Since College President Sian Leah Beilock began her tenure at Dartmouth, the official college policy on almost every issue of importance has been one of neutrality. This so-called “institutional restraint” ostensibly serves to foster an open community where all can be heard and respected alongside attempting to keep the college clear of the scrutiny — and funding reductions — that our peer institutions, such as Columbia, Cornell, and Northwestern, have faced.
Yet, despite these lofty ideals, I argue that institutional restraint has vastly reduced, not increased, the ability of students and staff to freely express themselves while at Dartmouth. Worse, the policy has caused Dartmouth to abandon its morals and neglect its responsibility to cultivate leaders who stand up for justice. By refusing to use its institutional voice and power to defend the rights of the vulnerable, the College sets a troubling example for students, which undermines Dartmouth’s educational mission to produce graduates capable of moral courage and ethical leadership.
It is scarcely forgotten that when professors and students stood up for those facing persecution in Palestine, Dartmouth administration not only refused to condemn Israel’s assault on the Palestinians, but used police force to arrest, threaten and ultimately silence students calling for change. Rather than meaningfully engaging with the concerns of the student protesters, Dartmouth chose to forcefully restrain its students and create a campus environment where peaceful activism could lead to suspension and time in Hanover jail.
Following the protests, the proposal to divest Dartmouth’s endowment from corporations engaged in supporting Israel’s internationally-recognized genocide against Palestinians, which have been supported by 26 student organizations, have been largely ignored by the administration — a prime example of how the administration’s “restraint” really means silence.
More recently, Dartmouth’s decision to hire Matthew Raymer ’03 — who is known for both his conservatism and support of a more restrictive form of birthright citizenship in the United States — as general counsel is another clear example of how Dartmouth, though pretending to be institutionally neutral, is creating an environment where fear dominates many of the political activists on campus. With the stakes so high and support for vulnerable international students so low, it seems the administration seeks not only to restrain its own voice, but students’ voices as well.
Critics may argue that institutional neutrality protects academic freedom by preventing the College from imposing political orthodoxy on its community. However, this argument fails to recognize that claiming neutrality in the face of systemic persecution is itself a political position — one that inevitably favors those with power. When Dartmouth refuses to take a stand on issues like genocide or immigrant rights, it doesn't create space for debate; it signals to vulnerable students that their basic humanity is considered a debatable political issue rather than a fundamental value the institution should defend.
In the policy of institutional restraint lies a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of neutrality in politics and society. Neutrality, as the College uses the term, is not standing above the fray or becoming some enlightened moderate capable of seeing all sides: it is sitting a perpetrator and victim at the table and pretending their perspectives are equally valid. It is focusing more on the mere appearance of debate and dialogue, shallow as it may be, rather than supporting those who have been harmed.
During the civil rights movement, reverend Martin Luther King Jr. powerfully stated, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” This profound insight reveals how institutional silence becomes complicity with injustice. Neutrality in this sense is not a virtue, and it certainly does not deserve to be a pillar in Dartmouth’s public policy.
Dartmouth, being one of the nation’s oldest and most well-respected institutions, has a moral obligation to stand for those who cannot stand for themselves. It is impossible to instill in students a sense of justice and the ability to make a difficult stand for what they believe is right when Dartmouth itself cannot. Beilock and Dartmouth administration must right this wrong by repealing the policy of institutional restraint.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
