Barthwell trustee candidate bio leaves out role in War on Drugs

While placing my vote in this year’s Board of Trustees election, I was dismayed to discover that the profile of Dr. Andrea Barthwell, one of six nominees for a position on the board, misrepresents her professional experience. The biography notes that Dr. Barthwell served “in the Executive Office of the President of the United States from 2002-2004.” The “Executive Office of the President” is almost certainly a disguised reference to the Office of National Drug Policy Control (ONDCP), where Barthwell deputized John Walters, the nation’s Drug Czar, until she stepped down in July 2004.

The fact that Wesleyan University chose not to identify the office where Dr. Barthwell held her post is telling. The ONDCP is responsible for overseeing the controversial War on Drugs, the government program that devotes billions of dollars each year to combating drug use through law enforcement measures. Opponents of the drug war argue that punitive measures have had a negligible impact on the rates of drug use, and that the collateral consequences of a policy of drug prohibition have caused more harm than good for millions of families in the United States—with African-American and Latino communities affected more deeply than most. Far from being a moderating influence at the ONDCP, Dr. Barthwell has been one of the most vigorous advocates of the War on Drugs. In particular, she has been an outspoken advocate for random drug testing in schools, in spite of overwhelming evidence that testing does not deter students from using drugs.

It is unclear if the university or if Dr. Barthwell herself chose to make available to voters a biography full of euphemisms and half-truths. It is not far-fetched to conclude, however, that a conscious decision was made to conceal from alumni the fact that Dr. Barthwell, as the nation’s deputy drug czar, had been one of the chief architects of a controversial and unpopular government policy. Whatever decisions were made behind closed doors, it is unacceptable for the school to mislead alumni as we make decisions on who should lead the university. As alumni, we take for granted that the professional background of nominees is transparently presented to us. To do anything less calls into question the partiality of the university, and severely undermines the role of alumni in shaping the university’s future.