As part of New Student Orientation, the Class of 2028 had several official interactions with College President Sian Leah Beilock. At both the annual outdoor ceremony and matriculation, Beilock emphasized free speech — that Dartmouth values free speech, that free speech has limits and that there is a difference between exercising one’s freedom of expression and robbing others of it.
But talking about freedom of expression isn’t enough. First-year students may be new to campus — and you may call us naive — but we certainly aren’t ignorant. We might not have been on campus to witness the events of May 1, when police arrested 89 individuals at a pro-Palestinian protest on the Green, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t affected by them. Because our version of the story is largely framed by the remnants of May 1 — whether chalk messages on the sidewalk calling for the College President’s resignation or the occasional anti-Beilock post on Fizz — it’s a telling built largely on fear and confusion. We see things, we hear things and we understand. Still, we don’t have the full story. I thus feel compelled to speak on the matter, not to critique Beilock or provide commentary on her administration’s handling of May 1, but rather to offer ways for her to improve her relationship with the Class of 2028.
At this moment, I believe we need an honest conversation — between the Class of 2028 and the College President — dedicated to the events of last spring.
From discrimination against Indigenous students to funding companies in apartheid South Africa, it is no secret that Dartmouth has a checkered history. Perhaps one reason we are so functional and successful as an institution is our willingness to acknowledge the past. Instead of making subtle, repeated allusions to it, we try to tackle those indiscretions head on. For example, the College hosts informative sessions with members of the incoming class about Eleazer Wheelock and the discrimination that students from Indigenous communities historically faced. From something as fundamental as increasing representation of Indigenous communities on campus to divesting from South African apartheid in 1989, it seems that previous iterations of Dartmouth leadership have ensured that — instead of ignoring our flaws — we embrace them as lessons learned. The administration should apply the same approach to the events of May 1.
It is probably in the College’s best interest that the Class of 2028 enters with an open mind — especially on the subject of the College President and her actions. We are, after all, one quarter of the undergraduate population and hold an important place in defining the relationship between the students and the administration. To be sure, being open-minded about May 1 may be difficult for many students on a campus where collective identity holds such importance. In fact, months before I even stepped onto campus, I had developed my own impression of Dartmouth’s general atmosphere. For example, through conversations with some upperclassmen, I knew that the events of May 1 had angered many students. While students were arrested on charges of criminal trespass, I am sure I was not the only one who felt some sense of fear or concern about both free expression and the safety of students on campus before matriculating.
That concern still lingers. Every time I have heard Beilock talk about free speech — to me, seemingly subtle allusions to May 1 — my concerns are amplified. The image being projected strikes me as an administration on the defensive — one that understands the importance of the Class of 2028 and is yet unwilling to have a conversation dedicated to last spring. This conversation must include both the administration and a diverse panel of upperclassmen to ensure that the freshmen neither stray into blind dissent nor are led to disregard the opinions of older students.
Openness and honesty are all we ask for, and I don’t think that is too much.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
