Re: Police arrest 90 individuals at pro-Palestinian protest
Last week’s events revealed how vital it is to protect the culture of free speech and debate at Dartmouth within the context of a clear and consistently administered policy concerning freedom of expression and dissent. In light of these events, what is the best way forward in support of free speech at Dartmouth? Our view is that Dartmouth should be an impartial forum if it is to best fulfill its stated mission of “vigorous and open debate of ideas within a community marked by mutual respect.” If Dartmouth were to take a public stand on issues of community concern, it could alienate those with opposing views and undermine the meaningful discourse that is fundamental to education.
Dartmouth’s role should be analogous to that of a New England Town Meeting, where all viewpoints are heard as long as they are expressed civilly. Free speech entails not just neutrality but rules of civil engagement that foster tolerance and respect.
The right to free speech entails a duty to allow that right to others in a society of free individuals. In the case of free speech, that duty is to take the other side seriously by listening and considering things from their point of view. People are driven to desperate acts when they feel that nobody is listening. The responsibility to listen often gets lost when individuals focus on their individual rights rather than their civic duties. Civil disagreement is essential if we are not to descend as a society into violence.
As expressed in the 1967 Kalven Report, a report commissioned by the University of Chicago: “The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest. It finds its complement, too, in the obligation of the university to provide a forum for the most searching and candid discussion of public issues.”
For these reasons, we encourage Dartmouth to adopt a position of institutional neutrality. This would not in any way limit the freedom of Dartmouth community members to speak and endorse positions in their own names. Indeed, the individual freedom of expression that lies at the core of our academic mission would be impossible without institutional impartiality.
Sonu Bedi (Department of Government)
Miles Blencowe (Department of Physics & Astronomy)
Ryan Calsbeek (Department of Biology)
John Carey (Department of Government)
Luke Chang (Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences)
Michelle Clarke (Department of Government)
Charles Crabtree (Department of Government)
Brad Duchaine (Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences)
Cecilia Gaposchkin (Department of History)
Marcelo Gleiser (Department of Physics & Astronomy)
Margaret Graver (Department of Classics)
Michael Hoppa (Department of Biology)
Douglas Irwin (Department of Economics)
Jennifer Lind (Department of Government)
Mark McPeek (Department of Biology)
Russ Muirhead (Department of Government)
Daryl Press (Department of Government)
Timothy Rosenkoetter (Department of Philosophy)
Xun Shi (Department of Geography)
Hakan Tell (Department of Classics)
Peter Ulric Tse (Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences)
Matt van der Meer (Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences)
Sean Westwood (Department of Government)
Tor Wager (Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences)
Thalia Wheatley (Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences)
Letters to the Editor represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
