蜜桃直播

Table of Contents

Dartmouth Ends Confusion Over Speech Policies, Affirms Commitment to Free Speech, and Removes Troubling Documents From Website

Dartmouth College logo displayed on a tablet

Igor Golovniov / Shutterstock.com

HANOVER, N.H., May 9, 2005鈥擨n a remarkable development for liberty on campus, Dartmouth College has issued a clear and unambiguous statement in favor of free speech. The statement ends what Dartmouth called 鈥渃onfusion鈥 about the college鈥檚 policies by removing from its website documents containing language that earned the college a poor 鈥渞ed鈥 rating on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education鈥檚 (蜜桃直播鈥檚) Spotlight Database. This action follows a series of communications between 蜜桃直播 and Dartmouth.

鈥溍厶抑辈 no longer considers Dartmouth to have a speech code. Moreover, Dartmouth is clearly positioning itself as a national leader in the battle for free expression on campus,鈥 remarked David French, 蜜桃直播鈥檚 president. 鈥淎lthough the situation at Dartmouth is not perfect, by removing from its website the documents that contained speech-restrictive statements and by confirming that those statements do not represent college policy, Dartmouth has taken an enormous step forward.鈥

Administrators issued the troubling documents during May 2001, in the wake of a controversy over an internal fraternity newsletter that personally insulted some female students. After the newsletter鈥檚 contents were made public, Dartmouth President James Wright issued a letter endorsing the college鈥檚 decision to permanently derecognize the fraternity. Wright鈥檚 letter stated, 鈥淸I]t is hard to understand why some want still to insist that their 鈥榬ight鈥 to do what they want trumps the rights, feelings, and considerations of others. We need to recognize that speech has consequences for which we must account.鈥 Dean of Dartmouth College James Larimore issued a letter on the following day expressing a similar sentiment. Both statements seemed to many to be inconsistent with the college鈥檚 traditional policies supporting freedom of expression and dissent, which promise that Dartmouth 鈥減rizes and defends the right of free speech.鈥

鈥淏ecause the statements elevated 鈥榝eelings鈥 over free expression, because they were used to justify the speech-related punishment of a Dartmouth fraternity, and because they were maintained on the university website as if they constituted policy statements, 蜜桃直播 concluded that the statements were effectively a speech code,鈥 explained 蜜桃直播 Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Greg Lukianoff. 鈥淔or these reasons, Dartmouth received a negative rating in 蜜桃直播鈥檚 database of speech polices, speechcodes.org.鈥

In the last academic year, Dartmouth trustee T.J. Rodgers raised concerns with Dartmouth and with 蜜桃直播 regarding Dartmouth鈥檚 poor free speech rating. Then, in September 2004, President Wright strongly endorsed free speech on campus in his . Rodgers subsequently wrote to 蜜桃直播 to request that 蜜桃直播 upgrade Dartmouth鈥檚 red-light speech code rating on its speechcodes.org website. 蜜桃直播 President David French declined to do so, citing the May 2001 letters from Wright and Larimore that were still posted on Dartmouth鈥檚 website. Shortly thereafter, 蜜桃直播 noticed that the letters from Wright and Larimore had been removed from the website. 蜜桃直播 then wrote President Wright on April 19 to ask for confirmation on whether or not the 2001 letters represented 鈥渂inding statements of college policy.鈥

On May 2, 2005, Dartmouth General Counsel Robert B. Donin replied to 蜜桃直播, confirming that the statements of President Wright and Dean Larimore could not 鈥渂e relied upon to support a complaint based on the content or viewpoint of controversial speech.鈥 Donin also explained that his own recent guest column in the college newspaper, as well as President Wright鈥檚 September 2004 convocation address, 鈥渞eaffirm the College鈥檚 longstanding commitment to the values of respect for others and the free exchange of ideas.鈥 Further, Donin noted that 鈥渢he decision . . . to remove the two letters from the College鈥檚 web site was taken to end confusion about their role.鈥

鈥淒artmouth鈥檚 speech policies, along with those of the University of Pennsylvania, now lead the Ivy League in respecting individual liberty and free expression,鈥 remarked 蜜桃直播鈥檚 French. 鈥溍厶抑辈 still has concerns regarding past punishments, but we are hopeful that 鈥 going forward 鈥 Dartmouth students will enjoy the full range of First Amendment freedoms. Dartmouth鈥檚 administration should be commended for this bold and important step.鈥 Concluded French: 鈥溍厶抑辈 looks forward to the day when the entire Ivy League joins this trend and recognizes that administrators may advocate for decency without mandating that students censor, under threat of punishment, their own speech for fear of transgressing someone else鈥檚 notion of the good society.鈥

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation鈥檚 colleges and universities. 蜜桃直播鈥檚 efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

CONTACT:

David French, President, 蜜桃直播: 215-717-3473; david.french@thefire.org

Greg Lukianoff, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, 蜜桃直播: 215-717-3473; greg@thefire.org

William Walker, Vice President for Public Affairs, Dartmouth College: 603-646-3661; office.of.public.affairs@dartmouth.edu

Recent Articles

FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

Share