Alumni letters

25 yrs of non profit experience

hb — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:11:31 +0000

Your last line [referring to Founder’s response to Tantillo’s 3/29/07 email] email of could lead to a gem, on the difference between “insulation” and “isolation”, which apparently the Hill Maximum Powers either could not grasp (lazy) or chose not to take the time (indifferent, distracted).

I did vote for alternative Trustees last year and again this year. Hamilton is no longer in my will, the bequest a pittance compared to some alumni, but enough to endow organ upkeep in the Chapel in perpetuity.

I am CEO of 7 non-profits I have founded … with a combined bottom line of around $300 million, operating in 56 countries. Your founding documents the AHC relative to HC, especially as amended, should have been accepted, at least as I have come to understand non-profit governance models after 25 years in this business.

Ward Churchill did little to destroy my affections for Hamilton; my love affair with the Hill disappeared several years earlier. hitting bottom during G. Tobin’s presidency. Eloquent as he could be, Tobin once wrote about diversity and his goal of making Hamilton a welcoming place even for evangelical Christians.

Talk about trustees failing to hold fast to Founder’s Vision (Carver Board model)! How things have changed from when I was President of Canterbury Club (back when being an Episcopalian did not embrace gay marriages), we did a bunch of on-campus performance events to promote links between faith and the arts … and were roundly welcomed with full houses for addresses, music events and some great Charlatans work.

I am sorry to see AHC’s demise … but understand the costs of fighting such battles, including weaking your first love of academic researching and teaching. Such battles are enervating, devastating and usually overwhelming.

THANK YOU for fighting them for us.

Best from London,

Joel MacCollam ‘68

Class of '78

hb — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:19:14 +0000

Dear Peter & Ben,

Thank you for caring enough about the problems at Hamilton to run for office. I find it hard to believe that a compromise regarding the Alexander Hamilton Center could not be found. What a tremendous loss for the students! I think it might be time to hire a new president who is not a former professor. They seem to forget that the well being and growth of the institution is more important (and different) than the well being of the faculty.

Please know that your efforts to keep the administration accountable are helping (even if you don’t win the election).

My wife and I are both voting for you, and our son, who will be entering Hamilton this fall, is also rooting for you.

Greg Bunger ‘78 (ELS)

Class of '62, '62, '57 & '82

hb — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:01:27 +0000

Best of luck!

My husband Gary D. Mahood ‘62 voted for you both (Ben and Peter) as he did in the last trustees election, because he cares deeply about Hamilton, as do I, and deplores its dumbing down by the relentlessly trendy and worse. You both seem to have the best interests of the college at heart, unlike so many of the hand-picked, politically correct trustees I consider traitors to the college that nurtured them.

I was happy to read your account of Sid Wertimer; that good man personified the Hamilton we knew and valued.

Gar was Hamilton’s Chairman for Special Gifts on Long Island in the early 1990s, but resigned when the college started confiscating the fraternity houses and denying certain students the right of free assembly, while at the same time encouraging other special interest groups to room together in former fraternity houses and dorm floors.

The reality of this pernicious movement struck me when, on a 2004 visit to Hamilton, I viewed bulletin-board announcements advancing the agenda of LGBT(lesbian-gay-bisexual-transsexual) students who gathered in the former DKE house, from which the college had ejected its straight (if memory serves) population, forcing fraternity meetings off campus. Such hypocrisy.

At Hamilton today, some students are more equal under the First Amendment than others.

Gar was also disheartened by the dilution of a solid liberal arts curriculum with cobbled majors such as “Women’s Studies” — as if the Western Canon applies to men only, and women must retire in a huff from the challenges of the academic playing field. How insulting — not only to women, but also to parents who are forking over a sizeable sum in the expectation that Hamilton will turn their offspring into educated adults — and, finally, to alumni, whose own accomplishments are being cast into doubt by the adulteration of their alma mater’s credentials.

I’m standing in as family correspondent because Gar is concentrating his energy on battling a serious illness. If there is anything I can do to assist you in helping Hamilton reclaim its standards as a first-rate institution of higher learning, please let me know.

Best regards,

Jan Mahood

(spouse ‘62, cousin ‘62, parent ‘92, sister-in-law ‘57, aunt ‘82)

Class of '93

hb — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:07:36 +0000

“Stewart has repeatedly rejected requests from the O-D for interviews in the months since plans for the center folded”.

Mention of Vilsack withdrawal was posted to college site within 24 hours. Yet no mention of the resignation of a 20 year trustee several days later. If the college is getting advice from a p.r. firm, they should ask for their money back. “Stay silent and maybe no one will notice that you haven’t completed an academic year without a major embarrassment in the last decade” hasn’t worked as a communications strategy.

I remain convinced that significant changes are needed to get things back on track at Hamilton. Unfortunately, the resgination of a 20 year trustee with a positive vision for Hamilton’s future isn’t going to help. I would encourage those who read this board to vote for change in the alumni trustee election,to get involved with the Alumni Council and to attend alumni meetings. The voices of a loyal opposition need to be heard.

B. McCormick commented on Founding Fatherless: Hamilton loses a great man:

Class of '76

hb — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:25:45 +0000

A bit late to this party, but wanted to thank hb for suggesting Opportunity International as a worthy organization, deserving of support (PWD’s snide reference to the article in Forbes notwithstanding). I have worked with them, and have nothing but respect for their achievements. Their efforts do far more for women, in my humble opinion, than does all the blather about race, gender, etc. coming out of college campuses these days

As a matter of fact, until Hamilton’s Board gets its act together, I think my contributions to OI will be expanded to the same extent that my monetary support for Hamilton shrinks.

February 21, 2007 at 12:33AM | Steven Brooks

Class of '46

hb — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:44:24 +0000

Last fall I told you I would contact alumni in support of the Annual Fund Drive.
This was to happen as the campaign came to a close.
In light of recent events (Alexander Hamilton Center/Carl Menges resignation) I must rescind that offer.

Jim Judson class of 1946

Class of '06

hb — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 00:12:02 +0000

I am a 2006 graduate of Hamilton College and I completely support your efforts. I experienced the deterioration of open intellectual thought at Hamilton and the disconnect between the Board and students. Thanks for your efforts to change the way things have been recently and good luck.

Matt Colman ‘06

Class of '52

hb — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:14:02 +0000

At the announcement of the Center, I was on cloud nine. At its withdrawal I was sorely disappointed. Now that I’ve had a chance to read all about the events behind the withdrawal, I am livid. My Carissima has succombed to power politics.

My small but loyal contributions to the Hamilton Fund have now ceased and shall remain ceased unless you come to your senses regarding the AHC. How you can throw away the opportunity to gain national and international fame from the Center is beyond my comprehension, so say nothing about the value of an AHC on its own merits.

I shall divert my annual gift for the college fund to the AHC wherever it becomes extant. I still hope someone with back bone will make it be at Hamilton.

Carl Hoefer, ‘52

—————————-

emailed to President’s office

On the demise of the AHC

hb — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:40:59 +0000

I haven’t written … since Stewart capitulated to the Hamilton faculty, partly because of a heavy workload, and partly for being at a loss for words (almost unheard of for a[n]…attorney.

I’m still somewhat stunned by the administration’s roll-over. More than stunned, I’m pissed and embarrassed at Hamilton’s actions. For the first time in 28 years my Hamilton diploma is off the wall of my office. I’ve written Hamilton out of my will and trust agreement: I will write Joan Stewart a letter informing her that the $50,000 whole life policy I took out 25 years ago with Hamilton as it’s beneficiary, current cash value of nearly $100,000, is gone, cash taken out for my kids’ college funds at other institutions, and the policy beneficiary changed. A smaller, $10,000 bequethment will also be removed from my will. I have also emailed all Hamilton alums with whom I still have contact about the idiocy running amok on campus.

I don’t know what else I can do. The forces of illogic and narrow-mindedness overrunning our colleges these days, and for the past 15-20 years, is agonizing to witness. What it foretells for the future of “higher education” is not a pretty picture.

I continue to support … [the vision of AHC] and will do so in any way possible.

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the Hamilton I knew and cherished.

Merry Christmas!

name withheld by request

Goverance problems?

hb — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:39:34 +0000

December 4, 2006

Joan Hinde Stewart, Ph.D.

President, Hamilton College

198 College Hill Road

Clinton, New York 13323

Dear President Stewart:

I was disappointed to learn that the administration has withdrawn its support of the Alexander Hamilton Center for the Study of Western Civilization (the “Center”). From the outset, I assumed that the Center would require at least a degree of autonomy. As a scholarly undertaking, the Center has nothing to do with campus politics, but I nonetheless recognized that some faculty members might oppose the Center based simply on their own perception of politics.

Accordingly, I was encouraged to hear Dean Urgo describe the Center as an “exciting faculty initiative, one that will draw renewed attention … to … ongoing educational values.” You also correctly observed that Hamilton students would “benefit now and in future years from the [Center’s] programming and resources.”

Now, suddenly, the College has revoked its support, ostensibly for reasons of “institutional oversight.” Yet, the Center’s Director was to have been advised on programming and initiatives by an outside board of established scholars, and supervised by a nine-member board of overseers. Further, faculty demands for “oversight” of the Center are apparently of recent vintage, and have not been applied to a variety of past enterprises at Hamilton.

In its Charter, the Center explicitly committed itself to the promotion of “excellence in scholarship through the study of freedom, democracy and capitalism as these ideas were developed and institutionalized in the United States and within the larger tradition of Western culture.” It seems incongruous that such a mission could provoke controversy, especially at a liberal arts college. A scholarly enterprise as well conceived and supported as the Center would surely have enhanced Hamilton’s intellectual rigor and stature; unfortunately, the Center never had that opportunity.

Many loyal alumni were ready to contribute to the Center, and that enthusiasm would no doubt have energized support for other areas of Hamilton. Instead, this is the latest of several recent setbacks for Hamilton. Regrettably, there may well be “governance” problems on College Hill, but they do not reside with the Center.

Sincerely,

John T. Refermat ‘91