Yale faculty held a panel discussion yesterday regarding Yale University policy:
A common sentiment among the Faculty for Yale panelists was that the University taking a stance would “chill” discourse and place those who oppose the University’s position in an uncomfortable position.
(Professor of Law, Kate) Stith said that Faculty for Yale asked Roth to join the panel because they were interested in his public statements on the topic, including a New York Times opinion piece, and wanted to include him as “our neighbor.” Wesleyan is located in Middletown, Conn., approximately 20 miles from Yale.
[Faculty for Yale panel debates institutional neutrality - Yale Daily News]
Surprised that institutional neutrality is even a subject to debate. Runs counter to the purpose / mission of education in my view. (The mission of higher education should be to encourage the free & open discussion of matters without any type of official stance interfering with the free expression of varying viewpoints.)
I’d argue the opposite, that college administrations are not especially well positioned to make collective pronouncements on current events. Their mission lies elsewhere, in my opinion, in teaching the underpinnings of informed perspectives to their students.
Why do you think a university or a department should take an institutional stand on current events that do not directly relate to the university? A diversity of opinions will exist at any decent university among faculty, administrators and students. Why should one view, even if in the majority, take on the weight of the institution. Faculty members, administrators and students should all be free to express (peacefully and civilly) their individual opinions.
Apparently my post is not written clearly. I am appalled that an institution of higher education would seriously consider taking a stance on current events since that runs counter to the mission of higher education.
I think that you mean that you agree with my stance. I have reread my post and my position seems clear so I do not understand how you came to interpret it as you did. (Maybe I should re-write my post for clarity.)
Yes, I had misread the intent of your post as it was originally worded. I’ll say that this was my fault for interpreting it beyond its literal content. In any case, it’s interesting to see a consensus on the main topic among the early contributors here.
So in the abstract, the idea of institutional neutrality makes sense. And as someone who sees how this question plays out at a high-profile university, I do think it’s easy to get carried away in terms of how/when to issue an institutional statement.
But I think the crux of the opposing argument is this: “Roth was the only member of the panel who dissented against institutional neutrality, arguing that universities should be allowed to comment on world events that affect members of their communities” (emphasis mine).
Perfect example: DACA (and, by extension, immigration policy). Most universities invite undocumented students to be part of their communities, and many have support mechanisms in place for those students. When DACA was threatened, was it inappropriate for universities to make statements in full-throated support of DACA’s continuation? At my institution, at least, those statements made clear the relationship to our welcoming of and strong support for our undocumented student community.
Same with affirmative action: if a university believes that affirmative action facilitates a diverse student community—indeed, that it’s critical to the university’s ability to achieve its objectives of building a diverse community—is it wrong to comment on the implications of the Supreme Court ruling overturning its legality in admissions?
Again, I get the slippery slope argument. But, on balance, I think I lean toward Roth’s position, that it’s appropriate—even necessary—for a university to speak on issues that affect the community.
(And, full disclosure, I have a child at Wesleyan )
I agree in practice this gets very complicated and simple answers may not always be possible.
I do think as a general rule of thumb, the institution as a whole should typically only consider having a policy position when the institution itself has some sort of practical stake in the policy issue. There may be other issues on which a lot of faculty, students, and so on want a voice, and I think that is fine, but then perhaps the most appropriate way of doing that is for them to form their own groups, as opposed to working through the institution as a whole.
I personally think the examples you gave fall within the scope of that sort of rule, meaning I agree those are cases in which institutions themselves were in fact stakeholders. But there are other cases where I think finding the line can be complicated, and controversial.
Agreed—this is not black-and-white, and each institution will likely have a different answer on an issue-by-issue basis.
And Roth is in a unique position—long-time, extraordinarily successful president of a SLAC that has a reputation for outspokenness and activism but is not viewed as having national impact like a Harvard or Yale. The stakes for him (and Wesleyan) are different.
Yes, the controversy will come whether some event directly relates to the university. I agree that the examples given by Collegequestion fall within events that directly relate to the university.
Yes, as I think you are also suggesting, even if in theory an institution would have a stake in speaking on a controversial issue, it might for practical reasons decide not to, or to very carefully limit what it does say.
To be very blunt, these institutions have long term strategies that depend on them being seen favorably by donors, well-positioned alums, sometimes government officials, present and potential faculty and students, and so on. And in fact different institutions might have different sorts of exposure, different branding strategies, and so on.
Of course this is the same sort of issue a lot of large for-profit companies face as well. “Public relations” turns out to be really complicated, because the public is complicated. And these successful organizations, whether in higher education or other competitive markets, did not get where they are by ignoring the importance of public relations.
But one of the complexities these higher education institutions face is maybe not so many people in the public are comfortable with such a blunt view. Personally, I am fine with it, but I think some people see it as crass and inconsistent with the ideals of higher education for these entities to treat PR issues in such a way.
Anyway, point being I basically understand where Roth is coming from. This is not always going to be easy. And while I think it is fine to try to articulate some general principles and rules of thumb, when things get hot, the top administrators at these institutions are going to have to make some complex decisions about what best balances the interests of the institution and all its various stakeholders.
And of course Wesleyan is also competing for faculty, students (who eventually become those well-connected alums), donations, and so on. Which it has been doing very successfully, but it can’t ever stop thinking about how to be an effective competitor.
Again I think some people see that as a crass way of thinking, but to me this is exactly what I want as a parent. I want my kids to be looking at lots of colleges competing to be successful, to be valued, to have financial resources, to have well-positioned alums, and so on.
And to me that implies I want college Presidents and such who understand that PR is in fact a critical part of their job, who understand that means they need to approach these issues both ethically AND pragmatically.
Disagree as almost every issue will affect at least some members of a university/college community.
Where you see a “slippery slope”, I see a cliff.
So donations from a donor allied with a specific agenda now become an issue upon which colleges & universities should take a public stance ? (This is what actually occurred recently.)
I can think of 2 areas where this can come up. One is if the donation is restricted. Universities have always had to make a call whether or not the restriction impinges too much on the academic priorities/freedom of the institution. A case in mind is Yale returning a $20mm gift from Lee Bass which was designated for courses focusing on Western Civilization when he required the power to approve faculty members teaching those courses.
The other area is what has been happening recently with the Gaza protests. Here donors are/are threatening to pull their donations/pledges over the actions/inactions of their alma maters because they think the university has effectively taken a position (or certain departments have). I am not aware though of a large donor who has conditioned their donations on their university taking a particular side and the university making a decision to take a stance based on that demand. I think the donors for the most part are asking for neutrality with real consequences for those who violate existing restrictions on time, place and manner, or who engage in hate speech.
So, are we saying absolutely nothing? I mean, campuses throughout the east (like Brown) are covered in WW1 and 2 memorials, and the inscriptions on those memorials do a lot more than just list names of dead alumni. Wesleyan and Brown converted their open spaces and transformed their campuses to infantry training grounds.
They seemed to be taking a pretty clear “side” on a fairly large conflict.
I think Roth and @Collegequestions5 (and not because I had a kid at Wesleyan) have it right: it’s ok for colleges to have a view on both things that directly affect the university/college and issues of great significance to society at large. I assume we would all agree that there are at least some issues on which it’s ok (and perhaps even expected) for colleges to have a view.
The art is not miring the school into partisan politics.
The older I get, the more convinced I am that you cannot manage public life by writing one set of (allegedly) comprehensive rules that contemplate every contigency and always apply in black and white. Just as any of us who took a comparative law class in LS learned, even the most ambitious of Code countries have not escaped the need for judge-made law, regardless of what they chose to call it.
Of course, the greatest practitioner of “pragmatic public relations” in my lifetime was the late Kingman Brewster. I think he was the only Yale president to become a recurring character on “Doonesbury”.
Also, we are running dangerously close to Wesleyan being the good judgment school of pragmatism, which will cause a few folks to scratch their heads. First “Safe-enough” spaces. Then fairly well controlled and managed Gaza encampments. Now this? What is the world coming to?
)