During spring break, College President Sian Leah Beilock and the Dartmouth administration announced that the College has hired Matt Raymer ’03 as Dartmouth’s senior vice president and general counsel. I argue that Raymer’s employment at Dartmouth represents a spineless acquiescence to President Donald Trump’s anti-democratic attitude and anti-free speech attacks on higher education. His presence on campus will actively threaten students’ free speech, and he ought to be terminated immediately.
The strategy of this hire is not lost on me. The Trump administration has used hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding as leverage to demand policy changes at peer Ivy League institutions, including requesting that Columbia put some of their departments into academic receivership. Considering these attacks, Raymer’s hire is a way to avoid scrutiny. His presence on our campus is an attempt to send a message to the White House: Dartmouth isn’t like other elite institutions. Dartmouth is like you, or at least shares your values. It is a clever attempt at defending the College from the intense pressure that other schools have endured. It seems that President Beilock is making a bet that the Trump administration is temporary, and Raymer’s hire is a way to head off the momentary presence of their disruptive policy. However, this approach is naive because the damage that the current administration can do in the next four years is existential to free speech and higher education as we know it. Therefore, Raymer’s hire won’t work in the long term.
Raymer is a career lawyer for the Republican party. He previously served as chief counsel for the Republican National Committee and worked as general counsel for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican State Leadership Committee. This resume in and of itself is obviously not a problem –– it’s critical that Dartmouth fosters a campus community that values diverse perspectives. I would defend and even applaud Raymer’s appointment if it weren’t for two glaring issues: the blatant political and anti-free speech subtext, and the fact that Raymer will now head up Dartmouth’s Office of Visa and Immigration Services.
Raymer has gone on record defending Trump’s call to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship. This proposed policy change would not grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, even if they were born on U.S soil. Raymer’s defense of one of Trump’s most extreme immigration policies raises a number of questions about his intentions as head of the immigration office.
Does he support revoking the visas of pro-Palestinian protesters like Mahomoud Khalil at Columbia? Does he support the arbitrary, unexplained detention of tourists by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that has begun under the new administration? Does he support the partial and full travel bans and visa restrictions for 41 countries that the Trump administration is reportedly considering, which would prevent some currently enrolled Dartmouth students from coming back to school? These uncertainties may cast a chill of intimidation across campus — especially for those on student visas.
The Office of Visa and Immigration Services, which Raymer now heads, will have the responsibility to enforce regulations that could actively harm the Dartmouth community. Furthermore, many of these policies, especially the suspension of visas for student protestors, are direct violations of Dartmouth's stated values. By implicitly intimidating students on visas, they punish free speech. These concerns aren’t just being expressed by political groups, either: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the American Civil Liberties Union — two well-established nonpartisan organizations dedicated to preserving free speech — have publicly condemned the Trump administration for acts such as the deportation of Khalil as threatening to free speech.
I also question the soundness of the strategy that underlies Raymer’s hire. Beilock and the Dartmouth administration clearly want to shield themselves from the attacks that other peer institutions have endured, but at what cost? Elite institutions such as Dartmouth have the endowments to withstand hits to federal funding and are the schools most primed to stand up and lead the movement against Trump’s attacks on higher education. Dartmouth has chosen to instead hide in the shadows, implicitly granting the Trump administration a license to continue its rampage of withholding funding and demanding curriculum changes. With no counter narrative and no pushback, the Trump administration’s crackdowns will only become more threatening to schools across the country, especially less-resourced ones, making this an existential issue for schools and freedom of education across the country.
Dartmouth’s response to Trump’s aggression towards higher education should not be hiring one of his allies. We should stand up while our institution is strong, and use our resources to challenge attacks that could land existential blows on higher education in the United States. It’s a now-or-never moment for intellectual freedom, and President Beilock has slinked into the shadows, proudly embracing never. President Beilock, terminate Raymer's employment, and stand up for free speech.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
