraged through the recruitment of good researchers.

The article is also striking in its strident criticism of the liberal intellectual echo chamber that exists at Dartmouth, and he directly challenges the worth of the college's new "Center for the Advancement of Learning" (which, frankly, sounds to us like an indoctrination oxygen tent instead of something that would foster critical thinking). All in all, the piece is so refreshingly honest, open and willing to challenge the conventional wisdom on campus that one wonders about the looks Professor Kohn is getting around the coffee counter this morning.

We also do not think it is a stretch in the least to say that Kohn's coming forward at this time is linked to the results of the trustee election. We should point out that Kohn has never been shy in taking on controversial topics, in July he wrote an article which came strongly criticized Dartmouth's selection of guest speakers, particularly those speaking on Isreal and Jewish topics, for being too leftward biased. However, the topics he takes on in the article today are so central, and the problems so pervasive, that he must feel he finally has support and cover. We would ask, who will be the next to come forward?

A Manifesto for Change

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Fri, 13 May 2005 14:32:00 +0000

With the results of the Trustee election now in, it is clear that alumni have sent a message to the Board of Trustees. That message is that there is a need for a change in leadership at Dartmouth.

The election results can been seen most clearly as a referendum on the direction of Dartmouth. The large number of alumni voting against the direction taken by the incumbent administration in this election (and last year’s) shows the widespread lack of support for it in the alumni body. Can an institution like Dartmouth, so heavily dependent upon financial support from its alumni body, long continue without broad alumni support?

Perhaps perceiving all this, the administration in the past year has sought to reposition itself by recanting nearly all of its prior positions and direction. Jim Wright, the author of the seminal work for the destruction of the fraternities, now says he supports them. His administration has driven the athletic program to its worst record in memory, and his admissions director has badly embarrassed the college, our athletes and crippled our recruiting capability, but he now says he supports a strong athletic program. His administration has spent millions trying to develop graduate Ph.D. programs in the arts and sciences towards developing a research university, which he now entirely repudiates. His administration has driven legacy admissions to half the rate of our sister institutions (for example Princeton’s most recent class has 12% alumni children, whereas Dartmouth had 6%), but now says he now “welcomes these applicants” (a nice evasion: but does he admit them?). After adopting policies regulating unwanted speech, he recently had his minions withdraw these policies (see [FIRE link]) In short, can an administration that had veered one way and now veers back in the opposite direction possibly have any further credibility? And can it possibly lead effectively?

And to make the point most clear, look at the record of fundraising of this administration. Dartmouth is now lagging badly behind its peers in both its undergraduate program and facilities as a result of poor fundraising. All one need do is look at the facilities of our peers to see the evidence of this. The point would be proved if Alumni Relations would only get the college to publish the information it most surely has, comparing the rate of growth of both annual giving and capital giving from alumni sources at Dartmouth, as compared with our peers over the last ten years. I have no doubt that if this were published, the evidence would be clear. Will the college do so? Under Wright, we sincerely doubt it.

We should be clear that our opinions are merely our own, but we hope that others will take up this call. To crib from another prominent site in this election, we would say that for a truly strong Dartmouth to continue in the 21st century and beyond, it is time for change at the top.

We will post more thoughts on the election as we digest over the weekend, including our priority list by which to evaluate new presidential candidates.

A Win for Dartmouth Alumni

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Thu, 12 May 2005 22:10:00 +0000

It's now official. The college has announced the results of the balloting for alumni trustee, and as we first reported, both petition candidates are in. The offical press release is here. The election of two outsider candidates, and three in two years counting TJ Rodgers, should send a clear and unequivocal message to both the Board and, more importantly, the current administration. That message is, we're not happy, and we intend to do something about it. Moreover, this is a win for all Dartmouth alumni, whether or not they voted in the election, because it positively asserts that Dartmouth alums (who both fund and maintain the college spirit), as opposed to a small group of of administrative lifers, control Dartmouth's future, and that is as it should be. More thoughts to come.

Confirmation

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Thu, 12 May 2005 14:22:00 +0000

A third source has confirmed that petition candidates Peter Robinson '79 and Todd Zywicki '88 have indeed won the balloting for Alumni Trustee, and "won big." This is great news for the entire Dartmouth community, and we here at Voices eagerly look forward to their joining the Board.

Savor.

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Thu, 12 May 2005 13:12:00 +0000

The word is out that the petition candidates, Todd Zywicki and Peter Robinson, have won election to Dartmouth College's Board of Trustees. Congratulations to them both.

An Early Victory

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Tue, 10 May 2005 01:02:00 +0000

A direct result of this election and the candidacies of the petition candidates.

Voting Irregularities

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Mon, 09 May 2005 14:55:00 +0000

The voting in the 2005 Dartmouth trustee election has passed. However, the election's lack of transparency and a number of missteps may drive reform for future referenda.

Such irregularities, as compiled by various readers and sources, include:

1. In the many weeks, even months, prior to the inception of the campaign period, the names, pictures and biographies of the administration/alumni council-backed candidates had been featured constantly on the official Dartmouth College website. Also, for three months, the same website featured an official streaming video'endorsement of these same candidates by the current president of the Alumni Council.

However, once the petition candidates had received enough signatures to place their names on the ballot, all candidates were required to be silent, except for two email messages which were supposed to be sent to all alumni. The petition candidates did not have the advantage of this earlier free publicity. The restrictions on free speech hurt mostly the petition candidates.

Further, during the non-campaigning period and throughout the whole voting process, the full resources of the administration were used to undermine and attack the arguments and platform of the petition candidates. President Wright's travel budget for the last 2 months could be interpreted as a testament to this effort. Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth engaged in blatant electioneering against the petition candidates.

1) The voting period began on March 7 (and was to end at 5pm on April 22). March 7 was the first day that a person could vote electronically. However, paper ballots weren't mailed out for another two to three weeks, when the voting period was nearly half over.

2) On March 10, two candidate emails from the Association of Alumni were sent to alumni. One was from Ric Lewis, backed by the Alumni Council; the other was from Todd Zywicki, a petition candidate. Many alumni received the Ric Lewis email and not Zywicki's. It would likely be incompetence if alumni with access to email received neither message, but how is it that some received one and not the other?

3) Why were the official questions asked of some of the candidates different from those asked of other candidates? As an example, candidate Curtis R. Welling was asked, "How do you recommend that Dartmouth reflect its core human values with respect to modern day campus life?" Meanwhile, other candidates had to answer a somewhat different question: "Dartmouth was founded on the basis of certain human values, including a sense of community, inclusiveness and life enrichment through people from various and diverse backgrounds. How do you recommend that this leading institution reflect these values with respect to modern day campus life?"

4) A number of Dartmouth alumni never received paper ballots, even though they constantly received fundraising material from the College.

5) The so-called "third party" vendor handling most of the election related tasks, including validating and tabulating the ballots, is employed by Dartmouth's Alumni Relations Office to perform other tasks including publishing the Dartmouth Alumni Directory and therefore has a conflict of interest.

6) The Ballot Committee met and voted NOT to answer some basicquestions about the third party vendor being used to do the mailings and validate and tabulate the votes. The Alumni Relations Office has been able to monitor the number of alumni voting in this election on a daily basis. And, no independent observers can be present for the counting of the votes.

On Friday, May 6, Dartmouth trustee T. J. Rodgers sent a letter to Ballot Committee chair John Walters saying he has now lost confidence in the election process. Furthermore, he requested that he be allowed to monitor the election results by flying to Dallas to personally interview the firm managing the election.

Whatever the outcome, I doubt that alumni will tolerate such an irregular election again. But free speech advocates have already scored a victory: Dartmouth is reversing its policies on speech codes.

Voting Ends Tomorrow in the Battle for Academic Freedom

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Thu, 05 May 2005 22:11:00 +0000

The piece below appeared today on the website of the Chronicle of Higher Education, highlighting the battle for academic freedom that has underscored the election. On the eve of the end of the election, it's a good summary of the larger issues and interests at stake.

In the piece, Peter Johnson quotes Dartmouth professor Meir Kohn's ominous description of "the deadly grip of political correctness at Dartmouth."

The entire article is reprinted below.

Trustee Election at Dartmouth Is Seen as 'Battle for Academic Freedom'

By PAUL FAIN

Elections of trustees to college and university boards are generally a snooze. Not so at Dartmouth College, where an alumni vote for two slots on the Board of Trustees has featured as much drama as a mudslinging congressional campaign. The results of the election will be released in the next few weeks.

Dartmouth alumni choose seven members of the college's 17-trustee board. With two seats open this year, the Alumni Council, a body composed mostly of class and alumni-group leaders, selected a slate of four candidates for the election. However, two dark-horse candidates have mounted successful petition campaigns to get on the ballot, earning them the tag of "insurgents" among sympathetic conservative media and bloggers.

Despite strict limits on campaigning, the write-in candidacies of Peter M. Robinson and Todd J. Zywicki have sparked dueling Web sites, charges of improper electioneering, an extended voting deadline, and the attention of free-speech advocates.

David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, thinks the hotly contested trustee election at the prestigious college could have national ramifications for the academy.

"This isn't like running for the trustee of your local Elk's Club," Mr. French says. "I think this is a critical development in the battle for academic freedom."

A De Facto Speech Code?

The stir around Dartmouth's trustee elections began with last year's contest, in which T.J. Rodgers mounted a successful petition bid as an alumnus and then defeated the three Alumni Council nominees who were vying for a single seat on the board. Mr. Rodgers, the founder and president of Cypress Semiconductor, a company in San Jose, Calif., won in a landslide, receiving votes from 55 percent of alumni who voted in the election. (About 24 percent of Dartmouth's 62,000 living alumni voted.) He was the first petition candidate to be elected to Dartmouth's board in 24 years.

Mr. Rodgers says concerns about free speech at Dartmouth were key in his decision to run for trustee, claiming that college administrators have enforced a de facto speech code based on subjective definitions of what constitutes bigoted statements.

A college spokesman denies that assertion, citing remarks by Dartmouth's president, James Wright, in an April speech to alumni in New York City.

"It appears to me," Mr. Wright said in the speech, "that there is a lot of speech from every conceivable viewpoint -- both by members of our own community and by guest speakers whom we invite to campus -- and that the free exchange of ideas is alive and well" at Dartmouth.

In the strictly limited campaign materials that candidates have been allowed to distribute to alumni, the two write-in candidates in this year's election have shown that they share Mr. Rodgers's passion for curing Dartmouth's alleged free-speech ills. Mr. Robinson is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace who, while working as a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, wrote his famous demand, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

In addressing "the deadly grip of political correctness at Dartmouth" during a six-minute video monologue, Mr. Robinson says, "I'd like to see more than an administration that pays lip service to freedom of speech."

In his video, Mr. Zywicki, a visiting professor at Georgetown Law School and a contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy, a blog with a libertarian bent, says he will work to restore full freedom of speech on the campus.

The similarity of the campaign messages of the two candidates to Mr. Rodgers's platform of a year ago, as well as the support they have received from the National Review, The Weekly Standard, and Power Line -- Time magazine's blog of the year in 2004 -- quickly caught the attention of alumni, faculty members, and administrators at Dartmouth, some of whom were worried about a hostile conservative takeover of the board.

Opposition to the write-in campaigns sprang up, chiefly in the form of a group called Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth, which was endorsed by more than 100 alumni. Susan Ackerman, a Dartmouth alumnus and professor of religion at the college, sent a widely posted e-mail message to alumni in which she urged votes for the four Alumni Council nominees and said the petition candidates represent "the same sorts of reactionary ideologies as were represented in last year's elections by T.J. Rodgers."

Another site, called DartmouthWTF, was launched to protest the Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth Web site, which it claims violated rules against campaigning for specific candidates. Ironically, Marion Bates, an alumnus who created the tongue-in-cheek site, says she voted for the four Alumni Council candidates. She says she made the site to protest flaws in the election rules and to defend the legitimacy of the petition candidacies.

Not Too Right?

For their part, the two write-in candidates concede that Mr. Rodgers was their inspiration and, in Mr. Robinson's case, an active advocate in his decision to run for trustee. However, the candidates say they launched their candidacies independently and aggressively deny allegations, which Mr. Robinson calls "piffle," that they are part of a coordinated conservative agenda.

"I don't see that there's really any place for liberal-conservative issues in this election," Mr. Zywicki says. "This is solely and exclusively about Dartmouth and what my goals are for Dartmouth."

Mr. Rodgers, after all, is not a straight-ticket conservative. The outspoken trustee describes himself as a "libertarian with a small l" who comes down on the left side of social issues such as abortion and contraceptive use. Furthermore, Mr. Rodgers argues, the politically charged climate at Dartmouth and on other college campuses has motivated him to steer away from partisan arguments as a trustee.

"Once you dive into that caldron, that's it," Mr. Rodgers says.

When asked why his campaign, if nonpartisan, has attracted backers among the conservative media, Mr. Zywicki says the "extraordinary smear campaign" waged against his candidacy and the strict rules imposed on the election triggered the backlash from conservatives, who were already worried about dissent being squashed on liberal-dominated campuses.

"Obviously it's caught people's imagination," Mr. Rodgers says.

Whatever camp they support, it seems to most active campaigners in this election that Dartmouth's alumni organizations have struggled to effectively manage the closely watched trustee contest, particularly in how to control Web sites and e-mail.

Geoff Berlin, an alumnus, created the Alliance for a Strong Dartmouth Web site as a rebuttal to what he sees as misleading arguments by the petition candidates. But Mr. Berlin says the real issue might not be the election's results, but how Dartmouth decides to react to two uniquely participatory elections.

"It would be completely paradoxical if we ended up censoring the democratic process at institutions of higher learning," Mr. Berlin says.

How to Live on $5K a Year

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:05:00 +0000

A reader to Powerline explains how "sustainable" such an income really is.

The real question is whether or not Dartmouth will continue to pay this guy his $5K annual salary, one that he is seems content enough to be earning. Odds against. But based on the sheer absurdity of his title, it seems that even $5K is too much.

Old News

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:33:00 +0000

We know that it is last week's news, but we just have to comment on the disgraceful abolition of the Speech program at Dartmouth -- which, by the way, is in direct contravention to a 1979 Trustee Directive to maintain the program, and in absolute indifference to student demand.

It is a perfect example of the Dartmouth administration's tin ear. The speech courses at Dartmouth are rigorous, demanding, and interdisciplinary, featuring rhetorical theory and practice. If students at Dartmouth are required to take course in order to write cogently, they should be required to take courses in order to speak with the same clarity and persuasiveness.

As a grateful student of Professor Kuypers's, I could not be more disgusted with the Deans of Faculty. His class has impacted my post-graduate scholarship and my professional life more profoundly than any other course that I took at Dartmouth. The constant waitlists for his courses indicate that other students feel the same way.

Most importantly, the "vocational" and "technical" excuse is just insulting. Is Dartmouth's Education Department not vocational? Is engineering not technical? Speech and rhetoric features theory, history, and critical reading. It is not just a matter of "public speaking," which, by the way, is NOT taught indirectly in other classes at Dartmouth. In fact, a number of Dartmouth professors could benefit from a speech class or two.

This leads me to the thought that the College may have targeted Kuypers for other reasons: namely, his mentorship of conservative organizations on the Dartmouth campus and his academic expertise on presidential oratory, especially that of Ronald Reagan. Virginia Tech obviously knows what a prize he is.

To eliminate this storied department citing lack of funding -- only to hire a Director of Sustainability the next week -- is unspeakable. It's enough to want me to take my Dartmouth diplomas off the wall.

ROLLING IN THEIR GRAVES: Oh, never mind that Dartmouth College still offers the Benjamin F. Barge Prize for Oratory Speech and The Class of 1866 Oratorical Prize. Never mind that the nation's greatest orator, Daniel Webster, hailed from Dartmouth - no thanks to Lenore Grenoble and Carol Folt.

Dartmouth Hires 'Sustainability Director'

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:10:00 +0000

Here.

We know, they hired a what?!?

Maybe we're missing something, but in this era of oversubscribed classes, cuts to library and athletic budgets, and a general lack of spare dough, it seems like the college's priorities are a little out of whack when the substance of the "sustainability director's" responsiblities will basically consist of coordinating recycling efforts. He couldn't find work with BFI? We'd be shocked by this except it's so in keeping with current mindsets in Hanover that it's actually par for the course.

Joking aside, we agree that enivornmentalism is, most definitely, a worthy pursuit in many cases. However, there is absolutely no evidence in this case that Dartmouth would be unable, with its burgeoning ranks of 30+ deans, to take on the tasks that the new sustainability director will have, without spending more money on a new administrator. Seriously folks, this is ridiculous.

Why Dartmouth Doesn't Get It

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:16:00 +0000

Dartmouth's General Counsel, Robert Donin, responds to the Rich Roberts op-ed and the speech code situation. It's just spin and blather, but its final paragraph actually made me feel nauseated:

One other thought about speech at Dartmouth: it is a shame that an isolated incident which occurred four years ago continues to obscure the robust, unfettered and wide-ranging debate that flourishes here daily. Within just the past six months, the list of campus speakers has included J.C. Watts and Daniel Pipes, with Dinesh D'Souza scheduled to visit in May -- hardly a pantheon of political correctness. A Dickey Center program last week featured pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian speakers. Student publications and political organizations of every stripe are thriving. The marketplace of ideas seems to be doing a brisk business. To suggest that the atmosphere here is repressive is to ignore reality.

WOW! On a campus where there are a number of featured speakers on any given DAY, Donin is pround that a whopping THREE conservative speakers have been scheduled to speak on campus in just SIX MONTHS!

"Hardly a pantheon of political correctness"?!? First, the term "hardly a pantheon" derides the quality of the three speakers who have agreed to speak at Dartmouth. They are a pantheon of refreshing thinkers! Second, I've never been sure why a conservative-leaning speaker is automatically equated with being politically incorrect. Aren't many liberals like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher also "politically incorrect?" It's a snide term that is normally used to describe the cartoon "South Park," and shouldn't be directed at a former member of Congress and leader in the United States House of Representatives. When you think that this U.S. Representative was also an African-American pioneer within that elected body, Donin's comment comes across as not only rude, but cruel.

Next: having both pro-Palestinian AND pro-Israel speakers on a panel?! Donin says this like it is a novelty, and as though it is somehow a gesture of generosity to include two points of view. Um, news to Robert Donin -- this should be de rigueur at the College you are paid to represent.

This attitude of sarcasm, intolerance, and tokenism shows that Donin -- and the Dartmouth establishment -- just doesn't get it.

With this paragraph, Donin implies that the College is actually going out of its way to present more than one side to an issue, and insinuates that this is somehow more than is normally expected or required. That's scary. The fact that Donin has to point to this token effort, and that he does so with a bizarre, inflated pride, reveals just how out of touch Dartmouth College really is.

Speech codes may not officially exist on paper at Dartmouth, as the College contends, but they are undeniably entrenched in the administrative mentality. That's where this fight must be fought.

Change Management

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:58:00 +0000

There is another group known as Dartmouth Alumni for Social Change that is also waging a campaign against the petition candidates.

If there are any change agents at work here, it's the petition candidates. It's hard for me to believe that campaigning against them is consistent with the mission of an organization who incorporates "social change" as part of its name. They might as well be called "Dartmouth Alumni for the Status Quo."

One is an Anomaly, But Three is a Movement

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:12:00 +0000

As the Dartmouth election enters its final weeks, it has begun to attract national interest. This article in the Weekly Standard makes the case that the Dartmouth election is of interest to non-Dartmouth grads because it highlights the issue of speech codes on campuses across the country.

The article underscores an interesting coincidence: a letter by James Wright on the Dartmouth website on the issue of speech regulation subsequently disappeared after it was referred to by one of the petition candidates. The relevant portion of that letter read as follows:

"As a community committed to fairness, respect, and openness, we have no patience with or tolerance for bigotry or demeaning behavior. I affirm here, with deep personal conviction, that Dartmouth is and will be an actively anti-sexist, anti-racist, and anti-homophobic institution and community. . . . In a community such as ours, one that depends so much upon mutual trust and respect, it is hard to understand why some want still to insist that their "right" to do what they want trumps the rights, feelings, and considerations of others. We need to recognize that speech has consequences for which we must account."

The article points out that "Wright's letter vanished from the Dartmouth president's website last month. Try to find it, and you discover its location has been 'moved.' (But where? Calls to his office went unreturned.) Is it a coincidence that the document on Wright's website disappeared after Robinson and Zywicki zinged its contents? Probably not."

Why the resistance to the candidates? Because one trustee is an anomaly, but "three trustees might signify the beginning of a movement."

Indeed, the movement is afoot.

"Good enough" in admissions

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:05:00 +0000

Economist Thomas Sowell has a thought-provoking piece on the less-than-objective standards used by admissions officers of top US colleges and universities. Via Real Clear Politics.

"Arbitrary Line-Drawing"

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:21:00 +0000

As alumnus Rich Roberts '83 explains in this op-ed, the subjective naure of speech codes makes them dangerously prone to abuse.

Further, in specific reference to the derecognition of Zeta Psi, Roberts writes that "other organizations with far worse levels of behavior have been rehabilitated, though perhaps not as well-located real estate." The implication is that Dartmouth is picking its 'speech' battles against the very institutions whose real estate it covets in order to realize its expansion plans. This might explain why a Dartmouth organization which posted incendiary phrases from the Koran on its website wasn't taken to task for similar 'violations.'

Voting Deadline Extended

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:44:00 +0000

Thanks to the advocacy of some committed alumni, the Balloting committee has decided to extend the voting period by two weeks to Friday, May 6 due to a delay in the mailing of paper ballots. Electronic ballots will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. on May 6, and paper ballots postmarked by May 6 will be counted. This announcement will be made via email and postcard to alumni who have not yet voted.

Reassessing Research

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:22:00 +0000

In an op-ed yesterday, one Mohamad Bydon '02 argued that the college should become a research university, and if one agreed with that position one should vote against the petition candidates for trustee, or for the other candidates. Or at least that's what we think he said, because at times he seemed a little confused- arguing that Dartmouth already is a research university, even though some people were trying to prevent it from becoming one and we should thus oppose those people. Or something. We were at times as confused as he seemed to be. Whatever the case, it all boiled down to a last line urging people not to vote for the petition candidates. We'll leave aside for now the blatant disregard for the election campaign rules, since things like rules or decorum seem to be so passe in Hanover these days, and move straight to the argument the piece (we think) is trying to make. We majored in a soft science, not desensitizing literature, so maybe we're missing something in the prose, but here's our crack at refuting this stuff.

First, there is wanton and willful distortion (or at least a woeful ingorance) on Mr. Bydon's part when he states that the petition candidates' arguments against becoming a research university equate to attacks on Dartmouth's three cornerstone graduate institutions, Tuck, Thayer and the Med School. As both candidates have explicitly stated, those three schools are wholly separate from the college in both mission and funding, and should remain as vital AND separate as always. Tuck, Thayer and the Med school have little or nothing to do with regular undergraduate life (with notable exceptions, of course, in engineering and bio) and this has always, repeat, always been the case. Mr. Bydon attempts to blur the line between those schools and students in the Arts and Sciences grad programs, which are two entirely different groups. (Remember this the next time someone says to you that Dartmouth is a "research university." If Dartmouth defines research university, and has since the inception of Tuck, Thayer and the Med School, then what the hell are Harvard, Cambridge, Princeton and many other institutions going to call themselves? If you miss our drift, Dartmouth is fundamentally different from those institutions, and that's a good thing. Dartmouth is a college, bub.)

Another myth that Mr. Bydon hopes to perpetuate is that the petition candidates are "against research." To our knowledge, nowhere have the candidates stated that scholarly research in and of itself harms a professor's ability to teach undergraduates; in fact, Todd Zywicki has made statements quite to the contrary. This page has also argued that a professor engaging in research can (but does not at all necessarily) improve their teaching. The disconnect is in who is getting taught.

Mr. Bydon- though he doesn't explicitly say it but we're inferring it- seems to want graduate students to be a part of this equation in the arts and sciences curriculum. He throws out increasing funding numbers (which does make us wonder if he's privy to some information that we're not) totaling a $100 million increase over an undefined time period ("a few years") and makes an unsubstantiated judgment that this has been a good thing. If these millions came in through med school channels and went to fund the cervical cancer research he mentions, then good for us all. We're guessing, however, that the numbers to which he refers are general operating budget numbers for the central Arts & Sciences campus, and that's where we have a problem. Funding a grad-student oriented academy is enormously expensive, as Jim Wright is finding out, and thus requires enormous investments of both money and manpower. The details are too lengthy to get into here, but with the stock market decline of 2000 and subsequent belt tightening, the college discovered that the extra 100 million clams it had been ladling into graduate studies wasn't as easy to come by as it had been in the gravy train days of the late 1990s. This presents an allocation of resources problem that any bureaucrat is loath to attack, and is where the real disagreement between Mr. Bydon and the petition candidates exists- where Dartmouth is spending its scarce resources.

Mr. Bydon was in the Class of 2002, so he wasn't in Hanover for the closing of Sanborn Library or the cutting of the swim team. (Was he in a research-induced haze down there in New Haven?) I wonder if among the wondrous millions he champions he could somewhere find a few hundred grand to lavish on those two institutions, which he apparently views as extraneous. The petition candidates (as well as this page) take quite the opposite view. Evenings in Sanborn and weekends spent competing alongside or cheering for our fellow students in our minds are vastly more important to the fabric of Dartmouth than a newly funded graduate study program.

At the end of the day, we commend Mr. Bydon for at least trying to make clear his vision of Dartmouth, and, though we hope the reader will forgive us for using an overtired cliche, that vision looks awfully like institutions in Cambridge, MA and New Haven. We also wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Bydon that the college needs to hire more professors to teach its undergraduates, although we would refer him once again to the candidate statements so he can reassess just who would actually try to do that (here's a hint: think insurgent).

Our own, final take on Mr. Bydon's piece is that he shares a love for Dartmouth that virtually all who come here feel, and he wishes that those two people he knows who chose to go elsewhere had instead chosen to venture to the Hanover plain. However, Mr. Bydon, by expressing his fondness for the institution, has betrayed his own argument and made our point: the fondness he feels for Dartmouth is special, even unique, and it is not easily replicated. There are other methods of educating 18-22 years olds, Harvard and Princeton and Yale turn out many fine examples of this every year, and they have their own deep-seated, passionate loyalties. But Dartmouth is different. Its fabric is woven tighter through small experiences, whether in the classroom with those famous educators, or on the playing fields, or (heaven forbid) in basements across campus. It used to be that for their four undergraduate years, students who attended Dartmouth were given the chance of a lifetime- to live and learn amongst their peers, without having to compete for resources with grad students and administrative bureaucracy- in short, to do everything Mr. Bydon espouses. And those four years are what Dartmouth, simply, should return to being all about.

Are Coaches to Blame?

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:07:00 +0000

From the Dartmouth Athletics Blog: James Wright blames coaches for Dartmouth's suboptimal athletic performance. Here is the report:

***

Report on Jim Wright's talk to the Sarasota Alumni Club - 3/16/05

Jim and Susan Wright visited Sarasota on their way to their timeshare on Captiva Island for a well-deserved vacation away from the snow still on the Hanover Plain. [...]

He mentioned, of course, all the new facilities and the ones that are being planned, including renovations to Memorial and Rolfe Fields to help both football and baseball. He reiterated the new success we are having with women's BB and Hockey and men's BB under Terry Dunn, plus soccer last fall and the ski team this year.

I asked him a question I sent to his office 2 weeks ago, why with all these improvements were we still tied for 6th (or 7th) in the League when considering all 30 of our Ivy sports teams. He felt that coaching was a big cause [ed. - !!] and when the rest of the facilities get done (including the major renovation of Alumni Gym) that we would do even better. He also said he wasn't privy to my numbers in figuring our 6th place finish. The Ivy League doesn't keep score the way I figured it. In fact, the League keeps no across-the-board rankings (as I produced) at the direction of the Presidents of the Schools. No one wants any competition between schools. Please read Brad Parks's article in the last Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, Page 24-5. He used to keep score this way when he was editor of Dartmouth Sports Today.

***

Facilities and coaching are only part of the picture, and once these are in place, they have to be leveraged to recruit top scholar-athletes. The College has demonstrated a major priority deficit in the latter.

Egregious!

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:11:00 +0000

Does Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth engage in blatant campaigning? Hmmm.

This mass email pretty much just about sums it up.

***
From: Geoff Berlin [mailto:geoff@dartmouth84.org]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:19 AM
To: @Alum.Dartmouth.ORG
Subject: Alumni for a Strong Dartmouth

Dear ,

It's not too late to get out the vote for the alumni trustee elections...Dartmouth needs your help now!

I'm working with a group of concerned alumni who remain supportive of the College and would like to ensure that responsible leadership remains on the Board of Trustees.

Please check out the platform for ALUMNI FOR A STRONG DARTMOUTH at:

http://strongdartmouth.org/

If you share our point of view, please Sign Up and spread the word to other alumni.

This is very important for Dartmouth. Much thanks for your support!

Best regards,

Geoff Berlin '84

The Class of 2009

noreply@blogger.com (TheCurmudgeon) — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:01:00 +0000

The Class of 2009 has been admitted. It was one of the most competitive years in Dartmouth history. (Isn't every year?)

Having participated in roughly 8 candidate interviews this year, I was very surprised to see the actual results: essentially, the candidates whom my co-interviewers and I felt were the strongest were rejected or waitlisted. Meanwhile, the very candidates whom we felt were weakest were accepted.

It is important to note that our interview assessments did not favor charisma or academic achievement. It was night and day: the candidates whom we felt were less-than-ideal matches for Dartmouth were accepted. Meanwhile, Dartmouth passed over outstanding candidates that included a female patent holder, an expert in ancient languages, and an incredible student athlete who triumphed over adverse personal circumstances.

Veterans of College interviewing can testify to this bizarre, inverse pattern -- and this is why so many alums turn away from interviewing over the years. A not-so-well kept secret: alumni interviewing doesn't make a difference!

Looking at the pie charts, Dartmouth has again admitted a "balanced" class in terms of geography and race. This is important. However, in looking at the class of 2003 first-year survey via the Office of Evaluation and Research, Dartmouth's students are over 17% more likely to consider themselves "far left" and "liberal" than the national average. If Dartmouth wants to honor its commitment to diversity, balancing ideology is one place they should start.

Inquiring Minds

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:30:00 +0000

Proving it actually is good for something other than juicing the Upper Valley's bicycle black market, the Dartmouth Student Assembly has asked each of the trustee candidates a set of questions from a current student's point of view, and posted the answers on a website (link here). Two of the candidates, Ric Lewis and Greg Engles, have yet to respond, but the other four have replied at length. The questions aren't totally dissimilar from the ones the candidates were asked by the College, but have a much more productive, shall we say, flavor and have thus generated more interesting responses.

The responses from the candidates, in our view, are telling. The two Alumni Council trustees are somewhat concise and - ah, crap, no sense in sugar coating it- they basically repeat the same inoffensive, fairly mundane, and uncritical schpiel that we've heard from every trustee candidate save TJ Rodgers for the past two decades. "Dartmouth is wonderful, the sports teams are wonderful, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, yada yada yada."

The petition candidates, no surprise, have a different view. Their answers are not only insightful and yes, critical, but also show constructive visions for the future of the institution, as opposed to an affirmation of a vaguely defined status quo. As always, it bears repeating that this site explicitly does not endorse any candidate; however, it is very hard to take Shiela Cheston seriously when she pens statements like "Notwithstanding the recent revelations, it is my understanding that the actual admissions policy still values athletic contributions" given Dartmouth's documented general athletic failings these days. Don't worry, Shiela says the emperor really does have clothes, phew!

Special attention also should be given to each candidate's answers regarding undergraduate teaching and the state of research at Dartmouth. Peter Robinson does not mince words: "Calling Dartmouth 'a research university in all but name' betrays a profound misconception of the College’s history, traditions, and signal strengths. Dartmouth College is a college." Did you hear that Mr. Wright? He goes on to say "While maintaining the excellence of its graduate schools, each essentially a free-standing institution, Dartmouth should strive to provide incomparably the finest undergraduate education in the nation. I’d work to ensure that the College reduced its bureaucratic overhead, provided enough courses in the most popular subjects, granted the very highest standing to the very finest teachers, and concentrated resources where they belong—in the classroom."

In our view, it is not necessarily professors doing research that is troubling at Dartmouth, rather, it is the rapid rise in graduate students being attended to by those teachers that is the problem. Two of our favorite professors, Bruce Sacerdote in economics and Jere Daniel (sadly now professor emeritus) in history, did excellent (even prize-winning) scholarly work outside of the classroom. However, to our knowledge, they never had grad students and were commanding lecturers whose classes never failed to inspire.

Provoking the Provost

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:22:00 +0000

There is an excellent op-ed piece in the Daily D today, written by one Kenan Yount, a member of the class of 2006. The whole essay is invaluable, but the following passage is of particular note:

"I agree with the Provost that the vast majority of Dartmouth students and faculty enjoy their experience here; however, we do so in spite of the problems referenced above and in previous editorials -- specifically those of course oversubscription, housing shortages, and overcrowded athletic facilities. After all, shouldn't Dartmouth's primary concerns be aimed at educating its students in a personal setting, providing a superior residential life, and promoting the health of its students? Where were these guiding principles when the administration chose its own aggrandizement over saving popular interdisciplinary offerings, libraries, athletic teams, and more effectively reducing class sizes?"

Indeed. Mr. Provost, what say you sir?

A Taste of their Own Medicine

noreply@blogger.com (TheNeophyte) — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:59:00 +0000

Apparently, some local Hanover libertarians are a little irked at non-NH native Dartmouth college students voting in regular elections, and thus are protesting for a say in Dartmouth's governance- here. We say turnabout is fair play.