Ed Haldeman is a fucking liar

which I suppose I should qualify by saying that I have relatively little knowledge of his personal life, so my adjective usage is speculative.

Recently, the Dartmouth board of trustees has found itself in the unusual position of having to actually live with some of the platitudes they have been mouthing presumably since time immemorial (or at least, since the until today current makeup of the board was established in 1891).  Dartmouth's board has, since 1891, had half of its members elected by the alumni.   This allowed Dartmouth's alumni to feel like they had a more significant role in the future of the college than they would have in most similar institutions, but until recently has not fundamentally changed the way the board of trustees functions.  The board is a tightly held, monolithic, self-sustaining organization, and it always has been.  The alumni-elected members of the board were selected and nominated by the College, rubber stamped by the alumni, and for all intents and purposes might as well have been chosen by the board directly without all the extra paperwork.

All this changed in 2004, when T. J. Rodgers won a petition campaign to be nominated by the alumni, and was subsequently elected to the board of trustees.  Rodgers had been public about his disagreement with the direction of the College during his election campaign, and his election represented a significant break with the monolithic makeup of the Dartmouth board.  Following his election, the trustee elections have all gone to petition candidates, all of whom have been opposed to the College's current policies and directions.

Today, the board of trustees finally got around to fixing this ongoing alumni uprising.  The size of the board of trustees was increased by eight non-elected members, guaranteeing that the non-elected members of the board can maintain a permanent majority over any upstarts the alumni choose to elect.  The chairman of the board, Ed Haldeman, sent a letter to the alumni today detailing the reasons for the board's decision.  Among the choice parts:

The changes we are making preserve alumni democracy at Dartmouth by keeping eight alumni-nominated trustees. They expand the Board with eight additional charter trustees, adding alumni to meet the needs of the College. And, they address the destructive politicization of trustee campaigns that have hurt Dartmouth. These changes represent a balancing of competing interests.

The changes the board made do precisely the opposite of preserving alumni democracy.  They ensure that the alumni cannot even elect enough board members to stall the board's decision, let alone create a majority.  Mr. Haldeman throws in extra fluff about the new non-elected members being alumni - but all of the board (excluding the ex officio members) are alumni, and were when the alumni elected Mr. Rodgers.  Finally, this is the first of many references to the "destructive politicization" of Dartmouth board elections.  It's safe to assume that "destructive politicization" is code for "debate," in much the same way that "partisan stalling tactics" is generally code for "disagreement."

And, they will ensure that, moving forward, the College has a strong, effective, and independent governing body.

It is worth wondering from what the board is maintaining its independence.  in this case, probably the alumni, as well as other annoyances like accountability.

Mr. Haldeman further explains how the newly expanded board will "Better Meet the Needs of the College:"

We also are giving the Board more flexibility to select trustees who offer the specific talents and experiences that the College needs, which elections don't ensure.

The recent elections have selected such complete incompetents as the founder and CEO of a major semi-conductor company, and two professors of law.  These individuals cannot be expected to have the wide range of skills it takes to manage a small college, of course.

Mr Haldeman expands on his earlier point about maintaining alumni democracy:

We are maintaining alumni trustee elections at their current level and preserving the ability of alumni to petition onto the ballot.

This is a blatant lie.  The percentage of alumni representation among the (non ex officio) trustees has dropped from 50 to 33 percent.  Whether this was accomplished by increasing the number of non-elected trustees, decreasing the number of elected trustees, increasing both but unequally, or sharks with lasers is trivia, and I'm sure that Mr. Haldeman's high quality Dartmouth education allowed him to see that.

A larger group of trustees representing even more diverse backgrounds will help us enhance Board engagement with key areas of the College including academic affairs, student life, and alumni relations. We are therefore creating new Board committees focused on each of these three critical areas.  This will facilitate greater interaction and communication with individuals in each of these three areas.

This is a bold new take on democracy: rather than allowing the represented to choose their representatives, the government will choose representatives.  This is necessary because the represented, with their high-quality highly priced Dartmouth educations, are too stupid to choose trustees who will actually represent their interests and goals.

Mr. Haldeman can't do without another comment or two about divisiveness:

I know there are strongly held views on all sides of this issue. And I respect that many of those views are driven above all by a desire to do what is best for Dartmouth and its students. But some of the recent rhetoric in this debate has become so harsh and divisive it is now doing harm to Dartmouth.

But it's worth mentioning that nowhere has Mr. Haldeman mentioned how the "politicization" or "divisiveness" or "partisan gerrymandering" or "counter-revolutionary behavior" that he's so eager to stamp out is actually harming the College.  In fact, despite having 1254 words of body text in his email to the alumni, repeating the same tired rhetoric in many cases two or three times, he cannot point to a single harm to the College or its members.  The only harm being done is to Mr. Haldeman's personal ability to run his little fiefdom without interference.

Mr. Haldeman closes with:

And, I look forward to continuing to work with all of you - alumni, faculty, students and parents - to build on Dartmouth's unique and pre-eminent place in American higher education.

I believe that he has probably convinced himself, over the course of this debate, that he does want to work with the faculty, parents, and alumni to improve things at Dartmouth, in much the same way that I believe that President Bush has convinced himself at each stage of our failure in Iraq that he is doing what's best for both the United States and Iraqi population, or that Stalin convinced himself that starving 6 million Ukrainians was a necessary step to establishing a happier future for everyone, including the Ukraine. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Haldeman, he is wrong.  The steps he and the board have taken are not increasing involvement with the alumni, nor are they addressing the issues that first led to the increase alumni politicization.  As with Stalin and the Ukraine, Mr. Haldeman is showing all of us alumni who's boss, and on who's terms we're going to play.

From that angle, he's been successful.  Unless the expected flurry of lawsuits reverses the Board's decisions, Mr. Haldeman presumably will find that there's less public debate, for much the same reason that elections in the USSR were simpler, quieter things than they ever were in this country.

However, I hope Mr. Haldeman discovers alumni reacting in a different way.  Dartmouth's split board provided an interesting mode of expression to alumni not available to them at many schools; it also made it unnecessary for alumni to vote with their contributions.  However, this is no longer the case.  For alumni disinterested in the College's policies, the only remaining option is to stop contributing.

I sincerely hope they do, and I pledge personally to not contribute to Dartmouth until the board parity is restored and Mr. Haldeman steps down as president of the board (and hopefully, retires from the board altogether).  What he has done is reprehensible.  He has changed one of the fundamental principles of the board.  He has lied to the alumni about his motivations and that of the board, and about the effects of his change.  This is not acceptable conduct from someone in any position of responsibility, from the President of the United States to the Chairman of the Board of a small liberal arts college.

- J. Garrett Morris, D'05.

Some post scripts:

- It is certainly true that the decision made by the board had many contributors, not simply Mr. Haldeman.  However, Mr. Haldeman chose to put his name, alone, at the bottom of the explanation to the alumni, so I see no reason that he should not be held responsible for the content, and motivation, of that explanation and the actions it explains.

- It is also true that I do not agree with the policies of the board, and do agree with the statements of the various petition candidates.  However, the board's decisions go far beyond the current issues facing the school to fundamentally undermining alumni input.

- Finally, it is unquestionably true that should alumni stop donating to the College, it may damage the quality of education or student life available at Dartmouth.  This is an inevitable result of the decisions of the board, and hopefully one that will be reversed when the board realizes the fundamental errors in their decisions.  It is also true that Dartmouth educates somewhere under 2000 undergraduates per year.  These students are highly motivated, gifted individuals who have many options open to them, and would obtain a quality education many places besides Dartmouth.  In that sense, were Dartmouth to fall into the Connecticut River tomorrow, the quality of education in America would not be significantly affected.  Rather, Dartmouth offers a specific environment to its students, and the damage to that environment is already being done - or has been done - by the administration and the board.  Any effect of a drop in alumni contributions will simply make that effect visible to those unwilling or unable to see it beforehand.