Connect with us

Education

More Universities Are Choosing to Stay Neutral on the Biggest Issues

Published

on

More Universities Are Choosing to Stay Neutral on the Biggest Issues

Just a few years ago, university statements on the day’s social and political issues abounded.

When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, Harvard’s president at the time called it “senseless” and “deplorable,” and flew the invaded country’s flag in Harvard Yard. After George Floyd died under the knee of a white police officer, Cornell’s president said she was “sickened.” The University of Michigan’s president described the Oct. 7, 2023, violence against Israel as a “horrific attack by Hamas terrorists.”

But over the last year, each of those universities has adopted policies that limit official statements on current issues.

According to a new report released on Tuesday from the Heterodox Academy, a group that has been critical of progressive orthodoxy on college campuses, 148 colleges had adopted “institutional neutrality” policies by the end of 2024, a trend that underscores the scorching political scrutiny they are under. All but eight of those policies were adopted after the Hamas attack.

“We must open the way for our individual faculty’s expertise, intelligence, scholarship and wisdom to inform our state and society in their own voice, free from institutional interference,” said Mark Bernstein, a regent at Michigan, after adopting the policy in October.

Advertisement

He said the university had historically refrained from issuing statements on momentous events, like the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy or during the two world wars.

“So institutional statements are a modern phenomenon and a misguided venture that betrays our public mission,” he said.

The universities are adopting such policies at a time when the Trump administration has moved aggressively to punish them for not doing enough to crack down on antisemitism and for embracing diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

On Friday, the administration announced that it was pulling $400 million from Columbia, a move that sent shock waves across higher education. The administration has already said it is looking to target other universities.

Universities ramped up issuing statements on hot-button issues about a decade ago, after the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and the police shootings of Black people in places like Ferguson, Mo., said Alex Arnold, director of research at the Heterodox Academy.

Advertisement

Some conservatives had long lamented such statements and believed they veered too leftward. Speech groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression worried that they discouraged dissent. For a while, the statements were hardly the subject of widespread controversy.

The Hamas attack and the war that followed changed the equation.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always split the left, but the attack on Oct. 7 and the war that followed sharpened those divisions. The statements that universities issued on the attack and Israel’s bombing of Gaza came under scrutiny, and were often criticized for being too late, too weak, too biased — or all three.

University leaders, under pressure from donors, lawmakers and the public, began to ask: Why put out statements at all?

About four out of five colleges that adopted neutrality policies are public and face scrutiny from state lawmakers. Several states, including Texas and Utah and North Carolina, forced their public universities to adopt such policies. Others, like Tennessee, are considering it.

Advertisement

Most of the new policies apply to senior administrators, like college presidents and provosts. Others also encompass units like academic departments. And many apply to faculty members when they are speaking in an official capacity, but often make clear that faculty are free to express personal views, according to the Heterodox Academy.

“The whole experience of coping with the campus controversy triggered by the Hamas attack has really gotten institutional leaders to think carefully and to reflect on what the function of our institutions of higher education is,” Mr. Arnold said. “I do think this is probably going to be a pretty durable change.”

Critics of the neutrality trend have argued that administrators are merely sidestepping difficult debates on the Middle East conflict, and scared of angering donors and lawmakers.

After Clark University, in Massachusetts, said it would shy away from taking positions, the school newspaper’s opinion editor called the move a “fake policy” designed to curb discussion of the conflict.

But even universities that adopted such a policy have not gone totally silent on contested political issues.

Advertisement

At an Anti-Defamation League event in New York City last week, Michigan’s president, Santa Ono, called the effort to boycott, divest and sanction Israel antisemitic, and said his response had been to invest even more in those partnerships.

In an email, the university said the new neutrality policy adopted a “heavy presumption” against issuing statements “not directly connected to internal university functions.”

“Combating antisemitism and making sure we have an environment where all students can thrive and succeed is part of our moral and legal obligation, and absolutely connected to our internal functions as an institution of higher education,” said Colleen Mastony, a Michigan spokeswoman.

Presidents are often stumbling over their new policies. During an October interview with the school newspaper, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, called a statement by pro-Palestinian students “offensive,” prompting the editorial board to tell him to “follow your own policy.”

Last month, the American Association of University Professors, a faculty rights group, issued a statement on neutrality that was, more or less, neutral. It stated that the idea “is neither a necessary condition for academic freedom nor categorically incompatible with it.”

Advertisement

The re-election of Donald Trump is now testing those policies.

As the new administration, which has described universities as “the enemy,” ratchets up its attack on higher education, colleges are under greater pressure to be voices of resistance.

But many college presidents have been spooked into silence, said Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, a small Catholic institution three miles from the White House.

“They look at what happened to Claudine Gay, and some of the other presidents,” she said, referring to the former Harvard president who resigned last year after a congressional hearing on antisemitism. “And they’re like: ‘I don’t want that to happen to me. So I’ll just shut up and hunker down, and hope this cloud passes.’”

No university is more associated with neutrality than the University of Chicago, where incoming students are furnished with the Kalven Report, the 1967 document that made the case for neutrality. The report, penned as violence upended college campuses during the Vietnam War, said the university “is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”

Advertisement

Tom Ginsburg, director of the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression at Chicago, says adopting neutrality signals to lawmakers that colleges are committed to welcoming diverse viewpoints.

“Because the statements tended to reflect the majority views on campuses, which are overwhelmingly left-leaning,” he said, “you can see how adopting it would be a way of saying to lawmakers: ‘This isn’t who we really are. We’re not indoctrinating people with contested positions.’”

But even the Kalven Report included a caveat that doesn’t settle precisely when universities should issue statements. Neutrality, the report says, still allows colleges to speak out when “the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry” are threatened.

That moment is now, said Ms. McGuire of Trinity Washington University. “The erosion of knowledge and expertise that this administration has embraced is very, very scary,” she said, “and higher ed should be calling it out at every turn.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Education

Federal Agents Search Two Dorm Rooms at Columbia University

Published

on

Federal Agents Search Two Dorm Rooms at Columbia University

Department of Homeland Security officials searched two dorm rooms at Columbia University, days after the immigration authorities arrested and moved to deport a pro-Palestinian activist and recent graduate of the university.

Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, said in a note to students and staff late Thursday that the officials had presented federal search warrants for private areas of the university. She added that no one was detained and nothing was taken, and did not specify the target of the warrants.

“I am writing heartbroken to inform you that we had federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) in two university residences tonight,” Dr. Armstrong wrote. She added that Columbia made every effort to ensure the safety of its students, faculty and staff.

The search occurred after the Trump administration said that Columbia would have to make major changes in its student discipline and admissions processes before it would begin talks on reinstating $400 million in government grants and contracts that it canceled last week.

The government said it pulled the funding over the university’s failure to protect Jewish students from harassment as pro-Palestinian protests spread on campus last year over the war in Gaza. Some of the demonstrations included chants, signs and literature that expressed support for the Hamas-led terrorist attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Advertisement

Mahmoud Khalil, who recently completed a graduate program at Columbia and is a permanent resident of the United States, played a prominent role in the pro-Palestinian student movement at the university. The Trump administration has said that Mr. Khalil, who is of Palestinian heritage, is a national security threat. It has also accused him of participating in antisemitic activities, though officials have not accused him of having any contact with Hamas. He is being held in a detention center in Louisiana.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment. Columbia declined to comment beyond Dr. Armstrong’s letter.

Continue Reading

Education

University of Minnesota, Under Federal Scrutiny, Limits Its Political Speech

Published

on

University of Minnesota, Under Federal Scrutiny, Limits Its Political Speech

The University of Minnesota, which President Trump’s Justice Department is scrutinizing for its handling of antisemitism on campus, largely barred itself on Friday from issuing official statements about “matters of public concern or public interest.”

The policy, in the works for months, was not a direct response to the Trump administration’s February announcement that it would investigate whether Minnesota and nine other universities had failed to protect Jewish students and faculty from discrimination.

But Friday’s vote by the board of regents nevertheless fit into the scramble by universities to undercut accusations that they have supported, or downplayed, antisemitic behavior or political activity.

Schools have come under fierce Republican criticism over their responses to protests over the war in Gaza. Campuses have seen bitter debates over defining antisemitism and the threshold for when political expression is intolerant or discriminatory, with university leaders often looking for a balance between allowing free speech and avoiding Washington’s potential ire.

Under Minnesota’s new policy, statements from the university — including ones from divisions like colleges and departments — about public issues will be forbidden unless the president determines the subject has “an actual or potential impact on the mission and operations of the university.”

Advertisement

The university senate, which includes students, faculty members and other workers, opposed the plan, and in early January, a university task force had urged a narrower approach. Critics have questioned whether the policy violates the First Amendment and argued that it grants excessive power to Minnesota’s president.

But during a raucous meeting on Friday in Minneapolis — the session went into recess twice because of protesters — regents voted, 9 to 3, to approve the policy.

“The university is not, and should not be, in the business of taking positions on these critical and controversial matters of public concern,” said Janie S. Mayeron, the board’s chair. “Individuals can do that. The university, its leaders and units should not.”

Another regent, Robyn J. Gulley, said she had received hundreds of messages ahead of Friday’s vote, with the feedback “largely” opposing the proposal.

“The First Amendment protects not only free speech, but the right to association,” Ms. Gulley said before she voted against the proposal. “There is probably nowhere in the world that that is more important than in universities, where it is not only the right but the obligation of students, faculty, staff to speak” about their areas of research and expertise.

Advertisement

The notion of “institutional neutrality” is not unique to Minnesota, where the new policy will cover five campuses, including the flagship in Minneapolis. Since the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, at least 140 colleges have adopted such policies, according to a report released Tuesday by the Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit that has been critical of progressivism on college campuses.

Before the attack, the report said, only eight schools had neutrality policies.

The last few weeks have put new pressure on Minnesota, with the university among the schools that Justice Department antisemitism investigators said they would visit to weigh “whether remedial action is warranted.”

The department has not detailed why Minnesota made its list. Although Richard W. Painter, a Minnesota law professor who was the White House’s top ethics lawyer for part of George W. Bush’s presidency, told the Department of Education in 2023 about possible antisemitism at the university, he has speculated that the Justice Department’s interest may carry a political motive.

Tim Walz, who was the Democratic nominee for vice president in last year’s election, is Minnesota’s governor, and the district of Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat who has been a steadfast critic of Mr. Trump and Israel, includes Minnesota’s main campus.

Advertisement

Minnesota said in a statement that it was “confident in our approach to combating hate and bias on our campus, and we will always fully cooperate with any review related to these topics.”

In addition to Minnesota, the Justice Department is examining Columbia University; George Washington University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; and the University of Southern California.

But some misgivings about Minnesota, which contended with a protest encampment last spring, predate Mr. Trump’s return to power.

In December 2023, for example, Mr. Painter and a former regent, Michael D. Hsu, complained to the Department of Education that the College of Liberal Arts had allowed departments to use official websites for statements that were critical of Israel.

A website Mr. Hsu and Mr. Painter cited — featuring a statement by the gender, women and sexuality studies faculty — endorsed the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and called for “dismantling Israel’s apartheid system.” (After the statement’s publication, a disclaimer was added to note that it did “not reflect the position of the University of Minnesota.”)

Advertisement

It was not clear how much Friday’s vote would ease Washington’s skepticism of Minnesota. Some other universities that recently embraced institutional neutrality still ended up under investigation by the Trump administration, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Southern California.

Stephanie Saul contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Education

Oklahoma Proposes Teaching 2020 Election ‘Discrepancies’ in U.S. History

Published

on

Oklahoma Proposes Teaching 2020 Election ‘Discrepancies’ in U.S. History

High school students in Oklahoma would be asked to identify “discrepancies” in the 2020 election as part of U.S. history classes, according to new social studies standards recently approved by the Oklahoma Board of Education.

The proposed standards seem to echo President Trump’s false claims about his 2020 defeat. They ask students to examine factors such as “the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states” and “the security risks of mail-in balloting.”

They now head to the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature, which could take up the issue before its term ends in late May, or punt the issue to the governor’s desk.

The standards, supported by the state’s hard-charging Republican superintendent, have already received pushback, including from Gov. Kevin Stitt, also a Republican, whose office characterized the changes as a “distraction.” A spokeswoman said the governor had not yet seen the standards in full and it was not clear if he would support them.

The additions related to the 2020 election are among several changes that injected a strong conservative viewpoint to the state’s portrayal of modern American politics and Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump repeatedly denied the results of the 2020 election, a view that has been widely embraced by some Republicans, despite a lack of evidence.

An earlier version of the new standards — which were released for public comment in December — simply asked students to examine “issues related to the election of 2020 and its outcome.” The new changes were made after the public comment period and quietly approved by the Board of Education last month. They were first reported by NonDoc, a nonprofit news outlet in Oklahoma.

The state superintendent, Ryan Walters, said that the standards were not meant to “support or negate a specific outcome” and that “a well-rounded student should be able to make their own conclusions using publicly available data and details.”

In a statement, he said, “We believe in giving the next generation the ability to think for themselves rather than accepting radical positions on the election outcome as it is reported by the media.”

Mr. Walters, a former history teacher and Trump ally, has emerged as a combative culture warrior in education and national politics. His push to put Bibles in every Oklahoma classroom is being battled in court, and he was briefly floated as a candidate for U.S. secretary of education, before Mr. Trump nominated the former pro-wrestling executive Linda McMahon.

Advertisement

But within his own state, Mr. Walters has clashed with members of his party, including Governor Stitt, who was once an ally. Most recently, the two went head-to-head over Mr. Walters’s plan to collect the citizenship status of public school children, which Governor Stitt vowed to fight.

Amid his feud with Mr. Walters, and after new national test scores showed Oklahoma remaining near the bottom in reading and math, Mr. Stitt last month replaced half of the state’s Board of Education. The board is made up of five governor appointees and Mr. Walters, who was elected. At least one of the new members said he had not been informed of the changes to the social studies standards, which were approved two weeks after the new members joined.

A spokeswoman for the governor, Abegail Cave, said the governor’s priority was transforming Oklahoma into “the best state for education.”

“He thinks a lot of what has happened over the past few months and past few years has been more of a distraction,” Ms. Cave said. The new social studies standards, she said, “follow the pattern of being a distraction.”

Standards for academic subject areas are rewritten every six years in Oklahoma under state law. They include lengthy outlines on what public schools are expected to teach and what students should know at different grade levels.

Advertisement

For example, U.S. history students in Oklahoma learn about the civil rights movement, including key court cases, tactics such as the Montgomery bus boycott and violent responses to the movement, including the Birmingham church bombing and the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The changes centered on more recent history. In examining significant events during Mr. Trump’s first term, an earlier version of the standards had asked students to “explain the responses to and impact of the death of George Floyd, including the Black Lives Matter movement.”

In the latest version, that standard was removed.

Another change involved the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic. Students would be asked to identify the source of the pandemic as coming from a Chinese lab. That theory has long been hotly debated, but is embraced by Republicans and increasingly favored by C.I.A. officials.

The earlier version was less pointed: “Evaluate federal and private response to the Covid epidemic, as well as its lasting impact on global health and American society.”

Advertisement

Mr. Walters said the various changes “give students the best opportunity to learn about history without leftist activists indoctrinating kids.”

His office did not respond to questions about why the edits were made after the period of public review.

State Representative John Waldron, a former social studies teacher who is now vice chair of the House Democratic caucus, said he would oppose the changes and accused Mr. Walters of subverting the typical process to insert his own political beliefs.

“The state superintendent campaigned to end indoctrination in our schools, but what he is doing instead with these new standards is promoting his own brand of indoctrination,” Mr. Waldron said in an interview.

The edits also made more subtle changes to a unit on “the challenges and accomplishments” of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration.

Advertisement

They removed bullet points on the country’s economic recovery in the aftermath of the pandemic and on a signature $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

Remaining were bullet points on the “the United States-Mexico border crisis” and Mr. Biden’s foreign policies on issues like the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending