Universities Reevaluate Their Political Influence
An growing number of universities are aiming to prohibit school affiliations. Detractors caution that this move could weaken the foundation of higher education.
TroibNews 
A straightforward policy aimed at preventing another tumultuous season of campus protests is creating divisions within the higher education community and compelling colleges to reconsider their historical role as advocates of free speech.
Over a dozen universities have implemented bans on official political positions following the escalation of the crisis that ensued after Hamas' attack on Israel last year, which led to the resignation of several university presidents. The administrators argue that taking sides on significant issues jeopardizes students' rights. Conversely, another group of colleges asserts that they have a duty to address societal injustices.
This discourse signals a transformation in how colleges interact with a fundamental element of higher education: the exchange of ideas.
“The problem with universities taking official positions is that they lay down a party line,” stated Daniel Diermeier, chancellor of Vanderbilt University, which advocates for neutrality. “It creates a chilling effect.”
Recently, institutions like the University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin, and University of Southern California have joined others such as Harvard and Stanford in adopting this policy. Since the attacks on October 7 of last year, at least 14 additional colleges have enacted similar neutrality rules, the majority of which were established since May. While the specifics of the policies vary, they generally maintain that the university cannot adopt a stance on political or social matters, and leaders should refrain from voicing opinions on behalf of the institution.
Critics of the neutrality policy — including those from Princeton to Wesleyan University — view it as contrary to the principles of higher education. Movements like Black Lives Matter and the circumstances surrounding the Russia-Ukraine War have strengthened their belief that colleges are essential forums for debate and difficult discussions.
“Deans and presidents should speak, so people agree with them, argue with them and participate in a conversation,” mentioned Wesleyan University President Michael Roth. “The goal of institutional neutrality is that people on campus feel they are free to speak. One way to get people to speak is to speak with them.”
The movement towards neutrality has roots extending over half a century. Amid protests during the Vietnam War, University of Chicago faculty members formulated a policy reflecting students' desires for universities to divest from companies with connections to South Africa’s apartheid regime. The 1967 Kalven Report, still endorsed by the University of Chicago, contended that neutrality was essential for universities to fulfill their core mission.
“Oftentimes when universities do take positions, it's because it reflects a consensus,” stated University of Chicago President Paul Alivisatos. “But it doesn’t recognize that there are many examples in history where what was considered to be conventional wisdom, later on we found those who had dissenting views actually had a very strong point.”
Few institutions adopted the University of Chicago's stance; indeed, many felt compelled to voice their positions.
Numerous colleges divested from South Africa during the 1980s and later from oil companies involved in Sudan amid the Darfur crisis. Following the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, institutions nationwide expressed solidarity with Black students, and some have shown support for Ukraine while raising concerns over controversial Supreme Court rulings.
“I want others to think about it before they rush to this latest fad,” remarked Ora Pescovitz, president of Oakland University in Michigan, which is not pursuing a neutrality policy. “Once you see the elite institutions jumping on this bandwagon, most of the others are following suit, but we have to be thoughtful and say is this really the right thing?”
Adopting a neutrality policy has at least one clear advantage: it provides political cover for universities. Presidents from Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia University all resigned amid intense congressional scrutiny regarding their management of Middle East protests, where they were accused by Republican lawmakers of taking sides.
“It becomes a lot easier for universities to stay out of those disputes if they say, ‘Look, this is our policy, we as a university don't take a stand on foreign wars, even ones where one side may be clearly in the right to many and the other clearly in the wrong,’” explained Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar and professor emeritus at UCLA’s law school.
House Republicans, critical of college presidents for not adequately protecting Jewish students from hate speech, advocated for a neutrality policy, suggesting it would have mitigated the backlash.
“Institutions should have long ago adopted neutrality policies, like the gold-standard Kalven doctrine,” stated AnnMarie Graham-Barnes, deputy communications director for the House Education and Workforce Committee, which received testimony from colleges last spring. “When universities or their leadership take official positions on contested issues of public concern, it places undue pressure on campus discourse and has a chilling effect on speech.”
She did acknowledge that exceptions to a neutrality stance might be warranted when students breach campus policies or “threaten the safety or educational access” of others.
However, this tension highlights the complexities of a neutrality policy, according to Pescovitz, who opposes the trend. “That's where the presidents that came before Congress erred,” she said. “They permitted hate speech, but they did not do a good job of condemning it.”
Bianca Quilantan contributed to this report.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
Over a dozen universities have implemented bans on official political positions following the escalation of the crisis that ensued after Hamas' attack on Israel last year, which led to the resignation of several university presidents. The administrators argue that taking sides on significant issues jeopardizes students' rights. Conversely, another group of colleges asserts that they have a duty to address societal injustices.
This discourse signals a transformation in how colleges interact with a fundamental element of higher education: the exchange of ideas.
“The problem with universities taking official positions is that they lay down a party line,” stated Daniel Diermeier, chancellor of Vanderbilt University, which advocates for neutrality. “It creates a chilling effect.”
Recently, institutions like the University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin, and University of Southern California have joined others such as Harvard and Stanford in adopting this policy. Since the attacks on October 7 of last year, at least 14 additional colleges have enacted similar neutrality rules, the majority of which were established since May. While the specifics of the policies vary, they generally maintain that the university cannot adopt a stance on political or social matters, and leaders should refrain from voicing opinions on behalf of the institution.
Critics of the neutrality policy — including those from Princeton to Wesleyan University — view it as contrary to the principles of higher education. Movements like Black Lives Matter and the circumstances surrounding the Russia-Ukraine War have strengthened their belief that colleges are essential forums for debate and difficult discussions.
“Deans and presidents should speak, so people agree with them, argue with them and participate in a conversation,” mentioned Wesleyan University President Michael Roth. “The goal of institutional neutrality is that people on campus feel they are free to speak. One way to get people to speak is to speak with them.”
The movement towards neutrality has roots extending over half a century. Amid protests during the Vietnam War, University of Chicago faculty members formulated a policy reflecting students' desires for universities to divest from companies with connections to South Africa’s apartheid regime. The 1967 Kalven Report, still endorsed by the University of Chicago, contended that neutrality was essential for universities to fulfill their core mission.
“Oftentimes when universities do take positions, it's because it reflects a consensus,” stated University of Chicago President Paul Alivisatos. “But it doesn’t recognize that there are many examples in history where what was considered to be conventional wisdom, later on we found those who had dissenting views actually had a very strong point.”
Few institutions adopted the University of Chicago's stance; indeed, many felt compelled to voice their positions.
Numerous colleges divested from South Africa during the 1980s and later from oil companies involved in Sudan amid the Darfur crisis. Following the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, institutions nationwide expressed solidarity with Black students, and some have shown support for Ukraine while raising concerns over controversial Supreme Court rulings.
“I want others to think about it before they rush to this latest fad,” remarked Ora Pescovitz, president of Oakland University in Michigan, which is not pursuing a neutrality policy. “Once you see the elite institutions jumping on this bandwagon, most of the others are following suit, but we have to be thoughtful and say is this really the right thing?”
Adopting a neutrality policy has at least one clear advantage: it provides political cover for universities. Presidents from Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia University all resigned amid intense congressional scrutiny regarding their management of Middle East protests, where they were accused by Republican lawmakers of taking sides.
“It becomes a lot easier for universities to stay out of those disputes if they say, ‘Look, this is our policy, we as a university don't take a stand on foreign wars, even ones where one side may be clearly in the right to many and the other clearly in the wrong,’” explained Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar and professor emeritus at UCLA’s law school.
House Republicans, critical of college presidents for not adequately protecting Jewish students from hate speech, advocated for a neutrality policy, suggesting it would have mitigated the backlash.
“Institutions should have long ago adopted neutrality policies, like the gold-standard Kalven doctrine,” stated AnnMarie Graham-Barnes, deputy communications director for the House Education and Workforce Committee, which received testimony from colleges last spring. “When universities or their leadership take official positions on contested issues of public concern, it places undue pressure on campus discourse and has a chilling effect on speech.”
She did acknowledge that exceptions to a neutrality stance might be warranted when students breach campus policies or “threaten the safety or educational access” of others.
However, this tension highlights the complexities of a neutrality policy, according to Pescovitz, who opposes the trend. “That's where the presidents that came before Congress erred,” she said. “They permitted hate speech, but they did not do a good job of condemning it.”
Bianca Quilantan contributed to this report.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
