Archived post

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

« The Granite State’s No Income Tax Scam | Home | The Dartmouth Editorial Board Comes Out Against Dismissal of Trustee Zywicki »

Trustee Todd Zywicki: “My Deepest Thanks…”

In an open letter posted on his website, Todd Zywicki ‘88, the third petition trustee elected by Dartmouth alumni since the revolution of sorts began in 2004, has been unreelected by the majority of the (now packed full of appointees) Board. Why? Well, no one knows, precisely: not even Professor Zywicki.

This action is by any measure an egregious one. Talk about disproportionate response: for years a small entrenched band of insiders on the Board and in Parkhurst have attempted to repel a groundswell of student and alumni sentiment in favor of better management practices, smarter free speech policies, more support for the academic departments in demand, less revulsion to the notion of athletics and the Greek system, and other hale and hearty measures Dartmouth students and alumni have supported throughout the ages to ensure that Dartmouth remains true to itself. Most of the reaction to this sentiment has been ham handed: the failed constitution that would have rigged the trustee election procedures against petition candidates; the candidacy of Sandy Alderson, billed as a conservative because Parkhurst presumed that those quintessentially Dartmouth passions were nothing more than right-wingerism; and finally the abrogation of the 1891 compact that provided for a half-elected Board. Call that the nuclear option. Call the dismissal of Professor Todd Zywicki the most cowardly post-armistice blindsiding in the history of gentlemanly warfare—and there is just such a history—at Dartmouth College.

Professor Zywicki’s full comments follow. You can download the PDF here.

A Letter to the Men and Women of Dartmouth:

Last week, a majority of the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College denied me a second term as an Alumni Trustee. Needless to say, I am disappointed by their decision. But what is at stake here are matters of principle: the independence of Trustees and freedom of speech at Dartmouth.

The Trustees provided no explanation for their decision. Under rules adopted by the Board majority, the reelection of Trustees—even Trustees initially elected by the Alumni in open, democratic elections—is decided behind closed doors. I have been given no explanation for the Board’s decision, no opportunity to respond to charges made against me, or even to know what that those charges were.

But more important than my personal fate is the principle. From 1891 to 1990, Dartmouth’s alumni held the right to reelect their Trustees based on their performance during their first term. A fair process. But in 1990 a small group of alumni insiders transferred that power from the alumni to the Board itself. The date is not a coincidence: the tenure of Dr. John Steel ‘54, the first petition trustee elected to the Board, expired that year. The new regime—that the Board sits in judgment of itself—was adopted precisely so that any future petition Trustees could be removed after one term.

Since then, the prospect of removal at the end of their elected term is held over Trustees’ heads from their first day on the Board. Even those elected by the alumni specifically to provide an independent voice are aware that they must toe the party line or risk expulsion at the end of their first term.

The threat, previously hypothetical, is now real.

This threat encourages an unhealthy groupthink and a “go along to get along” boardroom mentality—the same mentality largely responsible for the Wall Street malfeasance that we read about every day. Culminating in the board-packing plan two years ago that relegated alumni-elected Trustees to permanent minority status, the Board’s mounting disdain for reasoned student and alumni input has finally realized its end-point: although the alumni still retain the right to elect a fraction of the board, Alumni Trustees—and especially independent petition Trustees—serve at the pleasure of the majority of the Board, not the larger community.

I can only guess why the Board refused to reelect me. One factor might have been the remarks I made at an academic conference two years ago. Speaking off-the-cuff, I criticized the board-packing plan, which had just been put into effect, and expressed my opinions about the state of higher education in America. My harsh judgments and language offended some, for which I apologized publicly. Everything I said and did was entirely consistent with my fiduciary duties as a Dartmouth Trustee.

In the end, a majority of Dartmouth’s Trustees proved unwilling to stand up for the right of free speech in an academic forum when the words challenge their sensitivities. Every Dartmouth professor, student, and parent should question whether the Board truly appreciates the importance of the free exchange of ideas in the academic arena. The Board’s larger message is clear—Trustees should shrink from leadership in the field of higher education when doing so would require addressing controversial issues. Dartmouth is ill-served by this parochial attitude. It destines the College to be a mere follower.

There you have it: I was denied reelection either because of the content of my speech or for some unnamed reason for which I received no notice or opportunity to respond.

Legally, Dartmouth’s board is Dartmouth. It must uphold the College’s highest ideals, including its professed commitment to freedom of speech and inquiry. It took one petition trustee for the College to abandon its restrictions on campus speech. I suppose it took four petition trustees in a row for it to regret that decision. Dartmouth should not fear free and open debate—even controversy on occasion—as a means for seeking the truth.

As we prepare to welcome Eleazer Wheelock’s sixteenth successor, a man who will turn Dartmouth outward to engage the world, a majority of Dartmouth’s Trustees insist on turning inward to consolidate power in a small coterie of insiders. Does the Board majority really think now is the time to reopen the controversies of recent years, to revisit the recriminations and hyperbole, just to settle old scores? Or is it time for a fresh start?

Across the nation, a new wave of openness is throwing open the doors of musty corporate boardrooms to greater transparency, accountability, and director independence. I urge our incoming president, Dr. Jim Kim, to align the College with these new norms, seeking more openness in the governance of the College, not less. Dr. Kim, I believe, should insist on the restoration of Board parity, alumni control of Alumni Trustee elections, and the right of the alumni to reelect Alumni Trustees in democratic elections. He should make certain the College restores the 1891 Agreement, the covenant between Dartmouth College and generations of alumni that has guided Dartmouth through good and bad. Throughout his career Dr. Kim has challenged entrenched financial and political interests. I urge him to devote the same energy to reforms in his new backyard.

By supporting principles of good governance, Dr. Kim can send a strong early signal to Dartmouth’s old boys network—a club no longer defined by economic, social, or demographic status but by fealty to a particular state of mind—that he will stand up to business as usual and will be an agent of change and reform.

It is entirely possible to love Dartmouth and support our incoming president while insisting that the Board abide by Dartmouth’s dearest principles and lead by example. That is what I did and I intend to keep doing.

For permitting me to serve you as Trustee—one of the signal honors of my life—I offer you my deepest thanks.


Todd Zywicki ‘88


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.




June 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