Worried that Dartmouth could jeopardize its status as a tax-exempt institution, the College is reviewing the legal implications of allowing academic departments to fund political protests.
The policy review comes in light of the flap surrounding the Spanish and sociology departments' decisions to fund student participation at an anti-war protest held in Washington, D.C. several weeks ago. The two departments elected to provide between $100 and $200 in transportation costs after faculty members voted their support.
Dartmouth's internal legal examination is being exclusively undertaken by its Office of General Counsel, which provides legal advice and analysis on all legal issues facing the College. Currently, no academic departments are participating in the process, Dean of the Faculty Michael Gazzaniga said.
College General Counsel Robert Donin stressed that the review process is still underway and that no decision has been made to implement new regulations.
"Our office will be reviewing this question from the standpoint of the legal limits on tax-exempt organizations," Donin said.
Federal law prohibits tax-exempt institutions from funding political campaigns. However, it is unclear whether either prohibition explicitly applies to Dartmouth's situation, Vermont Law School Professor Janet Milne said.
Funding political protests per se is not necessarily barred under the Federal Internal Revenue Code, Milne said, but an anti-war protest that was specifically promoting a particular political candidate could potentially jeopardize an academic institution's tax-exempt status.
The protest that Dartmouth helped fund was a broad-scale protest funded by International ANSWER, an organization that officially supports worldwide disarmament.
The Internal Revenue Code also stipulates that tax-exempt institutions can only devote an "insubstantial" portion of their overall budget to lobbying for the passage of certain legislation, VLS Professor and tax law specialist Max Kempner told The Dartmouth.
However, the formula used to determine an acceptable amount is complicated and full of minute details.
The Spanish and Portuguese department contributed $200 and the sociology department gave $100 for students' travel expenses to and from Washington -- money that does not likely constitute a mathematically significant part of the College's overall budget.
Nevertheless, both Kempner and Milne as well as Gazzaniga all stressed the need to examine the legal issues and implications very closely.
"It's within the College's discretion" to decide how much money and specific methods it uses for lobbying purposes, Kempner said.
"But Dartmouth has to be very careful on questions of tax exemption," he added.
Even if this kind of funding is legal under federal law, New Hampshire state laws may have different standards of acceptable behavior for tax-exempt institutions, Kempner noted.
So far, the question of such funding being under review has not to his knowledge sparked vocal debate among the faculty, Gazzaniga said, but strong feelings on both sides may mean that the ultimate decision will have a strong impact.
"We'll have to see what it is the legally correct thing to do," he said. "It's obviously an emotional issue for many people, and sometimes it's passed off as being in the service of student education and participation, but the question is where do you draw the line on it."
Legal issues notwithstanding, the College will also have to consider any policy on a philosophical level.
"Dartmouth as an educational institution has an obligation to spend its money for educational services," Kempner said.
"I suppose that you could make an argument that travel expenses to attend a protest is constitutes education ... but education is a broad, unclear concept."
