The College is opposing a proposed New Hampshire law that would prevent colleges and universities from enforcing speech codes on students and professors.
"It's a totally unnecessary attempt to interfere with the operations of Dartmouth College," College Counsel Cary Clark said.
Senate Bill 623, supported by both Republican and Democratic state senators, seeks to protect freedom of speech on college campuses and could come to a vote within the next month.
The bill raises questions about whether speech should be regulated on campuses, and if so, who should have the authority to control speech.
Dartmouth currently does not have an official speech code for students, professors, administrators or its other employees.
Clark said the bill would create additional unwanted regulations and would result in increased litigation and legal costs for all New Hampshire colleges.
Ann McLane Kuster '78, an attorney and lobbyist hired by Dartmouth, said, "Senate Bill 623 invites every student, professor, teacher, administrator and employee to litigate in federal court."
"If approved, Senate Bill 623 will become a full employment act for lawyers, ultimately increasing the expense of higher education for all New Hampshire students," Kuster said.
The bill was proposed after J. Donald Silva, a tenured English professor at the University of New Hampshire, filed a federal lawsuit against UNH last fall.
The university suspended Silva for violating a university policy against "verbal sexual harassment."
According to a report in the Boston Globe, Silva "compared the focus process in writing to sex" in one of his classes, and he also quoted belly dancer Little Egypt as saying 'Belly dancing is like Jello on a plate with a vibrator under the plate.'"
New Hampshire Republican Sen. Thomas Colantuono said he proposed the law "to protect the rights of the professors and the students."
"[Colleges] will be forced to follow the First Amendment - which they should be following anyway," Colantuono said.
The new bill, if passed, will allow professors, students and other college employees to file a suit in both state and federal courts if they feel their free speech rights were violated by the school.
Currently, the First Amendment does not interfere with the contractual agreement that private colleges and universities have with its students and employees.
What this means is if a student at a private college felt his First Amendment right was violated by a school enforced speech code, he could not sue the college in any state or federal court. But students at public learning institutions can.
Although Clark contends the bill will create enormous amounts of legislation, Colantuono said his bill would actually reduce legislation.
"I think it will prevent litigation," Colantuono said. He said confusion breeds litigation and the aim of the bill is to clarify the laws and discourage colleges from regulating speech on campuses.
Republican State Representative Neal Kurk, a professor at New England College, said he co-sponsored the bill, "because it removes the chilling effect of politically correct speech codes which are mushrooming across college campuses."
Kurk said speech codes cause many professors to be cautious of what they say in classes.
He said the bill will allow students and professors to speak freely without being afraid of offending someone or being charged with verbal sexual harassment.
Clare Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union told the Boston Globe, "Public universities all across the country are writing political orthodoxy codes." She said she receives hundreds of complaints from campuses annually.
"Will this extend litigation?," she told the Boston Globe. "Everything extends litigation. That will not stop. But what you can do is send the message that political correctness and political orthodoxy are not New Hampshire's way - free speech is."
Colantuono said his bill is beginning to gain a lot of support and attention nationwide. Along with the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, the New Hampshire branch of the American Association of University Professors has also pledged support for the bill.
Clark said the bill is an ironic one because it seeks to impose control on the College, 175 years after Daniel Webster's landmark case Dartmouth v. Woodward.
"This is the 175th anniversary of the Dartmouth College case which was focused on an attempt by the State of New Hampshire to essentially exercise control over Dartmouth. Thanks to the eloquence of Daniel Webster, Dartmouth prevailed," Clark said.
He attributed the success of the private colleges and universities in the state to the fact that "they have been for the most part free from state authority."
Clark said all the private colleges and universities in the state, especially the Catholic ones are against the bill.
Clark said a similar bill was defeated in the U.S. House of Representative three years ago.
"For Dartmouth, this is a broader issue of the State of New Hampshire extending regulation powers to the private colleges and universities," Clark said.
"We think it is an unprecedented interference in the operation of the College and it sets a bad precedent.
"This is a bad and meddlesome proposal and we hope New Hampshire will see the wisdom of not enacting it," he said.
An occurrence at the University of Pennsylvania last winter focused national attention on the university and the issue of free speech on college campuses.
Eden Jacobowitz, a freshman at U. Penn, called five black women of Delta Sigma Theta sorority "water buffaloes," after being disturbed by the noise from one of their parties.
Although the five women dropped the racial harassment charges they filed with Penn's Office of Judicial Inquiry last May, the university is still working to adopt a new judicial process.
