With terms of exit signed by Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson in hand, the “Freedom Budget” supporters exited Parkhurst, ending their 48-hour sit-in on April 4 at 4:30 p.m. The occupation accomplished a great deal, including bringing serious issues that have divided this campus for far too long to the forefront of our campus discussion and securing assurances of an external review of our campus climate. They have also inflicted great damage on Dartmouth’s reputation and polarized the student body, fuelling animosity and preventing fruitful discussion. The “Freedom Budget” supporters alienated much of the community when a small group of students consisting of no more than 10 percent of the student body violated Standard VIII of the Standards of Conduct, interfering with administrative operations, to force the administration to respond point-by-point to their eight-page list of demands.
It strikes me that College President Phil Hanlon does not owe a personal, direct response to such demands as the renovation of Cutter-Shabazz. Furthermore, by diluting the “Freedom Budget” message with tweets about Hanlon’s “Italian leather” office décor and hashtags like “#itshardbeingoppressive,” the “Freedom Budget” has put many people who love Dartmouth on the defensive. I do not dismiss any of the initiatives of the “Freedom Budget” out of hand, but I also do not believe that they bear overwhelming importance to the student body at large or merit the immediate attention of our President.
The “Freedom Budget” is filled with strong, insightful recommendations that many of its “opponents” would likely embrace in other contexts. From reviewing financial aid and adding student advocates to the financial aid case reviews to allowing groups to use Safe Ride, many Freedom Budget initiatives have enjoyed popular support from Dartmouth students for years. However, the debate has largely glossed over the specific initiatives — no doubt part of the reason its supporters wanted it reviewed point-by-point — focusing instead on broader issues about the school’s identity, history and priorities. It’s like the Affordable Care Act — polls show that overwhelming numbers of Americans want to close Medicare’s “doughnut hole” and create insurance exchanges, but few Americans approve of “Obamacare.”
Now that the protest has ended, I challenge Dartmouth to embrace the sit-in’s successes and improve upon its failures. I also encourage the Dartmouth community to use the external review as a way to refocus the debate on the issues, not the ideologies. As a community, we need to continue the dialogue that the “Freedom Budget” helped create, but if we fail to elevate the tone of the discussion from acrimony to understanding, we risk tearing Dartmouth apart at the seams. Hopefully a carefully constructed, issue-based review of the campus climate will refocus the community’s discussion.
So let’s take a step back and examine where we are now. An external review will assess the lay of the land and impartially establish how the campus at large prioritizes “Freedom Budget” issues. I challenge both sides to keep the dialogue going in the campus’s various publications, classrooms and organizations, but to avoid the us-versus-them mentality that has taken over Dartmouth students’ Facebook statuses and Bored at Baker posts. If the “Freedom Budget” supporters are serious about accomplishing their objectives, and its critics want to preserve Dartmouth’s reputation and protect its institutions which are coming under fire, I have no doubt that campus leaders on both sides will dedicate themselves to pulling students back toward the middle of the discussion. Let’s move forward together, making Dartmouth a place where everyone can feel comfortable and take pride in our peers, heritage and vision for the future.
Arden Arnold '16 is a guest columnist.
