THIRTY YEARS OF ALUMNI REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

The Alumni of Dartmouth College were admitted by the Trustees to participate in its government in 1891. They have exercised that privilege during the intervening years, subject only to the regulations prescribed by the General Alumni Association respecting qualifications for the suffrage, the method of nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees and the procedure in voting. Until recently only scant attention seems to have been given to the actual working of alumni representation under those regulations upon the college or the alumni. The recent appointment by that Association of a committee to consider what changes, if any, ought to be made in the constitution and by-laws of the Association, especially in the method therein provided for nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees and for the Council, with instructions to report its conclusions to the next annual meeting of the Association in June, 1924 suggests that a brief review of the results of alumni representation on the Board of Trustees during the last thirty years now may prove informing and helpful to the alumni.

The unprecedented increase in the size of the college classes during the latter part of that period which has changed the "centre of gravity" of the whole alumni body so that in 1922 it was estimated that fully half of the then living alumni were graduates of only twelve years' standing or less, (See Dart. Al. Mag. Feb. 1922, p. 245) renders it probable that a large part of the present electorate has only slight knowledge of the causes which a generation ago led to the introduction of alumni representation on the Board of Trustees or of the regulations which have been adopted to give it effect. This circumstance makes desirable a summary statement respecting both those causes and regulations.

The Charter of Dartmouth College granted in 1769 vested its control in twelve trustees who were enpowered to fill any vacancies occurring in their own number, subject to the restriction that seven of them should be laymen and seven respectable freeholders and residents of New Hampshire. The Founder of the College, though far-visioned, thought of the "Indian and other youth" whom it might train only as its beneficiaries and not as graduates (the name alumni is. not found in the Charter) who might acquire such interest in its permanent welfare and become in such large measure its benefactors as to entitle them to claim some share in its government. In fact, the development of an alumni consciousness among the graduates of Dartmouth, as among those of the; other New England colleges, was exceedingly slow and it was not until its centennial in 1869 that the General Alumni Association, having been appealed to by the Trustees for its sympathy and active cooperation in. securing the more adequate endowment of the College, first formally asked the trustees to admit the alumni to share in the control of the College. Expressing the opinion that the government of the" College by a close corporation—a self-perpetuating body—was ill adapted to understand or satisfy the rapidly changing educational needs of the country, and that its continued government by such a body largely selected from one state, New Hampshire, must bar the College from acquiring the support which otherwise it might have of a national constituency, the alumni concluded their formal request for representation by declaring that it was essential in order to secure the co-operation sought from them by the trustees that a minority of the trustees be elected by the alumni. The natural reluctance of the trustees to grant this request, the real difficulty of finding any way to do it without endangering the rights of the College under its charter as confirmed by the memorable judgment of the Supreme Court in 1819, and long discussions between committees of the alumni and the trustees over proposed substitutes for what the former asked and the temporary trial'of one of them (for full description by Prof. John K. Lord, see History of the College, vol. 2, chapters 13 and 14) united to delay the grant of alumni representation upon the Board of Trustees in a form and measure which satisfied the alumni till Commencement in 1891.

This result then was accomplished by a "gentlemen's agreement" between the alumni and the trustees, since the latter were powerless under the charter to divest themselves of their rights and duties in electing their successors. This agreement, which always has been faithfully observed in its letter and spirit by both parties, provides that the graduates of the College and the Associated Schools of at least three years' standing (prior to amendment of 1900 five years' standing) may nominate a suitable person for election to five of the twelve trusteeships becoming vacant from time to time, each such trustee to serve for a period of five years but to be eligible (amendment of 1916) for re-election for a second cessive term, and to be bound to resign at the end of the period for which he shall be elected.

The regulations adopted by the Alumni Association in 1891 to give effect to this agreement prescribed that nominations of Alumni Trustees should be made by a committee annually appointed by its president whose duty it should be to select five candidates for each vacancy to be filled by the alumni when occurring and (first securing the consent of each of them to stand for election) to prepare blank ballots with their names printed thereon, and, with space for adding any other name thereto, to distribute these ballots among the alumni qualified to vote, and to receive them when returned by mail or cast in person at the polls at the next Commencement, to count the votes, declare the result at the Commencement dinner, and finally certify the name of the person receiving the largest number of votes to the Trustees as the nominee of the alumni for election by them to their Board. Criticism of this method of nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees by an annually appointed committee as undemocratic began quickly and in 1896 the Alumni Association voted that thereafter such nominations should be made by the whole body of qualified Alumni, but the majority favoring this change was so small that the Executive Committee of the Association . did not deem itself authorized to give effect to this vote and so no change then was made in the regulations. A practice which the nominating committee soon adopted of placing upon the annual official ballots at the head of the list of the five names of its nominees the name of that one whose selection as candidate for Alumni Trustee the Committee, justly or unjustly, appeared to recommend to fill the existing vacancy on the board of trustees gradually made it more and more difficult for the Committee to secure the consent of four other well qualified persons who would allow their names to appear on the list in an order which starred them for defeat. Dissatisfaction with this procedure increased until in June, 1915, by amendment of these regulations, the selection of candidates for Alumni Trustees was taken from this annually appointed committee on nominations and intrusted to the newly formed Alumni Council. This body now consists of twenty-five members ; four exofficio members, as follows : the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Alumni Association, its Secretary, the ranking member of the Athletic Council, and a member of the Faculty chosen by it, and twenty-one elective members as follows: three members from each of five geographical divisions of the country, three members from the alumni at large to be elected by the Secretaries Association, and three members from the alumni at large to be elected by the Council as above formed, all these elective members, one-third of them being chosen each year, to be elected for a term of three years. After only one year's experience of the difficulty of finding five suitable candidates for an Alumni Trustee willing to submit themselves to an electoral campaign, the Council in 1916 recommended that the regulations be amended so that the Council be empowered to select and publish not less than four months before Commencement the name of one candidate, in lieu of five candidates heretofore prescribed, for each vacancy in the office of Alumni Trustee, and that the official ballot when sent out should have printed upon it the name of this candidate and also that of any alumnus who shall have been duly certified to the Secretary of the Alumni Association for Alumni Trustee on or before April first of each year by a nomination paper signed by not less than twentyfive alumni eligible to vote for trustee. This amendment to the regulations, which was adopted by the Alumni Association in June, 1916, is still in force.

Such being the agreement between the Trustees and the Alumni Association made in 1891 to enable the Alumni to share in the government of the College and such the regulations adopted by the Alumni Association at different times to give it effect, we now are prepared to ask what have been the results of this agreement and these regulations to the College. Presumably all or nearly all persons who are familiar with the history of the College, its comparative weakness, meager resources, and slight hold upon its alumni thirty years ago and its present condition will agree in replying that the results have been highly beneficial. In particular such persons with substantial unanimity affirm that the apprehensions, which some of the trustees expressed in 1891 that the grant of alumni representation upon the Board of Trustees might lead, if not to revolutionary changes in the College, at least to the adoption of harmful educational policies, have proved to be unfounded and that the graduates elected to be Alumni Trustees generally have been well qualified for the discharge of their duties. Further, they claim that alumni representation has sufficed to remedy the special defects that formerly were alleged to inhere in the control of the College by a close corporation of self perpetuating trustees, too largely made up from residents of its vicinage and of men who by reason of their training and associations were slow to understand and so to provide for the educational wants of the rising generation. Finally, they express the opinion that alumni representation has been a potent cause, (though they fully recognize that other causes and especially the able, statesmanlike, and sympathetic leadership of Ex-President Tucker who took office coincidently with the establishment of alumni representation have contributed largely to this result,) of the marked change which has taken place since 1891 in the attitude of the alumni toward the College and has transformed it from one of apathy and indifference to one of loyalty, liberal support, and filial devotion.

Cnquestionable as are these claims and the admitted gains which have accrued to the College through the grant of alumni representation upon its Board of Trustees, the records of the General Alumni Association make it plain that not all the benefits which were expected would result from that grant have been realized, for thus far a majority of the alumni have not accepted the privilege of sharing in the government of the College and by voting for Alumni Trustees assumed any corresponding duty for its good government. This is shown by the following table which exhibits the total number of votes given for all candidates for Alumni Trustees from 1891 to 1923 inclusive, the number of votes received by the candidate nominated and subsequently elected a trustee, the approximate percentage of the total number of votes cast in each year to the number of the alumni then living and the total number of living alumni officially reported in the decennial years 1890 to 1920 inclusive.

The fact disclosed by this table that only a minority of the qualified Alumni, the proportion varying from 39.7 per cent to 10.6 per cent, have availed themselves of the privilege of voting for Alumni Trustees in any year from 1896 to 1922, is disappointing even to those who know that no large and widely scattered electorate exercises its privilege of voting as fully as the theory of democratic government assumes it will do.

But what means it, for this is what demands immediate attention, that a large though varying majority of the qualified alumni have failed to exercise that privilege in any year since in 1891 it was granted to them by the trustees? This question, in our judgment, cannot be answered satisfactorily without frank recognition of two facts. First: that the majority of non-voting alumni at any time is made up of several distinct groups of graduates whose interest in the College as an educational institution and whose consequent desire and willingness to assume any responsibility for its control vary greatly. The more important of these groups appear to be made up of (a) Graduates who do not vote because they are dissatisfied with the undemocratic methods which have been followed in nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees; (b) Graduates who deem themselves unable to vote intelligently because of their meagre knowledge, despite all the College does to inform them of its present policy, condition, and ideals'; (c) Graduates who do not vote because their strong attachment to the College as they earlier knew it makes it difficult for them to understand and approve the changes, sometimes radical changes in its policy, which have been made ' necessary to adjust it demands of a new generation and who therefore decline to assume any responsibility for it; and (d) Graduates who do not vote unless the candidate for Alumni Trustee happens to be a classmate or member of their fraternity because they take so little interest in the College as an educational institution. The largest part of this group, probably, is made up of the "Pass Men" who form a considerable element in the alumni of every college and recently were described by President Angell of Yale as graduates "to whom college life was a more or less attractive social experience for which the price paid was a certain minimum of intellectual achievement." Their interest in the College after graduation, with some notable exceptions, is mainly expressed by their attendance at class reunions and the chief social functions of the College, albeit it should be said to their credit that they frequently contribute to its material advancement. Second: that the members of the first and what probably is the largest of the foregoing groups of qualified graduates who do not vote for Alumni Trustees fail to do so because its members allege they are dissatisfied with the methods hitherto prescribed for nominating candidates for that office and especially with the practical effects of the method adopted in 1916 and which still is in force. These two facts which apparently are the chief and adequate causes for the large and long continued abstention of a majority of the alumni from voting for Alumni Trustees certainly deserve the serious consideration of the Alumni Association which both fixes the qualifications for alumni voters and also prescribes the method for nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees. Whatever may be the result of such consideration, these facts now raise two distinct questions:

1. Is it for the permanent interest of the College to maintain the present qualification for the alumni suffrage which confers it upon all graduates of three years' standing, or is it desirable to restrict it so that the electorate will correspond more closely to that part of the Alumni which presumptively is both most capable of aiding in the government of the College and which habitually manifests a real interest in it as an educational institution ?

If it should be judged wise thus to limit the electorate, this result might be effected gradually and without injustice to any one, by amending the constitution of the Alumni Association as follows: First, so as to restore the original requirement that the privilege of voting for Alumni Trustees, (which was in force from 1891 to 190G,) should be limited to graduates of five years' standing.

The reasons that may be urged for restoring this original requirement for the alumni-suffrage are twofold: First, experience proves that the members of each successive graduating class, with so few exceptions that they are negligible, are too busily engaged for at least five years after graduation in professional or other occupational studies and in finding and making secure their economic place in society to have any time to discover what are the educational problems of the College and to acquire any definite knowledge of the policy it is pursuing, and the reasons for it. Second, experience also proves that it is doubtful whether alumni of less than five years' standing can be expected so far to have outgrown the undergraduate point of view—which in many cases changes very slowly—in respect to the true function of the College, its standards and ideals that their earlier inclusion in the electorate for Alumni Trustees can contribute to the wise government of the College. These reasons seem -to have been deemed weighty by both Harvard and Yale which always have limited their suffrage for Alumni Trustees to graduates of five years' standing.

Second, to provide in a manner similar to that adopted by some charitable corporations whose governing trustees are elected by their numerous and widely scattered members, that the non-use or disuse by qualified voters of the privilege of voting for Alumni Trustee should lapse, ipso facto, after disuse for a period sufficient to raise a fair presumption that the privilege has been intentionally waived or declined. If such disfranchisement of habitual nonvoting alumni should be declared unnecessary, since thus far their continued inclusion in the electorate has brought no positive injury to the college, it may be replied that the continued inclusion of any large, inert and irresponsible body of voters is an element of weakness in any electorate, and especially in that of an educational institution whose alumni are rapidly increasing and are dispersed throughout the country.

2. What change, if any, in the method of nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees can be made which would tend to awaken a wider interest among the alumni in the election of their trustees and so lead a much larger number of them to take an active part in promoting the good government of the College? The present method of nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees adopted in 1916 whereby the Alumni Council of twentyfive members nominates only one candidate, in lieu of five previously proposed by a small alumni committee, for each Alumni Trustee to be elected, despite some advantage which it may have over the earlier method, has had the injurious effect of decreasing the proportion of the alumni who vote for Alumni Trustees, and is the occasion of much complaint by many of the alumni. The most frequent and important criticisms of this procedure are that the Alumni Council of twenty-five members is too large a body, and is charged with too many duties to allow it to select candidates for Alumni Trustees with such deliberation and promise of wise action as might be done if the selection should be delegated with full power to a subcommittee of that Council composed of half or two-thirds as many members, or to an independent committee of the alumni of adequate size and representative character, appointed for that special purpose. Further, it is alleged that the rules followed by the Council in selecting candidates for Alumni Trustees, though doubtless they have been made necessary by its size, widely scattered residences of its members, absenteeism from important meetings and requirement for early action, do not insure the naming of any candidate by more than a bare majority of those present at a regular or special meeting of the Council, and in extraordinary circumstances allow a vote of the Council to be taken by mail or telegraph on nominations suggested by a special committee of three members, the second and third choices then being permitted, so that a majority mav be secured.*

Finally, it is claimed that the nomination by the Council of only one candidate whose name is sure to appear on the official ballot, (since the addition of the names of any other candidates which must be made before April 1 by certificates signed by at least twenty-five graduates eligible to vote, not having proved easy to secure or thus far effective in a single instance,) so far nullifies the grant of alumni representation of the democratic character it was intended to have, that the individual alumnus is deprived •of any effective means of expressing his will respecting an Alumni Trustee, and has only the privilege of ratifying the choice of a candidate selected by the Council. Dissatisfaction with the procedure by which the Council nominates only one candidate for Alumni Trustee is intensified by the fact that it commonly nominates men of only one type—highly successful business or professional men and seems to many to discriminate against trained educators.

Of the candidates elected and re-elected to be Alumni Trustees in the thirty-eight elections enumerated in the foregoing table 15 were highly successful business men, 16 were lawyers, 3 were physicians, 2 were clergymen, 2 were scientists, (Supt of U. S. Naval Observatory).

These criticisms, whether deemed just or unjust, undoubtedly express the feeling and judgment of many of the alumni about the present method of nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees, and make it probable that they will continue to abstain from voting until that method is so amended as to insure the nomination of more than one candidate for each trusteeship to be filled, or perhaps to provide that, if the present method of nominating one or more candidates by the Council or a special committee be continued, it shall be supplemented by a ballot of the whole body of alumni to discover the names of candidates, one or more in number, preferred by at least twenty-five qualified graduates whose names shall be added to those selected by the Council or special committee to the official ballot, as is the practice at Amherst, Bowdoin and Williams. The official ballot for the members of the Yale Corporation contains only the names of candidates who. have been nominated by at least twenty-five qualified graduatesand that issued by the Harvard Nominating Committee, which bears the names of at least fifteen candidates to fill five vacancies is prepared after a systematic and wide inquiry among the alumni respecting their preferences.

In view of the opinion recently expressed in the editorial columns of the DARTMOUTH ALUMNI MAGAZINE (NOV., 1923, p. 8)—which naturally may be shared by the members of the Councilthat it is doubtful whether there is any real defect in the present method of nominating candidates for Alumni Trustees which needs to be cured so long as it results, as even its critics generally admit it does, in the election of Alumni Trustees of high excellence, it is proper to add that, in the judgment of many of the alumni, that outcome is not the main though it is an included and important object for which alumni representation was introduced into the college. It is safe to affirm that all who had active part in effecting that introduction and still are living will agree in the opinion that the good will and active interest of the alumni expressed by their responsible participation in the government and advance of the college as an educational institution was the main object of alumni representation. If that is secured and maintained the recurrent selection of competent Alumni Trustees of high excellence will be sure to follow.

In conclusion, it must suffice to add that whether the foregoing interpretation of the history and actual working of alumni representation in the governing board of the College since 1891 is correct or incorrect, and whether the suggestions herein made for amending the existing regulations for giving that representation effect so as to insure its fullest benefits to the College be judged wise or unwise, the main object of this reviewwill be accomplished if it shall aid in awakening the alumni to a fuller sense of the responsibility which they have assumed and must continue to bear through their representatives in the Board of Trustees, for wisely shaping the policy and directing the administration of the educational institution—now a great college—which they profess to love. Happily there is reason to expect that the able and representative committee recently appointed by the General Alumni Association to consider this subject in all its bearings will discover some adequate remedies for the patent defects in the working of the present system, which if adopted by that Association will quicken and extend the interest of the alumni in the choice of their trustees and so tend to promote the permanent welfare of the college.

One piece of the campus which stands all tests

TABLE dO H 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 13 © 0 © Tfl d> £ i! f 1 196 -1 1 121 [1 309 J 1 396 [1 344 1 088 1 184 1 012 969 958 1 374 829 1 576 1 330 702 1 520 934 1 475 1 053 1 556 1 615 1 190 0 > M JIS§ © 02 > bBK? . U UO cS O i bJ3 0^5 ©.3 -+-> +->.,0 k° 5 .© © f 571 -1 553 1 601 ( 968 1917 828 835 388 408 636 1 069 593 1 045 593 337 1 019 475 1 026 687 531 1 035 485 S3 O) O P|. 4 "S a'S C5 £■& 0,0 '0X3 U S-^.2 & s $.& 31.4 29.5 34.4 36.6. 35.2 28.4 30.7 26.3 24.9 24.5 35.0 21.0 39.7 33.5 17.3 37.5 22.6 35.1 24.5 35.1 35.2 24.9 > CD z °.S "H S ® lis • •§ !>0 3 : EH-SS 3 785 3 962 3 GJ 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 Special 1915 Special 1915 1915 1916 1917 Special 1918 1918 1919 1920 1921 Special 1921 1922 1923 .© VI © O so © £ sa o o EH 15 1 548 1 030 1 717 1 294 1 211 1 032 1 405 1 452 1 897 1 181 © • rO !Tl .s C3 eS g £tp®£ Jl: 0 cd © >—i l fcxio^ to c © G> -3 -H P C3 ©.^ £2 © 1 206 702 1 029 582 985 713 745 598 1 124 848 891 664 802 664 814 1 198 1 492 852 1 363 -3 . aJ«H 53 o o 2? - " 3 9 S ® ° s 1 bo C . ©X2 £ S I 5 S > h i3 'C 3 31.2 19.9 32.6 24.1 22.1 18.3 24.4 25.2 32.9 19.9 13.0 10.8 13.0 10.6 12.8 18.5 23.1 12.8 20.0 6■gn-S ■© _ v. ■2'c ce a a s 13 9 — OS c |.i 5 160 6 320

NOTE. The record's of the General Alumni Association give no information about the state of the vote for Alumni Trustees during the first five years after the plan was put into operation, 1891 to 1895 inclusive. The statistics of the votes cast in those years, as tabulated above, have been discovered by the writer after much search in newspaper files. In 1891 three and in the next year two Alumni Trustees were elected and all for different terms, and in 1892 all the in number—were voted for on a single ballot. Four special elections have been held, two in 1915, one in 1918, and one in 1921. The column in the above table showing percentages in the years 1891 to 1923 inclusive only approximately correct. The number ot living graduates for the years other than decennial was estimated. The error is, however, small for any year and shows correctly the general situation.

*See description of these rules in DARTMOUTHALUMNI MAGAZINE, January, 1922.