‘Tis a small College, but there are those who smother it.

The claim of the College that a 116 year gratuity resulted from the reversal of withholding alumni financial support of the College contorts the English language to such an extent as to break it in two. No wonder the College had to have summary judgment, if this case had been heard the College would have been laughed out of court and the “Appointed Eight” would have to find something else to do during Board meetings.

I would like to hear of other instances of century plus gratuities where there was the explicit promise and follow through to stop withholding financial support and to thenceforth contribute financially to the support of the College which was done faithfully with both College and Alumni adhering strictly to the gratuity, by the way, how do you adhere to a grautity anyway, for half of the Board of Trustees. The College said, here Alumni, here's half of the governance of the College for nothing. Those alums really drove a hard bargain, twistng the College into a pretzel to give up half control...as a gratuity. Please explain this to the alumni and why, as alumni, anyone is happy to have lost their representation on the Board in an arbitrary manner? No one would just blow up a 116 year old gratuity to make sure that they wouldn't have to share power would they? We don't see 116 year old gratuities everyday, how about a little respect?

The College says that it gave away a half share in governance of the College as a grautity. Who belives that whopper? Hey, anybody feel like running half of the College? Sure, what do we need to do. Nuttin. But 116 years later the gift that kept on giving was revoked by people who had no right to make the change. Bad faith on the part of the College? I would say so. How about you?

With respect, this plan to appeal is profoundly wrong. Go back and read the College charter, and all the other documents related to the original lawsuit. It doesn’t take a lawyer to understand that the outcome, appeal or no, will be the same. Which makes further appeal an academic enterprise, interesting to a narrow band of legal scholars, but detrimental to the life and health of the College, and a perpetuation of polarizations and divisions long overdue to cease.

Why have anything to do with the alumni at all? The College thinks of them like it thinks of their Doorman, giving them tips and grauities. There my good man, now go away.

This lawsuit will also fail, as it should. The above posters really need to get over themselves. The College’s elimination of parity was a response to years of the alumni failing to elect qualified people to the Board of Trustees, instead succumbing to the will of organized, conservative minorities who used their newfound positions to BADMOUTH the College IN PUBLIC, and who then had no qualms about draining the College’s resources (which they contribute little to) through litigation. The Board is not a pulpit for radical ideologues. I am proud to be a Dartmouth alumnus, and I will continue to support the College, regardless of whether or not it always bends to my own selfish interests and particular points of view. Take your bitterness and wallow in it.

what does this group of alumni really hope to accomplish? in what way do they benefit from this agreement, is it monetary?

But an even better question, in which way does Dartmouth benefit from “parity”?

These alumni in support of the suit claim they care for the College, but this suit in no way helps the college, specially not at this time when it is in such dire straights. The lawsuits have been projected to cost in the millions to defend, aren’t those millions better spent in endowing a faculty member? If alumni are upset with the college isn’t it better to simply distancing themselves from it? This seems like a double insult, not only will these alumni represent a loss in donations (as i’m guessing they’re less likely to donate) but they now also represent a cost by making the College and it’s Trustees have to defend themselves in court.

To me it’s clear that these alumni don’t care about the college.

Many alumni will continue to consider the dishonorable power grab by the board to be profoundly wrong, regardless of the outcome of any legal actions. Polarizations and divisions would cease if the board would do the right thing and again honor the 1891 Agreement.

When support of an outcome based on your personal prefernce is made possible through an arbitrary taking of the rights of those you oppose, you are lawless. If the petition Trustees became a large enough block on the Board to take control and double elected Trustees, I would protest that action to exactly the same extent that I am protesting this one. Unfortunately the people who approve of this arbitrary action demonstrate the fact that they have no principles. They want their way and they will do or approve anything that will bring about that result. In their miseducated minds, the means justify the ends. “Neither advise, nor submit to, arbitrary measures.” -Junius Get over it, they say, the petition candidates were sub par, unqualified, according to whom? You had your vote and you lost, four consecutive losses and you finally gave in to your selfish frustrations. There is no honor in the Packing of the Board and there is no honor in those who support it.

Well D06, please send me the College info which claims what a great amount of money they are spending to stick it to the alumni. Millions? Who said? I have seen nothing that claims any specific amount of money on these lawsuits anywhere. How much it is costing is a smoke screen, talking point against the alumni attempt to reclaim their rights. It is disingenous to state that alumni don’t care about the College when what would show that they don’t care would be to give up and roll over on everything that comes down the road and then just take the ball and go home. Care is demonstrated as much or more opposing your College when it is wrong as it is to support it when it is right. You and your side must be our country right or wrong people and if you don’t like it, leave. I find it a strange thing that people such as yourself support the College in this specific case where it is wrong because you either don’t know enough about what is going on or that you favor the side that broke their 116 year old agreement with the Alumni and packed the Board. Why would anyone, alumni or not, support that and attack those who are upholding the rights of the alumni? How does the College benefit from parity? THe reason the College gave up half of the Board was to get more money from the alums which was explicitly promised in the agreement and it was fulfilled for 116 years with Dartmouth College being either the top alumni donation participation College in the country or close to the top. Parity gives the alumni a 50% say in everything that the College does which should, other than contributing to the College finanacially, help keep the College from making that are more likely to ahppen with a captive insulated Board full of stuffed shirts and fogies. Know what I mean?

@ 116 year: The only question was whether the plaintiffs could sue. The 1891 agreement did not even come up.

And what is this “gratuity” anyway? Why make up legal concepts when we have a perfectly good system already?

What’s your evidence of a promise “to stop withholding financial support”? Even the plaintiffs in the first lawsuit never argued that. They argued that there was a projmise to try to raise funds (yes, it’s weak, but then their whole case was).

Unless you can find an error in the judge’s ruling, you shouldn’t expect the supreme court to do anything differently. The court’s just not as into judicial activism as you are.

@ Koch: you might want to do as others say and read the charter and the 1891 agreement. The latter says nothing about parity or half. It doesn’t even say anything about alumni electing trustees. The board’s expansion was not dishonorable.

The truth is starting to come out. The Dartmouth Undying/Alumni Relations coalition doesn’t really want alumni involved in the election of trustees. The fact is that the College doesn’t need the little guy’s contributions anymore. This is a good time to start cutting the alumni loose.

Thanks to Brandon Lachner/Class of Ought/BO 9 for bringing up the taking of property rights. The lawsuit is an attempt to take, by judicial fiat, the Private Property Right of the trustees to set the rules for the board’s operation by a majority vote. This right is enshrined in the charter and has been defended against government interference in the past.

The reason the plaintiffs talk so much about “moral responsibilities” and fairness and “fiduciary duties” is that they have no argument in the law, only an appeal to sympathy. The plaintiffs lawyers are trying to get their case before as many judges as they can until they find one whose personal preferences align with their own.

The Board of Trustees agreed to give half of the Board to the alumni for money. Those who think that it was given for nothing is calling everyone associated with the governance of the College from 1891 to 2007 a fool, or they are a fool themselves. It can only be one or the other. Isn’t that right, GUSU? So which is it? Has the College been the fool all these years, or you?

@ Class of Ought: If the board sold off half its seats, why didn’t it say so in its charter or bylaws? Why didn’t the plaintiffs say so in the lawsuit? You are straying from the party line. Time to check in with the MacGovern Institute again.

Some of the usual crackpots say that the College should be able to do whatever it wants to because it is a private institution. That we can have no interference in the top priority, war time footing required to make Dartmouth College the greatest college of all time. The College can tolerate no dissent, no differences, no what some suspects call “divisiveness”, no ideas, no criticism, no facts, no discussion, no outsider alumni. All of this renegade activity is destructive of the one mind fits all that we are going to enforce at Dartmouth College. Where is it more appropriate to shut down constructive debate by calling it “divisive” than a college where the goal is the free and open search for the truth? Want to shut down the students, the people, the college, the nation? Shut down their minds by enforcing unanimity and silencing their voices. Vox Clamantis In Deserto, no more. You got a peititon candidate who wants to bring up some real College issues? Shut him down, cheap shot, double team, investigate , smear, set up an attack website and label it a Dartmouth alumni site when it is really the Replogle campaign smear your opponentweb site, and while all of this is going on pack the Board with 100% more appointed Trustees. Now who isn’t just fine with all of this? I love the official activity of the College to shut the College down, the College is trying to go on permanent lock down against any substantive discussion of what goes on there. “Take it and shut up.”

No, it’s not that the college should be able to do whatever it wants. It’s that is should be able to do everything that its charter permits. Same as any other private corporation. And everyone else is free to complain as much as he wants, as long as he doesn’t ask the government to intervene to further his own interests at Dartmouth’s expense.

Would you grant Princeton or Brown any less authority than it is owed? Then why attack Dartmouth’s authority? Just because you happened to go there? I feel sorry for your prep school, country club, private mental health foundation, and local rotary, if you are a member. They must be wishing Brandon Lachner upon their enemies.

It looks like the College is just off on a wild toot. The College got into financial trouble in 1891 and got bailed out by the alumni, who probably should have let it collapse, declared bankruptcy and start over or give up. Then in 2008,9, 10 they get into financial troulbe again and this time they pack the Board. And some wackos at the school thought that they were losing trustee elections. The College is a lot like the federal government, big, fat and out of control. What 1891 agreement? Who said? It never happened. Erase your memories now boys and girls.

@Brandon: Your victim mentality is showing.

The college wasn’t in danger of collapsing in 1891, and the alumni didn’t bail it out. These are myths you are repeating. Alumni led a fundraising campaign in a larger and more organized way than they had before, but it was not the first or the last example of fundraising or donation.

The board’s vote to expand in 2007 occurred before the financial meltdown that caused the endowment to drop. Now you are inventing new myths.

If Dartmouth was fat, it won’t be after President Kim, who took office years after the expansion vote, makes it leaner as he is doing now. Perhaps you have not read about this in the D or WSJ.

Dartmouth has never been “out of control.” It is in the control of the Board of Trustees, whom you accused of having sufficient control to “pack” the Board. Now you have set up a contradictory myth.

The federal government has so little connection to the lawsuit or the Board that your comparison is just nonsensical, and you don’t seem to understand that comparing Dartmouth to Congress or Obama hurts you more than it helps. Only a crank would make this comparison as if it were a given, not a contentious view in its own right. Your teabagger objection to government is a separate argument, and it’s one that you’re not making.