Trump has begun another trade war. Here's a timeline of how we got here
Canada's leader laments lost friendship with US in town that sheltered stranded Americans after 9/11
Chinese EV giant BYD's fourth-quarter profit leaps 73%
You're an American in another land? Prepare to talk about the why and how of Trump 2.0
Chalk talk: Star power, top teams and No. 5 seeds headline the women's March Madness Sweet 16
Purdue returns to Sweet 16 with 76-62 win over McNeese in March Madness
As universities navigate an increasingly polarized political landscape, many have adopted institutional neutrality policies, limiting official statements on social and political issues. Supporters say these policies preserve academic freedom and prevent institutions from endorsing particular viewpoints, while critics argue they suppress important discourse and leave students feeling unheard.
The University of Michigan's Board of Regents unanimously approved a new policy - institutional neutrality for university leaders - on Oct. 17, 2024. This decision aligns with a broader trend among higher education institutions to limit official commentary on contentious topics.
Regent Mark Bernstein emphasized the policy aims to empower individual faculty members to express their expertise without institutional interference. "We must open the way for our individual faculty's expertise, intelligence, scholarship, and wisdom to inform our state and society in their own voice, free from institutional interference," he stated.
This move reflects a shift from previous practices where universities frequently issued statements on current events. For instance, following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, the University of Michigan's president described the incident as a "horrific attack by Hamas terrorists." However, over the past year, institutions like Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Virginia have adopted policies limiting official statements on current issues.
The adoption of institutional neutrality policies has sparked debate within academic communities. Supporters argue such policies prevent the imposition of a singular institutional viewpoint, thereby fostering diverse perspectives. Daniel Diermeier, chancellor of Vanderbilt University, which embraces official neutrality, noted, "The problem with universities taking official positions is that they lay down a party line. It creates a chilling effect."
Joan Scott, former chair and current member of the academic freedom and tenure committee at the American Association of University Professors, observed that institutional neutrality often emerges in response to external pressures, suggesting it can serve as a tactic to distance colleges from political controversies.
"If you look at the history of institutional neutrality, it always comes in the face of some kind of attack or perceived attack on higher education," Scott said.
Conversely, critics assert these policies may stifle important discourse on pressing social and political issues. They argue universities are responsible for addressing societal challenges, and neutrality may be perceived as complacency.
Believing an institutional neutrality policy can be an abdication of leadership, Peter Salovey, former president of Yale University, wrote in an opinion piece published in Elsevier, "In my 11 years as President of Yale University, there was no shortage of faculty, staff, student and alumni disagreement with my point of view on various issues. And that's a good thing."
Talking about his stand when universities are obligated to oppose threats and actively defend their interests and values when society, or parts of it, threaten a university's mission and values of free inquiry, Salovey observed, "As a university president, I would want to speak out if there was a book-burning on my town green, or if the nation's president proposed to ban the ability of Muslims to come to this country to work or receive an education."
Students have expressed concerns institutional neutrality may marginalize their voices, particularly on issues directly affecting them. At Columbia University, for example, the administration has investigated students critical of Israel amid pressures, including threats by President Donald Trump to cut university funding. The university's Office of Institutional Equity has scrutinized students for social media posts supportive of Palestine and for participating in "unauthorized" protests.
Similarly, at Cornell University, protests led by Students for Justice in Palestine disrupted a "Pathways to Peace" event, preventing dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian speakers. Jewish student Sam Friedman criticized these actions, stating they contradict free speech principles and amount to material support for terrorism rather than protected expression.
The rise of neutrality policies also coincides with political developments affecting higher education. In Florida, Republican lawmakers have enacted laws emphasizing Western civilization and banning political activism in education. The University of Florida has responded by cutting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) staff and programs, leading conservative students to feel more accepted. In contrast, some liberal students now fear speaking out.
"DEI is done at the University of Virginia," said Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
Trump's administration has also ordered colleges to end DEI programs or risk losing federal funding. Institutions like the University of Virginia dissolved their DEI office in response, and the University of North Carolina dropped DEI class mandates.
Rice University renamed its DEI office the "Office of Access and Institutional Excellence," aiming to broaden its reach and enhance student services while complying with federal directives.
As universities navigate these complex dynamics, the debate over institutional neutrality continues to evolve.
