Bored of Trustees

By Sam Buntz, Staff Columnist

Published on Thursday, February 18, 2010

  • Print
  • Report an Error

Since I first arrived at Dartmouth in the Fall of 2007, I have been vaguely aware that there is a conflict swirling around the … um, Board of Trustees or something? And there was some kind of lawsuit, and there have been controversial petition candidates, and every now and then, there is a new round of columns and letters to the editor I have to avoid reading. Recently, I gave in and read a couple of these letters to the Editor online. I realized “Wow, people really care about this stuff! Look at all the comments.” And then I asked myself, “Why don’t I?” This was a rhetorical question.

Of course I already knew why I couldn’t work up any deep seated feelings about the various Trustee issues that have crowded The D’s pages since long before I came here. As much as I love Dartmouth and am supremely grateful to it — truly thankful — I lack a sense of political proprietorship over the College. Phineas J. Tenniswhites ’67 might have one, but I don’t. I think its best to relate to the College not as a political body that needs the guidance of some particular ideology, but simply as a collective of people occupied with valuable work. The political campaigns of the Trustees are of extreme secondary importance to me, yet they elicits such passionate reactions.

In his essay “On Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau wrote, “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient… [The government] does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished.” In my view, it is the character inherent in the students, teachers and staff at Dartmouth that has made my experience here great. They “are” Dartmouth. But the alumni who quibble endlessly about the political way in which the College should be run do not seem to “be” Dartmouth to me. They seem to think they are, of course, because they believe Dartmouth to be the torchbearer of some political spirit and not of the collective energy of its staff and students. I find this attitude alienating.

A farmer, a physician, a nurse, an artist or a rabbi — each one of these vocations is a thousand times more respectable in my eyes than that of a career politician. The difference is that the former are people who “do”— they grow, they heal, they create, they instruct. But the politician is not a person who “does” anything. He is a person constantly engaged in the task of massaging his own ego. The campaign never ends, promises and pledges are perennially made and broken. It is the efforts of those who are simply and lovingly devoted to their work that determines the fates of cities, states, and nations — even humble liberal arts institutions. I do not intend to imply that most of the trustees or aspiring trustees are “politicians” and not honest “doers,” as many have impressive resumes of “doing.” I am only referring to those circumstances in which some of them expressly show themselves to be acting in such a way.

But this point is still quite relevant to the Board of Trustees: politicians seem to spend an exponentially greater amount of time and energy in self-publicity, self-congratulation and endless rancor than in anything remotely related to the task, in this case of administering a college. If you don’t believe me, just scan the relevant back issues of this paper. Deciding whom to throw your support behind on the Board of Trustees is an emotional and arbitrary decision, irrelevant to getting real business done and insuring that the life of the College continues smoothly. In fact, I think this is a fundamentally apolitical task, anyway. And for the record, I think our current College President Jim Yong Kim is definitely numbered among “doers” and not among the politicians.

And so I urge you to ignore all the commotion that has ever surrounded the Board of Trustees. Actually, ignore the Board entirely. Those on the Board who do will do, and those who don’t won’t. Little that matters can be done politically. But what can be done is your own work. It is a shame that such frivolous bickering sometimes overshadows the wonderful work being done at Dartmouth. That is one reason the opinion of our peer institutions went sour, lowering our ranking in US News and World Report (“Dartmouth Drops in US News Rankings,” Aug. 17, 2007). This shows just how poisonous the Board of Trustees fighting has been — but it also shows how ridiculous those rankings are, because we know that the quality of the real work being done here is tremendous.

Comments

The author’s point is well-taken – the amount of time, engergy and money spent related to the politics of Board elections would be better spent “doing” for Dartmouth. Our current Board members work hard alongside President Kim, and provide guidance and insight from their years of experience. Politics does not belong here, but it is a fact of life and must be acknowledged. I urge Alumni to vote in the upcoming election and to strongly consider the long term impact of their choices.

By on Feb 18 | 7:45 am

Mr. Buntz does not come out and say it, but he is talking about the petition trustees, not the board as a whole. Most of the board does not campaign for office.

By on Feb 18 | 8:54 am

Why have a board at all? Or why not let the president make all the appointments? I agree that students should not have to worry about all this now. They get their chance later.

By on Feb 18 | 9:33 am

Sam Buntz’s column is full of irony, he talks about why he doesn’t care about the Trustee elections because they don’t “do” anything according to him. Yet he doesn’t seem to have a clue about what the Board of Trustees actually does. If he’d simply looked it up what they do, he may be a little more concerned about the elections, as they could easily affect what who he terms “doers” can do.

I agree that the political turn that trustee elections have taken is unproductive, and that point is well taken. But his overall comment is an argument that disregards the role of all governing bodies.

By on Feb 18 | 10:46 am

Politics are messy, but they are the best way we have of resolving conflict short of dictatorship or Hamiltonian duels.

Sam you might not care for the politics of Trustee elections and the like, but believe me, it’s not as if I or anyone else revels in their discomfort. Unless they are all self-serving politicians like you describe.

Move beyond the attacks and the “politics” and get down to the substance. The teachers, students, and good works that “doers” do here at Dartmouth. The fact of the matter is, Trustees aren’t “doing” these things but they have an immense indirect impact that cannot be ignored. Students need to see that these elections do have consequences; and it comforts me when a Trustee candidate has an intimate knowledge of the “doings” of the College and has a passion for things like, oh I don’t know, smaller class sizes and more faculty and confronting administrative waste.

These things matter, and as hard as it might be to filter that simple reality from all of the ad hominem we’ll see in the coming days, it is important for students to educate themselves. It directly affects us, one way or the other.

By on Feb 18 | 12:23 pm

One of the many goals of people in power, so to speak, is to stay there and do what they can to keep the people they have power over in the dark, uninformed, misinformed and apathetic. When that doesn’t work, they attack those who don’t agree to be told what to do or to stay away. Mr. Buntz would rather not look behind the curtain to see that the Great Oz, or in this case the “Great College” that just runs itself (into the ground) has men and women running it and sometimes, or sometimes continuously, it runs poorly because it is being run politically. When an opposition to this political takeover and political priority of the College arises, those in power smear it by calling it political and something like an insurgent, barbarian, un Dartmouth attack. For instance, who doesn’t know that Dartmouths' massively bloated administration isn’t brimming over with political agendas and goals, with more than 1000 additional administrators while adding less than 100 faculty during the same time period. Does it occur to anyone that this more than 10 to 1 ratio of additional bureaucrats to faculty shows a mistaken priority on the part of those running the College “On automatic” so well?

About 1,200 alums donate over 85% of all the money donated to the College and they don't care so much about running a great College as they do their power to run the College. Board packing anyone? And of course there is an unholy alliance between the administration and the appointed Board where the administration supports the Board and the Board supports the administration so that we all think that everything is always perfectly done by the high IQ administrators who have never done anything real in their lives. The administration, and the faculty at Dartmouth College are so far left that they could populate the far left government of President Obama. Oh, that's right, they do. But they aren't political. And there really is a Great Oz.

By on Feb 18 | 1:22 pm

Mr. Berg, the way we resolve disputes regarding the board is through lawsuits – not politics. Short of suing, all you can do with a corporation you disagree with is ignore it. If you want to hold your elected representatives accountable then you need to look to city council or Obama. Who have nothing to do with Dartmouth.

By on Feb 19 | 10:54 am

Comments are closed on this article.

Most Viewed | Latest Comments

  1. Student dies on Barcelona trip
  2. Lohse: Telling the Truth
  3. Student accuses frat of hazing violations
  4. Student dies while studying in Barcelona
  5. Levin: The Secondhand Effects of Hazing
  6. Friends recall Scott’s humor, zeal
  7. Math professor dies unexpectedly
  8. Students consider dining plan suit
  9. Ouellette: Intolerance at Dartmouth
  10. Hanover shops close amid economic woes