March 2007
Although the president and dean had shared with the board the good faith understanding that the College administration had with the faculty proposers, it seemed prudent to clarify the College's oversight of what was to be a Hamilton College program. Institutional oversight of all centers and programs operating under Hamilton's auspices is appropriate and necessary, and the College is committed to following best practices and establishing clear guidelines for future generations. The president, dean and several members of the board of trustees thus presented to the proposers a revised draft of the charter that made explicit the College's institutional oversight. While the proposers later offered a counterproposal, it left intact language asserting the center's independence from Hamilton College. The administration disagreed with this language, as it felt strongly that it needed to be in a position to require accountability on an ongoing basis.
Dear Members of the Alumni Council, Parents Council and Class Correspondents,
Several of you have asked for more information about the circumstances surrounding the decision not to establish the Alexander Hamilton Center as proposed. I fully appreciate the vitally important work you do for Hamilton, and I hope this letter will provide the clarification you need to respond more confidently and appropriately to questions from alumni and friends of the College. In fact, I encourage you to share this letter with those who continue to have questions about the center.
When the president and dean were first approached about the center last spring, they readily encouraged the three faculty members making the proposal to move forward. There was consensus that programming envisioned by outstanding scholar-teachers would support and enhance our already rich curricular offerings. A governing document for the center was drafted and announced early in September, but funding had to be secured for the center's operation. The College helped the proposers make contact with prospective donors about supporting the new initiative and, as you are aware, the College received and announced a multi-million dollar pledge for the proposed center from a life trustee, as well as several smaller contributions.
In retrospect, it was a mistake for the College to move so quickly in announcing the center and soliciting funding for it. As the proposed charter for the center began to circulate, it generated concern in several quarters. Focusing on the document for the first time at its quarterly meeting in early October 2006, the board of trustees, which has ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the College and its programs, conveyed a clear desire that Hamilton College should have more control than the charter allowed. The overwhelming sentiment expressed by trustees was that any center that was to be housed at Hamilton, for Hamilton students and bearing Hamilton's name should be subject to Hamilton oversight. Similar concerns were reflected in a resolution approved at an earlier date by a majority of the faculty.
Although the president and dean had shared with the board the good faith understanding that the College administration had with the faculty proposers, it seemed prudent to clarify the College's oversight of what was to be a Hamilton College program. Institutional oversight of all centers and programs operating under Hamilton's auspices is appropriate and necessary, and the College is committed to following best practices and establishing clear guidelines for future generations. The president, dean and several members of the board of trustees thus presented to the proposers a revised draft of the charter that made explicit the College's institutional oversight. While the proposers later offered a counterproposal, it left intact language asserting the center's independence from Hamilton College. The administration disagreed with this language, as it felt strongly that it needed to be in a position to require accountability on an ongoing basis.
It is important to understand that both the faculty and trustees expressed support for the programming that was to be a part of the new initiative; the sticking point was the governance structure. The administration, the faculty and the trustees questioned numerous provisions designed to "insulate" the center and ensure its separateness from the College, including, for example, a self-perpetuating board of overseers that provided for only two Hamilton representatives on a nine-member body that could amend the charter of the center without consultation or approval of the College.
The trustees' concerns in particular should be viewed in the context of recent experience. The clamor several years ago over the Kirkland Project's invitations to Susan Rosenberg and Ward Churchill led to the establishment of clear administrative expectations for the oversight of entities sponsored and supported by the College, and it was the Board's strong sentiment that these guidelines should apply to any and all such entities, including the proposed Alexander Hamilton Center.
The trustees' concerns in particular should be viewed in the context of recent experience. The clamor several years ago over the Kirkland Project's invitations to Susan Rosenberg and Ward Churchill led to the establishment of clear administrative expectations for the oversight of entities sponsored and supported by the College, and it was the Board's strong sentiment that these guidelines should apply to any and all such entities, including the proposed Alexander Hamilton Center.
After many discussions over several months, the president, dean and proposers ultimately agreed that they could not reach consensus and that the center would not move forward. In late November the College posted the following announcement on its Web site:
Hamilton College has announced that the Alexander Hamilton Center will not be established at this time due to a lack of consensus about institutional oversight of the Center as a Hamilton program. The College administration and trustees believed the Alexander Hamilton Center to have significant potential to enhance the educational experience of Hamilton students and regret that it is not going forward. We are hopeful that -- even in the absence of a formal center structure -- some of the programming that was envisioned can still be realized.
I can say with absolute certainty that there was genuine excitement among the College administration, trustees and faculty for the programming that was envisioned, and that all those directly involved worked very hard to come to an agreement about the center's relationship with the College. All were disappointed with the outcome. Indeed, the trustee who had made a significant financial pledge to the center resigned from the board.
In the end, however, the administration shares the view expressed by both the board and the faculty that a Hamilton program for Hamilton students must be of Hamilton, not merely at Hamilton. In the case of the center, the proposers' unwillingness to allow the College the same oversight authority that it now has with every other Hamilton program in the end made the proposal untenable. Strong arguments that were advanced a few years ago for oversight of College programs are equally applicable here. The College acted responsibly and with integrity, knowing full well that some criticism would ensue.
Much of the criticism that indeed has followed comes from those outside our community who have misrepresented facts and motivations. I hope this explanation of the circumstances surrounding the proposed Alexander Hamilton Center will help make the work you do for Hamilton easier in the months ahead.
Finally, I know many of you feel, as I do, that the distractions caused by the proposed Alexander Hamilton Center have taken away some of the focus on the exceptional year we are having on College Hill. You know already that we are having a record year in admission. Acceptance letters were mailed earlier this week to members of what will likely be the best class ever (the average SAT scores for admitted students topped 1400 for the first time on record and our current acceptance rate of 27 percent, compared to 33 percent just one year ago, is the most selective in Hamilton's history). Over the past several months, we have shared news of a record gift from a life trustee for the arts and the largest endowed chair in the College's history, the return of Jon Hind '80 to lead our Department of Athletics, the selection of the first Hamilton student named to the USA Today College Academic First Team, and the names of three students chosen as Goldwater Scholars for 2007-08. Since 2001, 10 Hamilton students have been awarded the Goldwater Scholarship, the premier national undergraduate honor in the sciences and mathematics. We also announced a principled decision to award our financial aid only to admitted students whose families could not otherwise afford a Hamilton education, for which we were credited with "a true act of leadership" in an Associated Press article that ran internationally.
Hamilton has enormous momentum. In my 13 years on College Hill, the College has never been stronger financially, in admission and in the eyes of our peers. None of that happens by accident. I attribute Hamilton's success in large measure to excellent leadership on the part of the president and the board of trustees, and the vitally important work of our hard-working alumni and parent volunteers. Your considerable efforts on behalf of Hamilton are evidence of the passion and devotion of our entire community to make this College better still. Thank you for all you have done and are doing for Hamilton. Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Dick Tantillo
Vice President, Communications & Development
