Category: neutrality of position

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

Speaking of Kalven and ideological neutrality. . .

March 21, 2024 • 12:20 pm

John K. Wilson is identified in the new article below in the Chronicle of Higher Education (CHI) as “the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies and the forthcoming The Attack on Academia.”  In the piece below (access by clicking the headline), Wilson says that the concept of “official” academic neutrality, as embodied in the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, has been misconstrued and misapplied.

Here are Wilson’s two beefs about Kalven (his words are indented):

1.)  The Kalven Report was a 1967 product of the University of Chicago faculty, yet is adjudicated not by the faculty but by the university administration (Wilson’s words are indented):

The Kalven Report is a monument to faculty power. It was the product of a faculty committee, decreeing restraints on the administration purely in order to protect faculty freedoms. And faculty members were given the sole power to interpret these limits. The Kalven Report noted that “the application of principle to an individual case will not be easy”; it called for “faculty or students or administration to question, through existing channels such as the committee of the council or the council, whether in light of these principles the university in particular circumstances is playing its proper role.” In other words, the administration (like everyone else) is required to go to a faculty committee for any question about how to interpret the Kalven Report. (Unfortunately, the University of Chicago administration has been violating the Kalven Report for decades by imposing its own interpretations of neutrality without faculty consultation.)

2.)  Wilson argues that the Kalven Report was meant to apply only to pronouncements by the University administration, not by University moieties like departments or Institutes:

The Kalven Report should also be followed for its approach to what institutional neutrality means, by limiting the term to actions and speech by top administrators on behalf of the entire college. The most dangerous betrayal of the Kalven Report’s principles is the extension of neutrality beyond the central administration to include all sub-units and faculty departments of a college.

Wilson is wrong—dead wrong—on both of these points, and was corrected by my Chicago colleague Brian Leiter (a law professor) in a letter to the CHE that came out just a few hours ago. Click below to read it:

From the letter:

Although John K. Wilson links to the actual text of the Kalven Report, he mischaracterizes it throughout his piece while alleging, ironically, that others “misunderstand” it (“More Colleges Are Swearing Off Political Positions. They’re Getting It Wrong”, The Chronicle Review, March 18). He declares that “shared-governance…is an essential part of the Kalven Report,” although it is not mentioned and has nothing to do with the principles articulated in that document. He says falsely that “the University of Chicago administration has been violating the Kalven Report for decades by imposing its own interpretations of neutrality without faculty consultation,” even though the Report requires no such consultation and even though, in the most recent cases, it was precisely faculty (including myself) who raised Kalven violations with the university, prompting it to act.

and

President Zimmer’s clarification made explicit longstanding understandings of Kalven’s principles; after all, as the report emphasizes, “The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student,” not the university or department or school. Kalven cautions that we “cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues,” which is exactly what many departments started doing in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. Department orthodoxy is, arguably, far more dangerous than university orthodoxy: An untenured faculty member might perhaps ignore the provost’s pronouncements about “systemic racism” but be more wary when her own department issues a statement of an official position.

Brian doesn’t pull any punches, and implicitly accuses Wilson of “lying” (yes, the word is used) about Kalven.

Leiter has also put a note about this on his own website, the Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog. Click to read:

Two bits from the blog (I’ve omitted Brian’s excerpt from the CHI letter):

Years ago, I was impressed that Mr. Wilson (a freelance “academic freedom” expert [sic] as it were) was one of the few who spoke up on behalf of the attack on the free speech rights of Ward Churchill.  Alas, it’s now clear that his interest in free speech and academic freeodm is partisan through and through, as his astonishingly dishonest attack on the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report makes clear.

. . . Mr. Wilson is not as egregious an enemy of academic freedom as Jennifer Ruth or Michael Berube, but he is not an honest broker.  (I have corresponded with Mr. Wilson about other academic freedom issues, after being e-introduced to him by Nadine Strossen, and my impression from that is that he was not very smart and not really interested in a principled conception of academic freedom.  This latest incident confirms my impression then.)

As you see, no punches are pulled here, either. I’ve worked with Brian on Kalven, and although he can be brusque, he’s also efficient, eloquent, and, by Ceiling Cat, gets things done!  Kalven has and is being enforced, and, by and large, it’s worked quite well here. While schools like Harvard, MIT, and Penn get in big trouble by lacking any academic neutrality and unevenly enforcing what speech policy they do have, the University of Chicago hasn’t been hauled before Congress, excoriated in the press, or lost any donors.