In recent messaging, Dartmouth’s leadership has emphasized institutional neutrality. The College, they suggest, should avoid entanglement in political controversy, focusing instead on education — perhaps exclusively.
On its face, this stance has an obvious appeal. In an era when trust in higher education is declining, elite institutions attract steady scrutiny. Remaining silent on divisive issues may appear prudent, shielding the College from charges of partisanship.
Yet, Dartmouth cannot dodge the reality that decisions on admissions, financial aid, divestment or sustainability all come with moral consequences and political implications. To call such decisions “neutral” risks obscuring their impact. The central question is whether neutrality is truly a safeguard against division or whether it amounts to retreat from responsibility.
Universities do not exist in a vacuum. Because of whom they admit, what they fund, and how they allocate resources, they make choices that shape society. For example, Dartmouth’s decision to reinstate mandatory standardized testing in admissions was framed as evidence-based and neutral, but it nonetheless signals to prospective students which forms of achievement the College values most. The same is true of financial aid policy, which determines who can afford to attend, and of divestment initiatives, which, in the case of Dartmouth’s fossil fuel divestment, align Dartmouth’s endowment with global climate commitments.
Neutrality, in other words, is often less about avoiding choices than about disguising them. When an institution maintains that it is not taking a side, it still defines its priorities through action or inaction. A decision to refrain from divesting fully from fossil fuels, for example, may be defended as neutrality, but it is also a decision to continue capitalizing from industries driving climate change. Even the posture of objectivity, in this context, speaks.
Dartmouth and its institutional peers have long shaped national debates not by standing down but by taking visible positions. When? The Ivy League was at the forefront of adopting need-blind admissions and expanding financial aid, moves that fundamentally altered access to higher education. During the 1980s, for instance, student and faculty activism across the country pushed universities to divest from South Africa in protest of Aapartheid. These choices were controversial at the time, but they are now recognized as necessary moments of moral clarity.
To suggest that Dartmouth should now withdraw into neutrality sidelines this history. The College’s influence has always been amplified not by its silence but by its willingness to confront contested issues.
The challenges facing Dartmouth mirror the dilemmas shaping higher education nationally. For example, the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling ending race-conscious admissions has forced colleges to rethink how they ensure diversity. The College has already announced that it will continue to consider a broad range of factors in admissions, but questions remain about how equitable the process will be without explicit consideration of race. Meanwhile, the debate over standardized testing, reinstated at Dartmouth beginning with the Cclass of 2029, has reignited concerns about socioeconomic bias.
Climate change presents another crossroads. Though Dartmouth pledged in 2021 to divest its endowment from fossil fuel companies after sustained student pressure, critics argue the move has been largely symbolic, with limited evidence that it curbs emissions or influences industry behavior. Administrators, for their part, emphasize fiduciary duty and long-term endowment returns. Whether Dartmouth chooses to act decisively or attempts to straddle short-term caution and long-term responsibility will shape not just its reputation but also its contribution to a global problem.
This does not mean that Dartmouth should weigh in on every hot-button issue or act like a political party. But it also cannot pretend to stand outside politics, as if its choices do not shape real outcomes. A college that educates future leaders, manages a multi-billion-dollar endowment and occupies a central role in American intellectual life cannot convincingly claim neutrality.
Access, equity and sustainability are not external political debates but core questions of responsibility in higher education. When Dartmouth makes choices on these fronts, it should acknowledge them openly, not under the guise of neutrality. These choices cut to the heart of what a university stands for.
Neutrality may protect Dartmouth in the short term from controversy, but over time, it risks eroding trust. The greater College community is owed transparency about what the College values and what obligations it accepts. If true neutrality is impossible, as history suggests, then the more forthright path is to declare which responsibilities Dartmouth will embrace as central to its mission.
Silence and speech are both consequential. Dartmouth must decide not whether to lead, but how.
Opinion columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
