Yes and I think that is the point of institutional neutrality which is the position taken by the University of Chicago, for instance. My understanding is that the university itself does not take a stance but does encourage for the free and open discussion of ideas among the members of the university.
In fact, I would argue that if a university does take a stance that it stifles the free and open discussion of ideas since the institution has made it clear which stance is approved and which views would therefore be unwelcome.
I think we are in agreement though as you have clarified your stance. The confusion arose from your first sentence which has since been rewritten.
I did not rewrite the first sentence of my first post in this thread. Still do not understand how my position was misunderstood, but, at least, it is clear to readers now.
The first sentence can be read as if you are saying surprised that the idea of institutional neutrality is even up for debate as it (institutional neutrality) runs counter to the purpose of education.
I wondered if you had misunderstood the idea behind institutional neutrality where your definition would be a university which engages in institutional neutrality is demanding everyone in the institution remain neutral or at least everyone on staff. Such a definition would preclude free and open debate so would in fact run counter to the purpose of education. Obviously a misunderstanding wasn’t the case but that is why I explained the idea behind institutional neutrality.
I would argue that you’re making a bit of a leap here. An institution can both articulate a view, say, for DACA, or maintain war memorials which, among other things, include inscriptions like “the call to defend freedom against tyranny,” and at the same time allow students to debate these things. The university disclosing its position is not tantamount to a threat that you’ll be thrown out, your grades adversely affected or your life made miserable should you take an opposing stance. Otherwise, there would be no non-Catholics or atheists at Notre Dame, and there surely are.
Wesleyan has the same kinds of federal funding streams at risk as larger universities: research grants from NIH and NSF, as well as Pell grants to students and the federal student loan program. I asked Roth if speaking out puts all of these at risk.
“Of course, I think about that,” Roth said. “And then I think that’s the classic collaborationist dilemma, right? You know, you collaborate with authoritarians who you know are in the wrong, in order to keep them from doing worse stuff. And I think when you do that, when you engage in the collaboration, you actually encourage them to do even worse stuff.”
Michael S. Roth, who is the president of Wesleyan University and a rare critic of the White House among university administrators, welcomed Harvard’s decision. “What happens when institutions overreach is that they change course when they meet resistance,” he said. “It’s like when a bully is stopped in his tracks.” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/opinion/harvard-trump-administration-statement.html
Please remember that this thread is not in the political forum. A number of responses hidden. There is an active conversation in the political forum about some of these issues. TIA!
Easy to be idealistic for an institution that doesn’t care about research as asserted (doesn’t care about sending that message about research) by many of the faculty at Williams College according to the article. The reality is that this stance will have little impact on an LAC like Williams College. And, of course, Williams College is not a research institution.
