Dartmouth President Faces Criticism Over Neutrality Stance Amid Trump-Raised Tensions
Dartmouth’s first female president, Sian Beilock, has become a focal point of debate as she navigates the delicate balance between safeguarding institutional neutrality and responding to political tensions. Her approach, which emphasizes ‘institutional restraint’ and avoids taking sides in divisive political issues, has drawn both admiration and accusations of cowardice. The controversy intensified as Beilock chose not to support Harvard, which is currently facing a Trump administration-funded litigation over its role in anti-Israel protests. This decision has led to criticism, with some scholars arguing that her stance represents a form of political conformity.
Beilock’s rationale for this stance is rooted in her belief that universities should not be pressured to take political stances. In an email explaining her decision, she emphasized the need to protect free speech and ensure that academic institutions remain free from external pressures. However, her refusal to engage in the broader political discourse about Trump’s policies has drawn sharp criticism from academic leaders like Yale professor Jeffrey Sonnen, who described her actions as a betrayal of academic principles. The tension over her approach has intensified as the federal government continues to target elite universities, with Trump’s administration suspending funding to most Ivy League schools, while Dartmouth remains an exception.
Despite the backlash, Beilock’s position has found support among conservative voices, including former Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who praised her approach as a model for higher education. Her defense of institutional neutrality has been lauded as a means to protect the university’s role in fostering intellectual freedom. Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding her decisions highlights the deepening divide in the academic community over the role of universities in political matters.