President Sian Leah Beilock has rightly rejected the Trump administration’s coercive Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. The compact was a deal with the devil, deceptively designed to enhance institutional quality through federal investment. It demanded a price no free institution of learning should pay — the surrender of academic independence in exchange for government dollars. Accepting such terms would have not only violated Dartmouth’s proud tradition of self-governance, but Dartmouth would have ceded corporate rights we won in Dartmouth College v. Woodward.
In that landmark case, argued eloquently by Dartmouth College graduate Daniel Webster, Class of 1801, Dartmouth successfully challenged the State of New Hampshire’s attempt to alter the College’s charter and impose state control over its trustees. The Supreme Court recognized Dartmouth as a private corporation whose rights were protected under the contract clause of the Constitution, thus ensuring its autonomy from government interference in internal governance. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion underscored that education flourishes in a sphere free from political manipulation, and that once a charter establishes governance, it cannot be unilaterally altered by legislative will.
The compact is a dangerous modern incarnation of the same threat Marshall sought to protect Dartmouth from facing. By conditioning federal funds on compliance with standards that give the federal government leverage over curriculum, faculty appointments and research priorities, it would have subjected Dartmouth’s academic mission to external political authority. This is no less intrusive than the state’s effort two centuries ago to alter Dartmouth’s charter — only the form has changed. In both instances, the aim was to undermine governance structures established to protect the integrity and independence of scholarship.
To be sure, Dartmouth’s reliance on government funding today is far greater than it was in 1819. Federal research grants, student aid and infrastructure investments have woven national support deeply into the College’s operations. By standing firm against the compact, Dartmouth may lose government resources, necessitating shared sacrifice among faculty, students, staff, alumni and the broader community. Nonetheless such collective sacrifice would protect Dartmouth’s mission and preserve the autonomy guaranteed by our charter.
Just as in 1819, the principle at stake is larger than the immediate dispute. Once an institution accepts government money tied to intrusive conditions that cede independence, the precedent is set; the next funding round may impose even greater violations of our corporate charter. Dartmouth has thrived for over 250 years as an independent school of excellence because it resisted efforts to subordinate its mission to political expediency. That resilience is a legacy to be honored and aggressively defended, and must not be bartered away.
Going forward, Dartmouth cannot even appear to negotiate. Although Beilock has rejected the compact “as written,” we urge that no form of the compact should be signed, in order to safeguard the bedrock principle that academic excellence is inseparable from academic freedom. True freedom cannot exist under the shadow of governmental control.
After the Woodward case, Daniel Webster went on to gain many other rights for corporations during his long career. To protect itself from federal interference in the 21st century, the Dartmouth community needs to know that its legal representatives will call out rights violations and move aggressively to defend against them.
Federal dollars can expand facilities or programs, but they cannot buy the soul of the institution. The College must continue to affirm, as Daniel Webster did before the Court, that “it is, Sir, a small college; and yet there are those who love it” — there are those who love it enough to protect its independence and not compromise its values.
James Sargent is a professor of pediatrics, biomedical data science, community and family medicine and pediatric oncology at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine. Mitchell Zeller is a clinical Instructor in Pediatrics at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine. Guest columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
