On Sept. 14, College President Sian Leah Beilock published a piece in The Atlantic titled “Saving the Idea of the University.” In it, she claims that a university’s power is diminished when a particular student group or faculty body imposes a single viewpoint on campus. She stresses that universities must instead support “ideological diversity.”
For the first time in my life — and likely the last — I agree with Beilock. As she says, universities should be havens for students to explore diverse perspectives and cultural ideas. The difference between us? I stand by my words. Beilock, meanwhile, speaks about open dialogue before turning around and denying campus access to those with opposing views by limiting a guest speaker’s access to present a lecture. The College’s atmosphere under Beilock’s presidency — from students and faculty getting arrested to the indefinite postponement of Alice Rothchild’s “Health and Human Rights Consequences of War on Gaza” campus lecture last May — reveal a commitment to silencing dissent, not intellectual freedom. The police presence on May 1, for example, physically removed dissenting student and faculty voices from campus. Beilock preaches inclusion, but recent events say the opposite.
There is a glaring distinction between what Beilock frames as those “[imposing] one ideological view” and those advocating from a place of humanity, who are not only open to dialogue but also actively foster it through teach-ins and education. The Dartmouth New Deal Coalition, for instance, has consistently taught College community members about divestment in several rallies and organized events. Groups like this are not silencing others. They amplify voices and offer “brave spaces” — the importance of which Beilock promoted in her inaugural address — for deeper understanding.
For the College’s first female president — positioned by some as the face of Dartmouth’s progress — Beilock’s actions suggest a commitment to maintaining the status quo. I believe, as other students have argued, that she only challenges the status quo when it conveniently benefits her standing with the College.
Time and time again, I believe that Beilock has systematically silenced students, faculty and guests who dare to challenge institutional authority and present alternative viewpoints.
Despite promises to reschedule Rothchild’s lecture, the College has gone silent. I don’t think this is an oversight but rather a pattern of deception — one where the College feeds empty lies to quell dissent, hoping no one will notice.
The College also recently declined to hire University of Illinois Chicago Professor Nicole Nguyen as a tenured geography professor, similar to the tenure denial of geography professor Patricia Lopez last year. In both cases, I believe the College rejected the professors due to their backgrounds and beliefs.
Nguyen has publicly supported pro-Palestinian student protesters, while Beilock’s administration saw 89 people arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest. Despite stating the importance of differing perspectives, Beilock’s administration has made it crystal clear to me that only certain viewpoints are welcome — those that align with the institution’s meticulous image and what I presume to be political preference. Lopez, like Nguyen, was a faculty member of color with a pedagogical ideology centered on social issues in her curricula, which shows the College’s struggle to retain faculty of color.
By denying tenure to Nguyen and canceling Rothschild’s lecture — two people who stand in solidarity with minoritized groups — the administration seems to be protecting the status quo. This seeming gatekeeping on campus contradicts the claims of open debate Beilock espouses in her article in The Atlantic.
Under Beilock, intellectual diversity is only celebrated when convenient.
My questions to Beilock are as follows: Would you have denied Malcolm X access to Dartmouth for defiantly visiting Gaza and advocating for Black liberation? How does the silencing of perspectives from minoritized populations align with your definition of a university, a “home for intellectual inquiry and debate?” Do individuals from minoritized groups have a place in your utopian university, or is there only space for those whose backgrounds and ideologies mirror your own?
Beilock, your blatant hypocrisy shatters any statement, action or The Atlantic article in which you have championed intellectual freedom. Your words have been exposed as nothing more than lip service to the very ideas the College has suppressed.
Debate and inquiry cannot happen when you deny a seat at the table — or on campus — to those with whom you disagree. And if you refuse us seats, we will bring foldable chairs.
Jackelinne Claros Benitez is a member of the Class of 2024. Guest columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
