<p>“OdysseyTigger - give me a break”</p>
<p>Closed minds don’t deserve a break. ☺</p>
<p>“1. Well gee, if they say so, we have to believe them! No one is denying that the push polling took place. So who else could it have possibly been? Obviously the administration isn't responsible for polling that attempted to bias alumni against it, so I ask you, who else could possibly have been responsible for this pathetic propaganda attempt? There are pro-petition backers that have contributed money and resources while maintaining anonymity. I'm supposed to believe it wasn't the work of anyone connected to them because they denied it in a student newspaper?”</p>
<p>OK, your rationale here is “because you say so” or “I know because I know”. Fact is, you don’t know. I could come up with any number of plausible scenarios as to who could have done the polling (including the administration). … and while no one is denying it took place, that is not the same as confirming it. Only members and supporters of Dartmouth Undying seem to have made any reports. Furthermore and to my point which you ignored, what you are calling “push polling” as characterized by Dartmouth Undying, I would call - based on the specific examples given - factual. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the polling supposedly from Dartmouth Undying which I was subjected to … .</p>
<p>“2. The two cartoonists are both members of the Phrygian Society (as reported in the D as well as letters to the editor in the D. I'm well aware of the D's penchant for "creative" journalism so if you can produce hard evidence that this is untrue then I will recant my claim.). As I'm sure you know this secret society is very anti-administration and has strong pro-petition ties; at least one trustee is a member and/or frequently corresponds with them (several brothers of my fraternity got tapped a couple of years ago, I'm glad I have nothing to do with them, especially in light of their recent actions). Given that you apparently weren't aware of this, I realize why you failed to see the connection I was trying to make. Perhaps you could do some more research next time?”</p>
<p>Geez. Again, you know because you know. … about a “SECRET” society that you aren’t a member of and have apparently no first hand knowledge of. </p>
<p>I don’t care about the cartoonists. It doesn’t matter. The Cartoon was published in the D. It was approved for publication in the D. That decision to publish was not made by the cartoonist. That decision was made by some editor or editors at the D. The D can not be considered sort of propaganda arm of pro parity alumni. (Although there are those who believe it is starting to appear as something of a propaganda arm for the administration)</p>
<p>But let me see if I have your argument down. Because two cartoonists in the D who supposedly belong to a “secret” society “with strong pro-petition ties” pen an questionable and offensive comic which the D publishes, all pro petition supporters are racist and sexist. </p>
<p>…But the D and those there who approved and published said comic are not so labeled, that label reserved exclusively in the Dartmouth media for the Review and more recently Dartblog, both of whom condemned the comic. </p>
<p>“3. Just because you oppose the board-packing plan doesn't mean you're a racist/sexist, we all get that yay. But what I'm saying is given the continued "slip-ups" that pro-petition advocates make, from the letter to the editor that I mentioned to this latest comic strip incident, it's not unreasonable for me to conclude that this is another, less publicized aspect of their agenda. Frankly, they're Freudian slips - why can't these people go seemingly five minutes without some sort of embarrassing scandal if there isn't something there? Why can't they keep the conversation civil and instead resort to "Bone-Y-Ram" level personal attacks if they AREN'T racist and/or sexist and those sorts of ideas aren't going to factor into their agenda for the college?”
“It doesn’t mean you’re a racist/sexist….but it is not unreasonable for me to conclude that” it is so. </p>
<p>This is the third time you have made the same false, libelous, offensive claim and the second time you denied it then repeated it again. It is why I called you out in the first place and I'm not about to let it go. It is not reasonable for you to conclude any such thing.</p>
<p>As for civility, have you observed the alumni in discussion of these matters. Read some of the blogs. The name calling almost all comes from the pro-administration side no matter how civil the pro parity side behaves. </p>
<p>“Now before you start going off about "goddamn PC leftists," let me add that while I am very liberal, I oppose race-based affirmative action in its current form as well as other things of that nature. So don't turn this into one of THOSE arguments. But there's very little that I hate more than racism/sexism, especially in institutionalized form (yes, it's ironic that I hate hate, let's move on). But let's assume that I even grant that the pro-petition candidates probably aren't planning on turning Dartmouth back into a 95% white and male institution. Even assuming that, imagine a situation when a black student or a female professor, for example, try to talk to one of these eminent trustees about an issue that is important to them, and in the back of the trustee's mind he is thinking, "Hahaha, Bone-Y-Ram at your service" or something similar. What kind of atmosphere is THAT going to create at our College on the Hill? “</p>
<p>Just to make sure I get this right:</p>
<p>“imagine a situation when a black student or a female professor, for example, try to talk to one of these eminent trustees about an issue that is important to them, and in the back of the trustee's mind he is thinking, "Hahaha, Bone-Y-Ram at your service" or something similar”</p>
<p>When you refer to “these” trustees, you are talking about:</p>
<p>TJ Rodgers
Founder, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
Cypress Semiconductor Corp.
Woodside, California
Elected 2004 (Alumni Trustee)
A.B. Dartmouth College
M.S., Ph.D. Stanford University</p>
<p>Peter M. Robinson
Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California
Elected 2005 (Alumni Trustee)
A.B. Dartmouth College
B.A. Oxford University
M.B.A. Stanford University</p>
<p>Stephen Smith
Professor of Law
John V. Ray Research Professor
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia
Elected 2007 (Alumni Trustee)
A.B. Dartmouth College
J.D. University of Virginia</p>
<p>Todd Zywicki
Professor of Law
George Mason University
School of Law
Falls Church, Virginia
Elected 2005 (Alumni Trustee)
A.B. Dartmouth College
M.A. Clemson University
J.D. University of Virginia</p>
<p>Is that correct? … and you are aware that Professor Smith is black?</p>
<p>“Look, people's beliefs are their own, and I understand that different people are going to have different prejudices that don't necessarily make them racist. I'm not advocating excluding everyone with racist thoughts from positions of importance. But the pro-petition people have time and again resorted to these crude racial and gender-based attacks. I mean, this latest incident was basically this girl bringing up issues that are important to her and to the College and these two Phrygians saying the equivalent of, "Shut up, you're a stupid Asian *****." “</p>
<p>Actually, I think it was her attempt to appear to speak for Dartmouth students as a whole that engendered the “shut ups” from any number of quarters. Only in the D was it done in so offensive a manner. </p>
<p>“Is this the level of discourse that we can look forward to if the pro-petition side has its way? Why am I supposed to respect people who bring arguments down to that level? More importantly, why am I supposed to believe that they will magically stop thinking in those terms if they get the power to control the College's fate? The time for giving them the benefit of the doubt is over. Until they can prove to me that they are willing to respect people that are different from them, I will continue to have zero respect for them and to believe that the appointment of them and/or their representatives to the Board of Trustees will have a pernicious effect on the environment at Dartmouth. I don't care too much about their personal beliefs if they keep those beliefs separate from their handling of college affairs (I am personally quite uncomfortable with having people with openly racist views on the board of trustees and representing Dartmouth but I would be willing to get over it if they kept their beliefs separate from their business). But these scandals demonstrate that they CAN'T isolate these beliefs from their dealings with the College community.”</p>
<p>This is just dumbfounding. Stephen Smith is a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is black. He won the last alumni trustee election with 55% of all voters voting for him. Those votes came from those in the pro parity camp. You may disagree with him for any number of reasons, but the facile labeling of he and his supporters as “racists” represents a level of absurdity beyond belief. The entire notion that those who voted AGAINST a black man can smugly blanket with the label “racist” those who voted FOR him is uniquely offensive. </p>
<p>“Concerning the women on the pro-parity slate - I don't know their names or much about them, so I can't comment on them specifically. What I will say is that all the women from the early coed classes that I've ever talked to have absolutely HATED their experiences because the Dartmouth "men" of the time did their absolute best to make their lives miserable.”</p>
<p>… and how many is that? I will repeat the FIRST woman to graduate from Dartmouth is running on the pro parity slate. The other women so running is an ’81. On the Dartmouth Undying slate there is an ’82 and an ’84. It is safe to say that none of these women hated their experience at Dartmouth. …nor did the vast majority of their classmates who remain involved in Dartmouth to this day. </p>
<p>Just think for moment. Do you know many guys in the 18 -22 age range? How many of them would prefer not to have 18 – 22 year old women around? Why do you seem to think guys were any different 30 years ago? </p>
<p>Maybe some of the guys who enrolled in an all men’s school were upset because it wasn’t what they signed up for, but the biggest problem socially for the first few coed classes was that there were not ENOUGH women admitted. Three guys for every girl. That problem was rectified quickly.</p>
<p>“ These are, of course, many of the same men that are now trying to reshape the college in the way that they see it. And apparently, one aspect of the way that they see it is being extremely hostile to women for having the temerity to enroll at "their" school.’ “</p>
<p>This is so off the mark that it is embarrassing. Find me
ANYTHING that supports this. Most of the pro parity slate post dates coeducation. At least one of the men has a daughter at the school. </p>
<p>“4. You are trying to turn this into a black-and-white dichotomy. Why do you think I can't BOTH oppose the parity slate and be upset about hires like Priya Venkatesan? First of all, your distinction that the parity candidates want to hire good professors and teachers is pointless because who in their right mind would ever advocate hiring bad professors? It's not like the administration's position is, "Let's hire crappy professors, we've got too many good ones." Obviously, everyone's goal is to hire the best possible professors/lecturers/whatever. Now, this administration is so mind-bogglingly incompetent that it's not surprising that it's produced crappy hires like this. Guess what? I hate this administration. I want them all out on their corrupt, bureaucratic, nepotistic asses. I am not planning on donating any money to the school while anyone associated with this administration continues to be involved in a major way. But that doesn't mean that I think the pro-parity people are any better.”</p>
<p>First, I am trying no such thing. Your first post.</p>
<p>“To put things in perspective, these are the same people that support the Association of Alumni's lawsuit against the college….
I oppose the lawsuit faction just as much; this comic is an example of why. The people that make up this faction are reactionary and regressive.”</p>
<p>Second, </p>
<p>Quote me if you wish, but don’t make up phantom bogeys.</p>
<p>‘First of all, your distinction that the parity candidates want to hire good professors and teachers is pointless” </p>
<p>I made no such distinction. I stated the following: “Quality of and focus on undergraduate education and teaching are the primary concerns of parity candidates when not arguing parity. That's where Priya comes in. (won't get into how she managed to graduate) She got hired for a research position at the Med School and ended up teaching writing to Freshmen.”</p>
<p>This is a debate between focusing on undergraduate teaching versus focusing on graduate school research. Priya is a perfect example - hired for a research position at the Med School - teaching writing at the college. If you don’t understand that this is exactly what the petition candidates have been complaining about in concept for years, that this appears to have been the primary motivating reason for the emergence of the petition candidates, I don’t know where else to go with it. </p>
<p>Please also understand that most alumni find it unfathomable that current undergrads are getting shut out of classes. It is simply something that few experienced and is viewed by many as a significant negative qualitative measure of the current state of undergraduate education at the college.</p>
<p>“5. "exactly how much kool aid have you drunk?" I have drunk exactly zero Kool-Aid. I am not a fan of this administration, like you seem to think. I think that they are terrible for this school and most if not all of what they have done has been wrongheaded and inappropriate. A lot of what they have done has backfired in ways that anyone with even a tiny bit of imagination could have predicted. They have done their best to **** off as many people as humanly possible’</p>
<p>☺ gotta laugh at that one. Yep. This dates back at least to Friedman’s arrival. (If they had just packed the board by fiat originally instead of first trying to do it through alumni election – it probably would have gone through with relatively minimal *****ing. But to do it after the bitterness and overwhelming result of that election…. Yikes, what were they thinking???)</p>
<p>Still, you seem to have absorbed many of the admins talking points about their opponents. </p>
<p>“and the sooner they all get out of here the better off the College will be.”
This is again befuddling. They are not going to go anywhere if the lawsuit is dropped. Do you not understand that? Only if they lose the upcoming AoA vote will there be some action. Starting most likely with an effort to settle the lawsuit, because despite what their mouthpieces say (and say and say and say), the College is not going to win this case with this judge. </p>
<p>“Now, I don't put a lot of stock into the whole, "Pro-administration trustees can't get elected anymore that means most alumni believe in the petition candidates' agenda" argument and here's why (I'll also ignore your implication that a potentially immoral idea somehow gets legitimized if a majority supports it because I've already wasted enough time on this stupid argument).”</p>
<p>Aaagh! Pay attention. This is not a moral issue. The petition candidates’ agenda is not racism and sexism. I did not make the “implication that a potentially immoral idea somehow gets legitimized if a majority supports it”. My position is that the Dartmouth alumni as a whole (on either side of any issue) are not racist, sexist or immoral. They are by and large quality people in every sense of the world, care deeply about their college, have been inculcated with a sense of ownership of it and responsibility for it at least since they first set foot in Hanover, and sincerely want what is best for what most believe to be the best undergraduate institution in the world. The alumni are not going to vote for a petition candidate without good cause and are incapable in the majority to support an immoral idea. It is demeaning and insulting to the alumni to imply otherwise.</p>
<p>The general alumni are also not stupid. Stephen Smith was elected because he was the only candidate who opposed the failed constitution. </p>
<p>“Like I said, there is a small vocal minority that actively opposes the direction that Dartmouth is currently going in (I generally agree with the direction we are going in, i.e. spending more on graduate programs and research to compete with the other Ivys, growing Dartmouth's name recognition, etc, and I believe this can be done without sacrificing Dartmouth's undergraduate focus (just look at Princeton); I just hate this administration).”</p>
<p>The majority of the voting alumni would I believe beg to disagree. Even Wright won’t acknowledge he is doing what you describe.</p>
<p>But if you are right, then the college should be able to win a TRUSTEE election on the merits and not resort to improperly changing the agreed upon rules for selecting trustees.</p>
<p>When Steele won as a petition candidate, the Trustees woke up, got their act together and addressed the alumni concerns. They integrated him into the board. The alumni did not elect a second petition candidate.</p>
<p>This time, Rogers was not so integrated. The board has kept telling the alumni that they got it wrong and the alumni has answered back – “no, we didn’t” - until the board finally said – “bleep you” </p>
<p>“ My feeling is that the majority of alumni are reasonable people that just want to see their college doing well and succeeding in an increasingly cutthroat environment. This administration has been so colossally inept and it has moved forward unilaterally on so many issues that it has managed to alienate a huge portion of Dartmouth's alumni. “</p>
<p>That they have. They know it. And they don’t care. Haldeman intentionally had big big donors hold back donations last year so that their donations this year could be used to offset the donations lost because of the board packing plan (and the college could publicly claim that alumni giving was not affected).</p>
<p>“Hell, they've managed to alienate me, and I'm not even an alumni AND I agree with the general direction in which they are trying (and failing) to take the college.”</p>
<p>Quite a trifecta. …and they probably did it without trying.</p>
<p>“ Thus, I believe that the majority of the votes cast in the last few elections have been not so much for the petition candidates as against the administration.’</p>
<p>And I believe you are wrong about this, that they go hand in hand.</p>
<p>“And as is typical, rather than addressing the concerns of the alumni, the majority of whom I'm sure have very reasonable demands, they resorted to stupid tricks to preserve their power. “
But you are right on here.</p>
<p>“It almost seems to me like this administration is pathologically unable to compromise. And yes, that has played a significant role in the position we all find ourselves in today.”</p>
<p>No comment</p>
<p>“ But frankly, this lawsuit is counterproductive and isn't helping matters.”</p>
<p>This lawsuit is a last resort. It is this only thing that will reign in the current board and administration.</p>
<p>“The fact that I haven't bowed down to the "pro-parity" slate doesn't mean that I have drunk any kool-aid.””</p>
<p>That was a reference to your repeated and continued characterization of parity supporters as racist and sexist. </p>
<p>“Just so you know, I'm a Zete. I'm a current undergrad Zete. That means I got completely ****ed by the administration. I don't owe them any favors, I feel no compulsion to defend them, and I hope that they get exposed as the incompetent frauds that they are. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sell my soul or abandon my beliefs and values just to get revenge on them. That would be short-sighted.”</p>
<p>My condolences. I went to HS with Scott Sipple.</p>
<p>“Quote:
I've quite got my own opinion... and for now at least, I've got a vote. Do you? Will you?
Now who sounds like they've been drinking kool-aid?”</p>
<p>??? Right now I have a vote that in concept at least can meaningfully impact the direction of Dartmouth. I have had such a vote and exercised it annually for more than 20 years.</p>
<p>Next year, I may not. </p>
<p>You, being a current undergrad, may never have such a vote.</p>
<p>This is fact.</p>
<p>“If you want to (very quickly) know my proposed solution to this whole mess, with which a number of people have agreed (although they also pointed out that it will never happen and I agree with them on that), it's that the AoA should drop the lawsuit in exchange for Administration resigning en masse. The AoA gets what it ultimately wants…”</p>
<p>Over the Administration’s cold dead bodies. The AoA would drop the lawsuit in a second if they could be assured that the Board would drop permanently the idea of non parity board expansion. That’s what the AoA wants. </p>
<p>“, and Dartmouth is spared a pointless multi-year soap opera which will only succeed in sending our reputation down the crapper.”</p>
<p>Daniel Webster, that reactionary he, didn’t cause Dartmouth’s reputation to crash. Neither will this.</p>
<p>“The next president should be a 3rd party brought in from the outside with no prior affiliation with the school, so that there can be a fresh start and no festering prejudices. But this makes way too much sense to actually happen. So we get this ****show instead. Fantastic.”</p>
<p>Can’t disagree more. Last good president here was Mcglaughlin – an alum. Friedman was a disaster, had no idea what Dartmouth was and started this mess. New president needs to be an alum – a Dartmouth man or woman.</p>
