Dartblog

Imagine that you agree to sell a piece of land to build a new community hospital. You negotiate a reduced price with the medical director, you determine the exact size of the parcel, you set a time to complete the transaction, and you tell the press about the wonderful benefits that the new hospital will bring to your town. And you reap praise far and wide for your generosity. You even shake hands on the deal.

Do you have an agreement? Most certainly, you do.

Do you have a legally enforceable agreement? Equally certainly, not.

Why? Because our legal system has mandated for centuries that transactions relating to land must be reduced to writing before they become legally binding. Can you pull out of the sale of your property to the hospital scot-free? Yes, right up until you sign your name on the dotted line.

But ask yourself this: what kind of person are you if you do so?

Are we so legalistic that the only contracts we believe worthy of respect are the ones that are legally enforceable? Are hoary old terms like gentlemanly conduct and honor entirely without import today?

It would seem so if you follow the discussion of the 1891 Agreement in the press and by the Trustees.

The facts are clear: there was a meeting of the minds between the alumni and the College’s Trustees and President in 1891 — there was an agreement in 1891. Nobody disputes that. Parity between Charter Trustees and Alumni Trustees began shortly thereafter. And parity was respected for 117 years, including in 1961 and 2003, when the Board increased in size and added an equal number of Charter and Alumni Trustees.

Should our present Trustees respect that Agreement? I think that they are morally bound to do so — all legal technicalities aside. To change the terms of the Agreement would require an open vote of all Dartmouth’s alumni.

The people who agreed in 1891 on an original and innovative form of governance for Dartmouth College — a democratic form of governance — did not spend a lot of time asking themselves whether their Agreement would hold up in court. They did not have to. They believed that the Agreement was clear and that individuals motivated by honest principle would keep their word.

What has our society become when we don’t even consider whether we are behaving morally? The signatories of the 1891 Agreement would not be impressed by the behavior of the current majority of the men and women on our Board of Trustees. Back then, your word was your bond. It should still be today.