Category: Kalven Report

American colleges that adhere to institutional neutrality: I missed a lot of schools

September 16, 2024 • 12:50 pm

When I counted nine schools in North America (Simon Fraser in Canada was included) that adhered to Chicago-like principles of institutional neutrality, I sent an email to FIRE and said they should compile a list, similar to the list of 110 schools that adhere to Chicago’s free speech principles.

Well, is my face red!  FIRE wrote me that they’ve already done that, and you can see that there are a lot more schools than just nine. Click below to see the list, which I’ll reproduce:

Here’s the list for the U.S.: there aren’t just eight schools, but 22. Each school was linked to its statement:

  1. Claremont McKenna College

  2. University of North Carolina System

  3. Vanderbilt University

  4. University of Wyoming

  5. Columbia University

  6. Utah State University

  7. College of the Holy Cross

  8. Harvard University

  9. Syracuse University

  10. Stanford University

  11. Purdue University

  12. Clark University

  13. Johns Hopkins University

  14. Emerson College

  15. University of Southern California

  16. University of Texas System

  17. University of Colorado Boulder

  18. University of Alabama System

  19. Washington State University

  20. University of Pennsylvania

  21. University of Wisconsin System

  22. University of Virginia

You can read FIRE’s own endorsement of institutional neutrality, and the reason this policy is important, by clicking the title below:

UCLA and University of Wisconsin (and, in part, Williams College) adopt institutional neutrality; Vanderbilt updates free expression policies and programs

September 14, 2024 • 10:30 am

It appears that seven universities now have adopted a version of the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principle mandating institutional neutrality (“IN”): the dictum that no political or ideological statements should come from a university save statements about issues endangering the mission of the university. (Faculty are, of course, always free to speak on their own, but not as representatives of an “official view”.) Now it looks as if we can add two more schools to the total: UCLA and the University of Wisconsin system.

This is still far fewer than the 110 schools that have adopted a version of Chicago’s “Free Expression” principle, but I think the tide is turning: colleges are realizing that it’s not to their benefit to weigh in on debatable issues of the day. At any rate, two years ago the University of Chicago was the only school in North America with an institutional neutrality policy.

FIRE needs to start keeping a list of the IN schools, which include these:

The University of Chicago
Simon Fraser University (in Canada: see also here for a discussion of the problems with their statement)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Vanderbilt University
Columbia University,
Stanford University
The University of Pennsylvania; and the two new ones mentioned here:
UCLA
The University of Wisconsin (whole system)

Now some of the IN policies adopted by these schools have problems, but they’re aiming in the right direction: buttressing free speech by ruling out “official” statements from that could inhibit people in the University from speaking their minds,

Click below to see the story of how UCLA’s Chancellor has accepted a principle of institutional neutrality confected by a University committee:

A short excerpt that gives a link to UCLA’s recommendations:

On Sept. 12, UCLA announced that Interim Chancellor Darnell Hunt has accepted a recommendation from a working group that the university should not weigh in on political matters.

The working group, headed by UCLA School of Law Dean Michael Waterstone,  submitted a recommendation — accepted in full by Interim Chancellor Hunt — that moving forward, “UCLA’s chancellor, executive vice chancellor and provost, vice chancellors, vice provosts and deans should not make public statements on societal, public and political matters, unless those matters directly affect the university’s ability to support a research and educational environment where free expression thrives.” Such institutional statements, the recommendation explained, “can imply a false sense of unanimity about a given topic, stifle the free exchange of ideas, and risk making parts of our diverse community feel silenced or unheard. A focus on these kinds of statements can also divert university leaders’ attention away from their core responsibilities and pursuit of institutional goals.”

The working group’s report elaborated that “whether — and if so, how — a contentious issue relates to this essential mission of the university will itself be disputed at times; as with any general rule, this one would require university officials to exercise judgment in good faith, subject to critique by community members,” adding that in borderline cases, “the presumption should be for not issuing a statement.”

A pretty big problem here: the policy should apply more widely—to departments, center, units, or any moiety of the university, including libraries, museums, and so on. It is because the issue of department statements was unclear that in 2020 our late President Bob Zimmer clarified that Kalven applied to all University departments and units.

I found the University of Wisconsin news in, of all place, the Times of Israel, but below that you can find the official UW statement, provided by Greg Mayer, who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. The new policy came into being after a cowardly UW chancellor, Mark Mone, made an invidious deal with protestors. Click to read:

An extract:

University of Wisconsin leaders must limit their public statements to matters that affect school operations and maintain neutral viewpoints under a new policy that system administrators released Friday.

UW system spokesperson Mark Pitsch said in an email to The Associated Press that the policy will take effect immediately and doesn’t need the approval of the board of regents. Asked what drove the policy’s creation, Pitsch pointed to language in the policy that states the restrictions are necessary in order to uphold academic freedom and an environment where ideas can compete freely.

The move comes after UW-Milwaukee Chancellor Mark Mone struck a deal in May to end pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel campus protests. The university agreed to call for a ceasefire in Gaza and discuss cutting ties with Israeli companies.

The deal drew intense criticism from Jewish groups. UW system President Jay Rothman also took Mone to task over the deal, posting on X that campuses need to remain viewpoint-neutral and make sure actions on campus have consequences.

Rothman is also trying to stay on good terms with Republicans who control the Legislature in the hopes of securing an $855 million boost for the system in the next state budget. . . .

It is often fear of Republican legislatures that brings these policies into being (and, indeed, Chancellore Mone is an invertebrate), but I don’t care where institutional neutrality comes from so long as it’s put into place with proper wording (yes, it should apply to all “units” of a university) and restrictions (yes, statements are permitted on rare occasions).

The official Wisconsin policy is here, with this extract:

Institutional statements issued by university leaders should be limited to matters that directly affect the operations and core mission of the university, and should maintain viewpoint neutrality in any reference to any matter of political or social controversy.

Institutional statements may include communications on the impact of proposed or enacted regulations, legislation, or court decisions that materially affect the operations and core mission of the university. Such institutional statements may also express a position of support or opposition only when authorized by the president or chancellor.

. . .Where there is reasonable disagreement about whether an event or issue directly affects the operations or core mission of the university, university leaders are encouraged to forgo an institutional statement.

What’s good about this is that it is supposed to apply to every UW “unit,” which they define as as “a school, college, department, division, center, institute, program, or other institutional entity”. That is, as far as I know, the most detailed and specific list of university constituents that must adhere to institutional neutrality.

President Maud Mandel at Williams College, who appears reluctant to commit her entire College to institutional neutrality, at least asserted that she was going to stop making statements on politics and ideology, and pinpoints the reason why she changed her mind and adopted IN:

Here’s the Williams statement; click to enlarge:

Unfortunately, the Williams policy appears to apply only to President Mandel herself. For reasons known best to her it doesn’t appear to apply to any other units of the university. But it doesn’t nearly go far enough.  It’s time for Williams to step up and extend Mandel’s personal principle to the entire school.

Finally, Vanderbilt, which now is really the #1 free speech school in America as far as I’m concerned (its Chancellor Daniel Diermeier used to be our provost), has updated its policies on demonstration and free expression, and appears to construct a whole program to educate students in free speech and to give them an opportunity to engage in controversial but civil discourse. Click below to read Vanderbilt’s announcement. It links to a lot of different programs and initiatives, so click around on the site to see what this school has done to foster free expression.

Here are some changes, clearly put into place to prevent disruptive demonstrations that impede Vanderbilt’s mission:

Relevant revisions include, but are not limited to, the following: 

  • The public may not participate in or be invited to participate in campus demonstrations and protests, and the university may request identification from those participating in demonstrations and protests to determine if they are members of the campus community. 
  • Demonstrations and protests may not occur at times that would require individuals to sleep or gather overnight given safety, logistical and maintenance concerns. 
  • Installations, defined as “temporary displays, art pieces, symbolic structures or other physical objects,” require reservations and may only be displayed between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. or sundown, whichever is earlier, for no more than three consecutive days. 
  • Camping, sleeping, preparing to sleep or any other gathering overnight outdoors on campus is prohibited due to safety, logistic and maintenance concerns and to ensure access to university spaces for other groups wishing to make reservations.

All members of the Vanderbilt community are encouraged to review the full Student Handbook in advance of the start of the academic year.

Even Chicago doesn’t follow all these strictures (especially the first and third), and our school hasn’t made its policies nearly as explicit as those given above.  Nevertheless, the move towards forestalling disruptions of university life is spreading, though just at the time that pro-Palestinian demonstrators have vowed to be even more disruptive than they were over the last academic year.

Something tells me that we’re not going to see this kind of disruption at Vanderbilt. . . .

h/t Mayaan, Greg Mayer

Another two schools, Penn and Stanford, adopt institutional neutrality, while Yale studies the issue

September 12, 2024 • 9:30 am

Two days ago I reported that Simon Fraser University had adopted a policy of institutional neutrality, which I don’t think I have to explain any further, as I’ve written about it in detail (see the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report). This is heartening to some extent, as for years my own school was the sole upholder of neutrality. But it’s also disheartening in that 110 universities, both public and private, have adopted Chicago’s policy of Free Expression, but a mere five have adopted institutional neutrality, an important policy meant to buttress free speech.  Schools just can’t seem to resist the urge to make moral, political, and ideological statements; clearly, their desire to “be on the right side” outweighs their desire to adopt freedom of speech.

Here are the five schools that have embraced institutional neutrality:

The University of Chicago
Simon Fraser University (see also the link above, noting the problems with their statement)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Vanderbilt University
Columbia University

And of course Columbia and Simon Fraser bear watching—Columbia because of its toxic history and Simon Fraser because its policy has problems.

Well, these don’t add up to 110 schools, but five is better than none.  And now, with the announcements of both Penn and Stanford that they too are adopting institutional neutrality, while Yale is thinking about it, we have seven universities pledging neutrality and one seriously studying the issue.  Could it be that American colleges and universities are finally realizing the palpable advantage of staying neutral on moral, political, and ideological issues?

Here’s Penn’s announcement from two days ago, written by its interim President and taken taken from Penn Today, the school’s official newsletter.  (Perhaps the policy was prompted because the previous president, Liz Magill, after a lame performance on free speech  before a House hearing, was forced to resign last December after pressure from alumni, donors, and others. The statement below denies, however, that this was the motivation.)

An excerpt; I’ve put the key words are in bold. It seems that if Penn, which has been around for ages, only now has realized the value of not chilling speech!

Today, Penn is introducing two new institutional positions: a statement of University Values and a statement Upholding Academic Independence. These statements sit alongside two older collections of words, one from last year, and one from 1755.

The words from 1755 comprise our Latin motto, Leges Sine Moribus Vanae, commonly translated into English as “Laws without morals are useless.” These few words communicate deeply. The motto urges us to do what is good and practical, and also what is right. This spirit has guided Penn for centuries, and I am proud to be part of an institution built upon such a motto.

. . . Today, we introduce a statement of University Values. [Check the link; the “values” are very skimpy.] These values are also a product of our long history, and yet re-presenting them in new words today carries added importance. Over the past months we have found ourselves reacting to the events of the world and responding to events on our campus. Both the Presidential Commission on Countering Hate and Building Community and the University Task Force on Antisemitism called for an explicit articulation of our values to help guide us through these challenges. Like the committee that developed In Principle and Practice, the Task Force and Commission sought and received broad input about our values from the Penn community. The current statement reflects this input and aspires to capture what is distinctive about Penn. Our values were always there and are best revealed through our actions. But the words we use to express them are guideposts along the way. I urge you to read and reflect upon those words.

Today, Penn also introduces Upholding Academic Independence. Over the years, and with increasing frequency, leaders across the University—indeed across most universities—have made public statements in response to external events. By and large, these messages sought to provide acknowledgement and solidarity following often horrific circumstances. Although well-meaning, these institutional messages fundamentally compete with the free and unencumbered creation and expression of ideas by individuals. Going forward, the University of Pennsylvania and its leaders will refrain from institutional statements made in response to local and world events. By quieting Penn’s institutional voice, we hope to amplify the expertise and voices within.

The release of this new guidance should not be construed as fear to take a studied position. Quite the opposite, it is a confirmation of our commitment to academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. Likewise, the timing should not be interpreted as a response to past or upcoming events, or prior institutional positions. We will, of course, continue to communicate about policies and activities that have direct relevance to the University’s missions and its operations. This new guidance represents the culmination of intensive deliberation about how Penn and its leaders can best support our mission and our community—now, and moving forward.

I see one loophole in their statement: they won’t comment on “local and world events.”  But that doesn’t keep them from making ideological or political statements that arise not from world events, but from societal changes in views or values.  For example, they could still make statements about the value of equity or DEI, which are not based on any events in particular but on the Zeitgeist. It would be far better if they simply said they wouldn’t take any “University positions on political and social action, with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University,” as the late President Robert Zimmer emphasized.

So Penn people, keep an eye on your school and see if it adheres to its principles.

In the article below (click to read), the National Review reports the Stanford as well has just put into practice institutional neutrality. Stanford, of course, has been roiled by political turmoil, with many students explicitly coming out against free speech (remember Judge Duncan?).

First, a comment they make about Penn’s policy:

Penn has repeatedly weighed in on prominent public events in recent years, condemning the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 and celebrating the jury conviction of Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd, in April 2021.

The decision to move toward neutrality comes after the Ivy League school was embroiled in campus protest throughout the previous academic year. Campus police dismantled a 16-day pro-Palestinian encampment toward the end of the spring semester, and former president Liz Magill stepped down following her widely criticized testimony at a House hearing on campus antisemitism in December.

And a tweet just sent to me. The caption may be a bit exaggerated since this is just a display of history books, not the full history-book section, but it’s still reprehensible and morally obtuse:

And here’s an excerpt from the NR’s article about Stanford, whose policy seems better than Simon Fraser’s or Penn’s because it hews more closely to the Kalven Principles:

Stanford University’s faculty senate adopted an institutional-neutrality policy in May, which the university’s Board of Trustees commended this week. 

“When speaking for the institution, Stanford University leaders and administrators should not express an opinion on political and social controversies, unless these matters directly affect the mission of the university or implicate its legal obligations,” reads a portion of the “Institutional Statements Policy” adopted by the Stanford faculty senate in May. The policy applies to “Academic Organization Executive Officers of the University,” which includes leadership, vice provosts, deans, and others, but not to the directors of centers or institutes within the university. 

In formally adopting a policy of institutional neutrality, the universities are following the recommendations laid out by University of Chicago faculty in their 1967 “Kalven Report,” produced amid nationwide protests against the Vietnam War.

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity,” reads the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report. “It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.”

The problem with this is that it doesn’t apply to departments, centers, or institutes, all of which fall under the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principoles (I’m proud that this clarification by President Zimmer was something I helped forge):

The principles of the Kalven Report apply not only to the University as a whole, but to the departments, schools, centers, and divisions as well, and for exactly the same reasons, i.e., these essential components of the University should not take institutional positions on public issues that are not directly related to the core functioning of the University.

Finally, Yale has created a committee to study adopting institutional neutrality, at least according to President McInnis’s announcement (click to read):

An excerpt (my bolding):

Although I am only beginning to gather your suggestions, one topic has emerged as top of mind for many people in our community: the question of when Yale, as an institution, speaks on issues of the day. This topic also has been central to a national discussion in higher education over the past year. Recognizing that members of our community hold multiple views, I write to announce that I have convened a committee to address the question.

I have asked the committee to examine when the university, or those speaking on its behalf, should comment on matters of public significance, weighing the value that Yale places on engaging with the wider world as well as the university’s commitment to fostering an environment of diverse viewpoints and open dialogue and debate. To be clear, I am not charging the committee with revisiting the vital and robust protection for the free expression of individuals within our diverse community. Rather, the committee’s focus is on the role of Yale itself as a speaker.

. . . . The committee will host listening sessions over the next few weeks to solicit feedback from students, faculty, and staff. Information will be posted online. Community members who are not able to attend in person—including alumni—can share their perspectives via a webform, which will be open until the end of the last listening session.

The question is not WHEN Yale speaks on issues of the day, but WHETHER it speaks on issues of the day. (One exception, mentioned in the Kalven Report, is that speech about “issues of the day” is okay when it bears directly on the university’s mission to foster teaching, learning, research, and free discourse.)  Do we really need another committee to study the issue? Well, I guess so, but they should begin by reading the Kalven Principles and then see if there are any good reasons for deviating from them.

h/t: Simon

Simon Fraser University (sort of) adopts a policy of institutional neutrality, making five North American colleges to do so

September 10, 2024 • 10:00 am

As I’ve said many times, while over 100 American colleges and Universities have adopted a version of the University of Chicago’s policy of free speech, only a handful have adopted our complementary policy of institutional neutrality (“The Kalven Report”). That policy mandates that our University, its departments, and other “official” units, are forbidden from making statements espousing a specific ideology or taking moral or political stand—except when making such a statement directly supports the university’s mission of teaching, learning, and research. Institutional neutrality—which in our school also involves investment decisions—is designed to buttress freedom of expression: nobody feels that they would be punished if they went against some “official” political statement.

As I wrote in an earlier post announcing that Columbia University also has professed this policy (I’ll believe it when I see it there):

The only universities that have adopted Kalven-esque principles, besides us, number two: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Vanderbilt University. (Vanderbilt’s Chancellor, Daniel Diermeier, is a free-speech advocate who was Provost here before he moved south.)  Some professors at Northwestern University have urged adoption of institutional neutrality, but so far little seems to have happened.

(See Diermeier’s WSJ critique of Harvard’s lame attempt at institutional neutrality.)

So, including Chicago, we had four schools adopting a policy that should be universal.  But if you count Simon Fraser University near Vancouver, B.C. as “American” (well, it’s North American), now we have five.  Read the announcement from Simon Fraser’s President by clicking on the screenshot below.

A transcript (I’ve bolded the important stuff except for the title and subtitle, but some of the bolded stuff is troubling, at least to me):

Message from the President: the Role of Universities in Troubled Times

September 09, 2024

As president of SFU, I am often asked by students, faculty and staff to take a stance on partisan political matters and current events. These requests have increased greatly in the past year, during which this topic has been at the forefront of discussion on university campuses around the world. I want to share some thoughts on why I have come to the view that it is important for university administration not to take public positions on such matters.

Universities are comprised of thousands of students, faculty and staff who all hold unique opinions and views, informed by their scholarly work and lived experiences. I believe that universities need to be a place where people can freely engage in academic inquiry, share ideas, learn from each other, disagree constructively and peacefully protest. And I believe that my role as university president is to help facilitate an environment where people can have robust conversations, including on controversial topics.

In the past, I have made statements related to world events in an attempt to be responsive to issues our community is concerned with. However, I have come to understand that taking a public position on behalf of the university can have a chilling effect on the vigorous discussion and debate of students, faculty and staff. While these statements were intended to provide comfort to and express solidarity with members of the university community, their potential impact on open discussion runs contrary to the university’s purpose. I also recognize that there are many local, global and personal issues affecting community members at any given time, and issuing statements on some topics but not others can further contribute to feelings of exclusion.

If SFU is truly to be a place where people feel comfortable sharing their ideas and participating in meaningful dialogue, the university must be non-sectarian and non-political in principle. In order to facilitate this, I believe that the institution—and senior leadership as representatives of the institution—must refrain from taking public positions on topics unrelated to the business of the university, including partisan matters and world events.

Living by Our Values

Academic freedom, as enshrined in our collective agreements and underscored in What’s Next: The SFU Strategy, creates the conditions for scholars to freely examine, question, teach and learn within their area of study, provided that these actions are based on an honest search for knowledge. To truly live by our core values of academic freedom and critical thinking, we need to hold space for difficult and controversial conversations to take place responsibly and respectfully, as well as defending and protecting the human right to express views within the bounds of the law.

As outlined in What’s Next, we are also committed to embedding the values of equity and belonging in every decision and action. We have a collective responsibility to create a culture of inclusive excellence where all feel welcome, safe, accepted and appreciated. Taken together, academic freedom and inclusive excellence support each other and work together to create a vibrant academic community where everyone feels a sense of belonging.

One of the foundational practices of university life is to be exposed to different points of view, broaden our perspectives and have our beliefs and ideas challenged. This may be uncomfortable, but it is also an important part of being an engaged citizen. As we take on this work, it is important to remember that students, staff and faculty are accountable to SFU’s policies and codes of conduct. If violations of established codes of conduct, university policies or laws occur, we will follow the appropriate processes and procedures to address them.

In a time of increased polarization, we must preserve the vibrancy of our academic community while ensuring that difficult conversations are grounded in care and respect for each other. This is a challenging task, but I believe it is one we can accomplish, together. I want to assure you that senior leaders are committed to doing our part by promoting—not shutting down—healthy dialogue at SFU.

Joy Johnson
Pronouns: she, her, hers
President & Vice-Chancellor
Simon Fraser University

Now the “pronoun statement at the bottom undermines this statement just a tad, but on the whole Dr. Johnson (a researcher in “gender and health”) seems to understand the issues at play. But there is one bit of her message that seriously undermines her statement:

As outlined in What’s Next, we are also committed to embedding the values of equity and belonging in every decision and action. We have a collective responsibility to create a culture of inclusive excellence where all feel welcome, safe, accepted and appreciated.

This statement is indeed a debatable political assertion, because “equity” is not equal opportunity for everyone, which is not only the law but morally correct. Rather, “equity” is a policy of equal outcomes, and is premised on the debatable claim that a lack of equal outcomes must perforce reflect bias against an underrepresented group (e.g., “structural racism” or “structural sexism”). The University of Chicago would never adopt a policy calling for equity, but of course we do have a policy of equality of opportunity.  Our University would never assert that it tries to ensure “equity” because that is a debatable statement about ideology.

Further, ensuring that everyone feels “welcome, safe, accepted, and appreciated” may not be possible if there is true freedom of speech.  For that kind of speech almost invariably assures that, at least at some times, some students claim that they feel “unsafe” and “unwelcome”.  That, for example, was one reason that an art history professor at the private Hamline University in Minnesota was fired for showing images of old Islamic pictures in which Muhammed’s face was unveiled.  Showing those pictures (which some Muslims feel is disrespectful or even blasphemous) made some students feel “unsafe,” and that  “they didn’t belong.”  (The professor sued Hamline and, I think, got an other job.)

Finally, “inclusive excellence,” though it links to an explanation of its meaning, is really a slippery concept.  In many cases where students and groups differ in achievement, the words “inclusive” and “excellence” may not be compatible.

So this statement is a sort-of acceptance of Kalven, but shows some unsettling signs of wokeness. For the time being we’ll see what happens at Simon Fraser. It is a public university, but there’s no First Amendment in Canada.

The link was sent to my reader Mike, who is associated with Simon Fraser. Mike said this in an email:

I wanted to share some good news. My university president today publicly embraced institutional neutrality for the university and its senior leadership.  (See below).

We don’t have a real policy yet, we don’t know how far down the administrative structure this neutrality will extend, and I don’t know whether this or a different message was sent to our students at the same time. But I hope clarifying those things will be a next step. It’s a huge improvement over the past 5 years in which the president created a new vice-president-level DEI infrastructure and pursued other initiatives that have chilled free expression by choosing sides on controversial topics including Hamas terrorism. So although there is work to do this is good news and a good day for my university.
The people most responsible for this positive development are the faculty leaders of our Heterodox Academy Campus Community at SFU. Our group has politely, publicly, and insistently urged our colleagues and administrators to back off from adopting public positions on policy or cultural issues on behalf of everyone at the university, and we have extolled the virtues of academic freedom of expression. We think that public campaign has borne its first fruit. I hope its effects will continue to be felt (a real policy, extended to students, and extended down to the level of department chairs).

Mike’s statement about the President setting up a DEI infrastructure is further unsettling. I hope this is good news for Simon Fraser, but, as a cynic, I found the President’s statement worrisome. The first sign that Dr. Johnson means what she says it that she has to dismantle or cut way back on the DEI business. For DEI itself, or at least the ideology behind its most common implementations, is itself ideologically debatable. Remember, the “E” stands for “equity.”

University of Chicago grad students file suit against their union, alleging that it makes them engage in compelled speech

July 23, 2024 • 11:30 am

After several years of effort, graduate students getting paid for research or teaching at the University of Chicago joined a labor union.  Because they couldn’t form a union de novo but had to join an existing one, they became dues-paying members of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, Local 11o3.  This enables graduate students who get paid as research assistants or for teaching to engage in collective bargaining and to strike against the University if the bargaining reaches an impasse. The University of Chicago opposed the students’ efforts to join a union, but the University can’t prevent it.

You can see why the University would oppose unionization, for often research assistantships and teaching are regarded by universities as training rather than jobs; and if there were a strike, it would cripple research at the school as well teaching itself, for in some courses graduate teaching assistants do much of the work. But the students prevailed.  I didn’t have much of a dog in this fight, except that I thought the possibility of strikes was a dangerous byproduct of unionizing.

But joining the union came with an unexpected downside: unions can take political and ideological positions, and as a member of one (qualified students are required to join and pay union dues), you implicitly sign on to those positions.  And you may not want to do that.  In the case at hand, the Union has taken pro-Palestinian positions, and some students, especially Jewish ones, don’t want to sign on to these positions. So a group called “Graduate Students for Academic Freedom” has sued the union, alleging that the union makes them engage in implicit endorsement of the union’s positions. That, they claim, is Constitutionally prohibited “compelled speech.” You may have already guessed that this involves the war in Gaza.

Click the screenshot to read. I’ve put an excerpt below

An excerpt by Baude (there’s more at the site):

A few years ago, the graduate students at the University of Chicago, where I teach, formed a legally recognized labor union. Last year, that union expanded to include the law school, at least to the extent that law students engage in paid work such as providing research assistance. Law students who want to work as research assistants must either join the union and pay dues, or else pay agency fees to the union even if they do not join. Either way, giving money to the union is a legally required condition of working as a research assistant.

Graduate Students United at the University of Chicago, the union, engages in political speech that some law students find quite objectionable. The union is part of the United Electrical, Radio and Mine Workers of America, which also engages in political speech. For some law students, having to give money to these causes is an unacceptable condition of employment.

Yesterday, a group of those students, Graduate Students for Academic Freedom, filed a federal lawsuit against the union arguing that the arrangement violates their First Amendment rights under cases like Janus v. AFSCME, which holds that compelled agency fees “violate[] the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.”

You can read the complaint here, and the motion for a preliminary injunction here.

This is from the complaint, so you can see what the students are objecting to. Bolding is mine:

INTRODUCTION

1.  Graduate students at the University of Chicago have been put to the choice of halting their academic pursuits, or funding antisemitism. That is unlawful.

2.  In the Winter of 2023, graduate students at Chicago voted to unionize, and are now exclusively represented by GSU-UE—a local of United Electrical (UE).

3.  That is a real problem. Among much else, UE has a long history of antisemitism. It is an outspoken proponent of the movement to “Boycott, Divest, and Sanction” Israel (BDS)—something so clearly antisemitic that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have condemned it as such. Indeed, for years, the union has had a consuming fixation with the world’s only Jewish state—a fixation peppered with all-too-common rhetoric. UE has charged Israel with “occupying” Palestine; has branded Israel an “apartheid regime”; and has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing.”

4.  GSU-UE is cut from the same cloth. On campus, it has not only echoed its parent union’s rhetoric, but has added to it. It took pains to publicly “reaffirm” its commitment to BDS just one week after the October 7 terrorist attacks. And it has joined the “UChicago United for Palestine Coalition,” which gained notoriety for its protest encampment and hostile takeover of the Institute of Politics. Through it, GSU-UE has joined calls to “honor the martyrs”; fight against campus “Zionists”; resist “pigs” (i.e., police); “liberate” Palestine from the “River to the Sea,” and by “any means necessary”; and “bring the intifada home.” Jimmy Hoffa’s union this is not.

5.  Nonetheless, under a recent collective bargaining agreement extracted by the GSU-UE, graduate students at the University must now either become dues-paying members of the union, or pay it an equivalent “agency fee,” as a condition of continuing their work as teaching assistants, research assistants, or similar positions.

6.  Constitutionally speaking, that is not kosher. The union’s ability to obtain agency fees from nonconsenting students is the direct product of federal law—i.e., it involves governmental action, subject to the First Amendment. But if GSU-UE wishes to wield such federally backed power, it must accept the responsibility that comes with it; it cannot use a government-backed cudgel, outside constitutional constraint. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means students cannot be compelled to fund a group they find abhorrent as the price of continuing their work.

7.  The stories of Plaintiff’s members lay bare the stakes that are at issue here. One member is an Israeli; another a proud Jew with family fighting in Israel; and some are graduate students simply horrified by the union’s antisemitism—as well as its other (to put it mildly) controversial political positions, which reach well beyond collective bargaining to virtually every hot-button subject (e.g., abortion, affirmative action, policing, gender ideology, even the judiciary). Although members come from different backgrounds, none can stomach sending a penny to this union.

Now I’m no lawyer (I only play one on television), but it seems that this is indeed compelled speech: Jewish students are being forced to endorse policies that can be regarded as anti-Israel and likely as antisemitic. Nor do I know the solution, unless it’s to ditch the agreement that qualified students should have to join the union.  It seems to me, in my ignorance, that unions, like universities, should be “institutionally neutral”: they should not take political or ideological positions that have nothing to do with the working of the union itself.

The First Amendment itself prohibits compelled speech. As a free-speech site says,

The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) is the classic example of the compelled speech doctrine at work.

In this case, the Court ruled that a state cannot force children to stand, salute the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The justices held that school children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, for religious reasons, had a First Amendment right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the U.S. flag.

In oft-cited language, Justice Robert H. Jackson asserted, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

The problem, of course, is that this doctrine applies only to the government punishing people for their speech or for refusing to adhere to approved governmental speech. Since schools are arms of the government, they can’t be forced, as noted above, to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  But the plaintiffs argue that the power of unions ultimately derives from the government—from legislative acts. From the complaint:

80. Step one asks: “Whether the claimed constitutional deprivation resulted from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority.” Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 620 (1991). And the answer here is yes: GSU-UE’s extraction of fees is the product of its legal power to bind all workers to a single collective bargaining agreement, as their sole and exclusive representative.

81. The Supreme Court has said as much: The “collection of fees from nonmembers is authorized by an act of legislative grace—one that we have termed ‘unusual’ and ‘extraordinary.’” Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 313-14 (2012).

This case, then, would seem to be an important one, for it could decide whether unions in general can indeed take political positions that are seen as implicitly endorsed by their members.  And, of course, unions regularly endorse political candidates.

The fate of this case thus depends on whether the compelled speech involved in being a union member is construed as being connected with government. As I said, I think unions, representing a broad spectrum of views among their members, should be politically neutral even if there’s no governmental connection. Compelled speech is chilled speech and inhibits free speech; this is why our university has its institutional neutrality embodied in the Kalven report.

But if the court does find that union activities occur under the aegis of government, then it’s game over: the plaintiffs win. We shall see.

Amherst decides not to divest from Israel, but its policy still violates institutional neutrality

June 25, 2024 • 9:30 am

Amherst College’s Board of Trustees has issued a rather confused statement responding to the call of many Amherst pro-Palestinians to divest from companies supplying military equipment to Israel.  The Board decided not to divest, but seems to reserve the right to do so if there is a lot of agreement in the college community on political or ideological issues.

Moreover, the Board emphasizes that it has in the past taken sides and issued statements on such issues, including “apartheid in South Africa and genocide in Sudan.” The bizarre aspect of their statement—and one that nullifies any pretense of institutional neutrality—is that it appears to condition official statements by the Board on whether or not there is “broad and deep agreement” in the Amherst community.  That, of course, raises the question of how broad and deep the agreement must be before the board decides to take sides.

Clearly, Amherst doesn’t fully embrace the Kalven Principles held by the University of Chicago, in which investments occur absolutely independently of outside pressure from and of the extent of agreement in the University community. Chicago has never responded to pressure of this sort.

You can read the Amherst Board’s response by clicking on the link below:

Early in the report, the Board says that their actions are governed by both the economic welfare of Amherst (which investments are supposed to uphold) and the degree of agreement of the community on a political, moral, or ideological issue.  The latter, of course, violates institutional neutrality (bolding is mine):

In our discussions, two principles have guided the trustees: first, as a fiduciary, the Board has a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the College for both the short and long term; and second, as an agent of an institution comprised of many individuals with a wide range of backgrounds and opinions, it must consider and respect the perspectives of all members of our community. Accordingly, actions taken by the Board should either directly relate to the preservation and advancement of the College’s educational mission or, in rare cases lacking that connection to our purpose, should reflect a broad and deep agreement among Amherst’s students, faculty, staff, and alumni, and should not otherwise harm the College’s interests.

The Board has taken action on issues where disagreement exists—including, in recent years, legacy admissions, support for undocumented students, and advocacy for increased federal and state financial aid—on questions directly related to the fulfillment of our mission as an educational institution. Very rarely, the Board has also taken action responding to global events unrelated to the College’s day-to-day operation—apartheid in South Africa and genocide in Sudan—but only when there was clear agreement in our community, supported by a consensus of the federal government and international organizations.

I’m sure I’d agree with the Board’s stand on South Africa and Sudan (I was arrested for protesting apartheid), but that’s not the point. The Board should not be taking such stands, for they chill the expression of those who may dissent, stifling the lifeblood of a college: free discussion, untrammeled by fear of offending the higher-ups.

At Chicago, official statements can be made and actions taken,on issues that directly affect the working and mission of the University, including the DACA program supporting undocumented students. It’s the part above in bold that is problematic, allowing the Trustees to take stands on issues with no direct bearing on the College’s mission. And on those issues, including South Africa and Sudan, that the Amherst Board of Trustees did indeed take action. It’s not clear from the document whether that action involved divestment or making official statements supporting one side, but either action violates institutional neutrality.

Apparently, the degree of disagreement about the war in Gaza hasn’t risen to Amherst’s level of agreement (bolding is again mine):

With regard to divestment related to Israel’s campaign in Gaza, perspectives in the Amherst community are both deeply held and extremely polarized, as was demonstrated by opinions shared in the faculty meeting on divestment; in meetings held this spring by the administration and trustees with students, faculty, and alumni; during and after the protest at Reunion; in countless formal and informal discussions and venues throughout the year; in the Amherst Student; and in petitions, open letters, and emails to the Board and the administration.

. . . The Board believes that this state of profound disagreement, both as to the action to be taken and its propriety, is very different from the two previous instances when the College took endowment action reflecting broad and deep agreement both on and beyond our campus in response to events in South Africa and Sudan. While the recent resolutions approved by the AAS Senate and the faculty received majority votes of those present, a substantial minority exists among students and faculty that opposes these resolutions—and many alumni have expressed opposing positions, as well. The Board respects that these resolutions were approved through deliberative processes that resulted in the approval of the majority. It also feels an obligation to listen carefully to and consider the significant minority that opposed them.

This leads one to ask this: “If condemnation of Israel were nearly universal at Amherst, would the board then be justified in disinvesting, or taking other actions?”  They imply “yes,” but, to add to the confusion, later on they emphasize that even unanimity of opinion would be problematic for disinvesting (bolding is mine).

Even if there were universal consensus in support of divestment and shared agreement about which companies “supply military equipment used in the present campaign in Gaza”—as the faculty resolution frames it—it would be unrealistic for us to seek to compel our current outside investment managers to remove these companies from their funds. We would, therefore, need to liquidate holdings at potentially poor valuations and either move our endowment capital to other managers whose current investments do not include these companies or directly manage the capital, which would not align with responsible practices for institutional investment. These actions could have significant immediate and long-term negative impacts on returns and—because the endowment directly supports 56% of the College’s annual operating budget—on financial aid, faculty and staff salaries and benefits, and operations.

This is puzzling. I’m not sure whether the actions taken by Amherst’s Trustees with respect to South Africa and Sudan involved disinvesting, but if it did, then clearly there is no complete bar to doing so.

Which is it, Amherst?  Perhaps, though, the Trustees didn’t disinvest in those cases, but merely issued statements. But as I said, even statements violate institutional neutrality. Who would be the judge of whether agreement on an issue is sufficiently widespread that action could be taken? If one student or professor dissents from an action (and surely there was not 100% agreement on South Africa and Sudan), does that still warrant taking sides?

Clearly not, because taking sides, either through issuing statements or disinvesting, will chill the speech of actual or potential dissenters. This is why institutional neutrality should be near absolute, breached only when an issue affects the working and mission of a college.

So would Amherst disinvest again  on a political issue like Gaza if demands to do so come from the college and nearly everybody agrees? They don’t say, but leave the question unanswered. In other words, they punt (bolding is mine):

Students, faculty, and alumni have also raised important questions about the standards by which the Board makes decisions about the endowment and possible actions related to divestment, the channels through which such actions should be proposed and how they should be evaluated, and the transparency of such decisions. Concurrently, some trustees have raised the question of whether the endowment is ever the correct vehicle for the College to express a position on a matter of morality or politics.

The Board realizes that it must address these important issues and continues to discuss the student-drafted proposal to create a campus committee that would make recommendations on such actions in the future. It has become apparent that members of the Amherst community interpret the role of the endowment in very different ways.

This is kicking the Kalven can down the road.

So no, Amherst has not adopted a policy of institutional neutrality, but simply made any official statements and actions contingent on how much dissent there is in the college community. That’s not a great way to foster free expression.

Our ex-Provost, now head of Vanderbilt, says Harvard’s “institutional neutrality” leaves something to be desired

June 13, 2024 • 11:15 am

Our previous provost, Daniel Diermeier, became Chancellor (i.e., President) of Vanderbilt University, and that was a great loss to us. Since he went to Vandy, he’s enforced prohibitions against trespassing and illegal violations of free speech (building occupations), and also adopted both the Free Speech Principles and the Institutional Neutrality that he experienced at the University of Chicago. I wish he were our President now, as he’s doing a bang-up job at Vandy.

Harvard recently tried to go institutionally neutral, too, and it did a pretty good job, as I wrote about here and here.  But Diermeier finds one problem with Harvard’s neutrality that eluded me. It’s important, as it involves university investments—the object of much rancor these days. Diermeier identifies Harvard’s blind spot in the following WSJ article (it isn’t archived, so ask if you want a pdf):

Click to read:

Actually, the article makes two points. First, it explains why institutional neutrality is importantin a clear and succinct way (the Kalven Report is much longer):

In explaining institutional neutrality and why it’s important, most proponents point to the 1967 Kalven Report from the University of Chicago. At the report’s heart is the assertion that neutrality is necessary for maintaining conditions conducive to a university’s purpose. The report points out that universities and their leaders risk stifling debate when they stake out official positions. Moreover, when a university or its administrative units take a political stance, it invites lobbying and competitive advocacy by various campus constituencies, which turns the university into a political battlefield and erodes its unique purpose—promoting the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Taking official positions also erodes the university’s commitment to expertise. Recognizing and rewarding deep knowledge, and making sharp distinctions between experts and nonexperts, is part of a university’s reason for being. When university leaders make declarations on issues they know little about, often in haste, they compromise that reverence for expertise. Even in the rare case where leaders are domain experts, they should avoid making official statements to keep from chilling debate.

He also points out a semantic issue that, comparing Harvard’s neutrality with Chicago’s, is a distinction without a difference:

Oddly, the two co-chairs of the Harvard faculty working group that recommended the new policy wrote in a recent op-ed piece that “the principle behind our policy isn’t neutrality.” Instead, they seek to further “values that drive the intellectual pursuit of truth: open inquiry, reasoned debate, divergent viewpoints and expertise.” There is little to distinguish those values from those of the Kalven Report.

Sorting out these semantics can be left to future historians of academia. The important thing is that Harvard agrees the duty of the university is to be a forceful advocate only when it comes to its core functions—and to be silent on other matters.

The recent op-ed by two Harvard professors who confected their neutrality report, an op-ed that I criticized in the first link above, appeared in the NYT, and can be found archived here. The op-ed was quite a bit different from the proposed policy. But the policy is what’s in force.

BUT. . . . somehow neutrality went out the window at Harvard when it comes to investing, about which Harvard refuses to  explicitly affirm institutional neutality. Diermeier says this:

Yet although Harvard’s change of heart is encouraging news for higher education, its new policy makes a crucial omission that is at the core of the current controversy on campuses.

Students at universities nationwide have called on their institutions to join the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. According to the Harvard working group co-chairs, it didn’t “address, much less solve, the hard problem of when the university should or shouldn’t divest its endowment funds from a given portfolio.” Its members classified divestment “as an action rather than a statement” and thus treated the question as “outside our mandate.”

This is a distinction without a difference. Whether you call it an action or a statement, politically or socially motivated divestment plainly violates institutional neutrality because it requires a university to choose a side in a debate unrelated to its core function, thus signaling that there is only one acceptable way to think about the issue.

When a university’s portfolio manager makes the considered and consequential decision to divest from a company because its stock seems overvalued, this is legitimate fiduciary oversight. But divesting because an entity does business with the Israeli government is a clear violation of institutional neutrality. A university’s investment goal should be to maximize the rate of return, which means more funding for faculty research and student aid.

Institutional neutrality firmly supports a university’s purpose. So after an era when universities have been quick to issue position statements on the political controversies of the day, it is good that they are getting out of that game. It is a university’s job to encourage debates, not settle them. But for any university policy prohibiting political statement-making to be comprehensive and effective, it must address and discourage politically driven divestment.

This is why any university aspiring to institutional neutrality must not make an exception of investments, which could lay the university open to all kinds of moral, political, and ideological pressures from both within and without the school. Calls for universities to divest from Israel, which are ubiquitous, should not be heeded—and they often aren’t. The same goes for Palestine or any kind of call for divestment driven by other than pecuniary considerations.  Diermeier’s explanation of why investments should also be institutionally neutral is important, and those who want universities to be neutral should read it and absorb it.  That includes Harvard.

I wonder how much money it would take to lure Diermeier back to Chicago, where he should, in my view, be promptly installed as President.