Universities Must Make a Choice

Only one option will preserve the central mission of the university

Yesterday's House hearings demonstrated the bind that university presidents are in as American college campuses are buffeted by protests relating to the events in Israel and Gaza. University leaders want to point to their free speech policies when students, donors, and politicians demand that they take action against antisemitic speech, but everyone knows that they have frequently cast aside any concern with free speech, academic freedom, and institutional neutrality when such principles seemed inconvenient. Even now, universities seem unable to bring themselves to enforce their existing policies on harassment and the time, place, and manner of expressive activities on campus.

In my new piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I sketch out the choice before us.

One path is suggested by Stanford University's provost, Jenny S. Martinez. After student protesters at Stanford Law School shouted down a federal judge last spring, Martinez, who was then dean of the law school, issued a striking public letter rebuking the protesters, reaffirming the school's commitment to free expression and open discourse, and firmly rejecting the view that a commitment to diversity necessitated suppressing some speech or speakers. As provost, Martinez has similarly emphasized that colleges must tolerate even extreme and hateful speech, while taking action against actual harassment or threats. Moreover, she and Stanford's president announced that they believe the university should "generally refrain from taking institutional positions on complex political or global matters that extend beyond our immediate purview." Institutional neutrality would best secure an environment in which diverse scholars could develop and express their own individual ideas.

A quite different path is suggested by the University of Pennsylvania's president, M. Elizabeth Magill. Magill has come under particularly intense pressure to address perceived antisemitism on her campus. In her testimony to the congressional committee, she emphasized that "Penn's approach to protest is guided by the U.S. Constitution" and gives "broad protection to free expression — even expression that is offensive." But when confronted with questions about whether calls for genocide violated university policy, Magill and her fellow presidents stumbled in their replies. As a result, Magill released a short video. There she repeated that "Penn's policies have been guided by the Constitution," but she added that "in today's world … these policies need to be clarified and evaluated." She promised a "serious and careful look at our policies" with an eye to ensuring a "safe, secure, and supportive environment." She will, she promised, "get this right."

Magill's implication is clear: The university's policies need to be revised so that they do not so closely follow the Constitution; they should instead prioritize students' sense of safety. Protections for free expression and perhaps even academic freedom might well be pared back in the process.

Read the whole thing here.