In February 1967, the University of Chicago’s president convened a faculty committee to develop recommendations on how the university should approach “political and social activities.” The group of seven professors faced a difficult task. The United States was ablaze with protests, generational upheaval, and social unrest, both literally and figuratively.
The previous year, students in Chicago gathered to demand that the university divest from financial institutions with ties to South Africa and staged a sit-in to protest the military draft. And in the months following the commission, smoldering racial tensions exploded into riots across the country, tens of thousands of young Americans flocked to San Francisco in search of love, and “The Long, Hot Summer” ” and “Summer of Love.” And the tragic cost of liberation and the Vietnam War increased day by day.
As the nation reeled, teachers considered their responsibilities. How should universities respond to the serious political and social issues of the time? What should universities say and do when partisans from all sides demand that universities choose sides and take action?
The committee’s answer was simple. Universities must remain neutral.
Chaired by Harry Kalven Jr., a leading scholar of the First Amendment and the lawyer who successfully defended comedian Lenny Bruce on obscenity charges in Illinois, the committee We have produced a report on the role of universities in our activities (the “Calven Report”). A central conclusion of the report was that neutrality is necessary to maintain the university’s fidelity to its core mission of “discovering, improving, and disseminating knowledge.”
“There is no mechanism by which a collective position can be reached without inhibiting the full freedom of dissenting opinion on which the commission thrives,” the commission wrote.
Neutrality does not mean turning a blind eye to social and political issues. Indeed, the commission acknowledged that universities “have a great and unique role to play in promoting the development of social and political values in society.” Importantly, however, the committee noted that this role is a “long-term role,” one that is “defined by the university’s unique mission and also defined by the unique character of the university as a community.” declared that there was.
Kalven and other committee members argued that taking sides in the day’s debates would inevitably close the university to opposing scholars and unfavorable ideas, undermining its long-term knowledge discovery role. I recognized it. “There is no mechanism by which a collective position can be reached without inhibiting the full freedom of dissenting opinion on which the commission thrives,” the commission wrote. “We cannot claim that all member states support a particular view on social policy. Therefore, when we take collective action, we must do so at the cost of condemning minorities who do not agree with the adopted view.” become.”
The committee concluded that individual faculty and students were “instruments of dissent and criticism.” Universities, on the other hand, are “homes and sponsors of critics; they are not themselves critics.”
By avoiding the push and pull of particular political and social initiatives, neutral universities face fewer demands to censor critical and dissenting voices.
The clarity of this solution is still very relevant and useful today, and institutional neutrality is as important now as it was in 1967. As all Americans know, we are currently facing our own social and political challenges, searing headlines, and deep divisions. Public trust in higher education institutions is waning, and universities themselves have become political battlegrounds and targets for legislative retaliation. All the while, faculty and students across the country continue to face censorship and punishment for opposing popular opinion or challenging official positions.
Given the challenges facing the academy and the world, FIRE urges universities to adopt a position of institutional neutrality for all the reasons identified in the Kalven Report.
By clarifying the contours of their role, universities that adopt the Kalven Report and emphasize neutrality will be better able to fulfill their mission of knowledge generation and dissemination. By not adhering to a particular position, a neutral university can welcome all opinions and benefit from the wisdom that emerges from the resulting debate. By avoiding the push and pull of particular political and social initiatives, neutral universities face fewer demands to censor critical and dissenting voices. Once universities demonstrate durable, principled neutrality, they will be able to focus more fully on supporting students and faculty and creating conditions that are most conducive to their success. And neutral universities can re-establish themselves as unique entities among the various public and private institutions of our society and rebuild trust in higher education, which is open to all. Sho.
We, like the Commission, recognize that adopting the Kalven Report’s commitment to neutrality is a challenge in itself. As the committee noted, neutrality can be an unwarranted and self-defeating retreat when “society, or sections of it, threaten the very mission of the university and the values of free inquiry.” In times of such “crisis,” the committee concluded that “it becomes the university’s duty as an institution to oppose such measures and to actively defend its interests and its values.” It is difficult to properly identify what constitutes such a threat and what does not. Nevertheless, the report found that “the university does not take collective action or express opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or change its corporate activities to promote social or political values.” “To do anything, no matter how convincing or appealing, is highly presumptive.”
Since 1999, FIRE has championed the right to expression of students and faculty. Like the First Amendment itself, it defends speech regardless of the speaker’s ideology, politics, or viewpoint. Our litigation archives demonstrate our unwavering commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom, no matter how unpopular, controversial, or critical of conventional wisdom. . To ensure fidelity to our commitments, FIRE takes no position on the value of the speech we champion. By maintaining institutional neutrality, we maintain the ability to vigorously defend the rights of all people without apology or qualification.
Today, we call on universities to do the same.