The resignation of University of Pennsylvania President, Elizabeth Magill, apparently the result of pressure from wealthy donors, is a dire warning to those who cherish free speech and academic freedom. Prior to her testimony before Congress on Dec. 5, Magill already faced pressure from students and donors for supporting the right of an independent group to organize a Palestinian writers conference on the Penn campus in September. Some of those writers had expressed their support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement aimed at highlighting the plight of occupied Palestine, leading to claims of anti-semitism.

In addressing concerns about the conference, President Magill both condemned anti-semitism and supported the “free exchange of ideas as central to our academic mission.” In her Congressional testimony, Magill further tried to differentiate free speech and the context in which such speech may rise to the level of harassment, just as the organizers of the conference emphasized the distinction between the bigotry of anti-semitism and legitimate opposition to Israeli policies. Indeed, the conference was opened by Amer Zahr, a Palestinian comedian, who welcomed everyone: “We do not hate anybody for who they are. We hate occupation. We hate apartheid. We hate racism. We don’t hate people.” This sort of reasoned approach and nuanced thinking is precisely the goal of a liberal arts education. Unfortunately, Penn’s wealthy donors aligned with closed-minded members of Congress to push Magill out the door.

Although the pre-Thanksgiving departure of students has helped Dartmouth avoid the current conflation of anti-semitism with anti-Israel sentiment, Dartmouth is hardly a shining example for those who cherish free speech and academic freedom. In 2017, professor of Native American Studies Bruce Duthu was nominated to become the dean of the faculty. Then serving as associate dean of Interdisciplinary Studies, Duthu was, and remains, well respected among the faculty for his ability to work with multiple disciplines and points of view. By nearly all accounts, he had strong support for his candidacy.

By rights and by principle, Duthu should be the dean today. But in 2013, Prof. Duthu had signed a statement issued by the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions as a protest against the infringement of the rights of Palestinian academics, including their “freedom of movement, expression and assembly,” From a community of scholars who study settler colonization and indigenous displacement, the statement seems understandable.

After noting that a boycott of academic institutions may itself chill the free exchange of ideas, Duthu clarified his views, “I continue to believe in the right of private citizens to express criticism of any country’s government policies. At the same time, I do not believe that a boycott of academic institutions is the appropriate response.”

Unfortunately for Prof. Duthu, and for the principles of academic freedom and free speech, prominent donors to Dartmouth continued to pressure Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon to deny Duthu the deanship. Without institutional support, Duthu withdrew.

It is, perhaps, ironic that the initial attacks on President Magill stemmed from her unwillingness to silence an academic conference on Palestinian culture in a state, Pennsylvania, whose Senate has passed a resolution condemning boycotts of Israeli culture. Thirty-seven states have passed such measures condemning or outlawing support for the BDS movement despite polls showing that more than 70% of Americans believe that such laws “infringe on the Constitutional right to free speech and peaceful protest.” New Hampshire was the most recent to sign on to an anti-free-speech order in July of this year.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Human Rights Watch and the European Court of Human Rights, among others, have noted that peaceful boycotts are protected forms of free speech under the US Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Civil rights and freedom movements have a long history of using boycotts to protest oppression, most famously the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 and the anti-apartheid boycott of South African businesses (and academic institutions) from the 1960s to the 1980s.

History is full of irony and hypocrisy, though. This month, we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the signature act of the most memorable boycott in American history.

The presidents of Penn, Harvard and MIT are not alone in feeling the chill on academic freedom. A University of Maryland poll in November found that 82% of scholars feel the need to self-censor when talking about Israeli-Palestinian issues. If Ivy League presidents and academic scholars wither in the face of attacks on their speech, what are students supposed to think?

Scott Brown lives in Hanover and is the former Dean of the Tucker Foundation at Dartmouth College.