Dartmouth College has emerged as the Ivy League’s highest-ranked institution for free speech, according to the 2026 report released by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The report, which evaluates 257 colleges and universities nationwide, placed Dartmouth 35th overall, a significant improvement from its previous ranking of 224th. This advancement reflects a series of policy changes and institutional decisions that have reshaped the College’s approach to freedom of expression.
The FIRE ranking system is based on survey data collected from over 68,000 students across the country. It assesses multiple dimensions of campus speech climate, including tolerance for controversial speakers, administrative support for expression, and the clarity of institutional policies. Dartmouth’s rise in the rankings is attributed to its adoption of an institutional restraint framework and the removal of its bias incident reporting protocol, which had previously allowed students to report peers for subjective offenses such as joke-telling or stereotyping. FIRE had previously criticized the protocol for being inconsistent with the College’s stated commitment to free expression.
The College’s current policies have earned it a “green light” rating from FIRE, indicating that there are no known threats to student speech rights in its written regulations. Among Ivy League institutions, Dartmouth is the only school to receive this designation. In addition to its overall ranking, Dartmouth placed second nationally for tolerance of controversial conservative speakers and sixth for tolerance of controversial liberal speakers. It also ranked sixth in political tolerance and scored highly in mean tolerance metrics, which measure the average acceptance of speakers across the ideological spectrum.
These rankings come at a time when freedom of expression remains a contentious issue on college campuses. The arrest of 89 individuals during a pro-Palestinian protest on the Green in May 2024 prompted renewed scrutiny of Dartmouth’s speech policies. In response, the College revised its freedom of expression guidelines in April 2025, emphasizing institutional neutrality and restraint. These revisions were recommended by a faculty committee chaired by Philosophy professor Sam Levey and contributed to the College’s eight-point increase in FIRE’s scoring system.
College President Sian Leah Beilock has played a central role in shaping Dartmouth’s current stance. Her decision to eliminate the bias incident reporting protocol and her public statements affirming Dartmouth’s non-political identity have reinforced the College’s commitment to viewpoint diversity. Notably, Beilock declined to sign a joint Ivy League letter condemning the Trump administration’s renegotiation of higher education funding, citing the College’s institutional restraint policy. Her remarks during the Class of 2029’s orientation reiterated that Dartmouth is not a political organization, a position that aligns with FIRE’s criteria for administrative neutrality.
Student reactions to the FIRE rankings have been mixed. Colin Jung, vice president of Turning Point Dartmouth, expressed support for the College’s policies, stating that he has never felt unwelcome for expressing his views. Jung’s comments reflect a broader sentiment among students who value the ability to engage in open discourse without fear of administrative reprisal. However, some faculty members and researchers have raised concerns about the methodology behind FIRE’s rankings. Government professor Sean Westwood, director of the Polarization Research Lab, noted that the survey data may not be representative of the entire student body. He cautioned against drawing broad conclusions from limited sample sizes.
The debate over FIRE’s metrics underscores a larger tension between quantitative assessments and qualitative campus experiences. While ordinal rankings provide a comparative framework, they may oversimplify complex institutional cultures. Professor Levey, who helped draft the College’s revised policies, described himself as a “friendly skeptic” of FIRE’s approach. He emphasized the importance of context and nuance in evaluating speech climates, suggesting that rankings should be interpreted with caution.
Despite these critiques, Dartmouth’s position in the FIRE report signals a shift in how the College is perceived nationally. Its emphasis on institutional restraint, policy clarity, and tolerance for diverse viewpoints distinguishes it from peer institutions that have faced criticism for suppressing dissent or enforcing restrictive speech codes. The FIRE report notes that 166 of the 257 schools surveyed received failing grades for their speech climate, highlighting the challenges many colleges face in balancing inclusivity with free expression.
Dartmouth’s ascent in the rankings may also have implications for its broader reputation. In an era where campus speech controversies frequently make national headlines, institutions that demonstrate a commitment to open dialogue may attract students and faculty who prioritize intellectual freedom. The College’s policies could serve as a model for other universities seeking to navigate the complexities of campus discourse without compromising core academic values.
As the academic year progresses, Dartmouth will continue to test the durability of its speech policies. The FIRE rankings provide a snapshot, but the real measure lies in how the College responds to future challenges. Whether through protests, speaker invitations, or classroom debates, the principles of free expression will be continually examined and redefined. Dartmouth’s current position reflects progress, but sustaining that progress will require ongoing engagement, transparency, and a willingness to adapt.
In the context of higher education’s evolving landscape, Dartmouth’s approach offers a data-informed, policy-driven model for fostering free speech. Its emphasis on restraint, neutrality, and tolerance aligns with both constitutional principles and academic ideals. While no ranking system is perfect, the FIRE report affirms that Dartmouth has taken meaningful steps toward creating a campus environment where diverse perspectives can coexist. The challenge now is to maintain that environment amid shifting political, social, and institutional pressures.
