Mar 22, 2006 11:21 AM
by Stefan Beck
Yesterday, on NRO’s new Phi Beta Cons blog, Candace de Russy was kind enough to give a mention to the publishing event of the season: The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent. Today, we learn that James O. Freedman, the president of Dartmouth College from 1987 to 1998, has passed away. Coincidence?
In today’s obituary, the Times notes that its favorite son "gained his widest attention for speaking out against strains of prejudice and bigotry in the academic world." In fact, he gained his widest attention by sniffing out prejudice and bigotry where they didn’t exist, namely, in the staff and the pages of The Dartmouth Review. James O. Freedman was an opportunist and a demagogue, who regarded his students and the truth with equal contempt.
At James Panero’s graduation, the last one that Freedman presided over (outdoors, in a downpour), the great man droned, "How will the historians remember my legacy?" The Times may accept uncritically the Freedman-sanctioned account of events, but James and I have the facts on our side. The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent includes the real story of the Freedman Legacy. Here is, so to speak, Exhibit A--a letter included in our chapter "Sabotage." It is as good a substitute as any for the Times’s hagiography.
To Mr. E. John Rosenwald,For more on the real James O. Freedman, see our mentor Jeffrey Hart and our friend Alston Ramsay. Oh, and buy the book.
Trustee of Dartmouth Collegeby William E. Simon
A former Secretary of the Treasury, William E. Simon was president of the John M. Olin Foundation at the time of this writing.
I AM WRITING, as you might guess, about the recent conduct of Dartmouth’s president James Freedman, which has been irresponsible in the extreme with regard to the latest controversy between Dartmouth College and The Dartmouth Review. When we spoke two years ago about the troubled relations between the College and the Review, we agreed it was time to call a truce in this longrunning battle, and that it would be best for all concerned if both parties could carry on their work in a spirit of peaceful co-existence. Since that time, I have done my utmost to keep the peace, and have succeeded in cooling some of the extreme passions surrounding The Dartmouth Review. I would not have become involved at all in the current controversy except for the recent attacks by Mr. Freedman not only against the Review, but also against national supporters of the paper including Bill Buckley, George Gilder, the John M. Olin Foundation, and myself.
I was most distressed to learn that the Review had published a hateful quotation from Hitler’s Mein Kampf in its credo. When we learned more about the episode, however, we were satisfied that this was probably an act of sabotage, and that the quotation appeared without the knowledge of the editors. In response to calls from the press, I issued a measured statement condemning the words, expressing regret that the incident had occurred, and despite my private suspicion of sabotage withholding any comment about sabotage or culpability until more was known. At the same time, I was encouraged to see that the editors of the Review moved quickly to denounce the words and to apologize for the distress caused by the appearance of this quotation in the paper. They also called immediately for an impartial investigation to identify the perpetrators.
I expected that the College would also respond in measured terms to learn the facts behind the incident and then to take appropriate action when these facts were in hand. Instead, the Dartmouth administration, led by James Freedman, took the opposite approach, fanning the flames of hysteria on campus and in the national press, and disregarding elementary rules of fair play in levelling hateful accusations at innocent individuals. Mr. Freedman even took his campaign to the editorial pages of The New York Times, where he said that any consideration of the facts of this case "misses the point," and where he attacked me by name, criticizing the John M. Olin Foundation too for providing support for The Dartmouth Review.
John, I did not wish to re-open the issue of The Dartmouth Review. I had no choice but to respond, however, when Mr. Freedman launched his despicable attacks on the Review and everyone associated with it. It is plain to all that he has used this incident as a pretext to settle old scores with the newspaper. In this process, sadly, he has dragged Dartmouth’s name through the mud in the national press, and has fatally compromised any reputation the college might have had for good sense and fair play. In addition to the damage he has done to Dartmouth, he has done great harm to his own name, since anyone who says facts don’t matter in a situation like this, and who is prepared to smear innocent individuals in complete disregard of the facts, has thoroughly destroyed his credibility as a man of principle and good judgment.
I cannot be expected to remain silent when I am called "irresponsible." I have been called many things in my life, but never irresponsible. Is Bill Buckley "irresponsible"? Is George Gilder "irresponsible"? This is what Mr. Freedman says in his Times article. If anyone is irresponsible, I am afraid it is James Freedman and those who have encouraged him to engage in character assassination.
Mr. Freedman says that the Review is "bigoted." But the facts say otherwise. The current editor, Kevin Pritchett, is a black student. The year before last the editor was a young woman from India. The paper’s staff has always included several Jewish writers and editors. Indeed, the staff is probably more diverse than the Dartmouth student body. What is Freedman talking about? Has he turned logic on its head just because the Review is a relentless critic of his policies?
Mr. Freedman makes a great deal of the support the John M. Olin Foundation has provided to the Review and to its student editors. As you know full well, nearly all of these funds went to help the students defend themselves in court after the College unfairly suspended them in proceedings resembling a kangaroo court. This case was reviewed in detail by a state judge who ordered the students readmitted to school and who made some stinging statements about Dartmouth’s disciplinary proceedings. I�m sure Mr. Freedman is still smarting from this, and is now trying to exact his revenge on the current editors of the paper.
His complaints about our support boil down to just this: that he should have free rein to violate the rights of Review editors in suspending them from school, and in addition, to deny them the resources to petition the courts to defend these rights. This is one of the most contemptible and arrogant claims I have ever heard, especially coming from a lawyer and a man who claims to be a student of the law. Has Daniel Webster’s college finally come to this?
The fact of the matter is that The Dartmouth Review does not require our support to publish its weekly editions, because it is funded through subscriptions and small contributions from alumni and friends. Mr. Freedman is therefore deluding himself if he believes he can exploit this incident to destroy the financial underpinnings of the paper. I suspect that his conduct will have the opposite effect of redoubling the efforts of supporters to make sure the paper survives. Indeed, this has been the result to date.
I have also heard the charge that the supporters of the Review are not even Dartmouth alumni, as if this is anything other than a smokescreen to divert attention from the real issues. This is in fact a matter of ideological bullying by a group in the Dartmouth administration and faculty against conservative students who happen to think differently than they do. I know prejudice when I see it, and this is a clear case of bigotry against these students. One does not have to be a Dartmouth alumnus to speak out against it; I am entitled as a concerned American to call attention to this bullying by intolerant liberals and to come to the defense of these students.
For reasons known only to themselves, Dartmouth officials have invested all of the power and prestige of their institution in silencing a small, student-edited newspaper that happens to take a conservative position on the major issues of the day. Instead of debating the issues, they have tried over a period of nine years to destroy and to intimidate the paper. They will have no more success now than they have in the past in suspending the First Amendment in Hanover.
What is required to rectify this sorry state of affairs? Sadly, Mr. Freedman has already done irreparable damage, and it is doubtful that he retains sufficient credibility to set things straight. The college could help by joining in an investigation to learn the facts behind this episode, so that those who are guilty can be punished and the innocent exonerated. The college should also consider how it will make amends to the innocent students who were smeared by Mr. Freedman’s reckless charges issued in his official capacity.
I did not start this fight, John, but I assure you that I am fully capable of seeing it through, determined to see justice done, and to resist Mr. Freedman’s public misrepresentations and bullying of students. If he is spoiling for a fight, he has pushed the wrong guy in attacking Bill Simon.
I’m very sad about all this, John. I’m sure it’s even more sad for you because you love Dartmouth College, and the institution has suffered immeasurable damage as a result of the reckless actions taken in the past three weeks by Mr. Freedman. It goes without saying that if you’d like to discuss this matter, I’d be happy to do so any time.
Printed in The Dartmouth Review November 14, 1990
(UPDATE: TimesWatch weighs in.)