The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In

Dartmouth College has long had an unusual governance structure in which half of the seats on the school’s Board of Trustees are reserved for “alumni trustees,” who are democratically elected by their fellow alumni. For much of the school’s history, when there was an alumni-trustee vacancy on the board, the remaining trustees would handpick a replacement candidate, who typically ran unopposed; the alumni association “election” was all but a formality.

This all changed in 2004, when Silicon Valley pioneer and Dartmouth alum TJ Rodgers (disclosure: a client of mine) gained enough signatures to get on the ballot, financed his own campaign, ran against the establishment-favored candidate, and, remarkably, won. Rodgers’s platform of improving undergraduate education and honoring students’ rights struck a nerve with his fellow alumni. Three other dissidents have since run on a similar platform in subsequent years, each time winning by a wide margin over the institutionally favored candidates.

Chair of the Board Ed Haldeman and his supporters have wielded the so-called trustees’ oath in an effort to muzzle the outspoken alumni trustees. One such alumni trustee, Professor Todd Zywicki of the George Mason University Law School, was publicly taken to task in a letter sent out to all alumni by the board, for delivering a speech in which he criticized Dartmouth’s leadership. Haldeman and his cohorts wrote in a statement on the board’s Web site that Zywicki “violated his responsibilities as a trustee of Dartmouth College, which includes acting in the best overall interests of Dartmouth and representing Dartmouth positively in words and deeds.” Similarly, the board has criticized Rodgers for sitting for news media interviews and discussing Dartmouth with considerable frankness.

The issue at Dartmouth appears to be whether a trustee, elected by alumni, does his duty when he offers constructive criticism of the university, or whether he must toe the company line, speak nothing but praise of the institution and its governance, and never hurt the financial statement. Stay tuned on this one.

With thanks to Jan Wolfe for his invaluable assistance.

< prev  1  |  2  | 
Related: Les Moonves Leads Commencement Charge, Dartmouth's right is wrong, The 10th Annual Muzzle Awards, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Education, Higher Education, Colleges and Universities,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Comments
Re: The Muzzle Awards: Collegiate Division
Dear Mr. Silvergate: Your "muzzle" post on Dartmouth contains several errors that should have been caught by your fact-checker. Half of the seats on the board are not reserved by alumni trustees (4/9th are, a distinction that matters a great deal in a majority-vote body); alumni trustees are not democratically elected to the board; the trustees have never picked the replacements for alumni trustees; the trustees' oath is not "so-called," it really is an oath taken by the trustees, and it has not been used to muzzle anyone. Your post failed to mention that Zywicki's speech actually violated his oath, violated his duties as a trustee, did not offer any constructive criticism of Dartmouth, urged listeners to donate to institutions other than Zywicki's own, was practically unintelligible in many parts (a fatal failing for a lawyer), suggested clinical paranoia, and irresponsibly called a former trustee -- someone far more accomplished and respected than either you or Zywicki ever will be -- "a truly evil man." The issue is whether a trustee should live up to his promises. Zywicki voluntarily entered into a binding agreement to praise the institution and its governance when he spoke about it in public, to give it money from his own pocket, and to ask the public to donate money to it. I wonder why you didn't notice that he violated all of those promises and was publicly disgraced for doing so.
By Greener on 08/30/2008 at 2:23:20

ARTICLES BY HARVEY SILVERGLATE
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   FREE SPEECH AGAIN QUASHED AT HARVARD  |  October 21, 2009
    It should come as no surprise to readers of “Freedom Watch” that yet another instance of political, intellectual, and academic censorship has sprung up at Harvard, the self-touted pinnacle of higher education.
  •   THE GATES CASE ISN'T ABOUT RACE  |  August 05, 2009
    The weeks-long hubbub over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. by the Cambridge Police Department has centered on race, understandably, for two reasons: 1) the African-American population has suffered inequitably in its relations with law enforcement across this country, and 2) a race story is easier for the media to tell — and to sell.
  •   MUZZLE AWARDS: COLLEGIATE DIVISION  |  July 10, 2009
    In a 1957 Supreme Court decision upholding the free-speech rights of university professors ( Sweezy v. New Hampshire ), Justice Felix Frankfurter quoted prominent South African scholars on the importance of academic freedom.
  •   GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY  |  June 24, 2009
    The US Supreme Court's June 18 decision denying prisoners access to DNA testing — a procedure that could reliably prove innocence — adds to the high court's decades-long shameful record on criminal-justice issues.
  •   ROBOJUDGE  |  June 11, 2009
    Judge Stephen Breyer, Bill Clinton's latest pick for the Supreme Court, has attracted support so broad that it spans ideological and political differences.  

 See all articles by: HARVEY SILVERGLATE

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group