For many, the College’s decision to enforce a Student Handbook policy prohibiting the display of unregistered flags, banners and signs in residential buildings was surprising and unwelcome. In a recent story published by The Dartmouth, several students whose flags were taken down said they were caught off guard by the College’s recent enforcement of this policy — which occurred after some students began leaving campus for spring break and without prior notice for some affected students. Flags that were taken down include Epsilon Kappa Theta sorority’s years-old LGBTQ+ pride flag, national flags — including the flags of Israel and Palestine — and cartoon flags. The taken-down flags could previously be found across campus, hanging out of the windows of College-owned living spaces, including residence halls and Greek spaces.
College spokesperson Jana Barnello wrote that the removal of unapproved flags was part of “routine enforcement,” intended in part to ensure that Dartmouth remains in compliance with section 715 of the Hanover Zoning Ordinance — among other reasons, such as ensuring safety. In an interview with The Dartmouth, College President Sian Leah Beilock reiterated that the enforcement was “routine” and has been happening since 2015. However, she did not provide conclusive answers on two points of interest: whether “routine” enforcement typically occurs during College spring break — when most students are not on campus to observe or protest removals — and why flags which had been previously left unbothered, sometimes for years, were recently taken down. When asked, for example, why Safety and Security officers decided to remove EKT’s pride flag in March after allowing it to fly freely for years, Beilock said, “I actually don’t know the answer.”
The Editorial Board takes issue with the timing and relative ambiguity of the enforcement. We are not arguing that the College advanced any political bias in their removal of student flags. To quote Beilock, the policy has “nothing to do with the content” of the flags, banners and signs — the College even enforced the removal of a flag depicting the cartoon dog, Snoopy. But we remain skeptical of the policy at large — particularly as college campuses nationwide grapple with questions of student expression and activism — as well as the lack of transparency cited by some affected students.
Barnello uses the term “routine enforcement” to describe the actions taken by Safety and Security officers, but some students’ testimonies reveal a different story. EKT programming manager Jamie Liu ’25 said she “did not know this policy existed” prior to the early March removal. EKT house manager Natalie Halsey ’25 also said she had not previously heard from the College about the policy. Roan Wade ’25 said their Palestine flag flew for nearly a year before its removal. When asked when the College last “seriously enforced” the policy, Beilock said the recent enforcement was “no different than what has … happened in the past.” But our original question remains unanswered: When did this last happen? And if enforcement has occurred recently, why does it appear new to the students impacted? Even if unintentional, the timing appears to be a tactic to avoid potential controversy at best, and a stifling of political expression at worst.
Dartmouth has been commended by the media for the way it has largely avoided the negative headlines that have plagued peer institutions. That positive attention stems largely from the way the College has dealt with difficult political conversations and students’ rights to protest. However, the College’s latest move — removing a longstanding and largely harmless form of political expression — is a step back that undermines the Beilock administration’s emphasis on dialogue.
In her inaugural address last September, Beilock underscored the importance of fostering “brave spaces,” environments which, as Beilock described them, let “diversity of thought and lived experience shine through.” How can we create brave spaces and embrace differing perspectives when the College will not allow students a basic form of expression?
We also take issue with the way in which the College chose to enforce this policy — at a time when many students were distracted by final exams, preparing to leave for spring break or off campus altogether. We wonder whether the College’s decision to wait until the end of the winter term before taking action on several previously undisturbed flags was made deliberately to avoid confrontation. Evidently, the College’s attempt to sweep the enforcement under the rug was unsuccessful. But more importantly, the decision to go behind students’ backs — and enter their living spaces without prior warning — sets a new and concerning precedent for the relationship between students and the administration.
One of Beilock’s first moves as President was to establish an office hours series, the purpose of which was to provide students with a forum to voice opinions to the administration ahead of her inauguration. At the time, Beilock told The Dartmouth that she was “in full listening mode” and “believes other leaders and campus administrators should also consult students when making decisions.”
To be sure, Beilock said she believes it is “great” for students to question the College’s policies, adding that “dialogue” is the way to go about “calming ... concerns” with the flag policy. But where was that attitude before Safety and Security officers removed students’ flags without consultation? In this case, where student property and expression are at stake, it seems counterintuitive to walk back the message set at the beginning of Beilock’s term.
Finally, we are concerned with the precedent that the College is setting in regard to student spaces. As noted by some students who had their flags taken down, one of the most alarming parts of the enforcement was the way in which officers entered student rooms without any advance notice. According to Halsey, officers typically notify house managers of the time and date when they will enter the building. We believe that the precedent set by the College — entering and exiting a student’s personal space without advance warning nor the necessity of a time-sensitive health or safety emergency — is dangerous for the future of student privacy.
All told, it is difficult to believe that the College’s decision to take down student flags, banners and signs is nothing more than regular enforcement of an existing policy. At the very least, we urge the College to provide more clarity on their rationale. Until then, we see little that can be called “routine” about the College’s decision to stifle student freedom of expression, circumvent student-administration dialogue and infringe on students’ privacy in their own living spaces.
The editorial board consists of opinion staff columnists, the opinion editors, the executive editors and the editor-in-chief.
Update Appended (April 8, 9:35 p.m.): A previous version of this article stated that “routine enforcement” was intended to ensure that Dartmouth remains in compliance with section 715 of the Hanover Zoning Ordinance. While zoning is one reason for the policy, Barnello wrote that other factors — such as safety — also contribute to the policy's existence. The article has been updated to clarify this statement.
