Response to Klorese

An alum’s response to the Klorese ’77 Op-Ed:

Roger Klorese ’77 is completely wrong on the law in his piece in
the “D”. Though one can argue as to whether the alumni should be an
important stakeholder in the College, there is no doubt that they could
contract with the Board to hold a certain number of seats on the Board.
Judge Vaughan’s ruling in favor of the AoA on the Motion to Dismiss states

“The Court further finds that the Board had the requisite
authority to enter into the Agreement, and that the Agreement did not
represent an improper delegation of the Board’s duties” (p. 13).

If Bill Gate’s were to offer Dartmouth $1BN, but ask that he and
his heirs have a permanent seat on the Board, there is no doubt that the
Board could enter into this Agreement – just as the Board enters into short
term agreements with Trustees today, eg.: “Ed, you give us $10M and we’ll
name a building after you and give you a seat on the Board…”.

My two cents, below the fold.

The pro board-packing faction’s motivations for attempting to paint parity as a “conservative cabal” are painfully transparent. With a nominally ‘conservative’ president mired so low in the polls that no one will touch him, the word ‘conservative’ has recently come to represent all of the blundering that came with his presidency, fairly or unfairly. There are two glaring problems with the board-packer’s assertions:

  1. Not all of the pro-parity folks are conservative. Indeed, one of the most prominent people for parity is T.J. Rodgers ’70. Rodgers (a) is a leading producer of solar power, (b) has said the following when asked who he’d vote for: “In my value system where the good guys are libertarians and the bad guys are totalitarian, there are two bad guys–McCain and Hillary. I would vote against them for anybody else. For example, I’d vote for Obama,” (c) and he only married his girlfriend of 22 years for tax reasons. Marian Chambers ’76, who is running for the AoA’s secretary/treasurer position, “worked for the Democrats in Congress for 23 years.” And just recently, Dartblog published a letter from Daniel King ’02 urging his fellow progressives to get behind parity. He described himself as, “ an openly gay man, a teacher, a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and the Human Rights Campaign.”
  2. Second, and more importantly, transparency and fair play are not left/right, democrat/republican, or liberal/conservative issues. As Marian Chambers stated in an interview with us, it’s just commonsense. Is their not something just a little hilarious in the fact that the board-packers are ‘slandering’ their opponents for believing in fair play? The board-packers have probably picked the right side of history to be on, but that’s nothing to be proud of.