With Stephen Smith ’88 looking to become the fourth consecutive rightwing petition candidate elected to Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees, it is more clear than ever that trustee elections have evolved into the sort of money-driven, ideologically polarizing political affairs typically reserved for federal office. The reasons for this politicization of trustee elections are not surprising. Dartmouth is an educational institution that matters and one of the few institutions that allows its alumni body to elect its trustees. It is only natural that candidates should vie for positions on the Board of Trustees through methods similar to those of any would-be vote getter. Dartmouth’s recent elections, however, have also featured a level of policy discourse similar to that of most congressional elections—that is non-existent. Rather than delve into specific policy issues, the petition candidates have spearheaded a trend to reduce trustee elections to referendums on the state of Dartmouth under the Wright administration.

And there is indeed much wrong with Dartmouth. As all petition candidates (and trustees) have pointed out, Dartmouth’s bureaucracy is bloated far beyond the institution’s capacity. The recent McKinsey report was especially critical of the ambiguities present in the workings of Dartmouth’s many overlapping offices. With no clear hierarchy and a budgeting process which poorly links funds to needs, it is clear that Dartmouth’s administration needs retooling.

Current petition candidate Stephen Smith ’88, however, misappropriates blame in this matter. Smith argues that he will make sure Dartmouth’s “expenditures reflect the values and institutional mission of Dartmouth and the best interests of undergraduates and the faculty who teach them.” As a blanket statement, Smith’s point is reasonable: why should Dartmouth’s funds be used for anything other than to further its institutional goals? But Smith’s success with generalities is simply a guise for his failure on specifics. How, exactly, Dartmouth’s current bureaucratic organization fails to serve the best interests of undergraduates and faculty is up for conjecture. Underlying Smith’s position is the belief that administration is somehow ignorant of the needs of its students or faculty or – even worse – intentionally ignores areas of need to serve some perverse bureaucratic aims.

In fact, Dartmouth’s bureaucratic malaise stems not from a failure to respond to the wishes of its students and faculty, but rather from ill-implemented attempts to do just so. The fact that Dartmouth’s administration listens to its students is inarguable. Recent programs regarding gender-neutral housing and sexual assault awareness reflect not only the wishes of Dartmouth’s administrative apparatus but a conscious effort on the part of the Wright administration to respond to perceived student needs. Whether or not the administration responds to the correct students is up for argument, but the election of Tim Andreadis as Student Assembly President clearly resulted in the College reorienting its priorities along the lines of the student body’s chief representative. But Wright’s attempts to respond to incredibly volatile student opinion (a trait exemplified by the election of the arch-conservative Noah Riner as SA President a year before the election of the ultra-liberal Andreadis) have resulted in the patchwork fixes and policy incoherence that typifies many of Dartmouth’s student life oriented endeavors. Rather than formulating a coherent policy backed by administrators with clearly defined roles, Wright’s administration attempts to meet student demands through piecemeal reforms which result in confusion and a lack of transparency.

This, of course, is a complicated process difficult to sum up in a brief campaign catch phrase. For conservatives like Smith, criticizing Dartmouth’s bureaucracy along the same lines as the federal government provides a convenient point of comparison that requires little actual analysis and stands on unsubstantiated generalities alone. For Smith, “bureaucracy” is simply a political buzzword meant to illicit dissatisfaction and disapproval for the Wright administration with or without applicability to the Dartmouth administration.

But Smith’s criticism of Dartmouth’s bureaucracy has far more factual backing than the other pillars of his campaign platform. Like the petition candidates before him, defense of free speech has been a critical component of Smith’s platform. Protection of free speech is certainly a legitimate goal of any educational institution. Why Smith chooses to highlight protection of free speech as a centerpiece of his campaign, however, is troublesome. Smith cites Dartmouth’s one-time poor free speech rating by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). As Smith acknowledges, FIRE no longer finds reason to criticize Dartmouth’s speech policy. Nonetheless, Smith chooses to criticize Dartmouth’s free speech policy and reignite the free speech debate by questioning Zeta Psi’s continued status as an unrecognized fraternity. The fact that Smith cites the Zeta Psi issue only highlights the paucity of material available to those critical of Dartmouth’s speech policy. Beyond the Zeta Psi case, Smith cannot find a single other example of Dartmouth enforcing a speech code. Moreover, it is unclear whether the infamous bawdy newsletter that earned Zeta Psi derecognition even passes as constitutionally protected speech under Smith’s own definition. Smith writes on his website:

To be sure, no responsible person – least of all me – believes that racial, anti-gay, or other epithets are appropriate or protected forms of expression. In First Amendment jurisprudence, those sorts of statement are called “fighting words,” and they are unprotected.

What Smith precisely determines to be “fighting words” is beside the point. Offensive speech should be and is protected at Dartmouth. Smith, however, concludes that Zeta Psi was unfairly victimized by a misguided speech code that continues to punish Zeta Psi to this day. Under Smith’s assumption, Zeta Psi’s lack of recognition is clearly a sign that Dartmouth is still enforcing a restrictive speech code.

But once again Smith’s arguments fail to hold up under close scrutiny. As recently reported by The Dartmouth, Zeta Psi is well on its way to re-recognition. This path, however, is controlled by its own ability to rebuild its inhabitable physical plant and the willingness of the Interfraternity Council – a group composed of students – to admit Zeta Psi to its body. Zeta Psi’s bid for re-recognition thus hinges not upon some restrictive and draconian speech code, but on its own reconstruction efforts and the willingness of students – not administrators – to accept Zeta Psi’s reemergence.

Smith’s manipulation of the free speech of issue derives from a larger political view of blinding nostalgia. Smith is right to take pride in the College’s past. Since 1769, Dartmouth has indeed been a special place to many students, faculty, and alumni. But it is easy to fall into a damaging “things ain’t what they used to be” mindset. Certainly, Dartmouth has changed since 1769 when it pursued goals of religious conversion and maintained an overwhelmingly backwoods feel. Dartmouth has also undeniably changed since Smith’s graduating year of 1988. But to assume that all recent changes have eroded the fundamental nature of the College is simply false.

As President Wright declared, Dartmouth is a “university in all but name.” Smith likes to exploit this statement, pointing to the abandonment of the college moniker as a sign of Dartmouth’s decay. But this approach is deceptive. While the ideal of a small college certainly has its value, it is unclear when Dartmouth last met this ideal. After all, since the conception of Dartmouth Medical School in 1797, Dartmouth has had the graduate programs and professional schools typically associated universities. So where does Smith draw the line? Does Smith’s assertion that Dartmouth should be a college “in name and in fact” mean that Dartmouth should strive to return to the struggles of its first 28 years? This policy would be obviously inane. Dartmouth’s graduate programs and professional schools have been an important part of its history and continue to deliver benefits for both graduate and undergraduate students. Smith instead focuses on preserving the primacy of undergraduate education.

This is a reasonable goal, but one not valued only by Smith and his supporters. Moreover, Smith fails to provide a coherent policy for maintaining the primacy of undergraduate education. Smith points to rising class sizes and long class waiting lists as signs of a dilapidated undergraduate system. This may be true, but a simple rhetorical change on the part of the Wright Administration will do nothing to lower class sizes or shorten waiting lists. Rather, Dartmouth must concentrate its efforts on retaining faculty members and recruiting the best young professors. Dartmouth’s faculty retention problems have nothing to do with increased research budgets and other elements of being a “university”. Smith, however, fails to recognize the root of the problem, instead harping on the decline of some nostalgic, myth-icized Dartmouth held in reverence by so many alumni.

This is a powerful political tactic but one that lacks substance. Dartmouth has many problems, but instead of focusing on the real issues facing Dartmouth and pointing to potential solutions, Smith presents a vague and factually inaccurate picture of a Wright administration bent on destroying all that makes Dartmouth special. Smith claims that excellence should be Dartmouth’s goal, but his reactionary stance to any pursuit of this goal is not only wrong, but deeply troublesome for an institution trying to maintain the precarious balance between progress and the preservation of Dartmouth’s unique culture and place in the academic world. Despite Smith’s claims, Dartmouth is still a wonderful place to receive an undergraduate education and provides an experience different from any other in the Ivy League. Smith should give alumni credit and focus not on political catchphrases, but on the policies and management needed to keep Dartmouth as a source of pride.