Bench Memos

We Have a Winner

. . . for most stupidly tendentious allusion, in 2012, to an opinion by the Great Chief Justice, John Marshall.  (All other contenders can stand down until 2013.)  In the Chronicle of Higher Education today, Ada Meloy, general counsel at the American Council on Education, writes in support of the University of Texas’s racial-preference scheme, challenged in the Fisher case now pending in the Supreme Court.  You know she’s going to over-reach in a big way when she says:

Since the founding of the country, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the executive branch have vested individual colleges with the power to make decisions about higher-education practices and principles, including the ability to decide whom to admit.

Okay, she’s already lurching in the direction of making her readers think this is the return of George Wallace.  But that’s neither here nor there, to my purpose.  Here comes John Marshall:

The Supreme Court in particular has long been a champion of granting colleges authority to make academic and educational judgments.

In 1819, the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not force Dartmouth College to become a public institution. In looking at the question of whether government had the power to alter a college charter, the court decided that an institution’s board of trustees was better suited than the state to govern the college.

Chief Justice John Marshall explained in that ruling that educators, not legislators, should make key decisions in educational matters. Over the following two centuries, the Supreme Court has only reinforced the educational authority of colleges.

There is just one accurate sentence in this farrago of nonsense about Marshall’s opinion in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward: “In 1819, the Supreme Court ruled that the state could not force Dartmouth College to become a public institution.”  Everything else above is crazy talk.  Marshall’s Court did not “decide[] that an institution’s board of trustees was better suited than the state to govern the college.”  And the chief justice himself certainly did not “explain[] in that ruling that educators, not legislators, should make key decisions in educational matters.”

Marshall’s opinion held that Dartmouth College’s pre-revolutionary charter was a contract, one party to which was the self-perpetuating board of trustees, the other party to which was the state of New Hampshire (succeeding to the Crown upon American independence).  New Hampshire, Marshall held, had breached the contract, contrary to the contract clause of Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, when it passed legislation that vitiated the governing powers of the board and put the state in charge of the college.  The trustees’ victory in the Supreme Court enabled Dartmouth to remain an autonomous private college, and established the status of corporate charters as contracts protected by the Constitution from state legislative interference.

There is not a word in Marshall’s opinion about the trustees being “better suited than the state” to do anything at all.  The case was about the trustees’ right to act as the owners of the college.  Whether they acted wisely or unwisely was not the question.  Nor did Marshall have an opinion, at least in his judicial capacity, about whether legislators, judges, or “educators” are most competent to “make key decisions in educational matters.”  None of these questions entered for one moment into the decision of the case.

And–this might just mark an important difference between the Dartmouth College case of 193 years ago, and the Fisher case today–the University of Texas is, and no one denies it is, a public institution.  Whether its policies can be squared with relevant requirements of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws is the question in this case.  Who should “make key decisions in educational matters” is therefore a pretty misleading way to describe the legal issues in Fisher.  But it is a completely fictitious way to say anything at all about the issues in Dartmouth College.

Matthew J. Franck — Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.

Most Popular

Culture

Ezra Klein’s Intellectual Demagoguery

Ezra Klein wants you to know that he doesn’t think Sam Harris is a racist. “I’m not here to say you’re racist, I don’t think you are,” Klein explains in a two-hour debate with Harris on the latter’s podcast, Waking Up. “We have not called you one.” No, not at all. Klein is telling the truth ... Read More
Education

The Scholarship/Activism Balance — A Rejoinder

The Martin Center recently published an article by sociology professor Fabio Rojas, in which he argued that professors should maintain the right balance between their teaching and scholarship on the one hand, and activism on the other. In today's article, the Center's Jay Schalin pushes back somewhat. Schalin ... Read More
U.S.

The Book Comey Wanted to Write

Making the click-through worthwhile: the book James Comey had wanted to write, Facebook starts to feel useless to some writers, an infamous D.C. city councilman manages to make everything worse, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign finds its wish granted. What Did James Comey’s First Draft of A Higher ... Read More
Film & TV

Pro-Life Feminist

My paisana at the Human Life Review are hosting an event in NYC on Thursday, May 3, at the Sheen Center (18 Bleeker Street) for the airing of director Jim Hanon’s half-hour documentary, Pro-Life Feminist. After the viewing, he’ll join the trio of castmates -- Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, Aimee Murphy, and ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Good News for Pompeo

Looks like he's in, as he should be. https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/987050849317867521 But this fight has been a hint of what life will be like for Trump if the Democrats somehow take the Senate -- they'd refuse to confirm anyone for anything. Read More