Fri 30 May 2008
One of the few off-key notes from Morty’s presentation at the Road Scholars event in Foxboro was his response to a question about the continuing controversies at Dartmouth. (See here for a recent Wall Street Journal article and here and here for previous EphBlog coverage. Wikipedia provides a useful history.)
The short version of the debate is that Dartmouth, unlike Williams, used to have an relatively open process for alumni elections to the Board of Trustees. Interested alumni could gather signatures and earn a place on the ballot even if Dartmouth insiders did not like them. At Williams, of course, that’s impossible. Even if 90% of the alumni would like to see, say, Wick Sloane ‘76 on the Board, there is no way for us to get him there.
Morty was asked a question about these debates at Dartmouth. His response was reasonable, to some extent, noting that much of the controversy was sad and unfortunate, that out-going Dartmouth President James Wright is an amazing guy and that Williams has nothing like this sort of acrimony. But then he refereed to Wright’s opposition as the “hard right.”
And that’s absurd. Although some of the non-insider candidates are (Gasp!) Republicans, some are not. And all of them focus on changing specific parts of Dartmouth: lower class size for undergraduates, providing more support for athletics and so on. The debate is not about left or right. It is about what is best for Dartmouth, a topic about which reasonable people can differ. It is also a debate about the best process for including alumni opinion in the discussion.
If I ever got really upset about the direction of Williams, I would use the details of the Constitution of the Society of Alumni to push for change, mainly by making it easier for outsiders (like Wick and me) to get elected to the Board. And it wouldn’t be that hard to do! Fortunately, Morty and the Trustees are 90% correct in the decisions they make (and reasonable Ephs may differ over the other 10%), so there is no need to agitate for radical change.
Just don’t call people who think that alumni ought to have a meaningful role in choosing Alumni Trustees the “hard right.”
May 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I think you and Morty are talking about different groups. Morty is speaking as an insider and focusing on the people who ran for the positions and started the whole controversy, some of whom are adequately described as the “hard right” in the sense that they really are pretty damn committed to a conservative view of politics.
You, instead, are describing their supporters who want the alumni elections to be open and don’t care about the specifics of those leading the charge at the moment. Those might not be hard right (though many are).
neither is wrong.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:38 am
Speaking of Dartmouth, the current issue of The Dartmouth has an article on the presidential search there, which includes the following:
“The search committee will likely consider several candidates from other Ivy League institutions’ recent presidential searches, including Dartmouth’s last search. Williams College President Morton Schapiro was a finalist to succeed former College President James Freedman in 1998, according to the prominent Williams “Eph” blog, and will potentially be considered in the current search.”
http://thedartmouth.com/2008/05/28/news/presidentialsearch/
So when did the “Eph” blog become “prominent” ?
May 31st, 2008 at 5:42 am
Consequentialism at work and, in Williams’ case, two out of its possible predicates, efficiency and arrogance.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:29 am
EphBlog - a prophet not without honor.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:55 am
David,
This controversy has been portrayed as a Left/Right issue for years.
See as far back as here and more recently, (I can’t get the link to work) Daily Kos, April 27th, 08— “The VRWC at Dartmouth…”.
So even though, to you, the language doesn’t apply, the label has stuck. You can’t expect Morty to switch it around at this point.
As Rory said, neither one of you is wrong…and no doubt, William Safire could have fun with it.