Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Trustees Haldeman '70 and Mulley '70 Dodge Questions about the Presidential Search

On Monday, Haldeman and Mulley hosted a meeting with the students to receive input about what we wanted to see in the next president. Unfortunately this discussion was not a two-way street, so we are still left in the dark as to what the committee will prioritize in the search for Dartmouth's next president. Dartblog's coverage can be read here.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting report.

1. Anyone know the basis for the assertion that James wright has been "not-so-subtly grooming" Carol Folt to be the next president?

2. Perhaps I'm missing something, but does anyone know why Jake thinks it's strange that the Dean of the College was at the meeting?

3. Does anyone know if the Trustees passed on any information of substance about the search process? I don't know how answer-worthy the questions were, but it sounds like they mostly dodged questions and said nothing other than that the next president should be competent and need not necessarily come from with the College administration/faculty.

chumbawumba said...

Why should the trustees tell students anything about the presidential search? Is this supposed to be some kind of public process? I don't think so.

chumbadumba said...

chumbawumba is correct. The students will soon be alumni and should get used to being treated as such. The Board is infallible because it is the Board and must only act in the best interests of Dartmouth. If having the alumni and the students (and maybe the faculty, but surely not the administration) think that the Board is out of touch and not responsive to these groups, so be it. This is not a matter for the Board to be concerned with. It can't be any simpler than that. Vote Dartmouth Undying.

Truth Be Told said...

I agree with DumbaChumba.

A joke for everyone:

Q: How do you drop the IQ of an intelligent Dartmouth student by 75 or more points?

A: Hand him/her a diploma and turn him/her into a stupid alum.

We should all accept that alumni are stupid (except the ones on the Board!) and that they need play no role in the College's governance.

Vote for Dartmouth Undying and support them in supporting the Enabling Act!!!

ChumbaDumba said...

"We should all accept that alumni are stupid (except the ones on the Board!) and that they need play no role in the College's governance."

One of the trustees made $710,000,000 last year. How much smarter can you get? How many classes in aggregate make that much? See, it's simple. Vote Dartmouth Undying.

Anonymous said...

Who? Tell all?

Probably Mandel, right?

Anonymous said...

Yup.

"Stephen Mandel, 52, ranked eighth with $710 million in compensation last year, was down about 10.6 percent in his Lone Cedar Fund at the end of March from a high in December, according to people familiar with the fund."

chumbawumba said...

Chumbadumba, if you don't get to vote in elections for the president of France, it must be because the French think you are stoopid! And because the French government is infallible. Those are the only possible reasons to exclude you from voting in an election where the electorate is limited in a constitution.

If you can still read now that you've become an alum, you should read the charter. It says the president is elected by a majority of the trustees. Even though this is a matter for only the board to be concerned with, the board is conducting the most open search in Dartmouth history. You are looking a gift horse in the mouth with your whimpering about wanting a "role" in college governance. Alumni have never had a "role" in picking the president.

Old alum said...

Truth be told, what is the "Enabling Act"?

chumbadumba said...

Chumbawumba – Sure, I may be “whimpering”, but everything I wrote is consistent with your position, isn’t it?

On another level, this is all just a poorly orchestrated PR campaign. The powers in charge want to perpetuate all the dear old Dartmouth myths and the ceremonies that go with them, while alumni are getting tired of being patronized.

When 15,000 alumni vote for Murphy and his slate, are you really going to be able to say that they are all in bed with the HI?

Anonymous said...

“This is a complicated institution at a complicated time,” said Carey Heckman ’76, “a time when Dartmouth needs a leader with humility who can inspire personal trust.”

chumbawumba said...

Whimpering Chumbadumba, almost nothing you wrote is consistent with logic.

The Board is not infallible, as if that mattered. If the Board is out of touch, it would be wise to get in touch.

Those characteristics have little to do with the board's presidential election. The public still has only whatever say the board decides to give it in this private search. If the rules of the charter bother you, get over it. If the tone of Dartmouth's PR bothers you, read the junk mail sent by the AoA for patronizing pap.

----
No one will be able to say that the alums voting for the HI slate are "in bed with the HI." That's because the HI and its officers have consistently misled alumni about the Hanover Institute's direction, endorsement, or funding of the candidacies of alumni trustees, the candidacies of Exec. Comm. members, or the lawsuit. There is no way that alums can decide whether to get into bed with the HI when they are not being told that the AoA is already there.

ChumbaDumba said...

"Whimpering Chumbadumba, almost nothing you wrote is consistent with logic."

I didn't say it was. I said it was consistent with your position.

What we need to "get over" is that alumni are going to cast their votes based on logic, emotions, incorrect information, borrowed opinions, or whatever and all this foolishness will continue until a leader steps forward and ends it.

And then you and I can become a vaudeville team.

chumbawumba said...

The implication was that it was also inconsistent with my position, which is a logical one.

"What we need to "get over" is that alumni are going to cast their votes..."

Why do you keep talking about the Exec. Comm. election? Maybe we need to "get over" the fact that you do not understand that the alumni do not elect the Dartmouth president.

ChumbaDumba said...

Chumbawumba - You've missed my point entirely. But, it's not your fault.

I know that the alumni doesn't elect the president.

So, you've won me over. Now you have another 14,999 to convince. (I'm assuming about 25,000 of us will vote and 10,000 will obey you and VOTE Dartmouth Undying. So you really only need to sway another 2500.) My point is simple. Even if alumni have no rights at all (one of the things we agree on), they think they have a say and no amount of blogging by you or others is going to change that. And few of them are HI conspirators. If the College wants to make peace with the alumni or at least get them to quiet down, it needs to try another strategy. Patronizingly beating them into submission has proven to be ineffective. If it doesn't want to make peace, then we will be stuck where we are for some time. Maybe that's OK too.

chumbawumba said...

"Now you have another 14,999 to convince."

Why? I think your weird ideas put you in the minority and there are not 15,000 others like you. There is no alum who believes with certainty that the alumni elect the president. There won't be any mention of the Dartmouth presidency on the ballot. I think you're backtracking to cover your confusion of two unrelated issues.

"If the College wants to make peace with the alumni or at least get them to quiet down, it needs to try another strategy." Some strategy other than self-defense in court? I don't think so.

"Patronizingly beating them into submission has proven to be ineffective." What's patronizing, and what's "beating" alumni into submission? Wouldn't a lawsuit be an example of "beating" a group into submission?

Are you asking for nothing more than a change in the tone of Dartmouth's public relations? You should email the PR office.

ChumbaDumba said...

I guess part of our misunderstanding is that this thread is about the presidential search, whereas I'm talking about broader issues related to alumni discontent.

This thread is also several days old and far down the list, so I suspect it's just the chumba brothers here now.

Dartmouth may need a boost in the PR and AR departments, but I don't see anything changing until the new president arrives.

Whatever side wins the AoA election will determine the fate of the lawsuit but it won't matter at all in the larger context.

I'm out of here, John.