Many observers of the College saw the "twin gods of democracy and spirit" as the two crucial elements of Dartmouth's institutional atmosphere.²⁹ When the ten-year old college secret society called Turtle engineered its own demise in 1912, its members stated that the existence of such a group posed a danger to Dartmouth democracy and spirit.³⁰ Students and alumni often linked democracy and spirit when speaking of Dartmouth's atmosphere. In the newly-invented ritual called Dartmouth Night, the charismatic Trustee and perennial booster Melvin O. Adams (1850-1920) pointed out that Daniel Webster had placed two bright ships in Dartmouth's "troubled sea." One was the fact that "there are no such thing as classes; we are class by class for our alma mater, all for one and one for all," and the other was a love for the College: democracy and spirit.³¹

To take democracy first: in this context the term "democracy" did not evoke the idea of majority rule, but an anti-aristocratic ideal. Administrators hoped for an equality of condition among all students,³² "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges."³³ If a man was to rise above his peers it would be because of natural abilities, through an "aristocracy of ability," rather than because of his social status or his parents' wealth. For students to form cliques according to social background, athletic interests and fraternity affiliation is inevitable, and the College had to combat such divides in order to allow men to associate frankly. Dartmouth administrators likely had in mind the powerful senior societies of Yale or the eating clubs at Princeton as models to be avoided. Joseph A. DeBoer of 1884 estimated the value of democracy to the College at "millions of dollars," summing up democracy with the phrase "every Dartmouth man should carry his own grip." In his college days the man who did so was on par with the one riding in a rubber-tired buggy.³⁴ Hanover's isolation also had implications for good fellowship. Dartmouth students depended on each other more than those at metropolitan schools, a dependence that had a positive effect.³⁵ The College also saw its democracy as traditional.

Democracy faced inevitable dangers, however. Students at growing schools everywhere were beginning to identify with groups of friends rather than with the whole institution. Group displays of enthusiasm verged on dutiful where they had previously been spontaneous.³⁶ Now that students were specializing in subjects that varied considerably, a student could no longer expect to have all of his peers as classmates. A student of chemistry might never come into contact with one studying literature.

The growth of intercollegiate sports and the emphasis many placed on athletics was another endangering factor, one that Lin-Yi Ho criticized.³⁷ In the 1860s students were still exerting themselves in violent "rushes," battles between classes trying to gain control of a cane. Even in Tucker's college days the first football side to play against another school was still two decades away. But by the 1890s, circumstances had changed. A relative few could be sports stars, relegating the majority to a new category of participant, that of the fan.

Though one's rank in the school hierarchy depended in part on his place on the football team, it was the difference in students' social backgrounds that the administration feared the most. No longer was Dartmouth a college for teachers and preachers as it had been earlier in the century since an increasing number of students were becoming men of affairs. In 1930, under ten percent of the living graduates from 1880 were businessmen, while that percentage doubled by 1890 and was up to thirty-five percent in 1910.³⁸ These numbers paralleled the occupations of the students' fathers. An increasing number of students, many coming from the Midwest, attended college with the benefit of wealth that came from the great economic expansion of the last decades of the nineteenth century.

How could the College preserve democracy, then, in the face of the various dividing influences, particularly social cliques? One way was through societies. The Delta Alpha society, a sort of initiation-cum-hazing society for freshmen, had a chapter in each dormitory and held regular banquets in the gymnasium. When they were not getting out of hand, these organizations appeared to the authorities as a valuable tradition. President Nichols called the existence of such small social units a force that promoted democracy in the face of growth.³⁹

The College also introduced new rules regarding fraternities, many of which had begun occupying their first chapter houses in this period. When the Trustees met on September 26, 1902, they made a decision that later commentators would often cite as a bulwark of student democracy. The Trustees voted that no more than fourteen members could live in a fraternity house, and that no house could have a dining room.⁴⁰

The College remained mindful of democracy as a way to ease the transition to the university: this occurred in buildings as well as the ephemeral societies and rules. The College and its architect took a rather sociological interest in student interactions to keep those interactions democratic, an effort that is most evident in the floor plans and programs of the new buildings.

Top | Plan | Program

Without knowing how long it would take, the College chose to employ a single architect to oversee the whole expansion project that spanned from Tucker's election to the First World War. Charles Alonzo Rich was accustomed to working in an academic setting and handling a variety of highly evocative historicist styles. He had also designed for wealthy establishment clients with social display in mind. Though Tucker claimed that the College selected Charles Rich for his record without knowing he was an alumnus, many in the College knew Rich well as a member of the Chandler class of 1875.⁴¹ In fact the first building Rich designed at Dartmouth was a house he planned for his old fraternity in 1893, and this might be how he came into contact with the College again.⁴² Rich had worked in Boston for the architect William Ralph Emerson (1833-1917) after graduating, and established his own firm of Lamb & Rich in New York around 1881. The firm would split in 1899, but at the time Rich began work for Dartmouth his partner was a Scot named Hugh Lamb (1849-1903) (Fig. 18). Lamb generally handled the business side of the firm while Rich did the designing. By the 1890s Lamb & Rich had an office on Broadway and "a good reputation among those who stand high in the recent development of American architecture" as one biographer put it at the time.⁴³

In his work at knitting the university into Dartmouth, one of Rich's most important means of reinforcing traditional collegiate values, especially democracy, involved the floor plans of the buildings themselves. The majority of students in the past had lived in dormitories, but an increasing number were boarding in Hanover with the growth of the College. The new dormitories had indoor plumbing that drew from the Hanover Water Works, which Tucker and others founded in 1893; richer students were able to afford new rooms that had running water. By inserting cheaper rooms into the dormitories, the College could allow poorer students to enjoy the same facilities.⁴⁴ The College built its dormitory system as an investment and paid for construction through rents, so it could not afford to simply lower all of the room rents. In order to equalize social conditions, Rich juxtaposed rooms of different sizes and amenities in his floor plans, such as rooms 102 and 105 in Hitchcock Hall (1912-13) (Figs. 19, 20).⁴⁵ By mixing students of different backgrounds, the College could also prevent cliques from forming, or taking over a whole dormitory. Naturally Dartmouth's students represented only a small segment of the nation; most Americans did not even attend college. Dartmouth administrators, however, were determined that there would be no "Gold Coast" among their students. The administration made much of the mixture of rooms in the dormitory system as an element of policy.⁴⁶ Early in Rich's tenure, the room plans in his dormitories evolved away from single-occupant alcoves and began to emphasize suites for several occupants, which mixed students further. When Rich designed the fifty-four suites in Fayerweather Hall (1899-1900), the floor plan included a number of alcoves such as the room east of Room 109 (Figs. 21, 22).⁴⁷ This room was similar to others in size, though its inhabitant had to traverse his neighbor's room to reach it. After Fayerweather, the College began using the alcove plan less frequently in new construction. The transition becomes clear after South Fayerweather Hall (1907-8) burned and Rich designed a replacement for it in 1910 (Fig. 23). The new building has only a few alcove bedrooms where several had occupied each floor of its predecessor; the companion North Fayerweather (1907-8) represents the earlier plan for comparison (Fig. 24).⁴⁸ In a new suite students could share each of the two spaces equally, as room 204 and its companion room to the east. The inner chamber of each of the new doubles was now significantly smaller than the outer study. Since the occupants shared the smaller room as a bunkroom, a student could no longer isolate himself in his own room as the alcove plan had allowed.⁴⁹ By the time North and South Massachusetts rose in 1911-12, the College was not building alcoves at all (Figs. 25, 26).⁵⁰ The College effort to make dormitories less individual generally applies to showers and toilets as well, as facilities moved from students' rooms to communal bathrooms.

The final democratic plan feature that Rich incorporated into his dormitories was the lounge. The lounges were a test: if they turned out to be successful "in providing small but truly democratic units" as President Nichols put it, the administration intended to install one in each dormitory.⁵¹ The first dormitory plan to feature a lounge was a project that the College soon abandoned, the "Hillside" dormitory that Rich designed in 1910-11 for site behind Richardson Hall. Descriptions of the building's plan describe a special first-floor room that the College was providing to the residents, and the democratic goal soon emerged.⁵² The lounge feature survived to express itself in the buildings that appeared in place of "Hillside," North and South Massachusetts of 1911-12 (Fig. 25).⁵³ These lounges bore oak wainscoting, large fireplaces and large bay windows with window seats.⁵⁴

Charles Rich had brought social concerns into his design before Dartmouth. North and South Massachusetts owe their footprint to Northrop and Gillett Houses at Smith College of 1910 (Figs. 27, 28).⁵⁵ Rich designed these two dormitories to include a dining hall, living hall and rooms for a matron, as Smith College requested. In this building the students, all women, could entertain guests under proper supervision. The particular social goals of the Smith and Dartmouth dormitories differed, but both systems expressed their goals in plan.

Rich also designed a model housing project for working-class residents of Brooklyn, including the workers who refined the famous Pratt's Astral Oil.⁵⁶ Charles Pratt, later a founder of Standard Oil, intended his Astral Apartments of 1886 (Fig. 29) to house "the widow who has lived in affluence but has been reduced in circumstances," "the shop-girl," "the clerk, or tradesman," and "the great body of first-class mechanics who have families," as the American Architect wrote.⁵⁷ The Astral provided better housing by borrowing the large rear courtyard and basement bathrooms of English model workers' housing of the time, among other elements.⁵⁸ Just as Dartmouth expressed a concern for how its students spent their free time, the Astral provided a room in which residents could read. Above the fireplace in this room appeared Charles Pratt's motto "Waste neither time nor money."⁵⁹

Not all evidence points to the success of the new lounges at Dartmouth, and one editorial called the lounges "pretentious." The writer claimed that the College would not be able to reach the ideal of "a democratic mingling of upper and lower classmen, fraternity and non within dorm walls." The rooms were apparently standing empty and chilly, and the writer proposed the College add a piano or phonograph.⁶⁰ But the administration apparently found the rooms a success, and the College gave Sanborn Hall its living room in the fall of 1912.⁶¹ The next dormitory Rich designed, Hitchcock Hall of 1912-13 (Figs. 19, 20), also bore a "resort-room."⁶² This one had a Dutch brick fireplace and a high domed ceiling.⁶³

These various plan features show how much a sociological outlook affected the attitude of the College planners toward building. One source of this outlook may be President Tucker's own personality and progressive background. Tucker thought of problems in sociological terms, as matters of the relations between people and groups, and had introduced a class in Social Economics at Andover Theological Seminary. He was also an important backer of Andover House, later South End House, one of the earliest settlement houses in the United States.⁶⁴ Tucker had sought to spread equality in the city by raising the lot of the poor, and it made sense for him to support equality in the dormitory as well.

Top | Plan | Program

In some cases whole buildings assisted in the transition to the university by promoting democracy in their very functions. The Alumni Gymnasium (Fig. 4) held student athletics, which were democratic because they put "the man relying solely on personal effort on the level with the man who has some inherited advantage."⁶⁵ The Gymnasium, however, was a project that the alumni undertook generally on their own, and its builders did not promote it as a democratic device. Three other projects show how the administration could use a building's program to support democracy: Robinson hall, College Hall, and the dormitory system.

The original impetus behind Robinson Hall of 1913-14 (Fig. 30) seems to have emerged almost entirely from the donor, but it fit neatly with ideas the college held at the time. Mr. Wallace Fullam Robinson (1833-1920) intended to provide a place that would act as

a strong counterpoise to athleticism on one hand, and to social cliques on the other. In order to insure the continued democracy of the College I have stipulated that no organization shall make use of the building except those in which the qualifications for membership are proved by ability only.⁶⁶

Robinson was the brother of an alumnus and had donated a church and civic building to his hometown of Reading, Vermont; this building was his only building activity at Dartmouth.⁶⁷ Robinson based his stipulations on his business experience, emphasizing the need for suitable offices where students could conduct their affairs. Thus the building housed a sound-proof practice room, a little theater, offices for the newspaper and chess club, the Jack-o-lantern humor magazine, and the Dartmouth Outing Club. Art Professor Homer Eaton Keyes (1875-1938) drew up floor plans with students who would use the building and submitted the designs for Rich to incorporate.⁶⁸

College Hall (1901) (Fig. 31) provides an example of a similar democratic motivation on the part of the College. When it was a decade old, students characterized the building as striving to be "the very hearth stone of the democracy of the college."⁶⁹ Beyond the Commons annex at the rear of the building, College Hall contained club rooms and lounges (Fig. 32) and a set of dormitory rooms on the upper floors. In this building students could meet and merge, thus blurring the distinction between fraternity and non-fraternity men. "College Hall is the social home of the whole college, and here all meet as Dartmouth men" wrote The Dartmouth.⁷⁰ The building and its Commons borrowed their names romantically from Dartmouth's first two buildings, the long-gone College and Commons.

A new institution inhabited College Hall when it opened, a sort of all-school fraternity called the College Club. This club was open to any dues-payer and ran a series of popular evening "smoke talks" with guest speakers. The club also stocked a magazine reading room and trophy room and ran the new Rathskeller that the College installed in the basement in 1903.⁷¹ Financial and other problems caused the club to collapse after a decade, however, amid editorials suggesting that the club was a vain attempt at utopianism.⁷² The dining hall portion of the building also ran into competition from the traditional eating clubs of the houses throughout the town, despite the presence of a string quartet in the balcony at mealtimes.⁷³

The College made its most important democratic program decision in the dormitory system. Not only did the dormitory plans promote the traditions the College valued, but the system as a whole did as well. The idea of building dormitories was fundamentally the College reaction to the housing shortage, since the village had run out of capacity to absorb the growth in student numbers. Even the New Hampshire Historical Society had to advise those who would attend its 1906 Field Day to register early, since accommodations would be "severely limited in Hanover through the unprecedented growth of Dartmouth College."⁷⁴

The housing problem became more than mere numbers when it took on undemocratic implications. In some cases the sole reason the administration gave for building a new dormitory involved democracy and the College's desire to preserve it. When an incoming class outnumbered the current bed space, the Trustees feared having to become "essentially undemocratic through some kind of artificial restriction," as then-Secretary Ernest Martin Hopkins put it.⁷⁵ The College could be no larger than its dormitory system, and as long as administrators saw the growth as "natural" and without a cause in advertising or other means, Dartmouth would continue to build. In 1911 the administration committing the College to building more dormitories by making its non-restriction a matter of policy. The College would not turn away students who might require rooms that did not exist.⁷⁶ Charles Rich often calibrated the capacities of dormitories on the drawing board to match enrollment projections the College had just calculated. In one case, the College built New Hubbard Hall (Fig. 33) of wood instead of brick simply to be able to erect the building in a total of two months. Administrators had found North and South Fayerweather, already underway to handle the next year's growth, would not be enough in 1907.⁷⁷ Because the College insisted on housing all who arrived, the majority of the buildings Charles Rich designed at Dartmouth are dormitories.

The dormitory system clearly had a sociological dimension: in a holdover from the collegiate tradition, the institution desired to retain some influence over its students by controlling where they lived. Such control enhanced student discipline and also allowed the College to be sure that men had a chance to mingle and develop a healthy college spirit. Not only did the College's social life depend upon the dormitory system, but even if the Village could house all of the students, "it would still be necessary to maintain the dormitory system if we are to maintain the democracy of the College," Tucker claimed.⁷⁸ The College's new practice of regarding dormitories as investments and using school funds to build them was controversial but successful; some alumni also criticized the new dormitories as luxurious. An editorial in The Dartmouth set the record straight when it stated "we fancy that the suspicious alumnus will find Dartmouth as little tainted with luxury and effeminacy as any college in the country."⁷⁹