The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Call for Institutional Neutrality
An open letter released today from the AFA, HxA, and FIRE
Today the Academic Freedom Alliance, Heterodox Academy, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released a joint open letter calling for universities to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality. From the letter:
A useful maxim to guide decision makers is "if an academic institution is not required to adopt a position in order to fulfill its mission of intellectual freedom or operational capacity, it is required not to adopt a position." (See, e.g., Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.)
For a neutrality principle to work, it must be publicly announced and adhered to on a consistent and faithful basis. Making an exception inexorably leads to pressure to make others and to allegations of bias.
Critically, institutional neutrality applies only to leaders and units of the institution. This is true not only for the central administration, but also for the units of the university, such as schools, departments, centers, and programs. It does not apply to faculty members and students (i.e., the "critics"), either individually or as members of voluntary, non-institutional associations.
I recently discussed institutional neutrality for a webinar sponsored by Heterodox Academy, which can be found here. My most recent written piece on the topic was in the Chronicle of Higher Education and can be found here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"students (i.e., the "critics"), either individually or as members of voluntary, non-institutional associations"
The real test on this will be the Student Governments and their mandatory fees
All students are REQUIRED to be members of them, and are REQUIRED to fund them and notwithstanding what O'Connor thought in her Southworth decision, this fee revenue is NOT distributed on an equal basis. Nor is every group of students permitted to form a recognized student organization.
Hence "Students for Palestine" chapters -- Joe Student did not "volunteer" to fund them, and if forming student organizations were truly voluntary, there not only would be a "Students for Beer" organization but it would have exponentially more members.
I'd argue that only individuals ought to be able to have opinions -- no recognized student organization can take a position (although every one of its members can). No use of titles.
But this would defeat the model that the left has built in academia where a few people have an outsized voice because they are on the E-Boards of various groups with overlapping memberships.
Yes, what a good amount of knowledge has given you, especially once someone finds out who defines the term React neutral.
Yes, what an excellent idea, especially once someone figures out who defines "neutral".
A rule of "when in doubt, say nothing" seems straightforward enough.
Yes, what an excellent idea, especially once someone figures out who defines “doubt”.
Let's think about one issue category: immigration.
In 2020, citing COVID but actually also economic data, President Trump moved to sunset the J-1 visa category (I think the initial process was for a year and there was some effort to extend it, but the details don't matter). The J-1 visa includes some people who are primarily working (summer job opportunities are a big use for J-1s for people from countries like Ireland) but also a large portion of international students. International students can be on F-1 or J-1, but the J-1 has a few advantages both for the student and the student's spouse.
Is the termination of the J-1 program something that a university needs to speak to "in order to fulfill its mission of intellectual freedom or operational capacity". Probably not the former. The latter, well, it's complicated. J-1 students provide grad school labor. Some would-be J-1s would become F-1s and just take the hit on the disadvantages the category has. They're probably admit more locals. But does this cause dilution of program quality? And some departments are differentially impacted versus others (I suspect Greek History programs have fewer J-1s than Physics programs do), so is this a department level issue?
Or, maybe not the J-1, maybe the travel ban of 2017. Set aside your views on it as policy, it's clear that the travel ban would restrict some people who universities wanted tor recruit from coming, and some people who are already here from staying (because of re-entry uncertainty). Probably wouldn't actually grind a university to a halt, but maybe some departments and some programs and some universities would be adversely affected.
Okay, now imagine you're a public university anywhere in the southwest. Because of court decisions, you've been instructed to admit undocumented immigrants ("illegal immigrants" if you prefer the term, again, not trying to talk about policy wisdom here). So you have a lot of students who are in that category. I did school in California for a while and obviously you can't assemble 100 people, let alone 20,000 in California without having a bunch of undocumented immigrants. Suppose congress, or the president, takes action against undocumented immigrants. Maybe it's something like more stringent I-9 verification, maybe it's audits of university enrollment, maybe it's deporting the DACA kids, whatever. If a student goes to their department and says "Hey, I'm about to be affected by this government policy", the department is not going to say "We're neutral on all government policies, good luck in life". They're going to want to help the student. Why would this not extend to being able to make a statement about the policy in general?
Maybe those things are more directly connected to operational capacity. What about stuff everyone agrees universities should shut the hell up about, like Israel/Palestine. I'm in Boston right now, home to Harvard and MIT, both of whom bungled their congressional performances. Let's just take MIT. MIT operates MISTI, an exchange with Israel that generates a bunch of money. MIT Lincoln Lab takes military funds to do national security research and thus literally helps build the armament sent to Israel/Ukraine. MIT operates the Israel Lab. MIT has a bunch of scholarships for collaboration with research in Israel. Is Israel/Palestine/Oct 7th not relevant to operational capacity of MIT? Beats me, but it doesn't seem straightforward at the least.
If this framework just leads to "all departments need to make decisions about how closely something hews to actual operational considerations before making statements", it seems reasonable but also useless; if it's saying departments shouldn't make statements about core operational concerns when they are political, it's useful but doesn't seem reasonable. IDK what the answer is, but this statement doesn't seem like a way forward.
"if an academic institution is not required to adopt a position in order to fulfill its mission of intellectual freedom or operational capacity, it is required not to adopt a position."
I would omit the specification of what the mission is, because that creates more arguments than it prevents, and would apply this rule far beyond academia. Chicago City Council also doesn't need to adopt a position on whether there should be a cease fire in Gaza. The fact that they're elected politicians doesn't change that.
And, indeed, ironically the only reason city councils are allowed to adopt such positions is because they're utterly meaningless and without force. If there were any legal effect, it would violate the federal government's prerogatives to conduct foreign policy.
"Chicago City Council also doesn’t need to adopt a position on whether there should be a cease fire in Gaza. The fact that they’re elected politicians doesn’t change that."
It's not like they don't have enough problems that they should be addressing.
Just who are they virtue signaling for?
“Just who are they virtue signaling for?”
Their constituents, obviously. You know, the ones who elected this guy. If you support letting assaulters / robbers / rapists / murderers run loose in your city, it stands to reason that you would, similarly, support foreign assaulters / robbers / rapists / murderers. Like seeks like; scum likes scum.
“social and political issues that do not concern core academic matters or institutional operations”
Suppose universities adopt that distinction. They could still drive a large truck through that exception.
Study abroad in Israel – problematic because it’s all stolen land and affiliation with Israeli institutions would legitimize the blah blah.
Speakers on campus – need to be vetted to conform to institutional values.
The university endowment – don’t invest it in Israel, oil companies, Fox News, Republican-owned businesses.
etc.
These are all about institutional operations and academic values.
.
The great Clinger Alliance has assembled, prepared to battle the forces of modernity and reason for the preservation of safe spaces for bigotry and childish superstition.
(Nonsense-based and superstition-shackled institutions, of course, are to continue to be free to roam about the clingerverse as they wish, crushing dissent and excommunicating heretics if deemed useful in appeasing the clinger gods. In particular, (1) clingers will continue to expect nonsense-based instruction to be accredited as if it were legitimate education and (2) multifaceted bigotry cloaked in superstition is to be regarded as better than, or something other than, bigotry, because . . . well, just because.)
Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit, that is.
Right-wingers -- who turn every campus they get their hands on into a censorship-hackled, dogma-enforcing, academic freedom-flouting yahoo factory -- claimed to be worried about "establishing an orthodox view on campus?"
Not on the Wheaton campus, of course.
Nor the Regent campus campus.
What about Liberty, Hillsdale, Bob Jones, Franciscan, Oral Roberts? Maranatha Baptist, Colorado Christian, Biola?
Ouachita Baptist, Colorado Christian, Cedarville? Dallas Baptist, Abilene Christian, Grove City? The dozens -- if not hundreds -- of similar conservative-controlled, low-quality, nonsense-teaching (yet inexplicably accredited) schools?
Why would anyone expect the liberal-libertarian mainstream -- which operates our strongest research and teaching institutions -- be in the market for pointers on anything concerning education from conservatives, whose schools are weak and silly? Why would our best (liberal-libertarian mainstream) schools want to emulate our weakest (conservative) schools?
Kirkland, how do you define "strongest"?
Never forget that the Penn Central was the merger of America's two
"strongest" railroads, and what happened a few years later???