It was heartening to read in the New York Times on May 20 the following:
“In a statement, the university noted that a censure vote had no practical effect. And the chair of Dartmouth’s board, Liz Lempres, applauded [College President Sian Leah] Beilock for her ‘strong leadership’ in nearly impossible circumstances. ‘The board unequivocally and unanimously supports President Beilock,’ she said.”
As someone who has lived within academia for more than 50 years, and as something of a student of both the economics and psychology of bi- and multilateral relationships, I believe the following general principles are relevant concerning the encampment on the Green:
- Institutions of higher education should allow for the reasonable free expression of controversial opinions by all members of the institution’s community.
- Consistent with the first principle and with the law, private institutions of higher education are entitled to set policies concerning the time, manner and place at which such expression occurs, whether on the institution’s property or with the facilities provided by the institution. This principle can be different for public institutions.
- It is then incumbent upon the institution to enforce rigorously its policies in an opinion-neutral manner.
- Failure to do so invites further and more egregious violations of policies. Examples include Columbia University and Stanford University, among others — where violent occupation of buildings ensued.
- It is appropriate to provide warnings to violators and to provide them with the opportunity to behave in a policy-consistent manner within a reasonable amount of time.
- Particularly invidious is to provide a warning with a time limit and then, if there is no compliance, to extend the time limit or enter into negotiations, granting violators a reward for their rule-breaking behavior. Idle and unenforced warnings breed a lack of respect for authority and encourage noncompliance.
- Those who violate the rules should expect to be — and should be — penalized for doing so. The only time amnesty is appropriate is if the individual complies promptly with a first warning. Penalties should be scaled to the nature of the violation, but they should be meaningful.
- No rights attach to using the institution’s property or facilities to protest or demonstrate by individuals wholly outside the institution’s community unless the policies of the institution give them that right. And it is not incumbent on any private institution to do so.
Concerning the encampment on the Green: I believe that Dartmouth has amply satisfied Principle 1. Further, Dartmouth’s policies do not allow “encampments” on the Green, satisfying Principle 2. Finally, students and others were given fair and timely warnings when the encampment was first established, which satisfies Principle 3. And, so, the actions taken by Beilock on May 1 were appropriate. Indeed, as the ultimate steward of Dartmouth’s rules, her actions were required.
One might argue that encampments should be allowed on the Green if the issue being protested is sufficiently urgent and important. However, such discretionary policies are almost impossible to enforce in an opinion-neutral fashion. Who decides what is ‘sufficiently urgent and important?’
Certainly, consultation with the community members concerning rules about time, place and manner of allowable protests is appropriate, but not in the heat of a specific moment. And, for reasons that take us into the principles of efficient long-term transactions, decision authority should rest with the party with the longest-term perspective, which is the administration, not current students.
In the statement quoted above, Lempres mentioned “nearly impossible circumstances.” I appreciate that, given the current climate of spineless university and college leadership, taking such actions may seem “nearly impossible.” It is a measure of the poor state of leadership of our institutions of higher education that Beilock’s decision should be considered anything other than the obvious thing to do. Therefore, Beilock deserves our praise and has earned the thanks of academics beyond Dartmouth for her decisive and principled actions.
She also deserves praise for recognizing the hurt this caused students and faculty members who, in the current permissive climate, probably expected a spineless reaction from those in Parkhurst Hall. But she did the right thing. I hope and expect that she does not regret doing so and that, in similar circumstances, she would do so again.
I close by noting that, in many of her actions since September, Beilock has been a welcome breath of fresh air. Dartmouth is extremely lucky to have her. I am glad that the Board of Trustees stands firmly behind her. You should as well.
David M. Kreps is a member of the Class of 1972 and the Adams Distinguished Professor of Management and Economics, Emeritus at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Guest columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
