On April 23, Dartmouth solidified its place as a follower. Instead of standing up for higher education and our values, Dartmouth chose to sit by as Harvard leads the way in saying “no” to Trump.
That’s it. Harvard didn't say “no” to combating antisemitism. It said “no” to coercion and executive overreach. Rejecting the federal government's demands, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote, “[Harvard] will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”
Now, the Trump administration has frozen billions of dollars in Harvard’s funding that should be used for life-saving and innovative research. The Department of Homeland Security has threatened Harvard’s ability to host international students. And, the Internal Revenue Service is weighing whether to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.
Saying “no” has consequences. That’s the point.
College President Sian Leah Beilock wanted Dartmouth to be the leader of free expression in the Ivy League and, by extension, American higher education. We are now solidly out of the running.
Being a leader requires making hard decisions when protecting our fundamental values necessitates it – regardless of who you are up against and what the potential consequences may be. Yet, behind the facade of “Brave Spaces” and “institutional restraint,” Dartmouth’s administration opts for a path of appeasement and obeying in advance when confronted by executive overreach. In a moment that requires our active defense of the most fundamental of democratic ideals – from which our ability to pursue open inquiry stems – our College is non-committal at best, and therefore complacent. There is nothing brave about it.
Historian Timothy Snyder writes in his book “On Tyranny”: “Do not obey in advance… In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked… [therefore] teaching power what it can do.” As a leading institution, Dartmouth must take a stand.
I will be the first to acknowledge that Beilock's letter to the community Wednesday night included statements I was proud of. Namely, defending the tax-exempt status of Harvard and calling out “receivership, censorship and external pressures” on higher education. But for a letter entitled “Standing Up for Higher Education and Our Values,” Beilock showed little courage in saying who she was standing up to. Worse, in asserting that it is actually Dartmouth that must reflect "on what we could do better," the letter legitimizes unlawful encroachments into the educational sphere. The decision not to sign the open letter is a statement in itself: we aren't on the same side as the rest of higher education. Dartmouth took a political stance.
Dartmouth cannot accept actions against other institutions which threaten its own independence, and act ignorant of where they come from. Lacking the moral courage to say clearly what is right and what is wrong, when we have a responsibility to, is obeying in advance.
The Trump administration is conducting an all-out assault to confuse, distract and demoralize. It has adopted a tactic of singling out individual actors in order to take down opponents at their weakest. When individual law firms were singled out, they were unable to mount a coordinated defense of their profession, and some caved. Worse, other firms took predatory advantage of the attacks on their peers to pick off clients. Columbia folded when it was singled out. But now, Harvard is the lone voice standing up. It’s as if Harvard adopted Dartmouth’s motto of “A voice crying out in the wilderness” — while we have abandoned it.
To quote Beilock in The Atlantic, “When the future and credibility of American higher education is at stake, university leaders have no choice but to be laser-focused on the academic mission of their institutions, even when doing so prompts discord and disagreement.”
Unfortunately, it appears that the Dartmouth administration has chosen the ill-fated strategy of appeasement. Don't offend and hope for the best. As Beilock continued to write in the same Atlantic article, “Appeasement can feel safe and easy — if that means giving in to the demands either of student protesters or of vocal donors.” Sound familiar? Maybe if today we comply, tomorrow we won’t lose our funding. The difference now is that the pressure isn't coming from student protestors that Beilock doesn't need to listen to, but the President of the United States. Apparently, as the stakes get raised, appeasement becomes acceptable.
Remember Dartmouth’s new institutional restraint policy? It doesn’t bar the College from taking a stand right now. In fact, a plain reading would prescribe the opposite. To quote from the policy: “When confronted with issues directly relating to Dartmouth’s mission, senior leaders will reaffirm Dartmouth’s core values and commit to taking actions in support thereof.” Note that this language is not passive. It does not say senior leaders “may” take action. It is a command. Leaders “will” take action. They “will” reaffirm Dartmouth's core values.
We don’t have to guess when Dartmouth is supposed to take a stand. The policy provides: “Examples of such issues include who is recruited into the Dartmouth community, the development and content of curriculum, and support for research and creative expression.” Omar Rashid ’29, a member of our community, is currently barred from leaving Gaza. Instead of ensuring his safe passage, the Trump administration is threatening to bar international students altogether from coming to college in the United States. National Institutes of Health grants are on the chopping block. Two Dartmouth student visas have already been revoked. In the face of these direct threats to our college’s community and research, our administration betrays its own policy by opting for vague, non-commitments.
I support an institutional restraint policy. The president of the College’s opinion, or lack thereof, does not always reflect my own — this is a prime example. However, it appears that instead of heeding the policy's primary exception — to speak up when the core mission of the institution is challenged — Dartmouth is using this policy as a crutch for appeasement.
In a democracy, things get messy. The proper response is to roll up your sleeves and band together, not hide in the woods and hope for the best.
Daniel Webster famously fought for Dartmouth’s independence from state control in “The Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward.” Now is not the time to cede it in advance.
Dylan Griffith is a member of the Class of 2025. Guest columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
