Dartmouth Students’ Trial Begins Following October Arrest

n the afternoon of February 26, four months after the Hanover Police Department arrested Kevin Engel ’27 and Roan Wade ’25 on trespassing charges, their trial began. 

Over the past several months, both the Grafton County prosecutor’s office and Dartmouth College have received repeated entreaties from students to drop the misdemeanor charges levied against the two. The charges stemmed from their conduct on October 28, when they refused to exit an encampment on the Parkhurst lawn. The prosecutor’s office has not entertained such calls, and Dartmouth Communications has repeatedly stated in response that the College has no control over the decision of whether or not to charge and try Wade and Engel; this duty belongs to the prosecutor’s office.

In a recent letter, several students who partook in this term’s hunger strike argued that Dartmouth could, in fact, encourage the charges against Engel and Wade to be dropped. The letter cited an instance in which Brown University coordinated with local prosecutors, successfully urging them to drop charges against students. 

This citation is slightly misleading, however, as the charges against protesters at Brown University were not dropped but rather reduced to civil infractions. In a case such as Engel and Wade’s, in which the defendants are charged solely with misdemeanors as it relates to trespassing, there is no lower level of charge that could be applied.

Both inside and outside of the Lebanon District Court, dozens of protesters appeared to express their support for Engel and Wade. As the trial went on, chants erupted, demanding that the charges be dropped and that Dartmouth halt all investments in companies associated with Israel.

On the 26th, only two of the eight students who first began a hunger strike on February 19 remained on strike. One such student was Roan Wade herself, who arrived for her courtroom appearance bearing a pulse-oxygen monitor.

Kira Kelley, a Hanover High alumna, is representing Engel and Wade pro bono. Kelley works as a Staff Attorney for the Climate Defense Project, which presses for, among other things, increased scrutiny of acceptable environmental practices in the Upper Valley. 

The crux of Kelley’s argument during the trial appeared to be that Hanover police had no jurisdiction over the matter on Dartmouth’s campus. She argued that, by virtue of being Dartmouth students, Engel and Wade fell under the sole jurisdiction of the Dartmouth Administration. 

Kelley cited Dartmouth policy, which outlines that when students are in breach of university conduct, the practice is to dispute the matter through administrative hearings. By calling Hanover police, Kelley argued, Dartmouth departed from its stated adjudication process.

The initial email disseminated to campus following Engel and Wade’s arrest justified it as born of a threat of “physical action.” In that email, President Beilock explained that, to ensure campus safety, administrators are obligated to interpret such a threat as being of a violent nature. 

During cross-examination, Dartmouth Safety and Security Director Keiselim Montás clarified that Engel and Wade were not, in fact, arrested for any threat of violence, and that the charges themselves were related to trespassing. Montás’ testimony appears to corroborate a statement made by Engel in an interview outside the courthouse in which he said, “We’re not even charged with anything relating to violence … violence was just never even talked about or discussed. And me and Roan, we’re always nonviolent.”

The trial will reconvene on a later date, at which point President Beilock will testify before the court. The defense has argued that Beilock’s testimony holds relevance due to her presence at the meeting at which Hanover police were requested to arrest the students. 

President Beilock was subpoenaed to testify by the defense; Beilock failed to appear in court on February 26. Valley News has simultaneously reported that Beilock cited an undisclosed illness as the reason for her absence and that Beilock’s counsel has requested to delay her testimony due “long-standing professional commitments.” We are unable to independently confirm the reason for her absence. 

But it is known that President Beilock’s attorney, Michael Delaney, has argued, in an attempt to defeat the subpoena, that the president “has no relevant testimony that she can offer.” The court, however, took the side of the defense, and the subpoena still stands.

 Interestingly, the defense requested that Delaney exit the courtroom during the cross-examination of Montás. This is likely due to Montás having offered specific testimony regarding the October 28 meeting of administrators—a meeting at which Beilock was present—which ultimately resulted in the decision to summon Hanover police.

Both the prosecution and the defense predicted that the trial will most likely resume within days, but WCAX recently reported that the trial was not likely to reconvene until May, indicating that the trial may well extend beyond the current academic year.

In any case, it cannot be ascertained which direction the trial will take. Still, Judge Michael Mace’s consideration of Beilock’s testimony indicates that the court is weighing the question of whether or not the Dartmouth administration, by calling the police, adjudicated the students’ misconduct on October 28 in a manner consistent with existing policy. 

If Mace ultimately finds that calling Hanover police was in fact a departure from College policy, then it is reasonable to assume that the defense’s call for dismissal shall carry considerable weight. 

On Friday, March 1, Dean of the College Scott Brown sent a campus-wide email in which he said that, after discussions with Wade and Engel, the administration “now understand[s] that they are consistently nonviolent activists.” 

In addition, Brown explained that proponents of the Dartmouth New Deal and of divestment from Israeli companies shall have the opportunity to meet termly with an investment committee. Importantly, however, so shall all other interested parties and those with alternative investment and divestment interests.

Brown’s email also pointed out that the two students who continued their hunger strikes after the other six began eating again on February 26 have likewise ceased the strike. 

The actions of student activists over the last several months have appeared to draw concessions from the administration, although these concessions are mostly minor and pro forma. Notably absent from Brown’s statement was any further comment on the College’s position regarding the charges against Engel and Wade. It looks like the crowd calling to drop the charges has more to protest about.