Sergei Kan, Dartmouth College

Although student protests on Dartmouth campus against the IDF’s response to the October 7 massacre of Israelis by Hamas terrorists have not been as violent as the ones at such schools as Columbia or UCLA, we did experience our share of troubles in that area.

Following a well-attended vigil for the victims of the October 7 massacre, held on the Dartmouth Green (the heart of our campus) a few days after the tragedy, a relatively small number of Dartmouth students and faculty supported by a group of area residents began their protests in that same location. Their chants included the usual claims that Israel was committing “genocide” against Palestinians, “from the river to the sea…” and so on. In October 2023 these protestors placed black flags symbolizing the Palestinians killed by the IDF in Gaza (following our president’s request) in front of the college’s main administration building. Eventually a very small group of students encamped in front of the entrance to this building. After campus security staff informed them that they were in violation of college rules and asked them to disperse, most of the protestors left but two remained, threatening “to use use force if necessary” in order to convince the College to accept their demands. The latter included divestment from companies doing business with Israel as well as a series of highly unreasonable leftist demands unrelated to Israel. After hours of failed negotiations, the two were charged with trespassing and arrested by the town’s police. Following that incident, several small student demonstrations took place and half a dozen students went of a (very brief) hunger strike aimed at forcing the College to dismiss the charges against the two individuals in question.

In February 2024 about 50 Dartmouth faculty (out of the total of ca. 400 faculty members of the College of Arts and Sciences) announced the creation of a “Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine” organization. Two months later this group as well as a recently created Palestinian Solidarity Committee (a student organization) held a demonstration on the Green attended by about 100 persons (Dartmouth’s student body consists of about 4,000 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students).

Inspired by the anti-Israel encampments that had appeared on many US campuses, anti-Israel student activists supported by some area residents and a handful of faculty members held a rally on the Green in the afternoon on May 1. They chanted a standard litany of offensive anti-Israel slogans and carried placards with similar slogans.  I observed the event along with a group of pro-Israel Dartmouth students, most of them affiliated with Hillel and Chabad, who were deeply offended by the tone of the demonstration.

Having heard the rumors that the anti-Israel activists were planning to follow their rally with setting up an encampment on the Green, the administration warned them not to do so as such an act would have constituted a violation of the College’s rules and regulations. Nonetheless, as evening set in, several tents were in fact erected on the Green and were surrounded by protesters who planned to shield the “heroic campers.” Once again, the administration told them to disperse or face an arrest. Throughout the evening several such appeals were made to the demonstrators and some of them did leave. However, when it became clear that a group of activists was not going to budge, the College president took a bold step and called the town’s police force. The later, being very small, realizing that they would not be able to handle the arrests themselves, asked state troopers for assistance. The latter arrived in riot gear and arrested about one hundred protestors, most of them students, as well as a couple of faculty members who were resisting arrest. After having been charged with trespassing and/or resisting arrest, these people were released by the town’s police.

In the wake of this event, Sian Beilock, the college’s president, issued a statement which made it clear that the college Green belonged to everyone and not just a small group of protestors and that an encampment of this kind would have constituted a threat to the college’s (numerous) pro-Israel Jewish students and some of its faculty.

Immediately thereafter the left-wing faculty, most of them from the humanities and some of the social science departments, began circulating a petition condemning Beilock’s actions, demanding an apology from her and calling for an emergency faculty meeting to discuss the matter. They also joined a group of students on May 2, who protested the arrests of May 1.  The faculty meeting they had asked for was held via zoom a few days later and was attended by close to 500 faculty members. While the president’s critics were better organized and managed to dominate the “conversation”, a number of us, who supported the president’s actions, were able to speak as well. Nonetheless the tone of the presidents’ opponents was extremely harsh and disrespectful, which upset those of us who supported her actions a great deal.

In the wake of this unpleasant event, I decided to mobilize the president’s supporters among the faculty and circulated a brief statement to that effect. Very quickly I was able to collect about 50 signatures of the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences as well as the three professional schools (medicine, law and engineering). Our statement was published in the college’s student newspaper a few days following the May incident. Following that several of my colleagues in the economics and government departments (who at Dartmouth tend to be significantly more moderate than at many of the other elite schools) continued circulating our statement of support and generated an even larger number of signatures. In the meantime, the local Hillel and Chabad rabbis appealed to the Jewish alumni and parents (including some major college donors), who issued a series of their own messages of support for the president’s actions, some of which were printed in the student newspaper. In addition a group of pro-Israel Jewish students issued their own statement condemning the anti-Israel activists for their rhetoric, some of which clearly had an anti-Semitic tone. These students also shared their experience of having been confronted with anti-Semitic  statements. Unlike some of the other schools, at Dartmouth these tended to be made in private and especially via the internet rather than publicly.

Our efforts to mobilize the faculty who agreed with the president’s handling  of the May 1 protest bore some fruit. While the resolution censuring her, voted on by the faculty at a special meeting, did pass, it did so with a very slim margin (183 vs 163), which clearly disappointed the radical faculty. Similarly, a student-initiated vote of “no confidence” for the president passed only by a handful of votes. It was clear that had the faculty and student voter turnout been greater and had the supporters of the president been even better organized these two resolutions would not have passed.

The net result of these events, which were covered extensively by the local and national press, was a situation significantly different from that which had occurred at other major colleges and universities this spring. It became clear that while our presidents’ critics were well organized, they did not represent the majority of the faculty. In addition a definite difference of opinion on this matter between the humanities and some of the social science faculty, on the one hand, and the faculty of the two major social science departments (economics and government) as well those of the sciences and the professional schools, on the other, emerged. As a result the president and the administration realized that its handling of the May 1 events had a good deal of faculty support. Another good news was the fact that the events of this past May did not result in the majority of our Jewish students feeling intimidated and choosing to hide their Jewish identity (something that happened at many of the other schools). On the contrary, they had been energized and with the help of the Hillel and the Chabad rabbis as well as a few dedicated faculty members (like me) organized a series of pro-Israel events on campus in the latter part of May. These included a celebration of Israel Independence Day as well as a well-attended vigil on the Green on Yom Ha Zikoron. They even obtained permission from the administration to place close to one thousand small Israeli flags in the center of campus symbolizing the victims of the October 7 massacre. In the wake of the events described here President Beilock held a series of private meetings with small groups of faculty members aimed at discussing ways of promoting a more civilized dialogue among the students and the faculty about controversial political issues. She has also been arguing for Dartmouth to adopt an institutional neutrality position, an idea that seems to have a pretty strong support among the faculty.

What are the lessons that we could draw from the events described here? First and foremost, it became clear that President Beilock’s principled and courageous stance played a major role in not letting our campus become a site of vicious anti-Israel/anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions. Secondly, by emphasizing the importance of having the protestors follow college rules and especially the notion that the college green – the heart of our campus – belonged to everyone rather than a vocal but rather small minority, we were able to mobilize a significant number of  the more  reasonable and moderate faculty in order to show support for the administration and the Jewish/pro-Israel students. One of the positive outcomes of this affair is going to be the creation of a special faculty advisory board of the Dartmouth Hillel, which is going to advise our Jewish students on the most effective ways of dealing with any future anti-Israel demonstrations, public speakers and so forth.

Thus, while I do anticipate some continuation of the anti-Israel “Dartmouth intifada” in the fall quarter (which begins in mid-September), I feel more optimistic today than I did prior to May 1.