Well, Princeton, via its president Christopher Eisgruber, has wussed out of adopting a crucial plank in a university free-speech platform: institutional neutrality. The man simply can’t hold back his ideological or political opinions, even if they chill the speech of faculty and students.
As you’ll know if you read here, the University of Chicago was the first college in America to adopt an official posture of institutional neutrality in the form of the Kalven Report of 1967. That report, expanded on in 2020 by the late President Robert Zimmer, specified that no units of our University could make ideological, political, or moral statements save those that had a direct bearing on the mission of the University. The object was to allow people to speak freely without worrying about being punished by contradicting “official” university statements. By and large, we’ve hewed to its dictates with a few exceptions, like this one, which involves clear and multiple violations of Kalven.
FIRE’s list of institutions adopting a Kalven-like policy has expanded exponentially, now numbering 22 (23 including Chicago). Sadly, according to the Daily Princetonian article below (click to read), Princeton will not be joining them.
An excerpt (my bolding):
President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 shared in an interview with The Daily Princetonian that the University will not consider institutional neutrality. The University administration will maintain the current policy of institutional restraint although Eisgruber expressed plans to issue statements “less frequently.”
Under institutional neutrality, universities do not take positions on social and political issues. Peer institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and Cornell University have recently released statements pledging commitments to furthering institutional neutrality following highly polarizing Pro-Palestine protests in the spring semester.
“No.” Eisgruber responded when asked if the University is considering implementing institutional neutrality.
“You can’t be neutral about everything,” Eisgruber continued. He specifically noted speaking on behalf of diversity, inclusivity, free speech, academic freedom, and sustainability. “We got to do it … We’re speaking out on behalf of those things. So I think institutional neutrality is just a misleading formulation.”
This selective approach to issuing statements is called institutional restraint, the principle that universities are not neutral but instead value-laden institutions that can take positions in rare cases concerning the core values of the University.
“We have to stand up for our values … I’ve spoken, and will continue to speak boldly for those values, where that’s required, for the institution, and at times beyond the way in which other university presidents are doing that,” Eisgruber said in defense of maintaining institutional restraint.
Nobody says that a university has to be “neutral about everything”; Kalven specifies that universities can speak up officially when there’s an issue that impacts the ability of the school to fulfill its mission (defending DACA was one of those, which would have taken students away from the school). So, you ask, what is the difference between Kalven and “institutional restraint”? The bold bit above implies that they’re really the same.
But they’re not, and Eisgruber makes that clear:
Still, on certain topics, Eisgruber believes he has an “institutional responsibility” not to speak out.
“Something I share with the people who embrace the idea of institutional neutrality [is that] the University is first and foremost, not itself the critic. It’s the sponsor of critics,” Eisgruber said.
He specifically referenced the Dobbs v. Jackson decision reversing Roe v. Wade as a moment when he felt he should not speak out, despite his expertise in law and other university presidents doing so.
Despite holding back on certain issues, Eisgruber has issued statements on current events to recognize their “momentous character” and “the way in which they are affecting people on campus.” Recent examples include statements on the War in Ukraine and a condemnation of the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas. In these statements, Eisgruber shared that he makes sure to use the first person.
The University has also taken actions which would be considered violations of institutional neutrality, most notably divestments from South Africa and companies in Sudan and partial divestment from the fossil fuels sector during Eisgruber’s presidency. Eisgruber pointed out that the University of Chicago, which created and follows the Kalven Report, a guideline to institutional neutrality, never divested from South Africa.
These issues really have nothing to do with the core values of a university. Ergo, there should not be statements about them. These issues are political and ideological, and should be debated without restraint. Granted, there are people, however misguided, who support Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and even the October 7 attacks of Hamas. These folks should feel free to make their arguments about these issues without being chilled by official statements. The same goes for divestment and Sudan (see Geoff Stone‘s pro-Kalven statement about divestment from Darfur in Sudan).
While Eisgruber recognizes in the article that he’s probably made too many political statements on behalf of Princeton (duh!), he still won’t commit the school to keeping its institutional yap shut. And that is a shame. The prestigious Ivy League schools should be promoting institutional neutrality, and, so far, the only ones that have are Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. Even Yale hasn’t joined the side of the angels.
As I see it the problem with expanding the definition of a university’s “core values” to include seemingly unproblematic examples like “diversity, inclusivity, free speech, academic freedom, and sustainability” is that it’s almost always the case that both sides are claiming the moral high ground. Opponents of DEI initiatives aren’t against diversity, equality, and inclusion as such but argue that the goals and methods of this particular set of advocates will inhibit those values instead of advancing them. We’re all against “terrorism” — who are the real terrorists though? People who want to increase the use of fossil fuels believe the planet will sustain itself just fine. Students banging pots and tooting horns to drown out a speaker are merely exercising their sacred Right to Free Speech. And so on …
As important as values are, taking a glittering generality and trying to drag it onto one currently controversial position while denying it to the other is usually a de facto rhetorical tactic as opposed to a genuine ethical stand.
Very well put, Sastra.
While a first glance at the Princeton website, cannot find it, I assume the president serves at the pleasure of the board of trustees. So he has at least implicit approval and maybe explicit direction for his position from the almost two dozen university policy-makers.
As with UChicago, the problem lies just north of the president on the org chart.