Over a third of faculty members sign open letter asking Beilock to “defend the values and ideals of higher education”

Over a third of the faculty have signed an open letter urging College President Sian Leah Beilock to “defend the values” of higher education. 

The letter, signed by 378 professors, listed six demands. It called for Beilock to sign onto the April 22 American Association of Colleges and Universities letter that condemns the Trump administration’s revocations of federal funding from universities and resist “unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom.” 

Beilock declined to sign the AACU letter, which has been signed by over 610 college and university leaders, including the presidents of all the other Ivy League universities. In an email, Beilock argued that open form letters are “rarely effective tools to make change.”

History professor Bethany Moreton, who wrote the letter with professor of history Pamela Voekel and professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies Molly Geidel, said she wrote the letter to allow faculty members to voice their desire for Dartmouth to support other academic institutions. She said Dartmouth should stand with other universities that are “in a far more precarious position than Dartmouth” due to smaller endowments and a greater reliance on federal funding.

Moreton said she has “never seen anything like” the amount of support for the petition among faculty. 

“[The demands] are low hanging fruit,” she said. “These are just basic assertions of fundamental constitutional principles … [signing it] wasn’t hard for a lot of people. It just seems to be a real challenge for our upper administration.”

Many faculty who signed the letter cited fear for the future of higher education under the Trump administration, which has revoked the funding of six of the eight Ivy League universities.

Economics professor Andrew Samwick signed the letter to help protect “the amount of research we can do and the ability to help translate the outcome of that research into some socially beneficial outcome.” 

In the case of “politically motivated funding cuts” to research in any department, the letter urged Beilock to provide “legal and financial support to affected scholars and research units” and “mobiliz[e] extraordinary resources as necessary against extraordinary and unlawful actions” to recover research funding.

Samwick said a “greater share” of the economics department signed onto this letter than previous open letters because the letter was “as apolitical as it gets.”

“This is really just about whether Dartmouth should join with other institutions in asserting that it will take full legal measures to try to protect its resources,” he said.

College spokesperson Jana Barnello wrote in an email statement that President Beilock “regularly” attends meetings with other college presidents to discuss how to best protect universities. The College is also involved in a number of lawsuits to protect federal funding, she wrote. 

“As a member of the American Association of Universities, the top 70 research universities in the country, we are part of the lawsuits that won initial victories in restoring ‘indirect costs’ from NIH and DOE,” the Barnello wrote. “In both of these lawsuits, Dartmouth provided a “declaration” in the court filings from Provost David Kotz ’86, to help communicate the harm that cuts to research funding would cause.”

History professor Julia Rabig said she thought it was important that Beilock speak out in this “pivotal moment” because “institutions like Dartmouth [with] extraordinary privilege should be on the front lines of the defense of higher education.”

Eastern European, Eurasian and Russian studies professor Lynn Patyk said she signed the letter because it reflected her “highest concerns.”

Patyk said President Donald Trump’s “general authoritarian power grab” stood out to her as a scholar of Russian and Eastern European societies that “completely succumbed to Putinist authoritarianism in the last 25 years.”

“One of the major ways [authorian governments gain power] is to take control of the universities,” she said. “This is why I would like leaders of higher education to join together in solidarity and to fight back with all the levers at their disposal.”

The letter also urges Beilock to commit that academic departments and programs not be “surveilled, placed under administrative review or receivership, reorganized or eliminated in response to political threats.” It asks Beilock to promote free speech on campus by “assisting community members at risk of government infringement …whether through immigration action or other means.”

Economics professor Diego Comin stated he worried about academic freedom to dissent. He said academic institutions are a “source of light in society.”

“We cannot accept being put in the darkness because what we say is not convenient or appealing to the [Trump] administration,” Comin said.

Comin said he’s “very proud” to have graduated from and taught at Harvard because of its “incredible” resistance to the Trump administration’s demands. 

“I would like at some point to feel as proud of being a Dartmouth professor,” he said.

Beilock explained her decision to not sign the AACU letter in an email statement to the community on April 23, writing that open letters are “rarely effective tools to make change.” Creative writing professor Aden Evens disagreed with Beilock’s rationale.

“Building a coalition is immediately effective,” Evens said. “It is symbolic, but it’s a symbolic gesture that is witnessed and read by many people. It shows that there is a resistance, that people aren’t simply accepting the illegitimate and destructive demands of the Trump administration.”

Rabig concurred, saying that Beilock signing the letter could be advantageous in the long run.

“I think we’re in this situation for a long time to come,” Rabig said. “So that’s why I think a more ambitious strategy that takes into consideration what other universities are doing and collaborates with them is probably the best.”

Economics professor Erzo Luttmer said his signature was intended to “signal that [President Beilock] has a mandate to act,” not as “an act of opposition.” 

Luttmer said that “by not signing the AACU letter, and being the only Ivy not signing it, [Beilock] ends up making a statement.” He said that Beilock’s non-signature was being “misinterpreted,” he continued, “as her lack of support [for] defending higher education.”

Government professor Brendan Nyhan agreed on the importance of collective action.

“History teaches us that the best way to resist authoritarianism is collective action,” Nyhan wrote in an email statement. “That’s why I signed the letter — I believe everyone in higher education needs to defend academic freedom before we lose it.”

Professor of government emeritus Nelson Kasfir also agreed that there is “strength in a united front.”

“I’m reminded of Ben Franklin’s statement, ‘If we don’t hang together, we’ll all hang separately,’” he said.

Update Appended (May 8, 10:56 a.m.): This article was updated to include a new statement from a College spokesperson.