We are now approaching the second anniversary of College President Sian Leah Beilock’s implementation of institutional restraint at Dartmouth. In anticipation of a presidential administration that espouses strong rhetoric against universities, institutional restraint was presented as a form of protection for students: opening doors for dialogue without self-censorship and ensuring that students are able to speak out in the so-called brave spaces. Beyond that, it was a strategy for the university’s self-preservation, a marked attempt to distance itself from potential attention of the Trump administration. As the only Ivy League not signing onto likened it to the “Ivy League’s Switzerland” in an essay in The Atlantic.
But Switzerland does not guarantee itself by its étre, but rather by its promise of resistance if tested. A policy of neutrality does not protect its user from what others do, and thus to bargain under a shield of nonpartisan resignation requires the institution to wield some measure of force to sustain itself in the long term. The question is whether Dartmouth really has any foot to bargain with in this game of chicken with the government.
While peer institutions like Harvard University, Columbia University and Cornell University were being deprived of research grants and federal funding, Dartmouth was apparently exempt from the administration’s pursuit. By maintaining a sense of neutrality on the broader political landscape and avoiding confrontation with the administration, Dartmouth seemed to have weathered the storm.
Many have criticized this policy, though, for what it costs universities as institutions. By restraining itself from fully supporting other universities, Dartmouth apparently distanced itself. To the College’s credit, they have signed amicus briefs, seeking to maintain some semblance of support. The policy of institutional restraint is not meant to act as a muzzle — a leash to prevent the College from defending its direct educational mission, which arguably includes inter-university collaboration — nor is it a measure to prevent the College’s self-defence.
Even the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, the original document outlining institutional neutrality, explicitly carves out this exception: “From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.”
In July, the Geisel School of Medicine’s admissions policies came under investigation for purportedly maintaining diversity, equity and inclusion policies that the Supreme Court found to be unlawful in its 2023 ruling Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Institutional restraint did not remove the College from the crosshairs of the administration; it only delayed its arrival. However, the College’s decision to comply with the federal inquiry has shaped the investigation’s path differently from Harvard’s resistance, for instance, which escalated into a federal court case. By following the requests, it prevents further escalation, at the cost of student privacy, as Harvard argued, claiming this as a “fishing expedition.” Not to be misconstrued as being let off the hook, however, Geisel still stands under investigation, and is unlikely to de-escalate soon. All it has avoided is a legal standoff, for now.
This month, international students at Dartmouth and other U.S. universities are under fire again, this time with the changes in Duration of Status, proposed by the Department of Homeland Security. The Sept. 14 preliminary injunction preventing this measure gives some breathing room. That victory, however, was only possible because of interorganizational collaborators like the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, of which Dartmouth is a part, which sued the Department of Homeland Security, challenging the decision proposed by the executive branch. Solidarity is necessary for universities to survive in this hostile environment, and to abandon partnerships with institutions going through the same struggle is throwing away a crucial part of not only the College’s safety net, but the certainty of its students’ futures.
As an international student myself, Dartmouth’s Office of Visa and Immigration Services has been extremely helpful in this time of uncertainty, offering counseling and information sessions on what to expect in the coming weeks, should the aforementioned measure have come into effect. Not knowing what Optional Practical Training and research opportunities are, as well as what the process of getting a degree in the U.S. is looking like, is a thought that always rests in the back of international students’ minds, a concern that may cause high schoolers to have reservations about pursuing an education here.
The College’s institutional restraint policy leaves the tingly taste of iron in the mouths of many of the College’s students, some of whom are staunch supporters and some of whom are opposers of the policy. Like much of our politics today, nuance is the missing ingredient in the conversation. Outright defiance of the federal government’s inquiries offers an obvious signaling of the university’s beliefs and morals, but at the consequence of tense standoffs, costing funding losses, delays in potential new grants and further polarization among the U.S. population as partisan news sources take on harsh stances on the issue, rather than building bridges for the future. At the same time, to completely let go of the issue and take no stand would be preposterous, losing sight of the beliefs of liberty and progress that this College fought for during the nation’s founding.
In Brazil, we have a term: isentão. It describes someone who refuses to take a stance on anything simply because it is more convenient to not do so. They mask this passivity as virtuous neutrality. Dartmouth cannot afford to become an isentão. The policy the College has pursued is not flawed in its entirety, but the choice to be “restrained,” and not “neutral,” is a distinction that must be kept to its logical conclusion. The College needs to maintain its posture steadfastly; if the policy is to hold up to media scrutiny, it must take up arms every time its students are threatened, and that includes Geisel.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
