Hamilton College Alumni for Governance Reform

How ironic that the college for whom it is named rejects a large and magnificent gift to name a scholastic center after its namesake.How very sad, too. It is comparible to an old friend who, every time you see him, insults you. Eventually you have nothing to do with him.

How very sad it is to see that the Alexander Hamilton Center will not go forward at this time. Hopefully, those who are wrestling with the issue of oversight will find some way to overcome this obstacle in the not too distant future. Hamilton's legacy deserves better than that.

It’s a disgrace that the AHC has been killed...The charter, which I encourage interested parties to read, was a landmark document for an intellectual pursuit of this kind....College politics and academic hubris aside, the governance paragraphs of the charter were designed to preserve the academic independence of the entity...It is evident that the faculty, trustees and administration of the college in the end were unable to accept a declaration of this kind in their midst....The center would have been a real plus for academia and Hamilton College...The AHC is a casualty of the Hamilton College environment to the detriment of all of us who saw the good in it...

Richard A. Erlanger, Hamilton College ‘63, at 9:05 am EST on November 28, 2006 reproduced here by the ed

Another black eye for a once-great college that has badly lost its way. Is this really about governance? If it is and it couldn't be resolved, there is but one conclusion: the current administration and trustees are completely incompetent.

Of course, the given reason is probably more baloney from College Hill. I agree with Dr. Paquette; if this were a "properly" left-wing affair, the faculty would have no concerns whatsoever.

Hamilton is looking more and more hopeless. I doubt the place can be saved as long as the current crop of nincompoops is in charge.

I felt that the AHC would be a good thing for the College. In the wake of Ward Churchill, et. al., I am of the opinion that the College can not afford to allow any possibility of outside control to exist in the governance documents.

In law school, two themes were oft-repeated: "be prepared", and "avoid impropriety and also the appearance of impropriety". I think that to leave the charter (which I have read) not addressing all possible scenarios would be a big mistake. A right-minded person certainly wouldn't want their will drafted that way.

I had been confident that a compromise on the language would be worked out. It is disappointing to learn that a compromise could not be reached.

To all of those who see this in left/right (or for some of you, Kirkland/Hamilton) terms, I could say, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander".

But really, this all boils down to the issue of whether or not the College should permit a scholarly entity to exist, under its aegis, to engage its students, over which it potentially could not exercise control.

Penny Watras Dana, K'78

For the kind scholarship that passes muster refer to:

http://hcagr.squarespace.com/home/2006/11/1/while-the-alexander-hamilton-center-gets-sorted-out.html

The event was essentially an anti-war rally.

I stand by my statements noted above.

hb's comment above about Peggy Seeger shows that this entire AHC situation is viewed by many only from the left/right; liberal/conservative; Kirkland/Hamilton perspective.

This is clearly the only paradigm such critics will allow, but I can assure you, it is not the paradigm under which many commence their consideration of these issues.

The failure to reach a compromise is therefore seen as a rejection by the powers that be of what some would like to view as a right/conservative/Hamilton enterprise, i.e., the AHC.

Is it not possible to grasp that there are other perspectives, that well-drafted governance documents (I mean purely governance documents, not scholarly mission statements) are essential to any enterprise that would exist for the foreseeable future, if not in perpetuity?

The Peggy Seeger jab is not on point--and believe it or not, people are free to support or criticize the war as they see fit.

Would you believe that it is actually possible for one person to support the scholarly mission of the AHC, while rejecting the portion of the governance documents which could conceivably permit Hamilton College to not have ultimate control over the AHC?

It really is possible. And if all the critics and disgruntled AHC supporters, would consider that for a moment, instead of exhibiting the verbal knee-jerk reactions we're seeing here, perhaps some real dialogue could take place.

If you all were truly committed to seeing this AHC come to fruition, you'd stop criticizing, politicizing and making threats (both veiled and unveiled). Perhaps then you could roll up your sleeves and see what you could do to help.


Penny Watras Dana, K'78

"If you all were truly committed to seeing this AHC come to fruition, you'd stop criticizing,"

Mrs. Dana, I think you have stepped over the line with that comment. Do you not realize that YOU have been making a career of criticizing Mr. Brown and others here and on the Hamilton alumni page? They can hardly post without you showing up to take issue with them. It's as if you have become the intellectual equivalent of a stalker. There must be a reason why you do this. But I am not going to speculate on what it could be.

Mr. Brown has a perfect right to do what he sees fit to try to reform Hamilton. I have no knowledge about what his post Hamilton education and experience is. But he strikes me as someone with a lot of business acumen. He doesn't need your condescending advice and lectures as to how to proceed.

You do as you see fit. Others will do as they see fit. Hopefully, something constructive will come out of these efforts.

For "Longtime Lurker",

You might be interested to know that I was initially approached by Hunter Brown to sign the mission statement of HCAGR, which I did indeed do.

It was not long afterward however, that my efforts on behalf of Kirkland College, which was much besmirched during the Kirkland Project affair of two years ago, combined with my fundamental disagreement with certain aspects of Hunter's game plan with respect to HCAGR, led me to part ways with the group.

Given that history, I think it unfair to characterize me as the "intellectual equivalent of a stalker". But I grant you your right to have and state your opinion.

As I have said elsewhere, many see this latest brouhaha from the paradigm of left/right, liberal/conservative or Kirkland/Hamilton. To the extent that those involved bring the issue of the Kirkland legacy into the mix, I will indeed keep watching, reading and responding.

Moreover, it seems to me that Hunter, in couching HCAGR as a proponent in some way of the AHC, and placing the blame squarely on the college administration and Trustees, is simply fanning the flames, without consideration of what to me seems to be the core issue in the controversy--governance.

At least I am willing to sign my own name to my posts!

Penny Watras Dana, K'78