VOX CLAMANTIS: Peer Review
By Michael Chu, Trustee
Published on Friday, May 1, 2009
To the Editor:
The statement from Todd Zywicki '88 upon his not being reelected to the Board of Trustees, and subsequent comments, require a response to make sure the Dartmouth community is not confused.
Unlike public universities, with boards that act more like elected legislatures where appointees explicitly represent parochial interests, Dartmouth follows a private college model. Each board member is entrusted with the overall interests of the institution, and is called to work with colleagues more like a supreme court. To preserve open discussions focused solely on what is best for Dartmouth and discourage "playing to the galleries," the deliberations are confidential. That is why trustees refrain from commenting on the specifics of meetings. From this, it follows that the best evaluators of any single trustee's performance are his or her peers, the other serving trustees.
Differences in perspectives, sometimes intense, are nothing new to the Dartmouth Board. They were part of my first Board meeting nine years ago, long before any petition trustees were present. To cast Todd Zywicki's failure to get reelected as an issue of freedom of speech, especially when others who hold similar views were invited to serve again, is intellectually incomprehensible.
But regardless of what a majority of his peers thought of his performance, the entire Board can agree that Todd Zywicki served out of affection for Dartmouth. We should acknowledge this and turn our attention to what has always been more important than any individual: the future of Dartmouth, and its promise to reshape liberal arts education.
Michael Chu '68, Trustee
Boston, Mass.