To the Editor:

When an election doesn't turn out in the way that you had hoped, appropriate recourse does not consist of ridding the system of elections. Al Gore did not lead a coalition supporting benevolent dictatorship after the 2000 loss, perhaps to the chagrin of those now insisting that Dartmouth needs to absolve alumni of voting privileges. For those who have ignored the entire debate on college governance, you are missing out on an amazing case study of power and politics. It is all the animosity, bickering, and pettiness of a typical Student Assembly showdown, with the key difference being that the results actually matter.

Some campus publications are insisting that the recent spring trustee elections were a veritable "insult" because the winning candidate, Stephen Smith, was not favored by a majority of current students. The Dartmouth Independent called the democratic election a "hostile takeover" and supposedly violated its self-imposed (and self-important) "absolute neutrality," when it published an editorial opinion in support of Professor Kate Stith-Cabranes analysis of the now infamous 1891 resolution. The Board of Trustees is the governing body of the College and stops the buck on questions of financial, administrative and educational significance. In addition to the 16 open positions on the Board of Trustees, two ex officio seats are reserved for the College president and the New Hampshire governor. The recently contested 1891 resolution gave Dartmouth alumni the right to elect half of the members of the Board of Trustees, or eight trustees. The other eight seats have traditionally been held by major financial donors and other people that President James Wright calls "assets."

The referenced article discusses the minutia requirements of a contractual agreement and deftly makes the case that the 1891 resolution does not qualify, in other words: it can be revoked, replaced, and forgotten. There is nothing specifically wrong with her argument, which blazes on the heels of Professor's Todd Zywicki's insistence to the contrary. But among the exciting novelty of seeing two lawyers disagree, it seems that everyone is asking the wrong question. The bigger issue upon which both arguments hinge their importance is masked by details of contractual law: Can the 1891 resolution be overturned is less important than the elephant in the room: Should the 1891 resolution be overturned?

Since the election of the school's first petition candidate T.J. Rodgers '70 in 2004, three others have enthusiastically won the alumni vote, though not the formal alumni association's nomination. They have sent out e-mails, set up websites, and raised the amount of signatures needed to run. All of them have been vocally critical of the current administration and are painted as either "Lone Pine" revolutionaries or in the words of former trustee Peter Fahey '68, the "radical minority cabal" that will bring about a "downward death spiral" for the institution. The idea that these elections represent a "minority" victory has been asserted throughout the discourse. Though none of the candidates received more than 50% of any given election votes, they did receive more support than the other candidates. In the last election, 18,186 alumni voted using the approval method, which allows you to vote for as many candidates as you want without ranking your preference among them; of the 32,941 votes cast in May, Stephen Smith received 9,984 of them. Perhaps instant-run off voting would have produced another result, but the election is far and away conclusive. Though technically correct, the charge of a "minority" win could indict most of the alumni elections, petition or not.

This June, the Board approved a governance review that will investigate the methods by which the trustees are currently elected. The conveniently well-timed concern to insure "Dartmouth's tradition of excellence" is a veiled expression of the administration's real concern: democracy has gotten out of hand. Recommendations from the 5-person subcommittee will undoubtedly include counterproposals to the 1891 resolution or other mechanisms by which petition candidates can be curbed. One of the official reasons behind the review is the scandal of electioneering in which candidates are purportedly spending thousands of dollars studying polls, writing out their platforms, and winning over their fellow alumni. This is somehow an example of a disgraceful low, in which dedication is translated into money that is not directly bankrolled into another Wenda Gu art installation. No wonder the administration and college executives are worried. The election is as open to conservative and liberals as it is to those who support or oppose the administration; let them run, campaign, and let the decision be settled in the ballot. However, it seems that you are allowed to love the school, but not enough to campaign during an election; instead, these feelings should be appropriately channeled in the form of a large check and the size of your talent and generous heart will then be considered for an opening among the chartered seats.

If you have been following closely, you may have already noticed the glaring inconsistencies among so-called "liberal" or "independent" publications. On one hand student-writers want their opinions to be reflected by board members, but at the same time, they support changes that might invalidate their future ability to participate in the appointment of those same trustees. On one hand young pundits flail valiantly against the determining influence of money in election outcomes, but in the same breath they support the reversal of the only democratic inroad through the Board of Trustees, in favor of a system in which all 16 seats could become the equivalent of graft or token sweetener for the highest bidder.

There is nothing wrong with financially supporting your alma mater and then having an interest in how that school is run, in fact that is the principle on which alumni participation is anchored. Until now, Dartmouth College has been commendably unique among peer institutions in the nature of its elected Board, the balance between democratic participation of alumni providing an independent check against executive control. This level of investment and post-graduation involvement is what has made the school not simply a four-year study-drink-study hurrah, but a community of which you are a part, for life. After all, it is "a small college...and yet there are those who love it," let us not lose the right to vote our dedication. Not on our watch.