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

Where Liberty and Learning Endure

June 29, 2026
As America commemorates 250 years of independence, we reflect on the enduring principles of liberty and learning that have defined Davidson College for nearly two centuries.

Bankruptcy and Higher Education

June 21, 2026
By Todd Zywicki The Wall Street Journal June 21, 2026 Auburn University is known for its agricultural and STEM programs, its flight school and athletic programs. But the land-grant university recently became notable for another reason: The board of trustees is taking control of the school back from its faculty. The board began seizing the university’s academic programs—including curriculum, course offerings, degree requirements and academic credentials—at its June 5 meeting. The board also dissolved the faculty senate and replaced it with an advisory council to the president, which includes two faculty members from each of the university’s colleges and additional members appointed by the president. The board’s assertion of authority mirrors incoming mandates by the Alabama Legislature restricting the role of faculty senates in the state’s public university system. Predictably, Auburn’s faculty has responded with howls of outrage, decrying these intrusions on the faculty’s authority over academic operations. How could outsiders appointed through a political process have the expertise to make such delicate decisions? I’ve been a professor at a state university for almost 30 years, and I am sympathetic up to a point. But before becoming a professor I was a bankruptcy lawyer. And bankruptcy law teaches an important lesson for how academia can respond to this moment. Bankruptcy gives businesses an opportunity to admit mistakes, reform and emerge stronger. Successful enterprises don’t need bankruptcy lawyers. But when an enterprise loses its way, it goes into receivership. Most universities aren’t financially bankrupt but have lost their mission and direction. Society has long recognized certain institutions’ authority to manage their own affairs. Two notable examples are licensed professionals—such as doctors and lawyers—and universities. Universities, even state universities, have run their enterprises with minimal external oversight. Faculties enjoyed substantial rights of self-governance because they committed to higher standards than those required by ordinary jobs. Professors would establish and maintain standards of scholarly integrity, freedom of speech and inquiry, and rigorous dedication to merit-based assessment of research in specialized areas. They policed their own house, enforcing norms of truth-seeking, maintaining scholarly integrity and rigor, and ensuring that students emerged with basic knowledge, employable skills and civic competency. But over the past several decades, commitment to those values collapsed. Surveys by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression consistently reveal fear among students and faculty around expressing unfashionable ideas. Universities have seen shout-downs, cancellations and even violence against speakers. Merit and quality yielded to “diversity” and “equity.” Truth-seeking has been displaced by faddish theories and ideologically charged teaching and research. Professors design esoteric departments and teach niche classes to cliques of activist students while the needs of other students and taxpayers for real education go unaddressed. Like companies I represented, universities have lost their way. And many have proved either unable or unwilling to self-correct. When that happens, it is appropriate to put institutions into receivership until they reform and rededicate themselves to their mission. At Auburn incoming students must now take certain required civics and history courses to master basic competency in U.S. history and government. To ensure the classes actually meet that objective, professors will have to make their syllabi publicly available. In the classroom, instructors will be expected to stick to the matter at hand and avoid free-ranging political punditry. Just as other companies can learn from the ones that go bankrupt, other institutions of higher education can learn something from Auburn: Fix what’s broken, or someone else might fix it for you. Mr. Zywicki is a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He was a Dartmouth College trustee, 2005-09. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bankruptcy-and-higher-education-4c2b178e

Race Preferences Are Falling Nationwide

June 19, 2026
By the Editorial Board The Wall Street Journal June 19, 2026 The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against racial preferences is turning out to be a landmark with profound consequences as its influence spreads. On Thursday the famously progressive Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a state program that issued scholarships based on race violates the U.S. Constitution. Justice Annette Ziegler wrote for the court that the Constitution requires “that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,’” and that the state cannot “use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” That must have been painful for the activist liberal majority on the court. In a concurrence, Wisconsin Chief Justice Jill Karofsky took some shots at Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023) before acknowledging that “I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA” and other Supreme Court rulings “when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.” The case was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty against a 1985 Badger State law that reserved need-based scholarships through a grant program for “Black American,” “American Indian,” “Hispanic” and some Southeast Asian undergraduate students enrolled in Wisconsin’s private and technical colleges. Last week the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a scholarship program earmarked for black University of Iowa students studying physical sciences was “impracticable” under SFFA. State governments would be wise to repeal these discriminatory grant programs, or the courts will do it for them.
Show More