Freedman's Moral Demise

By Hugo Restall | Sunday, November 2, 1997

James Freedman has always been a little out of step with the various constituencies at Dartmouth College. However, a majority of people, including the editors of The Review, were optimistic at his arrival, perhaps because we were all tired of the in-fighting brought on by an unpopular president like McLaughlin.

Freedman was even lauded as a 'visionary,' someone who peered into the future and saw great things for Dartmouth. We hoped that he might guide Dartmouth to them. However, we overlooked that, like the pipe dreams of most academics, Freedman's lofty visions were castles in the air, dreams that were totally unsuited to the real Dartmouth.

The new president immediately raised ire by suggesting that Dartmouth students were inferior intellectually, that academics needed to be stressed and stressed again in order for them to take learning seriously. Then Freedman started to tear at the social fabric of the College, trying to remove the school spirit that threatened his vision of Dartmouth.

Freedman attacked The Review repeatedly, trying to take the moral high ground, but succeeded only in coming across as a bully. The plans for expansion of the College into a large research university shocked alumni out of complacency and into a realization that Freedman's values are antiethical to Dartmouth.

Finally the cancellation of ROTC showed that Freedman was willing to sacrifice the interests of students to his liberal ideology.

But on top of all Freedman's problems, there are two reasons why now he is in particular trouble. Firstly, the absolutely critically important capital campaign has the capacity to make or break Freedman. And the faculty support that has borne Freedman through all his tribulations is showing signs of wavering.

At a time when the capital campaign should be bringing in the most money, right after a highly publicized kick-off, the campaign is showing less than stellar results. Coordinator of the campaign, Trustee John Rosenwald '52 set the goal of $425 million in 60 months, an average rate of over $7 million a month.

But even now the campaign is only bringing in about $5 million a month.

Already Dartmouth's fundraising revenues are falling behind those of her sister institutions. Should the campaign start to falter even more as it progresses, Freedman's prestige and effectiveness as a leader would be hopelessly compromised. Essentially, the capital campaign is a referendum on Freedman.

Of course, the College will try anything to bring back alumni giving, from flashy gimmicks (like the ten steps being taken by Blunt) to, as a last resort, genuine reforms, like easing up on the fraternities or reforming the curriculum.

The problem is that Freedman cannot have it both ways; he is in danger of becoming, like McLaughlin, the president in the middle.

The faculty will not take kindly to Freedman backing down from the stands they have heartily applauded.

At the next faculty meeting on February 10 we predict first blood will be drawn by the faculty. Freedman's impatience to see the reforms implemented despite pragmatic and ideological objections will cost him much of his political capital.

It is widely known that Freedman and his wife do not care for the life of backwater Hanover.

Freedman would much rather be the center of the intellectual life of a more urban academic community. He may be about to get his chance — the University of Massachusetts is looking for a progressive president of Freedman's ilk.

The lesson from McLaughlin's presidency was that no one could sit in the president's chair and make everyone happy.

Freedman avoided that mistake and chose his allies. The lesson Freedman is learning is that no one can sit in the president's chair and abuse the alumni indefinitely.

Freedman's Moral Demise

Article Tools

Related Articles