Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, October 28, Hanover Police arrested two pro-Palestinian protesters, Roan Wade ’25 and Kevin Engel ’27, who were camped on Parkhurst Hall’s front lawn in a tent, charging them with a misdemeanor for criminal trespassing. The two students were released on bail later in the morning.
The arrests occurred at the same site at which pro-Palestian protesters have been a near-constant presence since Thursday, October 19. From that date, groups of supporters affiliated with the Palestine Solidarity Coalition began to take periodic shifts to watch over a display of black flags that they had placed on the lawn. Over the ensuing days, the Administration took no action to disperse the students in front of Parkhurst or to dismantle their display, deeming the demonstration a peaceful assembly involving considerations of free speech. Safety and Security officers remained watchful, and officials from administrative departments, including Student Affairs and the Tucker Center, sought to maintain open lines of communication with the protesting students.
The situation escalated on the afternoon of Friday, October 27, when, following a College-approved environmentalist march, a group of pro-Palestinian students added to the Parkhurst demonstration by assembling a tent for overnight use on the front lawn. The students ignored an administrative warning that their actions contravened College policies, including a prohibition on unapproved “overnight use” of grounds and non-residential facilities, and they continued to erect the tent.
Circumstances came to a head when two students in the tent threatened in writing to take “physical action” if the Administration would not accede to various demands, including compliance with the “Dartmouth New Deal.” According to a circulated statement, the “Dartmouth New Deal” calls for the College to divest from “Israeli apartheid” and to take action against environmental injustice, among other measures.
Preliminary reports suggest that the two students who issued this threat were the same two students later placed under arrest. In a campus-wide email sent early Saturday afternoon, President Sian Leah Beilock emphasized that Safety and Security is required to interpret a threat of “physical action” as a threat of physical violence, which directly violates Dartmouth’s “Standards of Conduct.” President Beilock added that College officials spent six hours attempting to “deescalate” the situation, at which point College leadership contacted Hanover Police for their assistance.
Beilock’s statement underscores fatal flaws in an all-campus email sent by the Dartmouth Student Government earlier on Saturday, in which student leadership decries the arrests as a “needless escalation.” The signatories—student body president Jessica Chiriboga, vice president Kiara Ortiz, and chief of staff Anthony Fosu—argue that the Administration’s action “threatens to suppress students’ freedom of expression and dissent on campus.” DSG’s email neglects to mention the aforementioned threats of violence and falsely characterizes the protestors’ behavior as “nonviolent civil disobedience.” The email also advocates the prioritization of administrative “discretion” over the application of long-established College policy.
We and other outlets have praised the response of President Beilock’s administration to Hamas’ attacks on Israel and the ensuing conflict. Notably, in early October, the Administration promoted peaceful discourse by sponsoring two different faculty-led forums. Moreover, following the second forum, the College admirably hosted a vigil for Israel. Such success has saved Dartmouth from going down the same path as schools such as the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, a number of whose prominent alumni have published an open letter condemning the University’s failure to protect Jewish students. Columbia has also come under fire for its administration’s lack of response after a professor praised Hamas’ attack on Israel as an “awesome, stunning victory.”
By Saturday afternoon, an assortment of pro-Palestinian protesters still sat peacefully in front of their flag display. In light of Friday night’s events, we at The Review wish to call the bluff of the DSG and those left-wing students groups who later issued a statement along similar lines: In fact, the Administration’s handling of the protest demonstrates President Beilock’s commitment to free speech—provided it remains speech. We at The Review applaud the Administration’s response to the threats of violence, and we endorse the president’s efforts to ensure that protest and dialogue at this institution remain peaceful.
Please see the follow-up statement by Jessica Chiriboga ’24 and Kiara Ortiz ’24 to all undergraduates on Saturday, October 28, 2023: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQ97eP65KP_0rOtpAB8xNfLY9nspVtz1Nmiw0W0UN4nBn6QTuqiMbFh8pOmzXMsl1Q6NO5PMRmQTMOu/pub
The College is within its right to restrict access to private property as a private institution, take disciplinary action against those who violate its policies, and ensure the safety of its community members. However, given the context of this situation and my interest in supporting Brave Spaces and the freedom of expression and dissent on campus, I personally felt that an arrest could have been avoided through extended negotiations and helping the student protesters more clearly understand the difference between the First Amendment, freedom of expression and dissent, and College policies on disorderly obstruction. This is what I mean by discretion.
Dartmouth Student Government, even after conversations with multiple College officials directly involved in the situation, and student protesters were not made aware of “physical action” factoring into the administration’s decision until President Beilock’s statement to campus. The two students were arrested on charges of criminal trespassing, not criminal threatening (or threats of violence).
The words “physical action” appeared in a document written and delivered by a group of student protesters. The document stated, “By January 3rd, 2024 (the first day of the 2024 Winter Term), the Dartmouth administration needs to respond publicly to each item raised on this document with its exact commitment to each one of its demands[…] If the Dartmouth administration does not respond by the indicated time, those who believe in freedom will be forced into physical action.” Student protesters maintain that “physical action” meant continued non-violent civil disobedience, firmly insisting on their non-violent approach. This exact language of “physical action” was directly copied from the 2014 Dartmouth Freedom Budget in reference to non-violent civil disobedience at the College.
I am committed to supporting freedom of expression and dissent on campus. It is one of the central tenets of higher education and advances freedom of speech in the public sphere. I will continue my advocacy to, and collaboration with, President Beilock, senior leadership, staff, and faculty on promoting Brave Spaces (e.g. forums for dialogue across differences) and the freedom of expression and dissent on campus.
Bravo, indeed!
I commend the new President for enforcing College policy, allowing both freedom of speech and maintaining the safety and security of all students. She set a fine example for the rest of the Ivy League
Echo Brother Marty’s comments above. President Beilock in this first public test of her new administration has demonstrated we have the right leader at the helm. She has set the model for the correct response that college administrators across the land should follow in handling similar crises. This was a wise and judicious determination with the added benefit of educating the campus that there’s a limit where free speech ends, even at college. When speech crosses the line into the unprotected zone of the proverbial yell into the crowded theater that there’s a fire, it won’t be tolerated. Well done, Pres. Beilock.