Exactly one year after May 1, our campus remains deeply divided. Although many of us probably wish we could put the memories of what happened on the Green that day out of our heads, doing this would be a disservice to our campus community and dishonest to our values as an institution. It is in this spirit of open discourse that I approach this column, with appreciation for the delicacy of the situation, but a deep desire for my voice to be heard regardless of the repercussions.
In December, Dartmouth adopted a new policy of “institutional restraint,” which bans the College from making statements about issues not related to Dartmouth’s academic mission. College President Sian Leah Beilock explained the intentions of the policy in an email to campus, expressing a goal of protecting freedom of expression on campus. I have previously written in support of a similar policy of “institutional neutrality,” and applaud the College’s adoption of this policy as a step in the right direction towards making campus more welcoming to free speech. However, I’m worried administrators might now weaponize this policy to dismiss real discussions on Dartmouth’s campus about Dartmouth Divest for Palestine’s divestment plan.
The committee on institutional statements was charged with investigating institutional restraint, and ultimately made the decision to recommend it as a policy. The Committee’s chair, government professor John Carey, made crucial remarks about the decision. He noted that the committee decided on restraint over neutrality because “there are critical values that the institution supports and is committed to advancing.” Total institutional neutrality, limiting Dartmouth’s ability to take actions that align with its values is a fair concern. I applaud the committee’s diligence in making this distinction.
According to this statement by Professor Carey and the official language of the institutional restraint policy, if there is an issue that challenges Dartmouth’s “core values,” the institution should take action on it. Dartmouth has published values, and the College states on its own website that these principles are “integrate[d] into our curriculum, our culture and our campus so that students, staff, and faculty live those principles.” One of the listed values is “a sense of responsibility for one another and for the broader world.”
So, both the institutional restraint policy and core Dartmouth values outline two basic requirements for the College to take action on an issue; First, there must be a pressing issue in the world that conflicts with Dartmouth’s values, and that Dartmouth is somehow connected to. Second, the issue must be one that undergraduates and staff members alike feel a responsibility to address.
Israel’s occupation of and military campaign in Gaza clearly fulfills both of these criteria, and therefore should be an issue of action for Dartmouth. First, on the existence of a pressing issue: Multiple independent human rights watchdog groups and the United Nations have concluded that the Israeli state has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of international law. Furthermore, The International Court of Justice – the only court in the world that mediates international disputes – ruled last year that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are unlawful, and that Israel’s measures violate international laws against racial segregation and apartheid. Second, on care in the community about the issue: DD4P’s proposed divestment plan has over 400 signatures, and there has been remarkable public advocacy and protest on the issue. On top of this, there is clear precedence for Dartmouth Divestment when specific situations call for it. In the last 40 years, Dartmouth has divested on five separate occasions.
So, if Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute an issue of action according to Dartmouth values, what should be done? The recommendations of the International Court of Justice are a good place to start for guidance. The ICJ recommended an arms embargo against Israel, as well as a halt to any commercial activity that may harm Palestinians. Obviously, Dartmouth College cannot impose an arms embargo, but it can vote with its money. DD4P’s proposal outlines a way to do this, divesting from a select list of arms manufacturers which have clearly and materially contributed weapons to Israel’s occupation and military campaign. DD4P’s proposal is less extreme than others at peer institutions, and stops at total divestment from defense contractors.
Despite this clear, reasonable and actionable step, Dartmouth administrators have refused to hold a vote on the issue. Although the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility meets with the Dartmouth New Deal coalition once a term, there has been no public communication about moving DD4P’s proposal forward. As I have laid out, any claim of the new institutional restraint policy inhibiting divestment plans is flawed. So, what’s the hold up?
Removing all politics from the equation, the decision to divest is a question of where Dartmouth’s values align. The question is simple. Do the values of Dartmouth College align with the values of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and multiple humanitarian groups? Are College administrators willing to take a stand on a clear, pressing human rights issue that members of the community have expressed grave concern about, despite how hard this may be? If the answer to these questions is yes, divestment is a must. Not divesting is as strong a statement by Dartmouth as divestment is — and a lack of policy change is a clear stand against the consensus of experts that have identified a humanitarian crisis that continues unchecked.
In a message to the campus community last March, former Dean of the College Scott Brown stated that “the bar is high” for divestment, and that “specific criteria” must be met before the Board of Trustees can consider a divestment proposal. Considering the evidence before us, I sincerely ask the Board of Trustees: what specific criteria have not been met by this issue? Your continued silence and refusal to even engage in a discussion on this issue is a fundamental betrayal of Dartmouth’s value of the vigorous and open debate of ideas. It remains at odds with countless students on campus, as well as humanitarians across the globe.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
Eli Moyse ’27 is an opinion editor and columnist for The Dartmouth. He is from Connecticut, and studies government and creative writing.
On campus, Eli is an active member of the Dartmouth Political Union and Dartmouth Army ROTC. He attends Dartmouth on an ROTC scholarship, and upon graduation, he will commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He has been an active writer and political organizer from a young age, working on over 15 political campaigns varying from local to presidential races, and publishing both fiction and nonfiction on various platforms.
First and foremost, Eli loves to write, and he intends to make some form of it his full time career after his time in the Army.
