Dartmouth’s Institutional Restraint Policy Could Be A Model For Others

Last December, Dartmouth College implemented a new policy regarding official institutional statements, emphasizing the importance of exercising general restraint in making statements on controversial social issues. The purpose of this policy is to create space for diverse viewpoints to be raised and fully considered. This policy, developed over several months, replaced the previous "Institutional Statements vs Individual Statements Policy" from 2022 and applies not just to the institution but also to its individual colleges, academic departments, and centers.

The policy itself, along with the process through which it was developed, could serve as a model for other institutions as they establish guidelines for addressing contentious social and political matters. It aims to strike a balance between institutional engagement and restraint, ensuring that the college does not inadvertently stifle free expression by endorsing specific viewpoints.

The policy highlights that Dartmouth should issue official institutional statements sparingly, primarily when external events directly affect the institution and its members. By avoiding institutional stances on most outside controversies, Dartmouth believes it can safeguard and enhance freedom of expression. Official endorsements of particular beliefs may discourage those with opposing views from expressing their skepticism or dissent.

This new stance differs from two previously proposed alternatives: complete institutional neutrality or an obligation to take positions on public issues. The first approach can be overly restrictive, binding institutions to silence on matters of national importance. The second approach raises philosophical and practical concerns, such as determining which issues merit official commentary, who decides the institutional stance, and the consequences of public pronouncements.

The concept of institutional neutrality originates from the Kalven Report, written in 1967 by a committee at the University of Chicago during the Vietnam War protests. The report has been praised by organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Goldwater Institute, and its principles have been adopted by universities like the University of North Carolina and Vanderbilt University. However, strict neutrality can be problematic, as it may signal an unwillingness to articulate institutional values.

Conversely, actively engaging in social controversies presents challenges regarding consistency, authority, and the impact of such statements. Questions arise about which issues deserve attention, who determines the institutional stance, and what expertise the institution possesses to comment on them. Additionally, official statements may carry unintended practical consequences.

For these reasons, Dartmouth has taken a nuanced approach, recommending restraint in making statements without completely prohibiting them. The policy includes a presumption against issuing statements but acknowledges that exceptional circumstances may justify an official comment when it aligns with the university's mission or core values.

Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock clarified the distinction between "neutrality" and "restraint," explaining that the latter term was recommended by the faculty-led committee to signal that Dartmouth may take positions on issues impacting its mission. She noted that, in practice, institutional restraint and neutrality serve the same goal—promoting freedom of expression within the campus community.

The policy development process was faculty-driven, led by a committee chaired by Professor John M. Carey. The committee included six other faculty members, along with Dartmouth’s senior vice president for communications and its associate general counsel. It was tasked with determining when and how Dartmouth should issue statements, applying these principles to various academic units, and articulating the underlying rationale for institutional statements.

The committee’s recommendations, outlined in an October 31 report, heavily influenced the final policy. While the committee did not draft the policy itself, the report served as its foundation. The committee approved the report with a 6-1 vote, with one dissenting member, Peter N. Golder, arguing that the policy did not provide enough meaningful exceptions to the general restraint approach. He expressed concerns that excessive restraint could lead to de facto neutrality.

Professor Carey dismissed these concerns, stating that the policy aligns with recent trends among institutions seeking to reduce the frequency of public statements on policy issues. After faculty discussions, the final policy was formally accepted and subsequently endorsed by Dartmouth’s Board of Trustees.

Under the new policy, only five individuals—the president, provost, senior vice president for communications, director of media relations, and general counsel—are authorized to issue institutional statements. Faculty and students remain free to express their own views, provided they clarify that they are not speaking on behalf of Dartmouth.

President Beilock emphasized that institutional statements should align with Dartmouth’s mission of fostering academic excellence and encouraging constructive debate. She explained that statements should only be made when external events impact the college’s ability to fulfill this mission.

The principle of restraint also extends to statements made by Dartmouth’s academic departments and units. The policy outlines a structured process for formulating public statements, requiring clear guidelines on who is eligible to vote, anonymous voting, official tallying of results, and prior notification to the provost. Additionally, such statements must be published separately from the unit’s primary communication channels and must include a disclaimer clarifying that they do not represent the official stance of Dartmouth College.

These detailed procedures were designed to minimize intimidation within academic hierarchies and ensure that minority opinions are respected. By formalizing the process, Dartmouth aims to protect open dialogue while preventing institutional endorsements from stifling dissenting perspectives.

President Beilock reinforced Dartmouth’s commitment to institutional restraint in a Wall Street Journal commentary, arguing that when college leaders comment on issues unrelated to academics, they advance politics rather than education. She emphasized that institutional neutrality and restraint must be embedded throughout higher education to create environments that foster free inquiry and civil discourse.

Despite its general policy of restraint, Dartmouth has made exceptions when issues directly relate to its identity and mission. For instance, in April, Beilock announced the Dartmouth Climate Collaborative, a major initiative aimed at reducing campus carbon emissions. She justified the initiative’s alignment with the university’s mission, citing Dartmouth’s deep-rooted connection to environmental responsibility as the “Big Green.” She explained that reducing Dartmouth’s carbon footprint through scientific research and sustainable practices is directly tied to the institution’s values and academic purpose.

Overall, Dartmouth’s policy strikes a balance between avoiding unnecessary institutional endorsements and allowing for exceptions where the university’s core mission is at stake. The approach ensures that institutional statements remain rare but meaningful, while prioritizing freedom of expression and robust debate among students and faculty.