Unfortunately, our quiet College on the Hill was not immune to the rising tide of protests that has swept college campuses across the country in recent weeks. The young, fanatical activists of this campus decided to end the relative serenity, for which President Sian Beilock and other administrators had garnered praise, that had previously characterized our campus. The events of May 1, which included a gathering on the Green, the construction of tents in violation of College policy, and demands for the College to divest from companies which support Israel and its so-called “genocide” against Palestinians in Gaza, ultimately led to the arrests of 90 students and community members, two of whom were professors at Dartmouth.
The events of May 1 have dominated the discourse here on campus since they occurred, and, naturally, President Beilock’s decision to arrest 90 protesters has been met with incoherent rage, from both the student body and the faculty. We at The Review aim to provide our readers with a fair and balanced analysis of the protests and arrests of May 1 and of the subsequent reactions throughout the College.
The College was made aware of the planned protests early on April 29. Accordingly, Provost David Kotz sent an email around two o’clock on May 1 reminding the protesters of the policies which ban encampments on the Green, and of the time and place restrictions placed on demonstrations. Kotz warned that anyone “in violation of Dartmouth policies or local laws will be immediately subject to Dartmouth’s disciplinary processes, which could include separation and expulsion.” He also added that, “Unlike what we’ve seen recently at other institutions where encampments have turned hateful and violent and classes and graduations have been canceled, we intend to preserve in-person classes, access to Dartmouth spaces, and traditional spring events.”
Of course, violating College policy and facing arrests was the ultimate goal of the protesters. They almost certainly read the College rulebook as a manual for instruction on how to conduct a protest. We do not pity those arrested because they sought it in the first place. Kotz’s email provided a more-than-adequate warning about the possible consequences. There was no need to occupy the Green and construct tents—such activities are not vital to free expression. In fact, demonstrations in compliance with College policies have occurred since October. It is unequivocally dishonest to suggest that President Beilock silenced dissent in any way. If anything, the anti-Israel protesters have had the loudest and most-heard voices on campus. They were not a minority whose speech was prohibited, but rather a rabid mob who took advantage of a popular movement consuming American colleges and used the possibility of arrest to gain attention. They got what they wanted, and were presented with consequences that people of their age should be capable of accepting.
The substance of their protests also deserves critical attention. First and foremost, The Review condemns the anti-Semitic nature of many of the chants. These crusaders are fond of the cry “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” This of course references the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, the two bodies of water which sandwich Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, the areas inhabited by more than six-and-a-half million Jewish Israelis. In effect, the anti-genocide protesters crusade against mass murder or deportation by endorsing it against another group of people. We want to be clear that not every protester is anti-Semitic or endorses the removal of Jewish people from Israel. We recognize that there were Jewish students and professors among those arrested. But calling for a “Free Palestine” for many means freeing Palestine from Jewish people. It is anti-Semitic and must be recognized as such.
Secondly, the demands for the College to divest from the companies connected to Israel are completely unreasonable. We at The Review believe that a nation attacked by terrorists has the right to defend itself, and in no way is Dartmouth complicit in any act of so-called genocide. Such a stance is merely progressive alarmism. And the protesters fail to recognize that endowments are not simple tools meant to be bent by the latest inundation of student outrage. Endowments are complicated and investments are necessary to keep the College in operation. The day after the arrests, President Beilock sent an email in which she stated that “Dartmouth’s endowment is not a political tool, and using it to take sides on such a contested issue is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set. It runs the risk of silencing academic debate, which is inconsistent with our mission.” We applaud Beilock for standing firm against their unreasonable demands.
Needless to say, the incessantly-furious progressives on this campus have responded to the events of May 1 in ways almost more unreasonable than the protest itself. By the way some are talking, you would think a real tragedy had taken place. They are milking victimhood to the extreme.
As we have previously reported on our website, students were presented with a slew of emails from professors, Student Government, and other clubs and organizations on campus establishing their concern for our “rights and well-being.” A Student Government email stated that they “were alarmed and afraid for the safety of students. As New Hampshire state troopers advanced, several hundred students (including bystanders observing the events) fled from the Green and the surrounding sidewalks. This fueled confusion and created an unsafe environment, increasing the risk of injury and causing multiple students to fall.”
Having observed the events ourselves, The Review is emphatic in saying that there was no serious threat to any of the protesters’ safety. The State Police procedurally and calmly detained protesters one-by-one. They only exerted physical force when forced to do so by confrontation. For example, history professor Annelise Orleck was taken to the ground, but only after she advanced and pointed her finger in an officer’s face. The Review rejects the fear-mongering on the left. No one was “brutalized,” as the “survivors” have grown fond of saying.
The presence of police in riot gear was a reasonable precaution taken by authorities in light of the unrest at other campuses, most notably at Columbia. As Beilock has mentioned, there was no way that such disorder should have been allowed to engulf Dartmouth too. Beilock acted quickly before it got out of hand, because in all likelihood it would have. Once protesters occupy a major area on campus, they become emboldened and the chaos only spreads. We are fortunate that classes could resume the next day and normalcy was preserved.
The History Department released a statement on May 3 condemning the “police brutality” which had occurred and proclaiming that the College bypassed the standard processes for punishing policy violations. The department insists that it was “the swift resort to police violence that has brought the worst disruption of college life in decades, and which has undermined so many community members’ well-being.”
Additionally, the History Department called on the College to 1) acknowledge that the deployment of state police was excessive and shall not be repeated, 2) to support the dismissal of all charges related to the arrests, and 3) to make it known that supporting Palestinian rights falls within the protections of academic freedom. Such demands are unreasonable and validate breaking the law. The presence of state police violated no rights and dismissing the charges would embolden and condone further disorder. Additionally, academic freedom for those supporting Palestine has not been threatened in any way. It is rich for those to claim their voices have been silenced when most of the faculty is on their side. If anything, conservative voices have been suppressed in the days following the arrests, because it is considered taboo among the student body and faculty to support Beilock’s actions. Academic freedom must also extend to faculty and students supporting Israel and the actions of Beilock.
In the midst of this uproar, Student Government voted unanimously to hold a referendum of no-confidence against Beilock. While voting is still on-going at the time of this writing, it appears likely that the student body will overwhelmingly vote no-confidence. Besides the point that it is purely ceremonial and the decision ultimately lies with the Board of Trustees, supporting a vote of no-confidence or calling for Beilock’s resignation are excessive responses to the arrests. In no way is a vote of no-confidence warranted.
Beilock has responded to the growing movement against her. In a letter published in The Dartmouth, she recognized the harm that the arrests had caused but stood by her actions. Unfortunately, she has succumbed in-part to the unrelenting anger directed at her, but at least she did not admit that her decision was wrong. Of course she was right to not allow violations of policy, and if she has any tenacity and courage she will maintain this conviction. The Review believes that the College president should not bow down to the mob, even when her job is on the line.
It has yet to be seen what will come of the events of May 1. Subsequent demonstrations have been held in light of the arrests, but no encampments have been constructed and the campus has enjoyed relative normalcy. Still, the student body and the faculty are outraged, and we do not expect this ordeal to end. Hopefully order will be maintained and the students of this campus do not attempt anything more than what they did on May 1. If they do, we also hope that Beilock will not have a change of heart, capitulate to the radicals, and let them take over. Cardinal Dartmouth events, including Green Key and Commencement, are coming up, and it would be a shame if a few extremist students ruin the college experience of their peers in the name of a far-away war over which they have no control.
Well-balanced article. Thank you.
Well reasoned and thoughtful commentary. Keep up the good work. Fight the good fight for academic freedom without threatening or impinging upon the rights and safety of others. Expose the antisemitism which masquerades as a campaign for ”Palestinian rights.”