Jerry Hughes ’88, contributor to shanty towns attack, moderates Dartmouth Dialogues co-sponsored panel about free speech


As a student, Hughes was involved in the 1986 destruction of shanties that were built to protest South African Apartheid.


The Dartmouth

By Iris WeaverBell

May 12, 2025


On May 8, Jerry Hughes ’88 moderated a panel about free speech at the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy. Hughes was one of the Dartmouth students who took part in the 1986 sledgehammer attack on the shanties that were built on the Green to protest South African Apartheid. 


The Dartmouth Free Speech Alliance — an alumni group dedicated to improving free expression on campus — invited Hughes back for the event. Seven people attended the panel, which also featured two Dartmouth administrators and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression program officer Conor Murnane. The panel was co-sponsored by the College’s ongoing “Dartmouth Dialogues” program, which facilitates conversations across differences. 


In an interview after the event, Hughes said the DFSA planned the event with Dartmouth Dialogues and Alumni Relations to inform alumni about the state of free speech at the College.

“We have a lot of alumni who are very interested in what’s going on and just find it hard to know,” he said. 


Hughes said that the state of free speech is different today than when he was a student. 


“There were definitely issues in the ’80s, and there were lots of protests,” Hughes said. “Some things were easier — the day to day interactions with your fellow students.”

According to Murnane, who focuses on “campus advocacy” for FIRE, Dartmouth is better off than other colleges like Harvard. Dartmouth was ranked 224 out of 251 colleges in FIRE’s 2024 rankings, based on a survey of over 200 undergrads that asked about their perception of speech on campus, including how likely they were to self-censor or how likely it is for protests to be suppressed.


According to Murnane, 26% of respondents in the 2024 Dartmouth survey said it was “sometimes acceptable” to respond to speech with violence. Fifty-nine percent said it was acceptable to “shout down” a speaker. 


Panelist and assistant dean of faculty Samuel Levey oversaw the update of Dartmouth’s Freedom of Expression and Dissent policy, which now states that any limitation by administrators on students’ expression must be “content and viewpoint neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a substantial institutional interest.” Levey said this was a “self-conscious” effort to mirror the First Amendment. 


Levey said that a “key difference” between the First Amendment and Dartmouth’s policy is a “reciprocity principle — students need to respect the opportunity for other students’ free expression.” This includes “anti-heckling” policies.


After the College revised its bias reporting protocol that allowed students to report jokes and stereotyping and introduced the Dartmouth Dialogues project, Dartmouth became the only Ivy League university speech policy to receive a “Green Light” — as opposed to yellow or red — from FIRE, according to Murnane.


Panelists agreed that cultural solutions are needed to achieve more free and more respectful speech that allow for students to build dialogue skills.


Senior vice president for community and campus life Jennifer Rosales pointed to programs including Dartmouth Dialogues, the student-led Dartmouth Political Union and “Bring your Friend to Shabat” night at the Chabad Center for Jewish Life as examples of reducing harmful speech through community-building. 


“These structures help demonstrate to our community the importance of relationship building — you can engage in conversation across differences and we support it,” Rosales said. “Some of it is skill-building, and some of it is facilitating the spaces where [dialogue] can happen.”


Rosales also said she worked with Town Manager Rob Houseman to change permitting requirements so that organizers can get a permit two days before an event instead of eight after hearing student feedback.


“Protests, demonstrations and vigils — they’re responding to the moment,” she said. “They need to happen now.”

Rosales also said that an Office of Student Life program that trains administrators in de-escalation techniques “ensures that deplatforming doesn’t happen.” She said she hopes to “scale up” the program. 


“When we bring speakers in, there would be an administrator for students to have a support system,” she said. “This was someone who knew who to de-escalate [in case of] heckling or things that would disrupt the event.”


Murnane added that he was “excited” to see how these programs will affect this year’s Dartmouth survey results, which will come out in late August. 

“I’ve been out there recommending Dartmouth’s programming to every campus I go to,” he said.


Levey added a “caveat” to the freedom of speech on campus.


“Speech can harm people, even where it’s not illegal,” Levey said. “We can track blood cortisol levels and see what happens.”


In the Q&A following the event, an audience member said he was “troubled” that cortisol levels are a justification for suppressing free speech.

Murnane agreed that suppression leads to more sensitivity to controversial speech.


“I think it’s a cultural problem that [my generation was] built up with this mentality of ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me,’ and now that’s gone,” he said. “That came with the rise of speech codes.”


Rosales added that it is less about speech itself and more about “pedagogical practices” — the ways and structures in which speech is communicated. 


“It’s really important to think about [Dartmouth] not as an open forum for anyone to say anything, but to think about those structures that need to be put in place for that to actually happen,” she said. 


Attendee Peter Slovenski ’79 said it was “very good to hear Dartmouth is working on [heightening free speech]” and that the new speech policy is “helpful” because it promotes discourse. Still, he said he hopes for a better balance of speech from different ideological perspectives at Dartmouth. 


“It’s hard to talk about free for both [conservatives and liberals] when the numbers of students and faculty who are on either side are not in a good balance yet,” he said. 


https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2025/05/weaverbell-free-speech-event



April 30, 2026
By James Freeman The Wallstreet Journal April 16, 2026 Hugo Chiasson and Elise Spenner report for the Harvard Crimson: Harvard is quietly asking donors for $10 million gifts to establish new endowed professorships in a sweeping bid to reshape its faculty under the banner of “viewpoint diversity,” according to two people familiar with the initiative. The campaign, driven by Harvard’s top brass, aims to raise several hundred million dollars to support a new cohort of professors. If successful, the funding could bring dozens of faculty members to campus and drastically shift Harvard’s academic makeup. University officials have pitched the effort to major donors — conservative and liberal alike — as a way to broaden ideological representation across Harvard, two people said. But the fundraising target has repeatedly shifted after pushback from donors who viewed the scale as too ambitious, one person said. Maybe it’s not ambitious enough. Duke professor Timur Kuran responds on X: This is one way to increase viewpoint diversity, but the heterodox thinkers to be hired would lack meaningful power on campus. Activist, woke departments would treat the heterodox thinkers as freaks, perhaps also as archenemies. Through its new Hamilton School, the U of Florida offers a more promising way: establishing competing departments that are not woke. Under UF’s reform, students get to choose courses from either side: the old woke departments and their un-woke alternatives. Advantages: 1) Heterodox thinkers are not marginalized. 2) Competition for students induces woke departments to shape up. To survive, the preexisting activist departments start putting more emphasis on scholarship and on improving their courses. Harvard’s path offers neither advantage. There’s an argument for simply shutting down the activist departments that are dedicated to dogma, rather than hiring people to counter them. There is also another path that might be the most serious and effective of all to reform such a university. Harvard could decide not to make any structural changes at all, and also to avoid asking for an expansion of resources, lest alumni suspect they are just getting run over by a new fundraising vehicle. Harvard could simply reallocate resources by annually firing the most ideological 10% of its faculty members and 20% of its administrators. Theoretically it might seem difficult to make subjective judgments on which of the staff are egregious in pushing personal political agendas. But in practice many academics have grown so comfortable making strident anti-intellectual pronouncements that the only challenge would likely arise when trying to limit the administrative cull to 20%. Step two of this plan for Harvard is to hire new faculty who are so curious and whose scholarship is so serious and unpredictable that no one can ascertain their political beliefs. After a few years people might be amazed at the improvement in campus culture, and at the sheer number of scholars who seem to delight in pursuing knowledge wherever it leads. Veritas! *** In Other News  Another Opportunity for Harvard to Enhance Viewpoint Diversity? Frank Newport and Lydia Saad report for Gallup: Driven by a recent increase, young men in the U.S. have now surpassed young women in saying religion is “very important” in their lives. Gallup’s latest data, from 2024-2025, show 42% of young men saying religion is very important to them, up sharply from 28% in 2022-2023. By contrast, during this period, young women’s attachment to religion has held steady at about 30%. Although young men had previously tied young women on this key marker of religiosity, young men now lead by a statistically significant margin. The recent increase among young men also contrasts with minimal changes since 2022-2023 among older men and women… Young women were significantly more attached to religion than young men were at the start of the millennium, leading by nine percentage points (52% vs. 43%) in calling religion “very important” in their lives. That gap widened to as much as 16 points in the early to mid-2000s before steadily narrowing over the next decade. By the mid-2010s, the difference had shrunk to about five points, and the two groups remained about this closely aligned through 2022-2023. The most recent data mark a clear break, with young men now surpassing young women on this measure of religious importance. In a possibly related story, the American Founding website notes a letter from Harvard alum John Adams to his patriotic pal Mercy Warren 250 years ago: I know of no Researches in any of the sciences more ingenious than those which have been made after the best Forms of Government nor can there be a more agreeable Employment to a benevolent Heart. The Time is now approaching, when the Colonies will find themselves under a Necessity of engaging in Earnest in this great and indispensable Work. I have ever Thought it the most difficult and dangerous Part of the Business Americans have to do, in this mighty Contest, to continue some Method for the Colonies to glide insensibly, from under the old Government, into a peaceable and contented Submission to new ones. It is a long Time since this opinion was conceived, and it has never been out of my Mind, my constant Endeavour has been to convince Gentlemen of the Necessity of turning their Thoughts to these Subjects… The Form of Government, which you admire, when its Principles are pure is admirable indeed. It is productive of everything, which is great and excellent among Men. But its Principles are as easily destroyed, as human Nature is corrupted. Such a Government is only to be supported by pure Religion, or Austere Morals. Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be superior to all private Passions…. Is there in the World a Nation, which deserves this Character. There have been several, but they are no more. Our dear Americans perhaps have as much of it as any Nation now existing, and New England perhaps has more than the rest of America. But I have seen all along my Life, Such Selfishness, and Littleness even in New England, that I sometimes tremble to think that, although We are engaged in the best Cause that ever employed the Human Heart, yet the Prospect of success is doubtful not for Want of Power or of Wisdom, but of Virtue. *** James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”
March 30, 2026
At Davidson College, just 3% of faculty fall into a political minority, highlighting a clear imbalance. 
January 27, 2026
By Abigail S. Gerstein and Amann S. Mahajan, Crimson Staff Writers The Harvard Crimson January 27, 2026 Harvard faculty awarded significantly fewer A grades in the fall, cutting the share of top marks by nearly seven percentage points after the College urged instructors to combat grade inflation, according to a Monday afternoon email obtained by The Crimson. The email, which was addressed to Faculty of Arts and Sciences instructors and sent by Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh, reported that the share of flat As fell from 60.2 percent in the 2024-2025 academic year to 53.4 percent in the fall. The decline follows a 25-page report Claybaugh released in October 2025 arguing that grade inflation had rendered the College’s grading system unable to “perform the key functions of grading” and encouraging stricter academic measures, including standardized grading across sections and in-person final exams. Continue Reading
Show More