With the announcement that he would step down as Dartmouth's president in 2009, James Wright opened the door for someone else to continue the College's unique legacy of tradition and innovation. Yet as the search for Mr. Wright's successor begins, recent public discussions reveal that the selection of our next president will likely reflect the outcome of ongoing debates over exactly what Dartmouth's legacy has been and if or how it needs to be altered going into the future.

At an April 14 meeting held by the Chair of the Board of Trustees, Ed Haldeman '70, and the Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, Al Mulley '70, students were asked to give feedback on the qualities they would like to see in Dartmouth's next president. Discussion centered on future challenges to the College and the leadership qualities required to solve them.

While student attendance was meager (an estimated fifty students overall), many of those who did attend expressed strong opinions over Dartmouth's future. These opinions varied widely; as such, the students offered Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mulley a number of contradictory petitions.

One source of contention was the role of the Greek System. Early on in the meeting, one student urged the Search Committee to find a president that was already familiar with Dartmouth's social environment and committed to upholding it. Soon after, Nafeesa Remtilla '09 argued that the Committee should instead choose a candidate focused on changing Dartmouth's social system to make the College more "gender-neutral" and racially diverse. She placed particular emphasis on the current dominance of white fraternities and sororities on campus.

The theme of tradition of versus innovation also showed itself in questions about what the next president's background should be. While Mr. Haldeman stated that the Committee wishes to "cast a wide net" in searching for Wright's successor, several students argued that Dartmouth's next president should already be intimately acquainted with the College.

While Mr. Mulley assured the students that any presidential candidate would "fully understand the Dartmouth community," he nevertheless emphasized a contrasting viewpoint, stressing the importance of looking beyond a candidate already connected with Dartmouth. Mr. Haldeman added that, while a local candidate would certainly carry advantages, a president must also have the ability to move Dartmouth forward beyond certain traditions.

Lastly, discussion over the relationship between the next president and the Board of Trustees foreshadowed a likely source of conflict during the selection process. When one student asked whether a petition candidate would be put on the Search Committee, Mr. Mulley quickly stonewalled the question by refusing to comment. While this response was also given to a number of other questions, some students noted the particular efforts by the gentlemen leading the meeting to avoid the issue of the Board.

The question about the petition candidate once again revealed the current friction between the administration and the Board, the two bodies centrally responsible for Dartmouth's future. Recent lawsuits aimed at changing the Board's balance of power between administrators and alumni have already damaged Dartmouth's reputation both locally and nationally. Will the selection process magnify the struggle between the College and the Board and unleash another flood of lobbyists fighting to gain the president's support?

Some students have already expressed concern over the direction of the alumni parity discussion. Tyler Brace '11 said, "Our next president needs to be someone who is conciliatory and fair-minded and one who doesn't pander to activist groups, regardless of their agenda. This problem won't go away. We need someone who is bridging the gap. Based on the April 14 discussion, I'm not sure that that's what they're going to look for."

At the April 14 meeting, Mr. Haldeman assured the audience that "the next president will work to balance alumni relations... a huge asset to Dartmouth." Nevertheless, recent history has shown that alumni relations have been more than difficult to manage. The past five Board elections have resulted in the selection of petition candidates, a sign that the College-nominated candidates are failing to find support on the Board. Furthermore, President Wright's frustrated efforts to influence the issue through constitutional amendment have sparked protest from certain alumni groups. As the next president will have the potential to impact the balance of power on the Board, the selection process may set the stage for a struggle.

Together, the debates over control of the Board, the future of the Greek System, and the long-term expansion of the College reveal that Dartmouth is facing an internal struggle between tradition and progression. While most changes in leadership, great or small, raise this issue, Dartmouth's relationship with its past ("Lest the old traditions fail!") suggests that the selection of Dartmouth's 17th president may be a particularly arduous process.

As shown on April 14th, deeply rooted structures like the fraternity system and the College's identity as a small, liberal-arts college can be a double-edged sword. Dartmouth prides itself on the power of its traditions, yet these same traditions are proving to be a source of division over social spaces, expansion funding, and alumni influence. As such, the upcoming presidential selection process should be watched carefully.

Though the search for our next president is just beginning, opinion is already sharply split over the role of Mr. Wright's successor. While Dartmouth's traditions are central to its unique identity, these same traditions are sparking a debilitating battle between students, faculty, and alumni. Whether the selection process will provide a new opening point for lawsuits over Board parity is anyone's guess, but at the very least, Dartmouth's past appears to be once again proving an issue for its future.