Dartmouth also sucks

Dartmouth Diminished
September 11, 2007; Page A18

Waall Streeet Journ.

Given the bad habits of contemporary academia, it was probably an historical accident that the 1891 agreement allowing Dartmouth College alumni to elect half of the school's governing board of trustees lasted as long as it did. The decision this weekend by Dartmouth's board to bulldoze that arrangement is nonetheless breathtaking for its audacity.

Elections at Dartmouth were tolerated for 116 years, so long as the alumni were electing rubber stamps as trustees. In recent years, however, reform-minded candidates began to use a petition provision to get on the ballot. They bucked the status quo by focusing on issues like academic standards and free speech, and they were forthright in their views. Since 2004, there have been four open and fair trustee elections, and independent candidates won all of them. A year ago the college tried to rig the process to make it more difficult for petition trustees to be elected, and alumni rejected that effort in a referendum too.

And so, unable to convince through argument and persuasion, Dartmouth President James Wright and a band of trustee loyalists forced through a governance plan that will allow them to run the place as they please. T.J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor and one of the alumnus trustee dissenters, had predicted as much on these pages 10 days ago. The exercise went ahead as he had guessed -- behind closed doors, with minimal public debate or alumni consultation. It's safe to say the vote wasn't unanimous, but the college is even barring trustees from disclosing that detail. Your average banana republic is more transparent.

The plan will pack the 18-member board with eight more trustees selected by the board itself. With the influence of elected trustees thus diluted, power will be further consolidated in a small executive committee that will control the agenda. For good measure, the college also declared that it will run future trustee elections on its own terms.

The architects at least had the courtesy to acknowledge the real motivations behind this putsch. "We do not believe that having more elections is in the best interests of the College," they wrote, because of "divisiveness." In other words, the independent trustees were willing to dissent from the insular uniformity of modern higher education, so they had to be neutered before they might actually make a difference.

Elite academia loathes oversight or accountability. President Wright, a product and wholly owned subsidiary of the Dartmouth faculty, may have made himself the new mascot for this attitude. But we doubt Charles Haldeman, the chairman of the Dartmouth board and CEO of Putnam Investments, could ever run his own company this way, even if he wanted to.

At least this fracas strips bare the pretense that alumni have any college role beyond writing checks. Dartmouth's reigning lords no doubt believe they can ride out any lawsuits or alumni anger that arise from their power play, and they may be right. There are always rich alumni donors who care more about getting their name on a building or getting their kid admitted than they care about budget accountability or student access to tenured professors.

It's nonetheless a sad sign of the times that another institution of allegedly higher learning has exhibited such hostility to critical inquiry and debate.

Is it any better at Cornell?

Apparently not, according to this research tidbit from Dartmouth's student newspaper:

[thedartmouth.com]

So the basic model is: self-perpetuating elites with names like Olin and Noyes and a voting majority set policy, and a handful of trustees are elected by various factions of the Great Unwashed (alumni, faculty?!, students??!) to give the whole thing a democratic paint job. Cornell is special in being partly public, giving the governor a comfy place for a few cronies to nap.

Shrug. From what I've read of Ezra and Andy, they would approve entirely.

I personally don't have the slightest bit of problem with that kind of structure, and I'm occasionally a bit surprised when other people do. It's important for students, faculty, and alumni at large to have an elected voice so that their concerns get heard, but I'm just fine with a greater say resting in a group of those who have invested much of their lives and fortunes in the health of the institution. Large corporations don't elect their Board of Directors from middle management, line staff, and customers; why should a large not-for-profit like Cornell?

The idea of a representative democracy running a multi-billion dollar Ivy League research university fills me with nausea and dread.

The issue for me is not so much that certain invested people have power. It's that the change over turns a long running democratic tradition at the college after that tradition yielded candidates that the establishment didn't like. The change also occurs after the more legitimate attempt to change Dartmouth's constitution failed. If this had happened at Cornell I would probably be pissed too.

Cornell may be similar to a large corporation in many ways (is it actually incorporated?) but a university is a different beast than an ordinary business. General Electric, for instance, doesn't depend on the direct generosity of it's middle management for it's financial health.

(Not that I don't agree that running a university according to the whims of it's populace is potentially dangerous.)

Oh, I agree that what Dartmouth just did is pretty absurd. We don't differ on that at all.

Cornell isn't incorporated, per se; it's chartered.

Beeeej
The idea of a representative democracy running a multi-billion dollar Ivy League research university ...

Hey, no argument. Four letters: "CCNY." The sanctimony of Cornell's flowers and kisses alumni ahem "development" campaign is no different than, say, that of a megachurch or a huge non-profit, and it has the important benefit that it can result in a better hockey program.