Archived post

This is an archived post. Please click here to see the latest entries.

« Tasteless Artwork | Home | 92% of Alumni, 4 Trustees v 12 Trustees »

Daniel Webster’s Legacy in the Dartmouth College Case

A fantastic summary of the history behind the Dartmouth v Dartmouth case, in which the Association of Alumni is suing the Board of Trustees to uphold the right of alumni to vote for for 50% of the Board.

What is it about Dartmouth College that arouses the acquisitive instinct of bureaucrats? Back in the early 19th century, the legislature of New Hampshire attempted to take over the college, replacing its board of trustees with their own chaps and so converting a private college into a public entity. Daniel Webster argued the case for Dartmouth before the Supreme Court, accurately noting that €œThe question is simply this, €˜Shall our State Legislatures be allowed to take that which is not their own, to turn it from its original use, and apply it to such ends and purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit! ’ € His famous peroration, which brought tears to the eyes of the Chief Justice John Marshall, acknowledged that Dartmouth was but €œa small college. And yet, € said Webster, €œthere are those who love it! €

Webster won the day, but the threat to Dartmouth ‘s independence keeps recurring. Since 1891 until early last September, nearly half of Dartmouth ‘s eighteen trustees were elected from a slate of alumni candidates. The other half, apart from a couple of ex officio slots, were appointed by the board itself. In practice, since the administration vetted elected as well as appointed candidates, the board of trustees controlled all the seats.

In 2004, however, something unexpected happened. T. J. Rodgers, someone not sanctioned by the Dartmouth board, ran —and won —as an independent or €œpetition € candidate. His victory was followed in short order by the election of two more independents, Peter Robinson and Todd Zywicki. Panicked, the Dartmouth administration tried to change the rules and proposed a new constitution governing the way trustees were to be elected. The administration went all out to get the alumni to vote for the new constitution, hiring a Washington, D.C. public relations firm and inundating alumni with promotional material. Nevertheless, the proposed constitution was soundly defeated. The last straw came in May when Stephen Smith, a University of Virginia law professor, ran and won as an independent candidate. Now nearly a quarter of Dartmouth ‘s trustees were elected by the larger Dartmouth community, not appointed by the Board. Many important issues were on the table, from the question of class size and growth of the administrative bureaucracy to speech codes and preserving Dartmouth ‘s character as a college, not an embryo university. What to do?

Well, the people running Dartmouth —president James Wright and Chairman of the Board Charles €œEd € Haldeman, who is also President and CEO of Boston-based Putnam Investments —had tried democracy. They put things to a vote. That didn ‘t work. They tried again. Still no luck. So they employed executive fiat instead. Early in September (a moment between semesters at Dartmouth), the Governance Committee —the five-man board-within-the-board that wields the real power —issued the diktat that henceforth Dartmouth ‘s board would be expanded by eight more appointed trustees. Net effect? The power of the independent trustees would be severely circumscribed. The status quo would prevail. The growing threat of reform was quashed, but concerned alumni have taken the college to court.

The article goes on to talk about Board of Trustees Chairman Ed Haldeman and his alleged corporate malfeasance. But the real end to the story is that the Association of Alumni election is now at hand. In this election alumni will determine whether they want to preserve Parity on the Board of Trustees, the right of alumni to democratically elect 50% of the Board. The alternative is voting to give away the alumni vote, complicity in the Board-packing scheme.

Daniel Webster fought to keep Dartmouth College in the hands of Dartmouth alumni and College, to me it is pretty clear which side Mr. Webster’s legacy would favor today.


Featured posts

  • August 14, 2013
    Breaking: Of Crips and Bloods and Memories of Ghetto Parties
    History repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce, or sometimes it just repeats itself. From the New York Times on November 30, 1998: At Dartmouth College, white students at a ”ghetto party” dressed…
  • June 25, 2013
    Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson’s War on Students Part (2/2)
    Part 1, Part 2 Today’s post again recounts the events that befell the Freshman. However, the content of the Hanover Police department report reproduced in this space yesterday is supplemented by information from my own…
  • October 18, 2009
    When Love Beckoned in 52nd Street
    We were at San Francisco’s BIX last evening, enjoying prosecco, cheese, and a bit of music. A full year of inhabitation in Northern California has unraveled to me no decent venue for proper lounging, but…
  • October 9, 2009
    D Afraid of a Little Competish
    So our colleague and Dartblog writer Joe Asch informed me that the D has rejected our cunning advertising campaign. Uh-oh. The Dartmouth is widely known as a breeding ground for instant New York Times successes,…
  • September 4, 2009
    How Regents Should Reign
    As Dartmouth alumni proceed through the legal hoops necessary to defuse a Board-packing plan—which put in unhappy desuetude an historic 1891 Agreement between alumni and the College guaranteeing a half-democratically-elected Board of Trustees—it strikes one…
  • August 29, 2009
    Election Reform Study Committee
    If you are an alum of the College on the Hill, you may have received a number of e-mails of late beseeching your input for a new arm of the College’s Alumni Control Apparatus called…

Dartblog Specials

Subscribe by Email

Enter your email address:

Help, Pecuniarily

Please note

This website reflects the personal opinions of its authors. Any e-mails received may be published along with the full name of the sender. If you wish otherwise, please say so.

All content appearing at should be presumed copyright 2004-2018 its respective bylined author unless otherwise noted or unless linked to original source.




May 2018
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31