Experts gathered at Harvard believe that the core mission of universities is to strengthen the ability of students, faculty, and researchers to follow the questions that lead them without institutionally dictating the scale that influences how research is conducted. He recently stated that
That argument was a point of agreement among panelists at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study on Tuesday, although they disagreed about the types of policies that would be most effective. Experts from Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the University of Chicago, which has long had a policy of “institutional neutrality” on the issues of the day, came together to discuss the nuances of such practices.
“Many of us are trying to get through some very difficult times, and perhaps we have come to institutional neutrality as a tool to find our way,” said Radcliffe Institute director and panel moderator. said one Tomiko Brown Nagin. “In our discussions, we want to think about the complexities of the real world and the difficult cases that can arise within the context of higher education, and consider how institutional neutrality and restraint can be applied. ”
Tom Ginsburg, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said the university’s policy largely prohibits leaders and administrators from making public statements about their positions on broader world events, such as elections, natural disasters, and wars. characterized as doing. He said taking a step back from announcing institutional responses paves the way for scholars who are researching or already specialize in the field to take a stand and participate in broader societal conversations. .
“I think sometimes we have to override our commitment to neutrality in order to make statements on contemporary controversial issues.”
Janet Halley, Harvard Law School
However, the policy makes exceptions for education and development that is considered core to the institution’s mission. For example, during the era of President Donald Trump, the University of Chicago believed that the ability to recruit from around the world was critical to the university’s success, and when the government restricted the entry of nationals from several Arab countries into the United States. issued a statement.
“Neutrality is closely related to the core mission of the university. This is not a kindergarten. This is not a political club. This is a community of scholars engaged in research,” Ginsburg said. “If you have that idea, the neutrality of the center will protect all front-level academics, including students, from taking positions on the issues of the day.”
But Robert Post, the Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University, and Janet Halley, the Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, are calling for institutional “restraints” – less rigor and more control over the decisions of university leaders. He argued that “dependence” was a more appropriate position.
Post said there are many ways in which universities can make statements that violate academic freedom, but there are also ways in which they cannot. Halley said institutional restraint would allow room to comment on issues that are important to the functioning of the organization, even if they appear to be outside of the core functions of teaching and research. .
He also said deciding when to issue a statement and what to include in the draft would itself be a time-consuming internal political debate.
“We think so [in higher education] There are so many functions permeating beyond research and education that we have to decide on political positions just to run the place,” Halley said. “I think there are times when we have to override our commitment to neutrality in order to make a statement on contemporary controversial issues. Be very careful and thoughtful about what that looks like.” We need to have a discussion.”
The event, “Institutional Neutrality in a Polarized World: What Should Harvard University and Higher Education Do?”, was sponsored by Radcliffe and the Harvard Council on Academic Freedom. It took place Tuesday afternoon at the Knafell Center in Radcliffe.
Universities across the country regularly issue statements on issues ranging from immigration to the diversity of participants in the Ukraine war. In recent months, Harvard University and several other U.S. universities have been accused of statements, actions, and inactions related to Hamas’s October 7 surprise terrorist attack on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory invasion of the Gaza Strip. I found myself at the center of a storm of criticism. .
Additionally, protests over the conflict have erupted at U.S. universities, marked by fiery rhetoric on both sides, and it is difficult for higher education institutions to keep the dialogue constructive while simultaneously encouraging rigorous debate about important issues. The long-standing question of what to do next has come to the fore once again.
In recent years, conversations on campus about hot topics have been driven not only by institutional values of free inquiry, the exchange of diverse ideas, and respectful, robust debate, but also by concerns about social media’s cancel culture. It’s getting more and more difficult.
In response, Harvard University has launched a series of programs in recent weeks to encourage and enable “difficult conversations,” the type of exchange that is central to Harvard’s teaching and research mission, panelists said. said.
“Neutrality is inextricably linked to the university’s core mission. This is not a kindergarten. This is not a political club. It is a community of scholars engaged in research.”
Tom Ginsburg, University of Chicago Law School
Edward Hall, Norman E. Vieumier Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University and co-chair of the Harvard Council on Academic Freedom, said, “We are still not where we want to be, especially with regard to the mission of education.” No,” he said. The person who introduced the event. “Consuming mainstream media isn’t as bad as some people think. But we still have to avoid controversial issues and treat them in good faith, with intellectual seriousness, with curiosity.” We are not yet at the stage where students understand how and why they engage with each other based on topics.”
Hall said faculty, including members of the 1-year-old Council on Academic Freedom, are encouraging students and students that disagreement is not something to be avoided or punished, but rather an expected part of the academic community. He said he is looking for ways to reach out to people in the local community.
“We are always guided by a sense of mission. We want to create a thriving intellectual community where differences of opinion are embraced as a positive good, rather than viewed with hostility or fear. “What can we do to make this an intellectual community?” Hall said.
Ginsburg said the problem becomes more difficult the closer the actors making the statements are to the front lines of education and research. He noted that some departments have made public position statements that do not have a chilling effect on colleagues who work in the same building or on the same floor and whose work may contradict the content of that statement. I pointed out that I couldn’t stay there.
Professor Halley said it was clear that people were listening when it came to the university’s statement, whether its policy was neutrality or restraint. People who are hungry for promotion or funding are “hypersensitive” to signals that indicate how they can gain an advantage in the competitive environment of higher education.
Similar forces are at work in labs and classrooms, panelists said. Scholars studying aspects of hot topics like Russian-Ukrainian history find it difficult to cast Russia as anything other than a villain, especially when university statements favor Ukraine in the current conflict. You may find it more difficult.
“They’re sensitive to messages, whether they’re political, educational, conforming to norms or defying norms,” Halley said. “It can interfere with that person’s lifelong research mission.”
Source link