Not John Engelman (I Think):

Since my tête-à-tête with John Engelman responding to his challenge that I produce evidence that Dartmouth used to have a speech code (see here and here) I've received several emails asking me about various strange anonymous postings on various blogs and websites that have led people to wonder whether those too are from John Engelman. Often these have come from blog administrators who have posted on various issues related to Dartmouth's governance and are shocked by the vitriol and personal attacks that a particular anonymous commenter has generated in response. Moreover, the comments are reminiscent at first glance of Engelman because of their bold denial of established fact and their abusive tone.

It certainly seems possible that these anonymous comments spread around the Internet belong to John Engelman, the hypothesis here, for instance. I don't know Engelman, but reading his letter and other things he has written, however, his commentary seems more slapdash (like the bold denial of a speech code that was easy to prove wrong) than the sort of tightly-written sophistry of the anonymous commenter referenced above.

In response to some of these inquiries I've asked a few other people and they too doubt that Engelman is the anonymous Dartmouth commenter. They suggest as a more likely candidate a fellow named Scott Meacham, Dartmouth Class of '95, a lawyer of sorts for the National Legal Research Group. From its website, it appears that the National Legal Research Group is an operation that writes legal research memos for lawyers. The tendentious nature of the anonymous commenter's legal arguments suggests someone trained in law but not very accomplished at it.

Meacham apparently is well-known to those who participate in the blog discussions of the Dartmouth Association of Alumni blog and he is said to be easily recognizable when he comments elsewhere, even anonymously. The arguments made by the anonymous commenter on other sites also mirror the arguments he makes under his own name on the Alumni Association blog. He seems to be sort of a cyber-stalker who immediately shows up at any blog or website anytime Dartmouth governance issues are being discussed and launches personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him combined with a raft of disingenuous arguments. Those who interact with him on a regular basis report that he is especially obsessed with attacking little old me, which a quick review of his voluminous bile-filled non-anonymous posts confirms. It appears that I've done something to upset Mr. Meacham greatly.

The anonymous commenter attacks Trustee T.J. Rodgers as well, suggesting that perhaps I am not as special as I thought. He claims, "T.J. Rodgers is well-known for his fiery and wild off-the-cuff remarks, and he is completely unreliable as a source of anything to do with the board's rules or processes." ("Well-known"?). He adds: "Rodgers's own commentary is so fancifully inaccurate as to be worthless as a source of information in this controversy, and you would have been wise not to quote it." From what I know of Engelman, he doesn't seem like the sort of guy who would insult T.J. Rodgers's integrity with no evidence to support it, although it seems in keeping with Scott Meacham's rhetorical style and is consistent with some of the things Meacham said under his own name here, saying, for instance, "I can't figure out why he [T.J.] is so content to mislead alumni and stretch the truth." The content is similar--the tone is just much more aggressive and insulting (as might be expected) in the anonymous post.

So, for what it is worth, those who are familiar with both Engelman and Scott Meacham, Dartmouth '95, conclude that the anonymous commenter sounds more like Meacham than Engelman.

On the other hand, Engelman and Meacham do not exhaust the potential list of candidates who could be the anonymous Dartmouth commenter, although they do seem to be the most plausible candidates. Paul Mirengoff has elsewhere discussed some of the things that members of the Dartmouth establishment have said about those who disagree with them, suggesting an ample list of possibilities.