Oakland University president: Stop using institutional neutrality as a crutch

As the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks approaches, universities are preparing to respond to campus protests. Many have solidified their protest policies regarding time, place and manner and some have found an easy "out" by hiding behind the Kalven principle of institutional neutrality.

The institutional neutrality principle cited by universities dates to 1967, when the University of Chicago issued “The Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.” The committee was chaired by Professor Harry Kalven Jr., a leading First Amendment scholar. At the time, students on campuses around the country were demonstrating against the Vietnam war, the draft, and demanding that universities divest from companies with ties to South Africa.

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity,” the report states. “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.”

Few universities followed the Kalven Principle for more than a half-century. Instead, many issued statements on a variety of social, legal and international issues, including the George Floyd murder, the war in Ukraine and contentious Supreme Court decisions. After the breakout of the Israel-Hamas war, many universities ran into controversy for issuing statements. Those university leaders who preferred to avoid criticism conveniently cited the Kalven Principle of institutional neutrality.

Recently, contentious Congressional hearings led to high-profile presidential resignations and turmoil on campuses. In the aftermath, universities including Columbia, Harvard, North Carolina, Stanford, Syracuse and Vanderbilt adopted institutional neutrality policies. Leaders from these universities argued that the policy promotes free expression among members of their communities. The policy is also supported by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

I oppose absolute institutional neutrality because I believe it can be used as a crutch by leaders to excuse their silence on matters precisely at those times when their institutions should hear their voices.

On Oct. 7, I was among university presidents who issued a statement after the Hamas attack in Israel: “We are shocked and horrified by the unprovoked acts of brutality by Hamas terrorists in Israel.” Five days later, I followed up with another statement noting that “as the crisis in the Middle East continues … we need to ensure Oakland University remains a model of civility whereby everyone respects the First Amendment right of all people to peacefully express their views,” and that “we will not tolerate discrimination or demeaning acts motivated by prejudice.”

Then, on Oct. 18, I issued a statement that included “there will be no tolerance for Islamophobia and antisemitism on our campus. Rest assured we will always strive to maintain an open, diverse, inclusive and secure learning environment."

Because public universities are not partisan, religious or ideological institutions, they should remain neutral on most issues. However, there are rare times when moral clarity, comfort, direction and leadership are required of a university president. It is at such times when I, as the institutional leader believe I must speak out.

Although it can be difficult to determine when it is appropriate to use my voice and when to remain silent, I have tried to develop guidelines that are based on our institutional values.

I speak out infrequently and have limited my non-academic statements to four areas:

1. Hate and violence. I speak out against hate including hate speech, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia with the goal of teaching our community why hate is wrong in all its forms even when hate speech itself may be legal.
2. Health. I am responsible for the health of my community and believe it is important for me to comment on matters that can impact local health.
3. Climate change-sustainability. Our students will be inheriting the world we leave them, and I may comment on matters to ensure that our next generation protects our planet.
4. Local matters. We are stewards of place, and our university is deeply embedded in the local community. When major events occur locally that impact members of our university, I comment.

Adopting a policy of institutional neutrality is too often used as a crutch, helping some university leaders avoid the criticism that invariably comes with university statements on complex issues. I, for one, would rather speak out, despite occasional criticism, with the hope that my statements provide moral clarity, guidance and comfort to our campus community.

Ora Hirsch Pescovitz is president of Oakland University.