Monday, May 04, 2009

Dartmouth Alums Aren't Alone

Dartmouth alumni aren't the only ones being disenfranchised by their alma mater. It turns out Harvard alums are getting the same sort of treatment down in Cambridge, where two petition candidates are attempting to run against eight official candidates. Unsurprisingly, they're haivng many of the same problems Dartmouth petition candidates have: active opposition from the administration, being outfinanced, denial of mailing lists, etc.

FIRE (short for the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education), has the story.


Dartmouth alumnus said...

Isn't there a better word than "disenfranchised"? Alums still have a right to vote for their 8 nominees. What you are talking about is "parity."

You should mention that FIRE has a vested interest in turning up impediments to petition candidates at Harvard. FIRE's cofounder Harvey Silvergate is running as a petition candidate.

If the FIRE board were democratic and transparent instead of secret and self-appointed, we could vote on whether to let Silvergate use FIRE as his own personal Political Action Committee.

Another Dartmouth alumnus said...

"Disenfranchised" is exactly the proper word. Unrelated to parity, the alumni right to determine their own nominee election rules has been usurped by the Board.

More here.FIRE has never represented itself as a inclusive and transparent organization. Dartmouth and its alumni organizations all have, so there is no comparison.

Dartmouth alumnus said...

The right of alumni to determine election rules has not been usurped by anyone. Alumni are deciding right now whether to keep the 1990 rules for "approval voting," which the Power Line says is the better one for petition candidates, or to go with the 1915-1990 rules for "one man, one vote." It is up to the alumni which system they will use.

The Blog post should have disclosed FIRE's interest in the story it is putting out as a matter of good journalism.

Not Exactly said...

The alumni vote on whether to change "their rules" was a sham, as the trustees had issued an ultimatum that those rules would be ignored, i.e. the board would administer the alumni elections rather than alumni themselves, unless alumni voted for new rules in line with trustee requirements.