Many top universities are navigating how to respond to the Trump administration’s threats to cut federal funding. Earlier this week, Harvard chose not to comply with the government’s demands, while a month ago, Columbia coalesced, agreeing to alter the university’s student protest policies, hire new campus security officers and appoint a new senior vice provost to Columbia’s Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department.
Further, many international students are having their visas revoked — sometimes abruptly, and sometimes after being vocal about politics in the Middle East.
As higher education renegotiates its relationship with the federal government, Dartmouth is sticking to its policy of “institutional restraint,” which administrators announced in December. The policy prohibits College leadership from making “institutional endorsement[s] for a specific position or belief” on a controversial issue unless it directly affects the College.
“The university would be unlikely to weigh in on the outcome of an election but may issue an institutional statement if a new federal or state law impacts how Dartmouth can conduct the business of the university,” according to the Freedom of Expression at Dartmouth website.
Student leaders of political groups on campus are torn on the policy.
Vito Bloyer ’28, who is starting a Dartmouth chapter of Turning Point USA — a conservative activist organization — agreed that institutional restraint “allow[s] everyone to feel like they have a voice.”
“If we’re all on the same page about [an issue], then the College doesn’t need to make a statement for us to all think that,” Bloyer said. “But if there’s a debate to be had, clearly there’s another perspective.”
The new policy states that statements from College administration may “deter community members who do not share that belief from expressing their skepticism or opposition.” Under the previous policy, senior leaders — including the College president and members of the Board of Trustees — were recognized as “institutional spokespeople for Dartmouth,” according to the previous Institutional statements vs Individual statements policy.
Other students are already disappointed by the policy. Policy director of the Dartmouth Democrats Jesse Fitzelle-Jones ’27 said that sometimes, the College’s silence “leads to attitudes of inaction.” This apathy “can create fear among minority groups on campus, which can actually stifle free speech,” he added.
“These are abnormal political times … there’s a lot of real fear on campus, especially among international students and LGBTQ+ students,” Fitzelle-Jones said. “The College not [using its] voice is in itself a statement that [international/LGBTQ+ students] are not going to be protected or safe.”
College spokesperson Jana Barnello wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that the College, “has and will continue to provide resources, guidance and spaces for reflection, dialogue and support.”
“Our goal is to ensure that every member of the Dartmouth community feels valued and supported, even when the institution chooses not to issue a formal statement on a particular issue,” Barnello wrote.
Fitzelle-Jones said he believes some College policies contradict the policy of institutional restraint, including the hiring of General Counsel Matthew Raymer ’03, who defended President Donald Trump’s call to redefine birthright citizenship in an op-ed in The Federalist.
“That doesn’t seem very content-neutral to us,” Fitzelle-Jones said. “When you say, ‘We’re neutral on these issues,’ and then hire one of the least neutral people to oversee [OVIS], something that affects so many students’ lives.”
According to Barnello, the institutional restraint policy “does not apply to hiring decisions.” The decision to hire Raymer was “based on his legal expertise, professional qualifications and his experience,” Barnello wrote.
“Matt is an important part of the President’s senior team, which is made up of many different voices and opinions,” Barnello added. “Like all senior leaders at Dartmouth, we have full confidence in Matt’s ability to serve in this role based on his qualifications and expertise, without regard to any personal political beliefs.”
Dartmouth Civics co-president Cooper Ballard ’28 said that he agreed with the policy because students who do not agree with an institutional stance may feel “unheard” and have “a valid reason to be upset with the College.”
Fitzelle-Jones said that institutional statements should be made on a “case-by-case basis,” and emphasized the importance of senior leaders fostering “human connection with students” and dialogue with “various groups” to determine what those statements should be and when to make them.
Fitzelle-Jones added that the current policy “gives the impression that the College might just not be listening.”
Ballard agreed that while statements may not always be “necessary,” the College should speak out if an issue directly affects students. For example, a New Hampshire law that took effect after the 2024 November election requiring stricter voter registration requirements “threatens” Dartmouth students’ ability to vote in New Hampshire, according to Ballard.
“Dartmouth prides itself on being super caring of its students,” Ballard said. “I think they should be making a statement about the fact that their voting rights are gonna possibly be taken away.”
