Dartmouth Alumni Constitution
by Tom Temple
Oct 26, 01:47 PM
I just voted “no” on the thing. I’m sympathetic to the conspiracy theory that the new constitution was a direct result of the petition candidates success in the trustee election.
The whole thing smells bad to me. First of all, everything I received by the “vote yes” side was all fluff and no meat. They really failed to convince me that a new constitution was necessary:
- As was pointed out on Volokh you don’t need a new system to address the simple rule of “no campaigning”.
- As we recently discussed, approval voting does not “split votes”.
- I don’t see how making a new alumni governing body will do anything but further insulate the establishment from the voting alumni.
The obvious question is “Why a whole new constitution and not a set of amendments?” The only answer I can think of is that people are trying to piggy-back items that would fail as amendments.
Related, the ballot says right on it what you’re supposed to vote for?! That makes it look even more like a power grab. I’ve got to admit that I didn’t read the details on the last couple ammendments and just voted for them because they told me not to.
Oct 26, 02:15 PM
I also voted “no” on the new Constitution, for many of the same reasons you describe here. The old Constitution is a fairly typical document of its kind, and it’s well-enough established that it’s easy to understand its implications. I was not convinced that there were any problems of sufficient gravity to merit a total rewrite, versus simply amending the existing document. I voted “yes” for the amendments, since they looked reasonable to me.
Anytime a group refuses to come out and state its reasons for changing the rules, preferring instead to couch its arguments in vague language about “empowerment,” I get deeply suspicious of its motives. As motives go, I trust self-interest completely. I utterly reject altruism as a motive, particularly when it’s about something as structurally unimportant as the governance of the Alumni Association of Dartmouth College. You might be able to convince me that you want to save starving children out of the goodness of your heart, but “increasing the power of the electorate” is one of the Big Lies.
(Other Big Lies include: “The check is in the mail,” “Of course I’ll still respect you in the morning,” and “I promise I won’t come in your mouth.” Congress regularly tells us all of these, but we never seem to learn…)
Oct 26, 06:23 PM
Just to stir things up a bit…
I voted yes, simply because I think alumni should have less of a voice in the direction of a higher ed school, and the “No” camp seems (to me) obssessed with Dartmouth being some sort of democratic mini-nation-state with elected officials and voting rights and everything. Which, to me, seems just flat absurd.
Oct 26, 06:40 PM
Michael, I feel much better about it knowing that we independently came to the same conclusion. I was concerned that I was [particularly] ill informed.
Joran, I guess that is a self-consistent position in a bizarre kind of way. I take it then that you didn’t vote in the trustee election?
I was going on the assumption that institutions with less centralized power are better because they are guided by more interests. Since these interests routinely conflict, I would expect that the less sure (i.e., not widely agreed upon) actions are not taken. I would expect the card carrying libertarians to pull out that governs-least-implies-best cliche.
Conversely, a consolidated power will have a freer hand to have more Student Life Initiatives.
Oct 26, 07:29 PM
No, I did not vote in the trustee elections.
I have actually been planning on posting something here about how astoundingly boring I found the whole constitution issue. The only reason I could bring myself to vote at all was that I was really bothered by the “No” camp’s absurdly elevated rhetoric about democracy, which struck me as narcissistic and silly.
I agree with you Tom that institutions with less centralized power are less likely to take controversial actions. However, they are also less likely to take any action.
Oct 26, 09:59 PM
Joran, I think you’re right to say that it’s somewhat absurd to imagine Dartmouth as some kind of democratic institution. On the other hand, let me give you an argument as to why it is not absurd for the alumni to wish a hand in her governance:
Much of the revenue of the College comes from the returns from long-term investment of Alumni contributions to the College’s endowment. Even if you do not contribute to that endowment yourself, some small portion of it also comes from the cash you and your family spent for your own time at Dartmouth.
Thus, it is reasonable for you to take an interest (if that is your bent) in what the College is doing with your money, inasmuch as you have some stake in it.
If you still do not agree, that is certainly quite reasonable, but I do think this argument justifies some of the interest among the Alumni in the affairs of dear old Dartmouth. That said, the level of interest on the part of certain parties in the whole Constitution debate seems to have risen to the ridiculous.
Oct 27, 10:42 AM
“If you still do not agree, that is certainly quite reasonable, but I do think this argument justifies some of the interest among the Alumni in the affairs of dear old Dartmouth.”
Indeed. Certainly financial contributions can be a legitimate reason to feel like one ought to have a voice in the College’s future.
It sounds like an aspect of this that sets me apart may be that I consider donating money to Dartmouth more akin to donations to charity in general. If I give the Red Cross some $, I do so because I think I know how they’ll spend that money, and I think it’s a good cause. But I don’t expect the Red Cross to bend over backwards to consider my opinions on the day-to-day running of their organization. And if I don’t like the direction the organization is heading, I’ll stop giving them money.
Isn’t it interesting (and perhaps not surprising?) that alumni contributions are viewed so differently by so many?
Oct 27, 11:14 AM
Joran wrote: “Isn’t it interesting (and perhaps not surprising?) that alumni contributions are viewed so differently by so many?”
Yes. Perhaps it is simply because the alumni spent four of the most influential years of their lives being an integral part of the College. Not so many people are so deeply involved with the Red Cross, I should imagine.
Oct 27, 12:18 PM
The school should fire all its adiministrators and trustees and convert to a bicameral democracy. The population of enrolled students would comprise one house, the population of paid faculty another. One person, one vote. The Alumni would be like the Queen of England.
Oct 27, 12:24 PM
I totally agree, Cosmo.
Oct 28, 03:05 PM
Snark aside, that’s a fine idea, Cosmo. The administration would reappear, though, as the beaurocrats hired by various subcommittees in each house to implement shit.
But the Queen of England metaphor is exactly what I feel like alumni should be. Perfect.