Institutional Neutrality

Scope

Applies to the institution and its leaders speaking in an official capacity; does not restrict individual students or faculty from expressing their own views; extends to top university leaders, heads of schools, departments, and institutes.

Purpose

Fostering an environment of open debate and free expression; allowing students and faculty to engage in discussions and dissent without institutional pressure; protecting the university's role as a neutral 'marketplace of ideas'.

Definition

The principle that colleges and universities, as institutions, should not take positions on social and political issues unless those issues directly threaten the university's mission or values of free inquiry.

Exclusions

Does not restrict curriculum or assigned student speech in curricular contexts related to legitimate pedagogical objectives; does not prohibit individual members of the institution community from posting logos or references to social or political groups or issues.

Inclusions

Refraining from extraneous position-taking in both word and deed, including divestment.

Limitations/Criticisms

Can potentially limit academic freedom if institutions are barred from speaking out on issues affecting higher education; can be used to avoid institutional accountability and to silence dissent; a college’s mission can always be expanded (or interpreted) to accommodate a political interest or ideology.

Core Principles (Forbes)

Open forums, civil discourse, institutional neutrality.

1915

1967

2023-2024

Institutional neutrality is the idea that colleges and universities should not, as institutions, take positions on social and political issues.

Web page about Institutional Neutrality sourced during research.

Free speech and open inquiry on college campuses are based on three principles: open forums, civil discourse and institutional neutrality.

Following a year of disruptive campus protests, schools increasingly refrain from taking sides on controversial issues.

Although higher education experts say these measures can stave off political controversy, they’ve drawn criticism from some scholars and student activists.

“Institutional neutrality” means that an institution of higher education does not take positions on political, social, or cultural controversies, public debates, or flashpoint moments except when those issues impede the institution’s mission or functioning, its role as a discoverer and disseminator of knowledge, or its values of free expression and inquiry.4 The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor [...] educational environments in which a large spectrum of thoughts, opinions, and ideas can be explored and flourish. In keeping with institutional neutrality, an institution may: • Provide forums for, and invite speakers to speak on, political or social issues if it does so in a reasonably neutral manner, providing opportunities for listeners to hear opposing speakers and/or other viewpoints. Institutions may determine which guest speakers to invite. While the institution should seek balance among [...] or prohibit institutions from opening a non-public forum to private expression. B. What are the Limits of Institutional Neutrality? Institutional neutrality should not be interpreted to: • Restrict curriculum or assigned student speech in curricular contexts (e.g., argumentative essays) that are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical objectives8; • Prohibit individual members of the institution community from posting logos or references to social or political groups or issues inside their

Institutional Neutrality is the idea that colleges and universities should not, as institutions, take positions on social and political issues unless those issues “threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” Instead, these discussions should be left to students and faculty. #### What is the Kalven Report? [...] Institutions such as the University of North Carolina System, Vanderbilt University, the University of Wyoming — and, of course, the University of Chicago — have adopted official positions on institutional neutrality. Whether you are a student, faculty member, or alumnus interested in advocating for your institution to adopt institutional neutrality or an administrator interested in these principles, FIRE is here to help: Contact speechcodes@thefire.org. [...] FIRE endorses the Kalven Report because it is the best articulation of institutional neutrality. The Kalven Report concisely expresses the core principles of institutional neutrality and why they matter, and it offers much-needed guidance on gray areas, addressing, for example, how college leaders can navigate speaking on their own behalf rather than for their institution. #### Who has adopted institutional neutrality?

In any case, it is apparent that institutional neutrality is a doctrine that must either be ineffective or transform a college’s institutional mission. The problem is that a college’s mission can always be expanded (or interpreted) to accommodate a political interest or ideology. In the 1915 Statement of Principles, Lovejoy attempted to evade this problem by defining it away. Lovejoy simply casts out of consideration “a proprietary school or college designed for the propagation of specific [...] For the reader who is in a hurry to get to the heart of the debate and who doesn’t see the need to wade through the history of the idea, I offer the following summary. The concept of institutional neutrality never caught on because fundamentally it is self-defeating. As it was originally framed by Arthur O. Lovejoy in 1915, institutional neutrality was a principle aimed at curtailing the readiness of academic administrations to take sides in disputes in which some of their faculty members were [...] The ideal pronounced in the concept of “institutional neutrality” is to protect that educational core from being run over roughshod by the believers, whether the believers are sitting in the C suite or gather in the Faculty Senate. This is what the Kalven Report avers:

In recent months, a number of American universities have announced that they will now practice institutional neutrality, in which a university and its leaders refrain from taking public positions on political or social issues unless the issue directly affects the core mission and functioning of the university. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Cornell and Stanford have adopted the practice. So have Penn, USC and the University of Texas system, among others. [...] If you haven’t made it clear that institutional neutrality extends to both statements and actions—including management of your endowments—then no. Institutional neutrality means refraining from extraneous position-taking in both word and deed. And that includes divestment. Institutional neutrality is violated whether a university president condemns a company’s business ties to a country in a speech or the university divests from a company because of those concerns. In both cases, the university [...] On the contrary, institutional neutrality strengthens free speech for faculty by removing any suggestion of a party line that must be parroted to remain in the good graces of university leaders. To do this well, its scope needs to include not only top university leaders, but also the heads of schools, departments, and institutes. Otherwise, the dynamic is the same, and as problematic, as position-taking at the university level. The implication is that everyone within a school, department,