Over the last year and a half, the second Trump administration has pursued a confrontational relationship with higher education, targeting federal funding, diversity programs, admissions practices and international student policies. Although Dartmouth joined several of its peers in rejecting a White House funding compact, it has otherwise charted a noticeably different course.
College President Sian Beilock declined to join the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ letter signed by the presidents of every other Ivy League institution criticizing the Trump administration’s revocations of federal funding from universities. The College also revised language on its diversity webpages to emphasize compliance with federal law. More recently, it reorganized the Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity, placing it under the Office of Community and Campus Life.
Those decisions reflect an administration committed to institutional restraint, a philosophy the College formally adopted in December 2024. The appeal of that approach is not hard to understand. By choosing its battles carefully, Dartmouth seeks to preserve its institutional voice for moments when its mission is at risk. In an April 2025 statement, Beilock made that rationale explicit, writing that institutional restraint preserves the College’s ability to “fiercely defend Dartmouth.”
But Beilock’s argument went further. She distinguished reflection from capitulation and argued that universities must protect their independence. Although she declined to sign the AACU’s open letter, she wrote that it “rightly points out” universities have an “essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught.” She also pointed to Dartmouth’s participation in federal lawsuits as evidence that restraint need not mean inaction.
Until last week, that strategy seemed to be working for Dartmouth. The College was the only Ivy League school that had not faced a federal sanction or investigation since President Trump returned to office. Susannah Heschel, chair of Dartmouth’s Jewish studies program, credited Beilock with “protecting us from the kind of hostility that many universities are experiencing … from the White House and the rest of the federal government” in an interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Whatever role restraint played in keeping Dartmouth out of the administration’s crosshairs, that insulation ended on July 22 when the U.S. Department of Education announced that it is investigating the Geisel School of Medicine for alleged racial discrimination in admissions. Federal officials have not publicly explained why Geisel was selected for investigation. The Department of Education declined to tell Valley News whether the probe was related to Dartmouth’s rejection of the White House funding compact.
The investigation raises a question: If restraint was meant to preserve Dartmouth’s ability to defend its independence, what happens when federal scrutiny reaches an area — admissions — that Beilock herself has specifically defended? The investigation into Geisel marks the point at which restraint must demonstrate its purpose: preserving Dartmouth’s independence when that independence is actually challenged.
The College’s initial response was predictably restrained. College spokesperson Jana Barnello wrote to The Dartmouth that the College “will respond to the Department of Education’s request for information in due course, consistent with applicable law.” She added that the investigation “is not a finding of wrongdoing. We remain confident in Geisel’s admissions process.”
That response was narrower than those from other medical schools facing federal scrutiny. Western University of Health Sciences, named alongside Geisel, stated that it “complies with all state and federal laws governing its admissions practices.” The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, targeted in May, described its admissions process as “grounded in a rigorous, comprehensive review of each applicant.” UC Davis School of Medicine was more direct, saying it “strongly disagrees with any characterization of its admissions practices as discriminatory or inconsistent with applicable law.”
It may be prudent for Dartmouth to express confidence in Geisel’s admissions process while neither asserting legal compliance nor defending the principles underlying that process. But prudence and the “fierce defense” Beilock promised are not the same thing.
A federal discrimination investigation is not necessarily a moment for public sparring. But Beilock’s own conception of restraint does not require silence or passivity. In April 2025, she pointed to lawsuits and “action-oriented coalitions” as ways Dartmouth could maintain institutional restraint while defending higher education.
Admissions is not an external political debate unrelated to Dartmouth’s mission; it is a core institutional function Beilock has specifically identified as part of universities’ “essential freedom.” How Dartmouth responds will therefore show whether institutional restraint can protect the independence it was meant to preserve when that independence itself comes under scrutiny.
Fiercely defending Dartmouth could mean continuing the procedural restraint the College has shown so far, a judgment that cooperation offers Geisel its strongest defense. It could mean a more forceful public statement from Beilock. Or it could eventually mean legal action to defend Dartmouth’s programs, the kind of action-oriented response Beilock has previously pointed to as an alternative to public statements.
Dartmouth’s motto describes a voice crying out in the wilderness: Vox clamantis in deserto. Beilock’s case for institutional restraint rests on the idea that Dartmouth should not use that voice indiscriminately, but preserve it for moments when the College’s academic freedom and institutional independence are at stake.
Until now, Dartmouth could practice restraint largely on its own terms: declining to sign a letter, revising a webpage, reorganizing an office. Geisel changes that equation. The College cannot simply decline to engage with a federal investigation of one of its schools.
Given the legal nature of the investigation, the defense Beilock promised may unfold largely outside public view. But if Dartmouth’s response remains private, the community will have no way of knowing whether the College fiercely defended its core principles or simply adapted to avoid conflict with the federal government.
Until Dartmouth publicly moves beyond responding in “due course,” however, institutional restraint risks looking more like capitulation than the fierce defense of Dartmouth Beilock promised when that voice matters most.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
