Dear Dartmouth community,
It’s been a little over a month since I wrote to you at the start of spring term. During that short time, higher education has been in the national headlines daily, with our Ivy League peers under investigation by the federal government for potential Civil Rights Act violations, or having to deal with major federal funding freezes, or both. I know this has created concern, anger, and anxiety on our campus—especially as SEVIS record revocations have affected our own community and, earlier this evening, the White House issued new executive orders related to education that we are still reviewing.
People on and off campus are asking what I think about the battle between higher education and the federal government. A binary framework has emerged—fight or flight—that, I worry, means higher-education institutions aren’t reflecting on what we could do better to further our standing as a trusted beacon for knowledge and truth.
To be clear, reflection does not mean capitulation. I commit to you that I will always stand up for higher education, academic freedom, and Dartmouth’s specific dedication to values like “responsibility for each other and for the broader world” and “vigorous and open debate of ideas within a community marked by mutual respect.” For example, the recent threat to Harvard’s tax exempt status, among other threats, is fundamentally inconsistent with the notions of free expression and inquiry that make America’s universities the envy of the world, and of the limited government that our founders rightly celebrated. Receivership, censorship, and external pressures about what can and cannot be taught or studied hamper the free exchange of ideas on our campus and across institutions. Dartmouth will never relent on these values, and I hope my peers don’t either.
I understand that some see any sort of self-reflection at this moment—anything less than all-out battle—as surrender. I disagree. Given the long, successful partnership America’s research universities have had with the federal government, we owe it to our country to look for ways to move forward, and for solutions that protect our fierce independence as institutions of higher education while improving who we are and what we offer. I see this as time well spent, and I believe that it takes a vibrant ecosystem of colleges and universities for these values to flourish.
As president, I have never signed open form letters because they are rarely effective tools to make change. I prefer joining action-oriented coalitions, as we have done this past month as part of two successful AAU lawsuits focused on NIH and DOE indirect-cost rates. That said, I agree with much of the open letter signed by many school presidents. The letter rightly points out that “American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom.” And that we “are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.” I would add a clear acknowledgement that we can do better.
Higher-education institutions, especially the most elite among us, are not above reproach. Not only is trust in higher education at an all-time low, but that trust is hugely polarized, second in polarization only to the U.S. presidency. If we don’t ask ourselves why, we will squander this opportunity to do better. That spirit of self reflection does not, in any way, insulate the government from criticism. It simply gives us an opportunity to look at ourselves and ask where we can be truer to our own ideals.
I believe we can do better by staying focused on what we are: educational institutions, not political organizations, as laid out in Dartmouth’s institutional restraint policy, which preserves our ability to fiercely defend Dartmouth and the academic freedom that drives discovery and makes our institution great. It also encourages taking actions in support of our mission or in solidarity with other schools. Most importantly, institutional restraint is not in conflict with faculty, students, and staff speaking their minds, protesting, or demonstrating within the bounds of our policies on freedom of expression and dissent. Indeed, the goal of institutional restraint is that it empowers individuals to speak up without worrying about aligning with any institutional position. This is how knowledge is developed—different people with different ideas and identities bravely pushing at each other in a community of trust and respect.
Let me end by saying that I am so grateful to be in this community at this moment. We continue to be a model for productive dialogue and dissent at a time when many institutions are finding it hard to come together. Next Wednesday, our faculty experts will have a lively discussion on freedom of expression and dissent. More information can be found here. I also have office hours most weeks for students and will have them this Friday for faculty and staff as well.
As I said when I spoke about the importance of academic freedom last month, even in times of uncertainty—especially in times of uncertainty—we must not waver in our commitment to one another or to the values of free and open inquiry that are integral to American higher education.
Best,
Sian Leah Beilock
President