Quick Takes: Taking a C to Court, Dartmouth Alumni Dispute, Controversy Over Anti-Rape T-Shirts, End to Default Program, Antioch Board Receives Update, Collaboration Among Public Universities, Cowley Student Dies in Fire, NCAA Members Flex Muscles

Seeting over a C

The Globe article says the “C” student was worried the “C” would bring down his GPA and affect his ability to get into law school. LOL. So what...a frivolous lawsuit is going to get him INTO law school? I wouldn’t want this guy defending ME in court!

kgotthardt, at 12:25 pm EDT on October 4, 2007

Go Brian!

When I was in grad school, I received a C from a grad assistant for the exact same reason...he was grading on a curve. Based on what the professor said during the first class (I had it on tape) and what the course syllabus stated, I deserved an A. Being 10 years older than the average student, I did not just take it, I fought it. I won—the grade was changed to an A, but it was a long, labor intensive process and I did not make any friends in the process. I wish I had thought of going to court, it probably would have been faster. I hope Brian Marquis does appeal. At the very least, the publicity will call attention to the grading policy of the professor and the grad assistant. Go Brian!

lk, at 1:10 pm EDT on October 4, 2007

Dartmouth alumni strike me as being right (pun intended)

Other than by the tenuous circumstance that my professor-wife’s father was a Dartmouth alumni, this is none of my business. And I’m a card-carrying knee-jerk liberal who loathes the politics of the ol’ Dartmouth Review crowd who gave us Dinesh D’Souza and a few other pinched, hawkish, let-them-eat-cake minds, and who understands (from what I read) that the bottom-line issue here is the Alumni Association wanting to preserve its conservative clout on the board of trustees. Still, the arguments against elected trustees and for the University’s proposal strike me as speciously, paternal and disingenuous. Jim Garland’s comment provides unintentional confirmation of my outsider’s opinion.

“elected trustee positions are usually a bad idea, both for private and public universities"Oh, really? Any evidence as to which universities have them and have suffered from them (other than to have some dirty linen washed in public)? And pardon me if I don’t readily accept the “article of faith” argument.

“trustees have serious responsibilities that call for a high level of experience and knowledge"Yes, and there’s no reason why someone who decides to stand for election to the board wouldn’t have it, and no reason why an election wouldn’t reward those with it. The 800-pound gorilla in the room here is that the primary desired quality in a trustee is having lots of money and a willingness to give it to the university. Such people are better wooed onto a board that’s a total old-boys (and old-girls) club, than one where a goodly portion of its members are elected.

“the election process can too easily produce inappropriate single-issue candidates"As if unelected trustees don’t come with their single-issue agendas, too. And as if an election wouldn’t weed out the “inappropriate” ones. The 799-pound gorilla here is that single-issue candidates and elections tend to make public issues that an unelected board would rather keep hidden.

“Universities need trustees who come to their positions without prior agendas, who are open-minded, have balanced judgment, and who realize that they have a lot to learn about their school"Hello? I thought Mr. Garland just said that universities need trustees with a high level of experience and knowledge. That experience and knowledge are, apparently, better if they doesn’t concern the university, but instead concern some kind of general worldly matter, such as, say, high finance. And again, as if nobody with an open mind or balanced judgment would run for office.

“the best way to ensure a high level of trustee competency is through a careful screening of the qualifications of potential candidates"No, the best way to insure that new trustees will be just like the sitting trustees is to have them carefully screened by the sitting trustees, preferably in private.

What’s really disappointing to me, however (since Dartmouth’s trustees won’t have an impact on my life), is when decent liberals (I’m assuming Mr. Garland is one) give out with the same old oily argument against democracy—even within a limited purview; not just anybody can vote for Dartmouth trustees, you know: we’re doing important business here, and it’s best left to insiders to choose the other insiders.

I hate to admit it, but the Alumni Association is right.

Peter Plagens, at 3:30 pm EDT on October 4, 2007

“Governing boards are not symbolic bodies whose members are chosen to send a reassuring message about democratic inclusiveness to alumni or other campus constituencies. University trustees have serious responsibilities that call for a high level of experience and knowledge.”

-

Being a big donor to Dartmouth seems to be more a criteria for getting a Trustee position nowadays than any experience or knowledge.

Now, in all seriousness, that in and of itself can be defended, but this is also counteracted by the number of donors that this decision is angering.

Since James Wright can’t get support for his policies from alumni (since no poll or election shows support for what he wants to do among alumni), you could argue that the end result of what Wright’s doing will be a good school, but it won’t be the alumni’s school, it won’t be the college they attended, it will swerve further away from the school they were familiar with and from what they wanted in a college to send their children to — so, maybe what they’re doing will hurt Wright’s future vision of a school, but why should they care?

AD, at 8:30 pm EDT on October 4, 2007

“Many Faculty Distrust Toni Murdock???”

I feel like this comment while certainly true seemed to be quite the understatement. It doesn’t seem to fit with this article considering the fact that Toni Murdock has had TWO votes of NO CONFIDENCE and will have a THIRD this week on the part of Antioch College students. The faculty is suing the board of trustees for decisions that Toni Murdock encouraged and mislead the University Board of trustees to make. The faculty at the University of Antioch in Seattle gave her the first vote of no confidence, and the Alumni Board has given her the second — the third will be voted on today, and I’m positive that the outcome will be NO CONFIDENCE.

Amanda Caserta, student at Antioch College, at 10:45 am EDT on October 8, 2007