Institutional Restraint and the Benefits of Suppressing Suppression

Earlier this month, Dartmouth once again acted as a role model for other top American universities in properly managing the affairs of freedom of expression and dissent. 

Almost a year after the Beilock administration took a stand and shut down the disruptive pro-Palestinian tents, the college has embraced a new Freedom of Expression and Dissent policy. In this policy, the institution’s interests are laid out. At the top of the list is the “fundamental” encouragement of freedom of expression and dissent and the promotion of “lively discussion.” Any basis by which restrictions to free speech might arise are listed in the new policy. The most important aspect of the policy, however, is that it clarifies the college’s dedication to remaining a neutral facilitator of discourse, not a participant. This also means that student discourse will not be regulated based on the assumed viewpoint, only by neutral college interests. This is the school’s new policy of “institutional restraint.”

For example, Dartmouth elaborates that free speech in a general context shall not be regulated for the nature of its content. There are only a few exceptions. First, Dartmouth does not protect speech in cases where even the Supreme Court has found the First Amendment does not apply (libel, slander, threats of violence, etc.). Second, Dartmouth has an anti-discrimination policy that prevents the targeting of protected groups (race, religion, etc.). The school also establishes that rules may be made to uphold decorum in sports, the arts, and academic settings. For the most part, then, students have the freedom to say whatever they would like to on campus. However, Dartmouth has clarified that restrictions on the time, place, and manner of events may apply. For example, a rally could be pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, but, regardless of the content, it would not be allowed to happen at night. This is to balance the interest of sleep and uphold Dartmouth’s mission as an academic institution. All restrictions by Dartmouth are to be done so in a manner as est restrictive as possible to the ability to convey speech. 

After the tyranny students were subjected to during COVID censorship, Dartmouth has embraced this policy style silently, even before it was formally established. However, solidifying it in text is a grand step in securing free speech protections for students of all viewpoints. The previous policy was brief and only spoke of the right to protest (and included time, place, and manner restrictions). Now, however, the school’s code is to restrain itself from being involved in discourse best left to the student body. This means the school will not censor viewpoints, nor will it assume any viewpoints of its own. Many students on campus (particularly leaders of progressive organizations) believe that institutional restraint is damaging, as the school does not condemn certain things, therefore being complicit. However, if an injustice is being committed that is so atrocious and in plain sight that there is no debate about its evils, the school should not need to involve itself in condemning the actions of a universally recognized evil force. Involving itself assumes that Ivy League students are incapable of coming to conclusions on their own.

However, in reality, there is rarely an issue that nearly 100% of people can ever get behind. As humans, we love to assume we are right. However, think of your most passionate political issue. Now imagine Dartmouth and its leadership assume the voice of the opposite position as you and decide that your viewpoint is not valid. How would you feel? Institutional restraint might seem harmful to your position. But that’s only if you assume that your position will be the university-enforced perspective. In a world in which institutional restraint is practiced, you must debate the merits of your ideas with your peers, rather than rely on the school to hopefully promote and enforce your point of view. If your idea is not accepted universally, perhaps you might be missing something in your argument. You should try listening to others to try and figure out what that might be. 

Dartmouth’s recent decision to codify institutional restraint marks the beginning of a new era. The school has recognized that the world’s future leaders will be better off having to interact with others whose viewpoints challenge their assumptions. While some see speech as something that needs to be silenced, Dartmouth sees it as something to be challenged and refuted. The principles of the dialectic have risen from the dead. Mr. Buckley, the war isn’t over, but we may just have won the battle. The era of weakness and “safe spaces” is over. It’s time for Dartmouth students to grow up.