As universities search for ways to move beyond the Israel-Hamas debate on their campuses, some are deciding the best way to do it is to distance themselves from hot-button issues.
This week, Harvard University and Syracuse University both announced new policies stating that their university leadership will no longer comment on controversial political issues.
The move, which has sparked both ridicule and cheer, reflects a long-running debate over the role of leading academic institutions.
“I think this is a good line to draw,” said Beth Akers, a senior fellow who works on higher education at the American Enterprise Institute. “A lot of energy and resources have been spent on making this kind of statement, and I think it was misguided. I’m really pleased with what Harvard has done.”
The nation’s oldest university made the decision a month after it established a working group on institutional stances, which concluded in a report that when universities take positions on political issues, “it makes it more difficult for members of the community to express views that differ from the university’s official position.”
However, the university seeks to distance itself from the prevailing notion of institutional neutrality.
“The purpose of the university is to seek the truth. In that pursuit, the institution can never be neutral because we believe in the value of seeking truth through open inquiry, debate and consideration of evidence, not mere allegations or unjustified beliefs,” the report states.
Harvard has previously voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement, flown the Ukrainian flag in Harvard Yard and issued statements about the war between Israel and Hamas.
The concept of institutional neutrality gained popularity in the 1970s after the University of Chicago published the Calvin Report, which reached nearly identical conclusions to the new Harvard report.
“Our view is that universities don’t have much ability to take a position on the issues of the day. It’s not the university’s job to be a moral authority. The university’s job is to be a forum for faculty and students to discuss the issues of the day, but the university itself doesn’t take a position,” said Tom Ginsburg, dean of the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression at the University of Chicago.
“It’s funny because Harvard tried to make it seem like their position was completely different, but the end result was the same, and I think that’s a good result,” Ginsburg added.
Stephanie Hall, acting senior director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, said she supports schools finding ways to promote free expression, but that she has concerns about how Harvard’s policy was implemented because of outside influence.
“I would hate to think that any kind of neutrality policy would inhibit universities’ ability to engage with the political and economic forces that affect them,” Hall said.
“My initial reaction to all of this was, well, what are controversial issues, what are public policy issues, how do you determine issues that are not core to the school’s mission and therefore not worthy of taking an official position on,” she added. “I think all of these things alone are open to debate. How well this works on the ground will depend on how thoughtful the leadership and administration is in sorting out the details.”
Colleges have been hotbeds of political debate throughout the academic year, with House Republicans holding multiple hearings with presidents of elite schools about their policies on anti-Semitism, free expression and harassment in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.
These hearings led to the resignations of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, who resigned before the pro-Palestinian student camp protests that went mainstream at the end of the semester.
Ginsburg said it’s important to remember that the Calven report lays out general principles and that the University of Chicago has spoken out when issues could directly affect the university and its mission, such as when the university’s then-president issued a statement condemning former President Trump’s “Muslim ban.”
“To my knowledge, no one on campus has criticized him. I think we all agreed that this was an appropriate exception because it threatened our mission,” Ginsburg said.
One of the most common demands from protesters, who have occupied parts of dozens of campuses across the country, was for universities to issue statements condemning the war in Gaza.
But Syracuse University, one of the schools that has seen such encampments, became the second university this week to adopt a policy of not commenting on controversial issues, saying it would only comment “under the most extraordinary circumstances.”
The committee charged with developing the new policy spent four months on the work, and Chancellor Kent Syverud said the results “reinforce our unwavering commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry to ensure free speech and academic freedom can thrive.”
“I think this will be a turning point for the school, because they’ve made statements on a variety of political issues in the past,” said Laura Belt, director of policy reform at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “So if the school decides to adopt institutional neutrality, they need to explain to their campus community why they’re making this change, who decided they won’t be making such statements going forward, and assure students that they’re moving forward with this policy in principle, and that they’re not adopting it just because of the current conflict.”
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
