Institutional neutrality: the case against

This article is part of our Prof v. Prof summer debate series, where academics take opposing viewpoints on hot topics in higher education. Read all the articles from the series here. 

In my research, and as a faculty member and senior administrator in universities in the United States and Canada, I have for nearly three decades explored how universities ensure that students graduate with a strengthened sense of equity and the public good. I see this outcome as integral to North American universities’ educational purposes and mission. Recent events — the murder of George Floyd, the reports of unmarked graves at residential schools across Canada, and the wars in Gaza and Ukraine — have prompted calls for universities to “take a stand” on these issues.  

In response to Mr. Floyd’s death and the reports of unmarked graves, numerous universities responded with statements offering compassion for those directly affected and identifying resources for those who were experiencing grief or distress. Some of these statements referenced ongoing structural racism and colonialism. Yet, in the wake of the crisis in Gaza, some of these same universities resorted to institutional neutrality statements, expressing the importance of practicing “restraint” in advocating particular viewpoints. This suggests that universities issued the latter statements, at least in part, based on perceived and/or actual political risk. All the events noted above involve violence and harm, and raise pressing questions about democratic values and change. While a few institutions did publicly address this discrepancy in their responses, most did not. This signals, at best, a lack of consistency; and, at worst, disregard and callousness. It also raises the question of whose interests the university is serving.  

I maintain that universities need to find ways to make good on our mission statements and educational objectives in material and lived ways, especially when democratic values and human lives are threatened. Higher education must consistently be a place that advances democratic and ethical priorities. Institutional neutrality statements do not meet this bar and further serve to work against the educational and public-facing role universities have. 

Individually and collectively, in the extraordinary and mundane, to be alive today is to confront questions of meaning, community well-being, and sustainable ways of living. In democratic societies, we are, at least in theory if not always in practice, aspiring to specific ethical priorities. We grapple with how we can strengthen the public good, a sense of social belonging, and access to equitable public services such as education and health care. We value an awareness of global conflicts and profess an interest in their resolution. 

Students arrive at university with timely questions. They are acutely aware of living in a world of fraying social bonds and a constant cycle of information, which can be overwhelming and exhausting. Alongside their interest in professional objectives, students are seeking clear engagement with, and deep consideration of, values and community well-being. They are distressed and angry about the levels of violence and dehumanization that only seem to be increasing. They are, in some cases, urging what they see as appropriate action for the university to take. 

University leaders and others have an opportunity when students so plainly bring their questions, concerns and assertions about public life to the table. Students are in effect noting: for us, something terrible, problematic and/or confusing is happening. They are asking: what does this mean for us as students, for this university, for all of us, here, now? 

Indeed, the learning expectations articulated, for example, in Ontario’s degree level expectations assert our obligation to offer all students an education in which they learn to reflect and deliberate on different perspectives and viewpoints, and to carefully arrive at a shared response to a specific issue or question. This is education at its best: students have multiple opportunities to gain familiarity with a body of knowledge in their field, and to apply that knowledge in specific settings, while engaging ethical questions and considerations as citizens of both local communities and the world. 

Canadian universities’ mission statements reflect these educational outcomes and affirm that navigating issues pertinent to society’s well-being is our central purpose. References in institutional neutrality statements to the mission of the university may be lacking altogether or may be loose and/or performative. Institutional neutrality statements are likely to communicate to students that conflicts cannot be collectively worked out or considered; that institutions, and specifically students’ education, will not address the existence and workings of violence, lived power relations, and social change in the interests of equity and the public good; and that universities, as institutions, do not welcome students bringing the issues about which they care the most, including equity and justice, to their education. 

There are repeated references to higher education’s role in contributing to an improved, just and sustainable future in Canadian universities’ mission statements. This makes it clear: universities have a central role, through our core activities of teaching and research, in contributing to democratic life and social well-being. There are multiple ways to fulfill that role, even as there is not an easy formula for when and how institutions will do this. Position statements, whose deliberation calls for the very capacities addressed in our mission statements and degree outcomes, are one avenue among many.  

At pivotal moments in public life, and related to specific issues, universities do not need to offer definitive resolutions. It is possible to reflect on, and form ideas about, power, democratic values and current events, even as such deliberation will evoke multiple perspectives. Universities are obligated, at the levels of leadership, teaching and research, to adopt deliberative practices that normalize attention to current events in ways that bring ethical concerns and democratic values to the fore. Stepping back or distancing ourselves is contrary to our purpose. Ideally, such an approach to education becomes normalized and even unremarkable. Regardless of their field of study, students will experience universities as places where deliberation, reflection and disagreement are in the service of finding shared ways forward. 

Universities can take these risks knowing that such educational work is simultaneously demanding, uneven and ongoing; and, at its best, generative and meaningful. I regularly see students find joy and relevancy in such an education, even as this experience may be new to them. They already know that they disagree sharply with some of their peers. They are looking for classrooms where faculty expect, welcome and skillfully navigate that disagreement. In other words, universities can provide an education so that students can contribute to their chosen fields and simultaneously contribute to a more just and sustainable world. In our mission statements and educational objectives, we promise to do just that.