Dartmouth U rev

divest 5/16

merri ok

Olin fdn

corp person scotus case v woodward

louis menand new yorker illiberalisms

three Reviews of Illiberal Education](https://www.jstor.org/stable/40435821)

JSTOR

https://www.jstor.org › stable

by GJ Foulk · 1992 — Mufti (21 May 1991), The New Yorker's "Illiberalisms" by Louis Menand. (20 May 1991), and The New York Review of Books' "Freedom and th...

===

-=-=

AN 9 26 TDB

Joanna Coles explained, the book explores the "Great Capitulation" across American society in 2025, as numerous powerful individuals and entities caved to Trump's new demands, falling in line and lining his pockets all at once. Weisberg explained that he sought to drill down past "the flacks and flunkies" around the president, finding eight of the worst cowards, including Sen. Mitch McConnell, Chief Justice John Roberts, former Fox host Megyn Kelly, lawyer Brad Karp, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, former President George W. Bush, and Dartmouth president Sian Beilock.

-=-=

---

AN 7 25

The Trump regime’s battle with Harvard University will be aired in court today when a federal judge hears arguments in Harvard’s lawsuit challenging Trump’s attack on it.

At stake is not just $2.2 billion in grants for scientific research, but the larger question of whether Trump can impose his agenda on independent universities in America — forcing them to bring their admissions, disciplinary procedures, academic hiring, and curricula in line with his priorities.

With the Trump regime ramping up its attacks on colleges and universities across America — using the pretexts of “DEI,” antisemitism, and transgender athletes to undermine academic freedom — it would seem more important than ever for universities to join together to stop him.

There is strength in solidarity. If each college and university seeks only to protect itself, the dictator-in-chief can pick off one after another — as he’s trying to do with law firms, the media, judges, and every other institution of civil society.

Which brings me to Dartmouth College.

IFrame Content

I graduated from Dartmouth in 1968. It gave me a wonderful education. I was also a Dartmouth trustee in the 1980s when its president, James O. Freedman, who was Jewish, endured the antisemitic barbs of an ascendant right-wing student group that included such people as Laura Ingraham, Dinesh D’Souza, and Harmeet Dhillon.

Now, Dartmouth is headed by Sian Beilock, who has turned Dartmouth into a Trumpy academic outpost.

Beilock declined to join more than 600 other academic institutions —including all of Dartmouth’s Ivy League peers — in signing a letter in defense of Harvard, which proclaimed “one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.”

This March, as Trump escalated his threats against universities, Beilock hired the former top lawyer at the Republican National Committee, Matt Raymer, as the college’s general counsel. (Raymer is a Dartmouth alumnus who, as recently as January, argued in a conservative online publication called The Federalist that Trump was right about birthright citizenship.)

Around the time Beilock declined to sign the letter defending Harvard, Beilock met with Harmeet Dhillon, Trump’s recently confirmed assistant attorney general for civil rights, who posted on X after their meeting: “I was so impressed to learn how Dartmouth (my alma mater) is getting it right, after all these years. Kudos to Dartmouth!”

In 1988, as editor of The Dartmouth Review, Dhillon became momentarily notorious for publishing a column depicting Dartmouth’s then president Freedman as Adolf Hitler under the headline “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Freedmann” — a play on a Nazi slogan, “One Empire, One People, One Leader,” but substituting and misspelling Freedman’s name for “Fuhrer.”

Using the analogy of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, the column satirically described how “Der Freedmann” and his associates rid the campus of conservatives. The column referred to the “‘Final Solution’ of the Conservative Problem” and to “survivors” of the Dartmouth “holocaust” and described Dartmouth conservatives being “deported in cattle cars in the night.”

A drawing on the cover of the following issue, on October 26, also depicted Freedman, who had been critical of The Review, as Hitler.

As I said, I was a trustee of Dartmouth at the time. I saw up close how much Dhillon’s publication hurt Freedman. The student newspaper The Dartmouthtook The Reviewto task: “The column is anti-Semitic; its impact rings through this community today and will remain long after its publishers have completed their stints in Hanover.”

Several faculty members wrote to outside advisers of The Review, asking them to reconsider allowing their names to be associated with the publication. The regional office of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, in Boston, condemned the column.

Now, twenty-seven years later, as assistant attorney general for civil rights, Dhillon is investigating most of the Ivy League for antisemitism. Notably, she is not investigating Dartmouth.

Dartmouth has so far avoided the sort of threats Trump has leveled against Harvard, which are being litigated today. In fact, Dartmouth is the only Ivy aside from Yale to escape targeted attacks to its funding.

Presumably that’s because Beilock has appeased Trump, at least for now.

This week’s New Yorker contains a piece by Rob Wolfe titled “How Dartmouth Became the Ivy League’s Switzerland.” I don’t think the analogy holds. Dartmouth isn’t like Switzerland, which stayed neutral in World War II. It’s more like Neville Chamberlain’s Great Britain just before the war, which sought to appease the tyrant.

As the world painfully learned, tyrants can’t be appeased. Tyrants view appeasement as weakness, and always want more.

Were it not for FDR’s United States and Winston Churchill’s Britain, Hitler might have won, and both Dartmouth and Harvard might now be teaching Nazi versions of history, science, and everything else.

Which is why Sian Beilock gets this week’s Neville Chamberlain award.

---

===

https://facultygov.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2019/10/Mayer-article-on-Right-Wing-Billionaires.pdf

16 pp

How Right-Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education Chronicle Review

By Jane Mayer FEBRUARY 12, 2016

...The Olin foundation also backed what came to be known as the Collegiate Network, privately financing a string of right-wing newspapers on America’s college campuses. Among them was The Dartmouth Review, which infamously published an editorial in Ebonics proclaiming, "Now we be comin’ to Dartmut’ and be up over our ’fros in studies, but we still be not graduatin’ Phi Beta Kappa."

The paper hosted a feast of lobster and champagne to mock a student fast against global hunger, sledgehammered shantytowns erected by students protesting apartheid in South Africa, and published a transcript of a secretly taped meeting of students belonging to Dartmouth’s gay student association.

The Dartmouth Review became an incubator for right-wing media figures like D’Souza and the future conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. Its counterpart at Vassar, meanwhile, gave starts in journalism to the ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl and Marc Thiessen, an online columnist at The Washington Post best known for his defense of the Bush administration’s use of torture.

...

If the Olin foundation was less than transparent about its mission, it was not for the first time. Between 1958 and 1966, it secretly served as a bank for the Central Intelligence Agency. During these eight years, the CIA laundered $1.95 million through the foundation. Olin, according to Miller, regarded his undercover role as part of his patriotic duty. Many of the government funds went to anti-Communist intellectuals and publications. But in 1967, the press exposed the covert propaganda operation, triggering a political furor and causing the CIA to fold the program. The CIA money at the Olin foundation, which was not publicized at the time, disappeared as quietly as it had arrived. The idea of using the private foundation to fund ideologically aligned intellectuals, however, persisted.

The Olin foundation invested in William F. Buckley Jr., whose television show, Firing Line, the foundation supported. It also funded Allan Bloom, author of the best-selling slam from the right at American higher education, The Closing of the American Mind (in which Bloom also lashed out at rock music as a "nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbation fantasy").

The foundation also supported Dinesh D’Souza, author of Illiberal Education,which blasted "political correctness," castigating rules requiring sensitivity to women and minorities as the overreaching of liberal thought police. In addition, the Olin foundation funded professors at leading universities all over the country, including Harvard’s Harvey C. Mansfield and Samuel P. Huntington. It donated $3.3 million to Mansfield’s Program on Constitutional Government at Harvard, which emphasized a conservative interpretation of American government...

---

===

HISTORY: began as school for native am?

a factor in:?

https://ratical.org/corporations/Dartmouth.html

You've Heard of Santa Clara, Now Meet Dartmouth

by Peter Kellman

By What Authority (Vol. 2, No. 2 - Spring 2000)

from the PROGRAM ON CORPORATIONS, LAW & DEMOCRACY

The purpose of this article is to introduce our readers to a key Supreme Court case from a working class historical perspective. The Dartmouth College case wrote into the Constitution the propertied class's vehicle, the corporation, for concentrating economic and political power. Since few people today examine the Court's actual decisions (which we will do in future BWAs), what counts is how Supreme Courts that followed Chief Justice Marshall's Court of 1819 interpreted Marshall, and Justice Story's supporting opinion, to foster powerful anti-democratic realities:

gifts of special privilege for the rich to organize their own economic and political institutions, fostered and protected by "the entire strength of the nation;"

denials of common people's fundamental right and power to organize their institutions.

WE HAVE A GREAT SYSTEM of government. Amending the Constitution is a very different process for wealthy citizens as opposed to the majority of us. If the common people want to change the US Constitution we lobby Congress and get two-thirds of both houses to propose an amendment which must then be approved by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Interestingly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, the ending of slavery, the right to vote, and the requirement that US Senators be elected by the people rather than appointed by state legislatures all came into being through the amendment process.

The wealthy group of white men who gathered in a closed meeting in 1787 to write our Constitution didn't think any of these rights were important enough to be included. It was left to Antifederalists and mass movements of African Americans, Populists, workers and women -- mass movements of the people -- to amend the constitution in ways they hoped would protect the majority of people from a wealthy minority.

There are four ways to change the Constitution: first is by revolution; a second was mentioned above; the third is through a Constitutional convention which can be called by two-thirds of the states; and the fourth is by a process called judge-made law.

A good example of judge-made law is the Santa Clara case of 1886, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation is a person under the law and is therefore entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]

An earlier example of judge-made law is the Dartmouth College case of 1819.[2] The word corporation is not mentioned in the Constitution or in any of its 27 amendments. However, Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution, known as the Contracts Clause, declares that no state shall make any "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . ." Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the majority in the Dartmouth case, stated in reference to the corporate status of the college that; "The Opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is, that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired, without violating the Constitution of the United States." That is, a corporation is a contract and therefore is protected by the Constitution.

* *

BUT THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY, a story which laid the legal groundwork for the growth of corporate power at the expense of public education and with it the future of our democracy.

In 1816, a class of small property owners and skilled artisans, who believed in the vision of Thomas Jefferson and many other founding revolutionaries that the United States should have a republican form of government, elected a like-minded governor in the State of New Hampshire. Now the basis of Jeffersonian republicanism rests on a society primarily composed of small farmers who own their own land. An important component of republican philosophy is that a republican form of government requires an educated populace. These republicans wanted to insure that a college education would be available for their children and that the content of education would be determined by a public process, not a private one.

However, colleges during that period were mainly private schools such as Yale, Harvard and Dartmouth, holdovers from the colonial days. These schools were linked to the past by class and religion. They were, by design, not republican in nature. Their purpose was to perpetuate the monarchy and class structure of the British Empire, impose Christianity on Native populations, train local clergy to keep the new converts in line, and educate the children of the elite.

Dartmouth College had been chartered by the King of England in 1769 as an Indian Charity School "with a view to spreading the knowledge of the great Redeemer among their savage tribes." [3] It soon evolved into a school "to promote learning among the English, and be a means to supply a great number of churches . . . with a learned and orthodox ministry." [4]

After the defeat of the British, American revolutionaries and Jeffersonian republicans led a movement to turn the colonial colleges into public schools. For example, the Colony of Pennsylvania had granted a charter to the University of Pennsylvania in 1755, under which the university would be run by a self-perpetuating board, similar to the Dartmouth College board. Following the revolution in 1779 the legislature revoked the charter of the private University of Pennsylvania and in its place established the public University of the State of Pennsylvania.

In New Hampshire the newly elected Governor William Plumer, an ally of Thomas Jefferson, introduced "An Act To Amend The Charter And Enlarge And Improve The Corporation of Dartmouth College." The text of the law, passed on June 27, 1816, begins:

"Whereas knowledge and learning generally diffused through a Community are essential to the preservation of free Government, . . . extending the opportunities and advantages of education is highly conducive to promote this end . . ."

The legislature made private Dartmouth College into public Dartmouth University and ordered the new university to set up public colleges around the state.

Governor Plumer promoted the change, arguing that the original provisions of Dartmouth College "emanated from royalty and contained principles . . . hostile to the spirit and genius of free government." [5] However, the trustees of Dartmouth objected to the charter change and took the state to court.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the legislature had the authority to change the charter of the college,

"because it is a matter of too great moment, too intimately connected with the public welfare and prosperity, to be thus entrusted in the hands of a few. The education of the rising generation is a matter of the highest public concern, and is worthy of the best attention of every legislature." [6]

The decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which reversed the state court. As a result, the corporate form was given Constitutional protection and the formation of public colleges in the United States was halted for 50 years.

* *

THE US SUPREME COURT was not interested in education. The Court was set up to be the final protector of a propertied class. Think of it from a working class perspective. A group of wealthy white men goes behind closed doors for a couple of months and comes up with a form of government to protect and promote whom? The people they fear most: slaves, women, indentured servants, Native people and people with little or no property? Not likely.

The founders set up a government with a legislature composed of two bodies: the House of Representatives, elected by the people (the people at that time being, for the most part, white men who owned property), and the Senate with members appointed by state legislatures. So, if the "people's house" passed legislation that benefited the common people at the expense of the ruling elite, it could be prevented from becoming law by the Senate. And, should legislation promoting the interests of the majority over the interests of the wealthy minority be passed in both House and Senate, there was a president elected by an electoral college, not directly by the people, who could veto the legislation. If all this failed, and the House, Senate and president or a state legislature passed laws detrimental to the ruling elite, the case against that legislation could be taken to the Supreme Court. The justices of this court are lawyers appointed for life, lawyers who, for the most part, had distinguished careers representing the wealthy.

Imagine how the Supreme Court would have ruled in Dartmouth if it were composed of shop stewards, teachers, homemakers and librarians. But it wasn't. The Supreme Court delivered for the ruling elite, arguing that a corporation is a private contract not a public law. The Court decreed that although the state creates the corporation when it issues a charter, it is not sovereign over that charter but is simply a party to the contract. All of which means that the corporation is protected from state interference by the Contracts Clause of the Constitution because the relationship is a private not a public one. And so Dartmouth University, a public school, once again became private. The republican notion that "We the People" required an education in order to have a truly republican form of government was defeated, at least temporarily.

* *

TEN YEARS LATER, Pennsylvania workers declared:

"Let the productive classes, then, unite for the preservation of their free institutions, and by procuring for all the children in the Commonwealth Republican Education, . . . Our government is republican; our education should be equally so." [7]

Public education and the ten-hour day were the two goals of the labor movement in the 1830s. These two demands, made by working people, brought to the fore a question we should be asking today: if we have to spend all our hours working to make ends meet, when will we do the work of self-governance?

In 1886 the US Supreme Court ruled in the *Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad* case that corporations are persons under the law and are therefore entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This meant that corporate activity to protect and promote the interests of a wealthy minority was protected activity. This is significant because in 1886, women, Native Americans and, once again, most African Americans were denied the right to vote and equal protection of the law.

If there remains any question in your mind as to the role the Courts have played in advancing the preeminence of the Constitutional rights of a propertied class over the human rights of everyone else, consider the following:

The 14th Amendment specifies, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect freed slaves, but as Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black pointed out, "Of the cases in this court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during the first fifty years after its adoption, less than one-half of one percent invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than fifty percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations." For Black, this was undeniable evidence that "the judicial inclusion of the word `corporation' in the Fourteenth Amendment has had a revolutionary effect on our form of government." [8]

In *Minor v. Happersett* (1975), the women of Ohio argued that under the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of due process, the US Constitution established that their right to vote could not be denied by the state. [9] The US Supreme Court rejected that argument. Women received Constitutional protection for the right to vote 48 years later when a people's movement for equal rights was instrumental in the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920. It established that the right to vote could not be denied on the basis of sex and that the Congress had the power to enforce the amendment by passing appropriate legislation.

While the courts were extending "rights" to corporate "persons" and denying them to women, they had, by 1920, struck down roughly 300 labor laws, laws that were passed by state legislatures for an eight-hour day, laws against requiring people to work on Sunday, and laws against the payment of wages in company scrip.

More than 1800 injunctions against labor strikes were issued by the Courts between 1880 and 1931. [10] An injunction is a judge's order prohibiting a party from a specific course of action. In the labor cases referred to here, it usually meant that workers would break an injunction if they went on strike. Many labor people at the time considered injunctions against striking to be a violation of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution which states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States . . ."

Of the 118 labor injunctions "heard" in Federal courts between 1901 and 1928, 70 of them were issued ex parte, i.e., without hearing the defendants, never notified of the hearing process. [11] Of course, all defendants in these cases were labor unions, union officials, and union members.

The Dartmouth College case put the corporation on the legal map. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions protected and promoted "rights" for the institutions of the rich and consistently suppressed the rights of all other people, including the right to vote, the right to organize their institutions, and the right to work no more than eight hours a day. So which class had a head start? Why should inequalities today be a surprise?

A future issue of By What Authority will take on later critiques of the Dartmouth case. For those of you who can't wait, go to the nearest law library and dig out The Bank of Toledo v. The City of Toledo and John R. Bond (1853) -- 1 Ohio St. 622. In this case the Ohio Supreme Court took on the Dartmouth decision and how it was interpreted, finding both the decision and its interpretations wanting. This case is a must read for anyone who wants to challenge the legal concept of the corporation.

Endnotes

:{:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:*Santa Clara County V. Southern Pacific Railroad* (1886), 118 U.S. 394.

*The Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward* (1819), 17 U.S. 518.

Elsie W. Clews, *Education, Legislation and Administration of the Colonial Governments,* New York: Macmillan Company, 1899, p. 171.

Clews, p. 173.

Governor Plumer's message to the New Hampshire legislature, June 6, 1816.

*Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Superior Court of Judicature,* State of New Hampshire, 1816-1819, p. 135.

"Circular to the Working Men of the City and County of Philadelphia," issued by the Working Men's Republican Association of the *Northern Liberties, Mechanics' Free Press,* April 17, 1830.

*Connecticut General Life Insurance Company V. Johnson, Treasurer of California* (1938), 303 U.S. 77.

*Minor V. Happersett* (1875), 88 U.S. 162.

For a listing of the court cases and statistics on labor injunctions, see William E. Forbath, *Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement,* Harvard University Press, 1991, Appendix A & B.

Leon Fink, from the article "Labor, Liberty and the Law: Trade Unionism and the Problem of the American Constitutional Order," Journal of American History, 74 (December, 1987), pp. 904-25.

Copyright © 2000 by Peter Kellman

Reprinted for Fair Use Only.

* *

By What Authority, the name of our publication, is English for quo warranto. Quo warranto is the sovereign's command to halt continuing exercise of illegitimate privileges and authority. Evolved over the last millennium by people organizing to perfect a fair and just common law tradition, the spirit of By What Authority animates people's movements today.

We the people and our federal and state officials have long been giving giant business corporations illegitimate authority. As a result, a minority directing giant corporations privileged by illegitimate authority and backed by police, courts and the military, define the public good, deny people our human and constitutional rights, dictate to our communities, and govern the Earth. By What Authority is an unabashed assertion of the right of the sovereign people to govern themselves. A publication of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy.

POCLAD is a project of the nonprofit Council on International and Public Affairs.

| POCLAD P.O. Box 246, So. Yarmouth Massachusetts 02664-0246 Phone: (508) 398-1145 FAX: (508) 398-1552 E-mail: people@poclad.org Website: www.poclad.org | | Karen Coulter, OR Greg Coleridge, OH Mike Ferner, OH Richard Grossman, NH Dave Henson, CA Peter Kellman, ME Ward Morehouse, NY Jane Anne Morris, WI Jim Price, AL Virginia Rasmussen, MA Mary Zepernick, MA *** Bill Bachle, London, UK |

| --- | --- | --- |

Back to Articles

===

pioneer student newspaper

===

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/a-dartmouth-antifa-expert-was-disavowed-by-his-college-president-for-supporting-violent-protest-angering-many-faculty/

mark, occupy , lecturer campus reform

===

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_:{Dartmouth_Review:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

...

Influence and legacy[

In the years since its founding, The Dartmouth Review has had a profound impact on both the Dartmouth campus and collegiate conservatism as a whole. Although critics have charged that the paper is more provocative than effective, the combination of its investigative journalism and its consistent advocacy of issues relating to the curriculum, governance, and free speech have led to real and substantive changes at the College. Many have credited its writings for the resilience of the fraternity system, reforms to club and activity funding, and greater alumni involvement in internal policy formation.^[2] The fact that early contributors like Peter Robinson could later be elected to Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees testifies to the paper’s ability to influence public opinion and have a lasting effect on mainstream campus debates.^[2]

It is largely because of this staying power that The Review has been widely praised and duplicated at other American colleges and universities. Since 1980, dozens of similar publications, including The Yale Free Press,The Stanford Review, The Harvard Salient, The California Review, The Princeton Tory, and The Cornell Review, have sprung up at peer institutions and credited The Dartmouth Review as a guiding influence.^[6]

Outside of the academy, the paper has also had an important impact on the conservative movement as a whole. As Peter Robinson relates:

At the Reagan White House, I wrote speech for the President, Will Cattan ’83 wrote speeches for the Vice President, and **Dinesh D’Souza**’83 helped administer the Office of Domestic Policy. Within a few blocks, Gregory Fossedal ’81 held a senior position at the Department of Education, Benjamin Hart ’81 produced position papers for the Heritage Foundation, Michael [Keeney] Jones ’82 wrote speeches for the Secretary of the Treasury, and Laura Ingraham ’85served as an assistant to the Secretary of Transportation. So many Dartmouth students went from The Review straight to positions of responsibility in the nation’s capital that Sidney Blumenthal, a reporter for the Washington Post, composed an article about us in which he hinted darkly at some sort of conspiracy.^[2]

It is because The Review has graduated so many prominent alumni that many cite it as a key training ground for future leaders of American conservatism.^[2]

Notable Alumni[

The Dartmouth Review has produced hundreds of loyal alumni, many of whom have gone on to distinguish themselves in the fields of journalism, politics, and law. It is for this reason that many who are familiar with the paper frequently refer to it as “Dartmouth’s Unofficial School of Journalism.”^[2] A list of prominent Dartmouth Review alumni includes:

Stefan Beck – A former editor of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 2004, Mr. Beck is now The Associate Editor of The New Criterion.

William Cattan – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1983, Mr. Cattan was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush before joining Patton Boggs, LLP as an attorney.

Harmett Dhillon– A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1989, Ms. Dhillon worked as a clerk for the Hon. Paul V. Niemeyer before starting her own commercial and civil rights litigation practice in northern California and New York.

Dinesh D’Souza – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1983, Mr. D’Souza is now a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The author of Obama’s America and a frequent contributor to conservative talk shows, his 1991 book Illiberal Education spent fifteen weeks on The New York Times bestseller list and has been acclaimed as one of the most influential books of the 1990’s.

Michael Ellis – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 2006, Mr. Ellis was recently named to Forbes “30 Under 30 list” and is currently a counsel for Congress and a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy Reserves.

Gregory Fossedal – A co-founder and former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review as well as a member of the class of 1981, Mr. Fossedal is a senior fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the author of Direct Democracy in Switzerland.

Andrew Grossman – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 2002, Mr. Grossman is now a senior legal analyst at the Heritage Foundation, an attorney atBaker Hostetler,and a frequent contributor on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR.

Benjamin Hart – A cofounder and former President of The Dartmouth Review as well as a member of the class of 1981, Mr. Hart is the founder of DirectMailCopyWriters.com and the author of five books, including Poisoned Ivy, Faith & Freedom, Fund Your Cause with Direct Mail, How to Write Blockbuster Sales Letters, and Automatic Marketing.

Christian Hummel – A former editor of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 2001, Mr. Hummel received a Fulbright Scholarship and earned a masters degree from the University of Chicago before helping to start the American University of Kuwait. He is currently an administrator at a Catholic, liberal arts college.

Laura Ingraham – A former Editor-In-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1985, Ms. Ingraham served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and is the host of the nationally syndicated “Laura Ingraham Show.” She has also written a number of books and is a frequent contributor to the Fox News network.

James Panero – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1998, Mr. Panero is now the managing editor of The New Criterion.

Joseph Rago – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 2005, Mr. Rago received a Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing in 2011 and is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

Alston Ramsey – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 2004, Mr. Ramsey is now an associate editor of The National Review.

Hugo Restall – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1992, Mr. Restall was the editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review before becoming an editorial board member at The Wall Street Journal.

Peter Robinson – A former correspondent for The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1979, Mr. Robinson was the Chief White House Speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and is now a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. In 2005, he was elected by petition vote to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees.

Deboarah Stone – A former Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review and a member of the class of 1987, Ms. Stone is now a producer for the John Stossel show.

Early life and education[edit]

Robinson grew up in Vestal, New York. He attended Dartmouth College from 1975 to 1979, where he was a member of Kappa Kappa Kappa, and wrote for The Dartmouth. He majored in English and graduated summa cum laude, then continued his studies at Christ Church, Oxford University, pursuing a second Bachelor's degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics and graduating in 1982. Robinson also attended the Leland Stanford Junior University's Graduate School of Business. He graduated with an MBA in 1990.

Speechwriter[edit]

Immediately upon graduation, Robinson applied for a position at the White House. In an event he describes as a "fluke",^[2] he was given a job as the chief speechwriter for Vice President Bush. In what he calls a "second fluke", he was then transferred to President Reagan's staff as a special assistant and speechwriter, where he wrote the famed 1987 Tear down this wall address. Referencing Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev's refusal to remove the Berlin Wall, the speech, delivered by Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin on 12 June 1987, contained the sentence: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

On arrival in the city before writing the speech, Robinson was warned by US diplomats to avoid Cold War rhetoric and that Berliners had adjusted to the presence of the Berlin Wall. However, after consultation with local Berliners, he found them deeply wounded and concerned about the wall; in many instances it had separated families and represented an intrusion of a police state into daily life. Returning to Washington D.C., Robinson's phrase became controversial with the State Department and other staff members, including Chief of Staff Howard Baker and National Security Advisor Colin Powell. Repeated attempts were made to remove it from the speech, but Reagan overruled them, wishing to communicate not only with West Berliners but with East Germans on the other side of the wall.

In total, Robinson wrote more than 300 speeches during his tenure at the White House. After serving for six years, Robinson decided to attend business school at Stanford University, graduating a third time in 1990 with a Master of Business Administration. The journal he kept of his two-year experience there was the basis for his book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA, published in 1994, which details the considerable difficulty he encountered during the first year of business school due to his lack of a "quantitative background".

Research fellow[

In the early 1990s, Robinson joined the News Corporation run by Rupert Murdoch, and then served as press secretary to the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In 1993, Robinson became a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford's public policy research center. In addition to writing about business and politics, he also edits the Hoover Digest and hosted a PBS public affairs television program Uncommon Knowledge, later re-branded as a Web cast at hoover.org, and then arranged to be released semiweekly on National Review Online. He has written How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life and It’s My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP, a study of the Republican Party.

On May 12, 2005, Robinson was elected to the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College

Personal life and writings[

Robinson lives in northern California with his wife and their five children. In 2003, he published his third book, How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. He has stated that it is "nothing less than a love story – an account of the profound respect and affection that one young man came to feel for the President who changed his life forever." The book received a favorable review from Margaret Thatcher, and she has remarked that it features a "wealth of insights".^[3]