In April, I published a tiresomely long explanation of why the newly popular idea of “institutional neutrality” is a dead end. My essay, “The Illusion of Institutional Neutrality,” took up so much space because I wanted there to be at least one easily available account of where this idea came from, why it was about to be promoted as the perfect solution to campus unrest, and why it wouldn’t solve anything at all. Now that Harvard, among other universities, has hoisted the institutional neutrality flag and a whole gaggle of organizations—left, right, and center—have expressed their joy that the era of institutional neutrality has arrived, it is time for a mercifully short refresher.
For those new to this discussion, “institutional neutrality” is the idea that colleges and universities should refrain from taking positions on controversial public issues. They should exercise this restraint so that students and faculty members will have maximal freedom to discuss and debate various sides of those issues. The principle of institutional neutrality can be extended as a call for colleges and universities to refrain from taking substantive positions on all matters, not just currently controversial ones, because who knows what will be controversial tomorrow? A few years ago, it was uncontroversial that humanity had two biological sexes. Now, that is, at least in some quarters, a matter of hot dispute.
In this light, it is dangerous for a college to take any position on any issue. Institutional neutrality carried out rigorously would make college administrations as pristinely innocent of opinions as mummified wooly mammoths.
But no one takes so-called institutional neutrality to such an extreme. It is actually expected that the college president, the provost, the deans, and so on have conventional opinions on the issues of the day and that they will express their views openly when the coast is clear and sotto voce if there is peril of being heard by the wrong people. What a declaration of institutional neutrality really gives to a college is the opportunity to say, if necessary, “That was Dean Nocturia’s personal opinion. The college is neutral on the matter.”
Sometimes, such disavowal must be amplified. Recently, Columbia University dismissed three deans—Susan Chang-Kim, Cristen Kromm, and Matthew Patashnick—after someone captured their snarky anti-Semitic texts to one another during a panel discussion on Jewish life on campus.
Institutional neutrality does not mean turning a blind eye to bigotry—or can it? The problem with the three Columbia deans is that the Washington Free Beacon reported the texts and a congressional committee released them. Would Columbia have fired them if the matter had stayed within the narrow circle of Columbia administrators?
Institutional neutrality turns out to be a soothing phrase to cover a complicated reality. Sometimes the university says the doctrine doesn’t apply to matters that touch key issues to the college’s survival. The debate over taxing university endowments, for example, is not one on which Harvard will ever be neutral, regardless of whether some faculty members are pro-tax and want to debate.
Today, virtually every university stands foursquare for “diversity.” No institutional neutrality need apply, though millions of Americans and a considerable number of faculty members dissent from “diversity, equity, and inclusion” orthodoxies.
It doesn’t take long before the exceptions obviate the whole idea of “institutional neutrality.” Institutional neutrality turns out to be just a dishrag for cleaning up the occasional spill when the university really doesn’t want to take a side in a campus controversy but wants to pretend it has a principled reason for refraining.
I have watched with disappointment as many advocates of reform in higher education have applauded the trend among colleges and universities in which they announce their new-found commitment to institutional neutrality. This is better than, say, the colleges declaring their support for Hamas or the end of fossil fuels. But institutional neutrality is mere camouflage, and it is never a good idea to applaud official deceit.
As a nation, we have been taught a harsh lesson in the last few weeks about what happens when official deceit is finally unmasked. Respect and authority crumble.
American colleges and universities, embarrassed by students and faculty members who have behaved egregiously in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel, are scrambling to find high moral ground. Institutional neutrality, however, isn’t it. What these colleges and universities really need to do is find the correct principles and stand on them. That’s not a formula. It’s a call for the hard work of determining when the university should forthrightly take a position—regardless of the cost—and when it should just as forthrightly say it welcomes open debate—irrespective of the costs.
Image by jerrywu12 — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 296649485
Columbia Univ.’s president and administration gave a world-class exhibition of spinelessness as they reacted to, rather than responding to, the invasion of their campus. Partial redemption was achieved by “firing” the three deans who posted inti-Semitic/anti-Israel statements. I wonder: were they really fired, or just relieved of their deanships, in the same way that Claudine Gay was relieved of the presidency of Harvard, but did not lose her salary? I wonder again whether Columbia, or any other academic institution, will impose any consequences on faculty and staff who supported or participated in the invasion. If deans can be fired for violating campus policies and crossing the line of civility, what about faculty and staff?
Columbia, Harvard, and many other academic institutions have clearly demonstrated that they are not places where Jewish students will be welcomed and safe. Opposition by dozens or hundreds of faculty members to discipling errant students is yet another disturbing trend. If I were a Jewish college applicant today, I certainly would avoid these institutions. I hope that thousands do exactly that. Also, has anybody seen other institutions attempt some creative poaching from Columbia, Harvard, et. al.? If I were in a position to do this, I certainly would.
As a retired faculty member of a denominational liberal arts college, it has always been my personal understanding that the core essential purpose of institutions of higher education in Western society is the expansion of knowledge in the pursuit of truth. I view this purpose as a duty and a sacred trust. Although any member of the academy ought to be able to express her or his opinions on topics of social interest, I believe the institutional focus should be on fulfilling its essential purpose as I have described it above and attending to those activities which clearly and directly support that endeavor.
I would like to see content neutral rules of behavior, e.g. “thou shalt not hit people, break things that aren’t yours, or make loud noises after midnight.”
There’d probably be more along the lines of classroom decorum and such, but the principle is that certain behaviors are prohibited, you’re gonna get kicked our (or fired) if you do them, and no one really cares *why* you did what you did, the issue only is that you did.
In other words, the institution doesn’t care if you wish to save the whales or if you wish to blast them out of the ocean with depth charges (and as a Maine Lobsterman, I’d favor the latter) — you don’t block access to campus or anything else — and if you do, YOUR’RE GONE!!!
The OUI laws serve as an example how to proceed — states can and routinely do suspend driver’s licenses of motorists who are found not guilty of drunk driving at trial — it’s an unrelated administrative proceeding. It’s a given that college-town prosecutors are not going to prosecute these little darlings (charges against those arrested at UMass will be dismissed if they behave themselves for four months). So the US Dept of Education (which has regional offices) could hold administrative hearings — on Zoom if desired. And if ED (not the court) finds them to have violated rules of campus decorum, then ED (not the court) rules that they have lost their privilege of attending any college or university receiving Federal funding for the next five years.
And as to faculty and staff, the IHE is given a choice: fire the individual (for at least 5 years) or lose all Federal funding. If the union is *really* willing to see the institution go bankrupt and *EVERYONE* out of a job — well, they won’t be. And the AAUP can huff and puff but no university is going to commit suicide to save one professor.
And the bottom line here is that none of this will be necessary — once it’s clear that the penalties are real, that you really will be fired, there won’t be any need for penalties. Same thing with the little darlings, there may be a few that aren’t going to college *somewhere* but the five year ban will take out the critical mass. (Right now, many of them know that their own college won’t touch them for what they do somewhere else — a prohibition from attending *any* college would).
As to the official position of the institution, it really doesn’t much matter because the real issue is the disruption of the institution and once that is abated, the institution’s actual position will be largely irrelevant.
Dr. Wood: Although I agree that universities will now use institutional neutrality as an excuse to permit attacks against conservatives on campus, I also share the concerns of Jay Bhattacharya, who is worried that official institutional opinions about public controversies will have a chilling effect on free speech. What is your reaction to Dr. Bhattacharya’s recent essay on the subject in Real Clear Politics?
Correct: “institutional neutrality is mere camouflage, and it is never a good idea to applaud official deceit.” It is the nature of human institutions to corrupt themselves. There is no way around it. The Athenian academy inevitably brings about, and depends upon, the death of Socrates; unless, of course, Socrates is the very essence of rational, negative, and nonconformist thinking. But in that case, why for have an academy, unless it is to experience expulsion from it in confirmation of your nonconformity? Reforming Harvard is futile. The better idea is to create new institutions that will compete with Harvard. That is the American way.