Weaponized Data

Eyebrows raised here at seeing privacy and security relegated to a breezy late-stage mention in Chris Quirk’s article on tracking mental health via smartphone apps [“In the Face of Depression,” May/June] in an era when privacy risk is the key ethical issue hovering over both medical data management and app development.

Once compiled, information about an individual’s medical status has value. Employers and insurance companies would love to know of past bouts of depression, isolation, or anxiety. They would pay for this stuff, just as many companies eagerly pay for vehicle telemetry data harvested from motorists without their knowledge.

Assurances that some vague anonymization protocol is at work should be cold comfort; aggregated data can be disentangled. The potential always exists for most personal data—from an individual’s respect for speed limits to liquor store visit intervals to behavioral information netted by the College Experience app’s “conversation detection” capability—to be weaponized against the subject. 

The magazine’s cover tease for this article, “Your phone can tell if you are sad,” was perhaps intended as whimsical but in truth frames the sober, even sinister prospect of nonstop invasive surveillance. We should place higher value on our data, privacy, and security.

TOM FARMER ’81
Chicago

The cover headline, “Your phone can tell if you are sad,” might have been followed by the subhead “…because your phone made you sad in the first place.” While the technological innovations professor Andrew Campbell has made are laudable, indeed “things have changed a lot”—what has changed is the monetization of social media. 

It was one thing to get used to that stream of hilarious cat videos or pings from relatives one might otherwise never hear from except at holidays. But programmers quickly discovered the small dopamine hit from those positive interactions paled in comparison to the impact of information that generated negative feelings—of jealousy, guilt, or resentment. Algorithms were designed to maximize not just eyeball time that could be sold to advertisers but also anxiety and depression. 

All this is openly admitted by those charged with monetization efforts at Google, Meta, and others in the 2020 documentary The Social Dilemma, which should be required viewing for every new student at Dartmouth during orientation. 

Campbell is right that smartphones and other technologies such as AI are never going away. Precisely because we know they are not, Dartmouth needs to celebrate and support not just work such as Campbell’s but also work in philosophy and political science to devise realistic methods of regulating digital entrepreneurship. 

TIMOTHY H. SCHERMAN ’85
Wilmette, Illinois

Appeasement

President Beilock’s refusal to sign the statement by the American Association of Colleges and Universities [AAC&U] denouncing the Trump administration’s overreach into higher education—as well as the hiring of Matthew Raymer ’03, former chief counsel of the Republican National Committee, as the College’s general counsel [“Campus Confidential,” May/June]—can only be seen as appeasement, and we all know how well that works.

President Trump’s unrestrained assault on America’s institutions of higher education in general, and on Harvard University in particular, is venomous and lethal and has already inflicted irreparable damage on our country’s standing as a leader in science, research, and learning. Such an assault demands an equally unequivocal and unconditional response. Beilock’s comment that open form letters “are rarely effective tools to make change” ignores the fact that in its day the Declaration of Independence was such a letter. What would have happened if nine of the colonies had signed the declaration and four had followed President Beilock’s example?

MICHAEL M. RANSMEIER ’66
Landaff, New Hampshire

I get it. The job of university president is impossible. A president is hired to run a multibillion-dollar, donor-dependent enterprise and be focused on raising money and increasing the university’s public and academic profile. At the same time she must satisfy the demands of warring internal and external constituencies—politicians, students, faculty, trustees, unions, donors, regulators, alumni, social media, and the press—when each of those constituencies is itself irreconcilably and passionately divided.  

Yet, having taken the job, a university president such as Sian Beilock has a profound responsibility to protect the future of the College and the American constitutional order. She cannot pick one over the other, and that makes every action both perilous and significant. The great private universities must work together to combat what is happening, or they will be picked off one by one. Collective action is the only way. Giving in will only result in more pressure. I’m afraid that hiring Matthew Raymer, a Federalist Society apologist, as general counsel will not protect Dartmouth from what is coming. 

TODD BAKER ’78
Oakland, California 

Neutrality

I was quite dismayed to hear the call for institutional restraint [“The Neutral Zone,” March/April] at a time when our nation is descending into fascism. I generally believe that institutional restraint is a reasonable and prudent stance that cultivates diverse viewpoints—but not when inhabitants of the United States are being unconstitutionally detained in El Salvador against direct court orders. 

President Beilock’s modus operandi was revealed last year when she quickly had peaceful protestors arrested to avoid a media firestorm. While the disturbing arrest of professor Annelise Orleck made its way into the national news cycle, this methodology has proven fairly effective in deflecting the attention of the Trump administration. Dartmouth is one of only two Ivies not under federal investigation for antisemitism. Yet, given the true nature of these investigations, is that a distinction we should wear with pride? 

It is not inherently wrong to pursue self-preservation. Dartmouth is a great American institution that sees its legacy in centuries rather than election cycles (as it should). But opening blows have already been struck against Harvard and Columbia. Failure to stand with our peers against unlawful attacks and censorship risks turning Dartmouth
into an institution unworthy of preserving.

EMMA XIN VELICKY ’20
Seattle

Harvard has shamed Dartmouth’s administration and faculty for their votes to be neutral in matters of free speech, intellectual freedom, “woke” issues, bigotry, Ukraine, and Trump’s dictatorial demands on higher education. This is a disservice to students.

What was it like to be neutral in Nazi Germany? Is Hanover a little Switzerland? Vichy? 

PAUL NELSON ’56
Kennebunk, Maine

On the Side of Freedom

I read with interest the article on 19th-century Dartmouth graduates [“Brave Faces,” March/April]. It was refreshing to see so many who—on the critical moral issue of their time—stood on the side of human freedom. Whether Salmon P. Chase, class of 1826, Thaddeus Stevens, class of 1814, or Amos Ackerman, class of 1842, such men stood in opposition to the slave power, even at great personal cost. Which is why it was so disappointing to see President Beilock’s name missing from the AAC&U’s open letter on academic freedom. This should not have been a partisan issue for an educator. 

When Daniel Webster argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dartmouth vs. Woodward case, he was arguing for the sanctity of contracts; he was also arguing for the independence of Dartmouth from being consumed by the government of New Hampshire. As early as the 1830s Thaddeus Stevens said, “I wished that I were the owner of every southern slave, that I might cast off the shackles from their limbs, and witness the rapture which would excite them in the first dance of their freedom.” That courage was rewarded by the judgment of history. President Beilock had the opportunity to continue Dartmouth’s tradition of principled leadership. She failed. 

GREG HAWES ’89 
Watertown, Connecticut

These letters did not appear in the print edition. 

Good Guys?

Being called “one of the good guys” by a former editor of The Dartmouth Review is not a badge of honor [“Top Trump Official Calls Dartmouth ‘One of the Good Guys,’ ” DAM Online]. Instead, it points to President Beilock’s lack of courage to face the Trump administration’s attacks on the independence of higher education. Her refusal to stand up in public while our peers are being attacked demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the moment, and the responsibility Dartmouth’s unique history imposes on the College to confront governmental intrusion into the activities of private institutions.

Higher education does not exist in a vacuum. The Trump administration’s assaults on Columbia and Harvard—and on higher education more generally—are part of a broader attack against the institutions of civil society. It is incumbent on all institutions of civil society to stand up and stand together. President Beilock has sadly chosen not to join our peers in what can only be called an abdication of the historical responsibility arising out of the Dartmouth v. Woodward case. The holding of the Dartmouth case—that a private institution is an independent entity, free from interference by the state—is just as vital and significant today as it was when it was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 200 years ago.

Given this history and its relevance to current events, it is profoundly disappointing that President Beilock lacks the courage to use her platform as the president of Dartmouth to advocate loudly and insistently for the independence of institutions of higher education.

BRAD HISE ’94
Oakland, California

The article [“Top Trump Official Calls Dartmouth ‘One of the Good Guys,’ ” DAM Online] states, “Beilock has avoided significant budget cuts so far.” Yet four federal grants funding research at Dartmouth were canceled at the end of April and in early May, affecting students studying anthropology and health-related fields. In addition, I find it deeply problematic to normalize Harmeet Dhillon ’89. After what she did as editor in chief of The Dartmouth Review to President James Freedman, she does not deserve a column inch in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, much less a feature article. This is the individual who quoted from Mein Kampf in an attack on one of the more preeminent Jewish scholars in the nation. I do not care that Dhillon pretends to care about antisemitism as part of her current job; the simple fact is that the most repugnant, blatant, and virulent example of antisemitism in Dartmouth’s recent history came from Dhillon’s hands. DAM’s mission is to engage, inform, and entertain alumni, not to trigger, disinform, and expose us to sadism.

UNAI MONTES-IRUESTE ’98
Fontana, California

I just finished reading the article in The New Yorker by Dartmouth alumnus Rob Wolfe ’12 in which he called Dartmouth the Switzerland of the Ivy League in the course of a fawning interview with Sian Beilock. He spoke of her recent visit to Washington to meet with the “Dartmouth caucus,” which happened to include Harmeet Dhillon ’89, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, and Gerald Hughes ’88, both of whom were right-wing activist staffers at the conservative Dartmouth Review and who couldn’t be happier with the direction Beilock is taking the College. Beilock’s doublespeak explanation of her refusal to stand up for university independence from government overreach would have made Daniel Webster weep. Switzerland of the Ivy League? Not a chance. I would agree with Robert Reich ’68 that, thanks to Beilock, our college bears more of a resemblance to Neville Chamberlain's England. 

VLADIMIR SVESKO ’69
Dolores, Colorado

Academic Integrity

Recent letters condemning President Beilock's refusal to sign the AAUC’s group letter widely miss Dartmouth's righteously independent pursuit of academic integrity. Suggestions that she’s missing a putative slide toward authoritarianism or even fascism vanish as we learn of prior administrations’ weaponization of the Judiciary and Intelligence services.

At the October 12, 2023, candlelight memorial on the Green, President Beilock courageously condemned the “terrorist slaughter by Hamas” (her words) that occurred five days earlier. Did other Ivy presidents condemn that atrocity as unjustified terrorism? Certainly not, including former Harvard President Claudine Gay, who embarrassed herself in Congress by not equating calls for Israel’s destruction with antisemitism.

The thuggish pro-Hamas demonstrations at Harvard, Columbia, and elsewhere belie an intolerance of opposing, conservative viewpoints. Why should Dartmouth tacitly support such actions proffered by misguided institutions? Certainly, the Beilock administration can handle any perceived unjust federal demands appropriately.

At this year’s 50th reunion, whereby President John Kemeny was richly lauded, I realized that Dartmouth is fortunate to have another terrific president in the Wheelock succession, Sian Beilock!

LAWRENCE P. JOHNSON M.D. ’75
Andover, Massachusetts

Standing Alone

Astonishing. It was hard to believe that Dartmouth was not standing with Harvard and the others [“Three Questions for President Sian Beilock,” July/August]. Can’t the trustees find anyone with courage or backbone? How could appeasing a bully be more important than defending our principles? What an embarrassment. 

JAY STUART WAKEFIELD ’65
Kirkland, Washington

I have been concerned by the actions of President Beilock since spring 2024, when armed state police were welcomed on the Green, and a history professor was hauled off to jail; I suspended judgment at that time, not knowing the details of what was occurring on campus. But now, with President Beilock choosing not to join more than 600 college leaders signing a letter opposing the Trump administration’s interference in higher education—insisting that she agrees with much of what it said but never signs open form letters—my fears have been confirmed.

This, coupled with the recent hiring of Matt Raymer ’03 as SVP and general counsel, is troubling. Not because I believe Dartmouth’s president should surround herself with voices from one political party over another, but because Mr. Raymer’s prior public positions suggest that, if, for example, the federal government were to demand that Dartmouth hand over the records of international students, as it did of Harvard, Dartmouth would comply without compunction. This would make a mockery of privacy laws, the Constitution, and Dartmouth’s stated values. And it still would not satisfy the illiberal forces in the government.

I hope the president changes course. History will be a harsh judge of our alma mater’s capitulations.

HILLARY MILLER ’02
Brooklyn, New York

I am dismayed that Dartmouth—alone among the Ivys — has not joined more than 600 colleges and universities in publicly opposing the government’s attempts to dominate institutions of higher education. This is short-sighted, ungenerous, and unwise; shunning joint action lets the bully pick off one at a time.

Dartmouth, by her history, should be a leader in this fight. To quote an illustrious alumnus, Daniel Webster, in the Dartmouth College case: “It is the case not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in our Land! … for the question is simply this, ‘Shall our [government] be allowed to take that which is not their own, to turn it from its original use and apply it to such ends and purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit!’

The Trump administration is trying to usurp control over higher education; over whom we hire, whom we admit, and what we teach. Webster’s argument was not nuanced; Dartmouth’s response should be forceful. It betrays our heritage that Dartmouth is not at the head of the pack leading the battle in opposition.

PAUL VELLEMAN ’71
Camden, Maine

Educational Enrichment

I concur with the concern of Sylvia Chi ’05 [“Your Turn,” May/June] that now is the time to “speak up against unchecked power.” We see another example of the abuse of power: The Trump administration seeks to prevent any foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, and to remove all current foreign students for the fall term. 

Foreign students have brought so much to all our universities and to our secondary schools. I was involved in the foreign exchange student program at my high school in Ferguson Missouri. These students enriched and broadened our education at a very insular school. During my years at Dartmouth there were few foreign students and fewer students of color, and we were poorer for it. Today that has changed dramatically for the better.

As a teacher both in New England and overseas I can attest to the educational enrichment of having students from 30 to 40 different countries in my science and math classes in Japan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Romania, India, Abu Dhabi, and Sweden. These students were some of the best ambassadors for the United States when they went home each day or when they went back to their native countries. To attempt to end the presence of foreign students in our schools and universities is a stupid and self-defeating process.

DON RIES ’66
Tucson, Arizona

Hit Job

What a stunning shame you had to turn the worthy piece on Joe Okimoto ’60, Med ’61, [“Life, Interrupted,” March/April] into a Trump hit job. Not even subtle. Pathetic.

PETER HUMPHREY ’76
Rockville, Maryland