Dartmouth’s Neutrality Amid Higher Ed Conflict
Dartmouth College’s refusal to join the widespread academic resistance against the Trump Administration’s interventions in higher education has made it a unique case within the Ivy League. While over six hundred institutions—including all other Ivy League members—signed a letter defending Harvard University after the federal government imposed sanctions and funding cuts on Harvard for resisting ideological demands, Dartmouth abstained. This stance, championed by President Sian Beilock under the policy of “institutional restraint, ” emphasizes sparing official administrative commentary to preserve a diversity of viewpoints. Beilock argues that this neutrality is not retreat but a defense of the university’s core mission of free inquiry, echoing the 1967 Kalven Report’s principle of “institutional neutrality.” However, this approach has sparked sharp debate about whether neutrality protects or undermines academic freedom in a politically polarized environment.
Institutional Restraint Versus Academic Activism
President Beilock’s policy of institutional restraint mandates that senior administrators speak on behalf of the college only sparingly, aiming to avoid the university taking explicit political stances. This contrasts sharply with the majority of academic institutions that actively oppose the Trump Administration’s actions. The administration’s view is that by refraining from taking sides, Dartmouth preserves open dialogue and prevents the university from becoming a battleground of ideological conflict. This position has earned praise from conservative commentators and officials within the Trump Administration, who see it as a principled commitment to free speech and academic neutrality. On the other hand, critics argue that Dartmouth’s stance is a form of cowardice and naïveté that plays into a “divide and conquer” strategy by the federal government. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale professor who organized the letter supporting Harvard, calls Dartmouth’s approach a failure to stand united against what many see as an assault on academic freedom. He warns that neutrality in the face of such pressure risks enabling government overreach and weakening institutional resistance.
Campus Dialogue Versus Campus Protest
Under Beilock’s leadership, Dartmouth launched the “Dartmouth Dialogues, ” a series of talks and initiatives designed to foster “brave spaces” for civil discussion, deliberately avoiding “safe spaces” that might shelter students from uncomfortable ideas. This initiative aimed to encourage engagement with difficult topics, including the Israel-Gaza conflict, following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. Faculty-led discussions initially drew hundreds of students and appeared to promote constructive dialogue. However, the campus soon experienced escalating protests, including a Gazabased encampment that led to police intervention and the arrests of 89 students, faculty, and community members. These events exposed tensions between the administration’s ideals of dialogue and the student activists’ demands for more direct action, such as divestment and public condemnation of Israel. Critics, including faculty member Annelise Orleck, question the administration’s characterization of protests as threats, pointing to the heavy police presence and arrests as evidence of an overly fragile response to campus dissent.
Divisions Among Faculty and Community Responses
The campus response to Dartmouth’s policies and the protests has been deeply divided. For instance, the faculty vote to censure President Beilock—passing narrowly by 183 to 163—reflects this split. Some faculty members, including Susannah Heschel, chair of the Jewish Studies department, support the administration’s efforts to prevent politicization of classrooms and promote balanced dialogue. Heschel advocates for bridge-building between conflicting viewpoints rather than political agitation. Conversely, others see the administration’s actions, particularly the police arrests and security measures during student protests, as suppressing legitimate political expression. The arrest of Orleck, a respected Jewish Studies professor, during a protest intended to prevent antisemitism, became a flashpoint illustrating the complex and contradictory nature of campus tensions. Social media amplified this controversy, fueling further debate about the balance between security, free speech, and protest rights.
Legal and Political Implications for Dartmouth
Dartmouth’s policy of restraint and reluctance to join the broader academic resistance has also influenced its legal and political positioning. The college hired Matt Raymer, former top lawyer for the Republican National Committee, as general counsel in early
2025. Raymer’s conservative credentials, including public support for Trump’s birthright citizenship stance, sparked outrage among some faculty and alumni but drew comparisons to Harvard’s recruitment of conservative legal experts to defend against federal pressures. The Trump Administration’s broader crackdown has included freezing $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard and threatening its tax-exempt status, exemplifying the high stakes for universities resisting government demands. Dartmouth’s choice to abstain from the collective letter opposing government overreach has increased media attention and public perception of the college as a “Switzerland” in the Ivy League, maintaining neutrality amidst a polarized academic landscape.
Balancing Free Speech and Institutional Safety
Dartmouth’s experience reveals the ongoing challenge of balancing free speech, institutional safety, and political activism on campus. The college’s “brave spaces” initiative seeks to create environments where diverse opinions can be expressed without fear of censorship, yet the term has become a target of student ridicule, highlighting the tension between administration-led dialogue efforts and grassroots activism. The college’s emphasis on policy and procedural language in managing speech and protest indicates a focus on regulating the terms of engagement rather than the substance of debates. Alumni and administrators like Gerald Hughes advocate for clear time, place, and manner restrictions to allow ample room for speech and protest, reflecting a legalistic approach to campus conflict resolution. Hughes’ own history with the conservative Dartmouth Review, which in 1986 dismantled an anti-apartheid shantytown as a form of protest, underscores the long-standing complexity of free expression issues at Dartmouth.
Final Thoughts
Conclusion Dartmouth’s Model Sparks Debate on Academic Freedom. Dartmouth College’s commitment to institutional restraint and neutrality amid federal pressures and campus unrest illustrates a contentious model for navigating the current crisis in American higher education. Its refusal to join the academic resistance aligns with a traditional Chicago-style approach to free inquiry but conflicts with the more activist stance embraced by most of its Ivy League peers. The college’s experiences with protests, arrests, faculty division, and legal challenges showcase the difficulties of maintaining open dialogue while addressing political and social demands from a polarized community. The debate over Dartmouth’s approach raises fundamental questions about the role of universities in society: Should institutions act as neutral platforms for all viewpoints, or must they take explicit stands in defense of academic values when those values are under threat?
Dartmouth’s case highlights that the answer is far from settled and continues to provoke passionate arguments from all sides.
