At a Rockefeller Center for Public Policy event last weekend, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said, “We have seen too much cowardice from private sector business leaders in America at a time where we need more courage of people speaking out for moral clarity.” Dartmouth’s president and trustees could have learned from these words had they been in attendance.
There is no shortage of corporate practices or history at Dartmouth. Some of those practices — profit-driven investment, rising tuition and top-heavy administrative salaries — are necessary pieces of any educational institution. The Beilock administration’s stance of “institutional restraint,” intended to avoid alienating students who may hold opposing views, is among these policies. However, too often the College has hidden behind the excuse of restraint and left suffering students in the dark.
I agree it is crucial for any college with a commitment to free expression to practice restraint. To preach the “freedom of all voices” while promoting a specific one is a contradiction that leads to restrained students rather than restrained institutions. However, to suggest that making room for student voices and protecting student interests are mutually exclusive is a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy’s purpose.
In an article from January 2025 outlining Dartmouth’s adoption of the policy, Dartmouth government professor and interim dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences John Carey explained that there was a point when leadership and the institution “felt an obligation” to comment on items “beyond [their] authority.” While the College was right to try to curb overreach, it nevertheless has a responsibility to speak up when its own students are impacted. In fact, the College’s policy dictates that statements should be limited to “when external events have a direct impact upon the relationship of the institution to its members.” It’s time they start practicing that.
In January, it was revealed that the College had paid a student $81.25 for writing an op-ed article in The Dartmouth supporting Evergreen.AI and edited the article before submission to the paper. Despite the clear overreach of institutional bodies, the College issued no statement, even one indicating that the matter was being investigated. The College’s policy portal acknowledges that freedom of expression “relies vitally on open discourse and the free exchange of ideas” but in a display of hypocrisy, the College compromised the integrity and freedom of a key source of free speech on this campus. The point of restraint is to avoid the institutional disruption of free speech; yet, on an issue where there is such a blatant violation of that mission, the College went mute.
Likewise, Dartmouth didn't find it important to comment when ICE agents entered Columbia University-owned housing under false pretenses and without a warrant to arrest an international student. That’s in spite of the fact that Dartmouth is home to hundreds of international students and lies within a heavily ICE-friendly state. If this event doesn’t meet the standard of a “direct impact upon the relationship of the institution to its members,” then the College isn’t doing enough to protect its students. Even as a strictly educational institution, Dartmouth must recognize that students can’t thrive without the assurance of their basic rights. Moments like this should prompt action from the school — like coordinating with local and federal officials to ensure it doesn’t happen here — and students deserve clarity on what is being done to address such issues.
Institutional restraint is crucial, but that’s only true if it’s used the right way. Firstly, it’s necessary that statements on issues irrelevant to the College are not commented on, especially those which are politically contentious. This allows students from a diversity of viewpoints to openly voice their opinions without having the College tell them the right one. But when events meaningfully impact students relative to their relationship with the school, the College needs to speak up, especially when nobody else is. This means that students aren’t deserted when they’re looking for answers about their safety or the standard of free speech on this campus.
In some instances, the College has applied the policy well, but it fails to do so with any meaningful consistency. When President Donald Trump issued his “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” President Sian Leah Beilock released a formal rejection, highlighting her commitment to “Dartmouth’s academic mission and … fierce independence.” The message was concise, powerful and purposefully non-partisan. In my view, it was a perfect demonstration of how institutional restraint is meant to be used, and it didn’t even take a hundred words to do it. This is the type of leadership students expect and deserve from this College.
As Ro Khanna expressed during his visit to campus, we live in a time of unprecedented silence. While some may follow suit with leaders who have gone quiet, there has never been a more important time to speak up. To believe that the Beilock administration will suddenly do so for us is naive. Time and time again, they’ve made their steadfast devotion to silence clear. But for students, our voices have become powerful in the silence that surrounds them. We must find the courage to use them. Call out the administration when they lose their voice, speak out for the students the college is omitting and stand up for the change you want to see. Your voice has never had more meaning than it does right now.
Jack Toal is a member of the Class of 2029. Guest columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
