February 9, 2007
Groundhog Day
Instead of writing a letter to the D more fully explaining some things I said at the DCLU discussion, I expanded my ideas for this week's DFP editorial. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All your op-ed says is that you disagree with Smith's rhetoric on whether Dartmouth has a "speech code."
ReplyDeleteI'm probably not voting for Smith, but I read his platform as being a bit more substantial than "end Dartmouth's speech code."
http://www.stephensmithtrustee.com/where-i-stand/
It is more substantial than just free speech, but that's the major way that opponents of the administration are seeking to criticize it and assert control over it.
ReplyDeleteFair point.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that Prof. Smith has noticed that the past 3 petition candidates have gotten elected by tapping into popular points of discontent among the alumni.
The part of his platform that bothers me even more, though, is the bit about the football team. Most of Dartmouth's sports teams are in pretty good shape by any measure (e.g. nationally ranked women's hockey team, ski team, etc.), and most varsity athletes aren't held to the same academic standards as the rest of us. Yet, Smith claims that athletics at Dartmouth is in dismal shape by pointing to the fact that the football hasn't won the Ivy championship in a while. It's a fairly ignorant argument to make and totally unfair to Furstenberg, but that sentiment is popular among the old alums, so why not throw it in there?
I'm afraid that the trustee election will once again turn into an "Insiders vs. Outsiders" contest, and the Trustee candidates will be cast as "tools of the administration" while the petition candidates will be cast as independent reformers of some kind. Once that happens, no one will look too closely at the candidates' substantive positions (we alums have our own lives and stuff, and it's not like this is a real government election), and once again a petition candidate will win.
This seems to be Janos Marton's strategy too, but I think he's overestimated his chances. To succeed as a petition candidate, you need to have a profile at least superficially similar to the other candidates (Dartmouth alum, some accomplishments in law or business, middle-aged, etc.). Marton will stand out for his youth, and people will (fairly or not) doubt his seriousness and qualifications. With Smith, the question on most people's minds will be "all else being equal, do we want another tool of the administration or not." Marton is missing the "all else equal" part.