On Dec. 10, the College introduced its new Institutional Restraint Policy on institutional statements, which replaced the Institutional Statements vs Individual Statements Policy that had been in effect since June of 2022.
“Institutional restraint” means the College will not make statements about issues not related to Dartmouth’s academic mission, according to Steering Committee of the General Faculty member and earth sciences professor Mukul Sharma.
Committee chair and government professor John Carey noted the College’s intentional use of institutional “restraint” rather than institutional “neutrality.” The latter term relates to the position that institutions should not have positions on social and political issues, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and that these discussions should be left to students and faculty. According to Carey, the term “institutional neutrality” has been “criticized” for suggesting that the institution is not advancing a set of values.
“We chose the word ‘restraint’ consciously,” Carey said. “ … We want to make it very clear that there are critical values that the institution supports and is committed to advancing.”
In a campus-wide email on Jan. 6, College President Sian Leah Beilock wrote that the goal of institutional restraint is to better protect the freedom of expression of Dartmouth community members.
“It is when the institution … exercise[s] restraint in making statements that individual students, faculty and staff can fully explore and voice opinions that may be contrary to the majority view,” she wrote.
College Provost David Kotz said the process of creating the new policy began in the spring of 2024. Kotz oversees the Steering Committee which, among other responsibilities, reviews reports and recommendations from other committees for deliberation.
Kotz said in spring of 2024, the Steering Committee created the Committee on Institutional Statements, which is comprised of faculty members and other “experts” and led by Carey. The Committee on Institutional Statements did not write the new policy but instead recommended guidelines to the Steering Committee. Its members ultimately wrote and approved the policy, Carey said.
Carey explained that the recommendations were shaped by the recent trends in institutional statements made by colleges and universities.
“We got to the point over the last decade or so where institutional leadership, I think, felt an obligation to make public comments or institutional statements on a lot of things that were beyond the authority and the jurisdiction of university leadership,” Carey said.
By removing the “obligation” to comment on political issues, Carey said he believes that Dartmouth is better able to “protect and preserve space for individuals to speak.” Sharma added that the new policy allows the College “to provide a space for all voices.”
Kotz explained that an institutional policy of restraint helps “ensure” that the College community has the opportunity to state their opinions on any topic.
“A statement by the institution, typically made by an institutional leader like the president or the provost or a dean, has a way of effectively silencing the voices of people who might have a different opinion about that issue,” Kotz said.
According to Carey, the new policy also provides “a bit more structure” and guidance on issuing department statements compared to peer institutions. Specifically, the policy requires academic departments to use more restraint when issuing official statements by requiring an anonymous vote of “enfranchised” department members, he said.
As recently as this fall, academic departments have split from the College to their own issue declarations. On Oct. 24, the history department released a statement condemning the arrest of Birzeit University professor Basil Farraj by federal immigration agents.
After some initial “concern,” history department chair Darrin McMahon said he is “pleased” with the policy. McMahon explained that, in previous years, statements issued on behalf of academic departments were not required to hear voices of dissent within the department. The new policy, however, ensures that department statements will “reflect a democratic will of the majority,” he said.
“[The policy] makes strong efforts to protect the right of individuals and departments to make statements, but then offers judicious counsel about how to go about that,” McMahon said.
Kotz said he and Carey will continue the implementation of the new policy by meeting with faculty members from different academic departments throughout the winter term. Kotz said that this next step will help faculty understand the “philosophy underlying the policy and the practical guidelines that the policy outlines,” in the event a department or center wants to make a statement on behalf of the whole department.
