In my most recent editorial, I praised President Sian Beilock for her willingness to stand against the grain and be a leader among her peers in the Ivy League. The developments of the past few weeks since we last published only serve to prove me correct. I would be remiss not to inform our readers of the bold action taken by the Beilock administration, and, even more so, to not counter the criticism which has befallen her.
On April 22, the American Association of Colleges and Universities released a statement condemning the “unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” The more than 400 university presidents who signed the statement defended their right to admit whomever they choose and to teach whatever they want. The letter comes in response to the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate diversity programs and to dictate curricula through funding cuts. Beilock was the only Ivy League president to not sign the statement.
In a statement of her own, President Beilock said, “I have never signed open form letters because they are rarely effective tools to make change.” While she does agree with much of the open letter, she emphasized that trust in higher education is at an all-time low. Dartmouth must remain an academic institution, she says, not a political one. Her commitment to this policy, as we report on in this issue, is reflected in Dartmouth’s institutional restraint policy.
Beilock’s decision to commit Dartmouth to academics alone, however, has unleashed a whirlwind of fury from students, professors, and alumni. An alumni petition circulated online called on Dartmouth to join other colleges in refusing to comply with federal directives. A faculty petition, signed by more than 350 professors, called for Beilock to do the same. Letters of protest from students have littered the pages of our daily-in-name-only counterpart on campus.
The editorial board of The Dartmouth ran a piece titled, “You’re Embarrassing Us.” They claim to realize the delicate situation Beilock is in. They correctly surmise that her administration calculated their moves to avoid a conflict with Trump. That’s great. But then they threw that all away when they asked her to take on Trump. If you recognize what in all likelihood are the costs of a war with the federal government, then why do you ask her to take the risk? Are you asking for our funding to be cut now when Beilock has already steered us clear?
A trope common to these petitions is the idea that Beilock is not firmly defending free speech on campus. The Dartmouth, in the same editorial, claimed that her approach to the situation is inconsistent with the College’s institutional restraint policy. A better explanation of this claim would be helpful, because I fail to see how restraining political statements is inconsistent with institutional restraint.
In an op-ed, a student claimed that Beilock and Dartmouth “are solidly out of the running” to be leaders of free speech. In another, an alumna condemned the “coercive use of public research funding” which threatens academic freedom. In not signing a letter that whines about Trump, they think Beilock has silenced the left on campus. Yes, liberals and progressives are unable to speak in the Ivy League. As conservative students, it’s hard not to laugh at this nation. This concern for free speech is hypocrisy in its most elusive form. They champion free speech but are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
In reality, Beilock has done more for free speech and academic freedom than most of the university presidents who signed the statement. She has at least made an effort to protect those with unpopular political opinions, which is more than they can say. Read our article in this issue on the new free speech policies to better familiarize yourself with the situation, and I’m sure you’ll agree.
The reason why some in the Dartmouth community are dismayed by Beilock’s free speech policies is that their speech is no longer given preference on campus. They aren’t coddled; they are exposed to people and views that are different from them and theirs. They never once complained when conservatives were silenced on campus. The tides are changing, and they don’t like it.
Hypocrisy, inconsistency, and unreasonableness characterize the response to Beilock. I just ask that her opponents empathize for a moment and understand how her actions have shielded Dartmouth from a world of woes.
A few weeks ago, I said I would applaud Beilock for taking a stand for Dartmouth even when faced with the wrath of students, faculty, and alumni. It didn’t take long for her to give me the chance to. Bravo, President Beilock, and may you continue to ignore the mob. It’s paying off.
I like it.