FAQs on Institutional Neutrality

The AAUP and the History of Institutional Neutrality

What is institutional neutrality?
There is no single definition of the term. Claims for institutional neutrality have variously referred to a university’s need to maintain silence on social or political matters; bans on statements made by academic departments and other units within the university, or sometimes by faculty speaking collectively across departments; a refusal to divest from or scrutinize financial investments on bases deemed political; and limits on campus protests by students or their supporters.

Where did the concept of institutional neutrality come from?
The earliest articulations of the principle of institutional neutrality came during the Progressive Era—the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, the moment of the expansion of research universities and the consolidation of disciplines.

Why was the concept developed?
Higher education presidents had a political goal to protect the university and its faculty from the ire of businessmen and politicians who found the views of reform-minded professors distasteful, if not subversive, and who thought their financial investments in the university gave them the right to fire its professors and dictate its policies. To stave off powerful financial interference and public scrutiny, university presidents and faculty claimed autonomy for their institutions and complete “freedom of speech” for teachers.

Has the AAUP ever taken a position on institutional neutrality and academic freedom?
Aside from a 1970 resolution adopted by the Fifty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the AAUP calling on the academic community to direct greater attention to the solution of “contemporary social problems,” the AAUP has never determined that the neutrality of institutions is either necessary for, or incompatible with, the principles of academic freedom. For more than a half century, the Association has instead chosen to emphasize the complexity of the issues involved, the dangers that can attend either approach, and the necessity of making institutional decisions with an eye to their effects on academic freedom and shared governance.

How was the concept of institutional neutrality used in the 1960s and 1970s?
Student protests against the war in Vietnam prompted college and university administrators to assert institutional neutrality as a way of refusing student demands and of characterizing those demands as a violation of a sacred principle. University committees began to issue reports articulating a principle of institutional neutrality.

What is the Kalven Report?
The University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report—formally the Kalven Committee: Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action—has become one of the most influential declarations of institutional neutrality. It took the position that there must be “a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be.” The report conceded that “the instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student.” By focusing solely on the academic freedom of individual faculty and students, the Kalven Report did not consider the possibility or value of collective expression by these groups—or of the role of shared governance in which departments, schools, or the faculty as a whole might play a collective role.

What are the Chicago Principles?
The 2014 Chicago Principles were issued by the University of Chicago also in response to student protests. It connected the principles of institutional neutrality and free speech, defined as “the freedom of all members of the University community to discuss any problem that presents itself.” The principles equated freedom of expression with freedom of discussion, ignoring other modes of expression such as deliberation and protest.

Institutional Statements

Do institutional statements on political or social controversies violate academic freedom and shared governance?
According to Committee A, an institution’s decision to make statements on political or social controversies does not necessarily infringe on the academic freedom of faculty members, nor does its refusal to make such statements, at least when that decision is made by the institution itself, through properly shared governance. Committee A therefore rejects the Kalven Report’s argument that “there is no mechanism by which [the university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting the full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”

Do legislative bans on institutional statements violate academic freedom?
Academic freedom suffers when colleges and universities are barred from speaking out against threats that affect higher education nationwide. Legislative bans on expression that include vague or overbroad language are likely to chill expression not only by institutions but also by their members.

What are the potential problems with institutional statements?
Criticisms of institutional statements include the allegations that they often have little practical effect, beget ever more statements, or produce unnecessary controversy within the university. Other criticisms implicate serious academic freedom concerns. When institutions choose to make a statement, they have a responsibility to consider the effects their choice will have on academic freedom at their institution and beyond. Critics have alleged that statements sometimes go beyond the expertise of the institution or person responsible for making them, thereby reducing public trust and political support for institutions of higher education. Statements that appear overly partisan or indicate an intolerance for dissent or open discussion of controversial issues can similarly corrode the atmosphere of academic freedom that is required for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge. 

Do institutions take positions in other ways that affect academic freedom?
Yes, there many other ways colleges and universities take positions that are not neutral and affect academic freedom. Among them are admission and financial aid policies; criteria for faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure; changes in the curriculum; efforts to promote diversity and inclusion; the naming of buildings; decisions to open or close departments or research centers; and—most recently—guidelines for acceptable student protest, especially those that favor one side in a political controversy.

Departmental Statements

Should departments or other campus units like schools, centers, and institutes make statements?
In deciding whether department or other campus units should be allowed to make statements, several considerations come into play. Departmental statements potentially go beyond speech at the institutional level in two important ways. First, when departments draw on their distinctive disciplinary expertise in making a statement on some matter of social or political controversy, they avoid the criticism often levied against institutional administrators who weigh in on subjects beyond their ken. A ban on statements by departments potentially deprives society of the collective voice of experts in the fields most relevant to the controversy at hand. Second, departmental statements can be an important form of intramural speech, contributing to shared governance. At the same time, statements by departments are potentially dangerous to academic freedom. In particular, the pressure dissenters might feel conforming to a collective view is likely to be far greater at the departmental level than at the institutional level. The procedures in place for making statements and an institution’s demonstrated commitment to academic freedom can both diminish the potential chilling effects departmental statements might have.

What is the relationship between departmental statements and shared governance?
Departmental statements can potentially play a distinctive role in shared governance, which the AAUP has long recognized as “inextricably linked” to academic freedom. Attempts to ban or limit statements by departments thus work to silence an important form of intramural speech in the university.

Financial Investments

What is the AAUP’s position on institutional neutrality and a university’s investment strategy?
An annual meeting of the AAUP resolved in 1970 that universities must bear “direct responsibility for the way in which invested income-bearing resources are managed” and “accept corporate responsibility to address . . . societal problems.” This includes responsibility not only for the social impact of their choices but also for their impact on academic freedom and inclusion within the university community—all of which should be transparently acknowledged and discussed through the processes of shared academic governance. No decision concerning a university’s investment strategy counts as neutral. Whether a university accepts or rejects specific calls for divestment, whether it decides to maximize profits or to use its investments to advance other institutional priorities and values, it makes a substantive decision that reflects its values.

Campus Protests

Are restrictions on campus protests acceptable under principles of institutional neutrality?
University administrators often justify restrictions on campus protests as “neutral” because they are said to protect the university’s ability to carry out its true mission; the restrictions themselves are then framed (if not always applied) in a content-neutral manner. But it is not neutral to assume that protest is inherently inconsistent with the university’s mission or that no level of political disruption can be permitted on campus without endangering the university’s mission. Speech policies are substantive choices that should be discussed and decided through the processes of shared governance.

Are time, place, and manner restrictions on campuses institutionally neutral?
The content neutrality of time, place, and manner restrictions can mask the fact that the amount of expression that a university sees as necessary to prohibit is itself a value-laden choice. At public universities and private universities that commit to First Amendment principles, time, place, and manner restrictions, even when content-neutral, must be narrowly drawn and still leave open “ample alternative channels for communication.” Determining what kind and amount of expression satisfies these requirements is another decision on which universities are unable to remain neutral.