The continuing push for institutional neutrality in higher education

Illustration by Kamaal Samuel, Illustrator

Prior to 2024, 18 universities had neutral policies. But by the end of 2024, 148 universities had signed on.

Institutional neutrality emerged from the University of Chicago in 1967 when a committee released the Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action. The report, known as the Kalven Report, concludes that the university should not issue decisions or comment on social or political conflict. Doing so was deemed a violation of the mission of higher education, which it says is “discovery, improvement and dissemination of knowledge.”

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity,” states the report. “It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.”

As the university is not allowed to issue statements or decisions on debate, the responsibility lies with students and faculty.

“The university is a container in which ideas and evidence and perspective on important issues should be vigorously debated, discussed and dissected,” said Professor Vikki Katz, the Fletcher Jones Foundation endowed chair in free speech. “The institution not taking a formal position on issues is essential for debate to happen because if the university takes a position, there might be faculty who might have less job security or of a lower position (who) may feel like they cannot take the contrary position to the university. The same might be true for students.”

There is also a wide range of universities that, while not officially signing on to the Kalven Report, have policies that prohibit the university administration from commenting on social or political issues.

Chapman University does not have a formal statement that includes the term “institutional neutrality,” but its Freedom of Speech and Academic Policy was modeled after the University of Chicago’s principles of free expression.

“Chapman’s community is not monolithic, so we feel that it would be inappropriate to try to speak for all,” said Robert Hitchcock, Chapman’s director of strategic communications and public relations. “We strive to create an environment where differing views can be expressed, heard and respected.”

This procedure has been in place since 2015, when it was voted upon by Chapman faculty, student governance and the board of trustees.

Why is there a nationwide increase in institutional neutrality?

In 2024, a trio of free-speech organizations formed a letter calling for a commitment to institutional neutrality. Within the statement, it cites campus uproar over the Israel-Hamas war and improper university response as a reason why this policy is needed.

“In the post-Oct. 7 (2023) period, there have been more examples of universities putting out a statement that half of (the) people get upset about not doing ‘x’ or ‘y,’ so they put out a different statement, and then they upset a whole other group of people,” Katz said. 

What makes this situation unique, Katz said, is that it involves two minority groups on college campuses, and there is no majority group for universities to side with to appease the masses. This contrasts with other, more recent conflicts, such as the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020.

“In taking a position on George Floyd, there are many fewer people at college campuses (who) might be members of law enforcement or children of law enforcement that would be actively vocal about how police were being treated in that time. So it felt like everyone was in active agreement,” Katz said. “That felt straightforward in a way that (university administrators) can put out a good and heartfelt statement, get congratulated and everything will be fine.”

National confidence in higher education is also a factor. In a Pew Research Center study, 45% of respondents said colleges are doing a fair or poor job of exposing students to an array of opinions. Similarly, 46% said universities provide inadequate opportunities to express their own viewpoints.

“There have to be evenhanded ways of dealing with speech and ideas,” said Katz. “In many ways, institutional neutrality — as in the neutrality of different viewpoints — is consistent with the ideas baked into protections under the First Amendment.”

Without diverse beliefs, the debate that institutional neutrality aims to foster cannot take place, nor can growth.

“We can teach Marxism, we can teach capitalism, we can teach evolution and we can teach about the religious groups who uproar the concept of evolution,” said English Professor Richard Ruppel. “We have to be a place where ideas can be debated over and over because that’s how you guys learn, and that’s how we (faculty) learn.”

Debate surrounding institutional neutrality

While some view neutrality as effective for the mission of the university, others object.

Concerns include the use of neutrality to avoid upsetting donors and bboards of ttrustees or to ensure a university does not become the next target of the federal administration.

“Obviously, it can be used as a way to sidestep taking a position — neutrality always can be, and you can see that all the way up to nation states,” Katz said.

Ruppel pointed out the dangers of this type of implementation.

“If (neutrality) becomes compliance with what the federal government imposes, then it becomes complicity,” he said. “The question then becomes, when does compliance with the (federal) administration’s demands become an impingement on those academic freedoms?”

Brian Soucek, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law and author of “The Opinionated University,” argues there is no such thing as neutrality and universities are always taking a side.

“Universities engage in all sorts of viewpoint discrimination,” Soucek told Inside Higher Ed. “Tenure decisions are deeply viewpoint-based about the quality of one’s work. Hiring decisions are going to have to take into account judgments about whether somebody’s scholarly views are good ones or not.”

“It’s not just the institution that stays silent on, let’s say, Gaza — they also start being silent on their science funding being cut, and then they impose that neutrality on departments and centers as well, which is more problematic,” he added.

Similarly, a large critique is that colleges claiming to be neutral are discreetly taking a side on a matter.

However, Katz believes this is a rather general argument that could be applied to any policy. 

“People use policies in all sorts of different ways and they can be leveraged on both points of the political spectrum,” said Katz.

When is institutional neutrality not okay?

The Kalven report calls for university action when topics “threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” 

This is applicable to recent discussions of revoking Pell Grants, access to financial aid and cutting research grants.

“Institutional neutrality would not defend a university that does not make a statement about that because it directly impacts the mission of every university that high-quality education is accessible to all students regardless of background,” said Katz.

Ruppel believes some universities have not been properly adhering to this stipulation.

“The first rule of the school yard in elementary school is never give in to bullies, and a lot of Americans haven’t learned this, and to hide behind institutional neutrality to avoid picking a fight with a bully, it doesn’t help,” he said. “The bully will never be satisfied … and I think a lot of universities are learning that.” 

Katz also noted the possibility that universities might aim to be neutral, but fall short in generating an environment where discourse can occur.

“Taking a position of institutional neutrality and not ensuring that (a university) is also fostering great debate is probably a half measure,” she said. “You want to do both.”