The University of Michigan should adopt a position of institutional neutrality on political or social issues not directly connected to internal university functions, according to a report by a faculty, staff and student advisory committee on diversity of thought and freedom of expression.
The report urges the university to join a growing number of universities that have adopted institutional neutrality, which sets a strong presumption against institutional statements.
more information
“As our political and social climate has grown fractious in recent decades, it has become increasingly common for university leaders or departments to issue statements on social and political developments. These institutional statements might condemn a new development, express solidarity with those affected by it, or advocate for a specific policy,” the report said.
“Such institutional statements disserve the university’s mission. They undermine our commitment to open inquiry by suggesting that those who disagree are unwelcome. They cause would-be dissenters to worry that voicing disagreement may jeopardize admission, grades, or advancement. This risk is especially acute for statements issued by or on behalf of departments or other units that make up the university because of the closer connections among the individuals within those units.”
The 131-page report was issued by the Committee on the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression, formed earlier this year to evaluate the campus climate and recommend how U-M could strengthen diversity of thought and freedom of expression.
The Principles Committee, as it has become known, included 32 faculty members from 12 schools and colleges, a librarian, seven staff members and two students — all drawn from across the university’s Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses and Michigan Medicine, U-M’s academic medical center. Its recommendations — including that of institutional neutrality — will be considered by the Board of Regents and university leadership.
In making its case, the committee pointed to the mission of the university and noted that the creation of knowledge “requires us to examine what we think we know and consider the possibility that we might be wrong.”
“We learn through immersive study, unfettered exchange of ideas, contestation of principles, robust disagreement, and questioning of longstanding assumptions,” the report said. “This intensive process advances the state of human knowledge and it allows us to revise, and sometimes discard, beliefs that were once considered unassailable.”
The report drew from a communitywide survey, open from May 24 to June 30, that collected responses from 4,133 students, faculty, staff, alumni and retirees.
It described the responses as “deeply thoughtful, strong, and sometimes anger-filled perspectives” that were “cause for both hope and concern.” Excerpts from responses were highlighted in the report to reveal detailed, ground-level perspectives from inside classrooms, offices, conference rooms and other locations.
The report came to several conclusions, most notably that “diversity of thought is lacking, as most respondents agree that liberal or progressive voices dominate the conversation. Deficiencies in constructive disagreement are compounded by social pressure that silences people who disagree with prevailing perspectives. Individuals holding conservative, libertarian, and traditional Christian views report significant pressure to self-censor.”
Beyond institutional neutrality, the report puts forward a dozen other recommendations, including a proposal to create a campuswide pluralism initiative that would promote models for civil discourse.
Other suggestions included developing an essay prompt that would ask applicants to explain how they would engage individuals with whom they disagree, and the creation of a required course for incoming students on freedom of expression, diversity of thought, and dialogue across differences.
The principles committee was divided into three subcommittees led respectively by Jenna Bednar, professor of political science in LSA, professor of public policy in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and faculty director of UMICH Votes and Democratic Engagement; Mika LaVaque-Manty, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and associate professor of political science and of philosophy in LSA; and Kristina B. Daugirdas, Francis A. Allen Collegiate Professor of Law and professor of law at the Law School.
The principles report is a continuation of an effort that in January produced the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression, which reinforced the university’s commitment to freedom of speech.
“There is much work to be done to live up to the principles,” said Timothy G. Lynch, vice president and general counsel, who chaired the effort. “The university should take pride in the robust and collaborative endeavor that took a critical look at the challenges on campus, and — by soliciting thousands of individual perspectives from across our community — produced a meaningful analysis to help us become stronger, more inclusive of diverse perspectives, and to better able to live up to our mission.”
David Treece
How does neutrality work when someone argues against facts? The Holocaust happened, man did land on the moon, the earth is billions of years old (not 6,000 years old per “traditional Christians,” vaccines work and save millions of lives, there is no proof of fraud that would have changed the outcome of the last presidential election, so the election was not stolen, etc. Neutrality sounds great, but not in the face of falsehoods.
Sam Baldwin
This is an excellent idea. Next, the media should adopt this approach too.
Camron Amin
In reading the report, it was hard to assess the relationship between the comments in the appendix and characterizations of them in the full report and its recommendations. The comments seem to express a broader range of reactions than are addressed in the analysis. As a person tasked with helping to understand (and trying to understand better myself ) the history of diversity, equality and inclusion at UM, it was jarring to see those principles reduced to being a “brand” or partisan ideology in some of the comments in the appendix. I do see some wariness about our institutional commitment to repairing structural inequities – that DEI is about looking good rather than doing good. It takes time and engagement to overcome those trust deficits. This report, though, seems overly concerned with comments that reject the principles behind DEI policy efforts. It’s as though inclusion must – somehow – also uplift and validate attitudes that seem to reject inclusivity as a principle. I don’t know what to do with that. I also think “institutional neutrality” needs to be carefully calibrated to our mission. Is it a violation of our mission to issue statements calling for the de-escalation of a military conflict? Is it wrong to express institutional concern about violations of human and civil rights in the US or around the world – perhaps as a prelude to committing some of our academic capacity towards developing and offering solutions? In the abstract, I’m confident that most of us would be inclined to say, “No. Of course, that’s not wrong. We should do stuff like that.” How do we go from that to “No comment. Because institutional neutrality?” Many of our academic professional societies have committees that do respond to issues of academic freedom and other social issues that intersect with their missions. It’s always a challenge to decide when and how to issue a statement or implement a responsive policy change. But, they don’t just throw up their hands and say, “The real world is too hard. Write your congressional representative instead.” I think the false hope is that “institutional neutrality” will insulate our academic community from the intense polarization around the upcoming presidential election, the ongoing disaster in Gaza and other issues. But, our institutional stance so far has been to repress and selectively delegitimize certain perspectives rather than engage with them. Engagement does not preclude criticism, and, I do appreciate that the report recognizes that. I’ll be interested to see where leadership decides to go from here. The direction so far has been more concerning than encouraging.
Rebekah Modrak
My discipline, photography, long claimed to be “neutral” and objective, which wasn’t the case and only advantaged photographers who wanted to be seen as “truth-tellers” and not be scrutinized for their particular agendas. The camera body was built to photograph White people (literally, its exposure meter is calibrated for our skin). Historically White Academic Institutions are built likewise. I’d prefer to be honest about our biases than to adopt the pretense of neutrality.
David Anderson
Diversity of thought is what all institutions of higher learning should be attempting to achieve. David Treece points out the potential for “falsehoods”, implying misinformation will be the result of neutrality.
Once upon a time the idea the world is round was considered “misinformation” and the arbiters of truth sought to punish such thoughts.
Any higher institution worth its salt should be able to present solid arguments against what may or may not be considered misinformation. Given the scientific method all ideas can and perhaps should be challenged.
People are more intelligent than academia gives them credit for and are quite capable of hearing diverse thoughts. So-called facts are often modified after scrutiny.
Craig Smith
So… As an example, when trump exacerbated the family separation policy at the border, which caused deep levels of harm that have not ended, the university would be neutral if queried? Would it *actually* be neutral? Or would someone like president ono, if queried, express concern or upset at the violent breaking up of already-desperate families? If our leaders give a crap about something objectively horrific, I want them to speak out. That’s how the world gets better. If they honestly don’t care about things like human rights — and/or if they lack the skills to hold nuanced conversations about such things — then we are in a deeply sad place brought to you recently by people such as elise stefanik, who forces resignations of university leaders even as she backs trump (who dines with Holocaust deniers). None of this makes sense, until you realize that U-M’s neutrality is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But yeah, let’s pretend the university doesn’t have any moral stake in human rights.
Levi Pierpont
Institutional neutrality is a joke. It sounds great, but what does it even mean? Does this mean the university will overhaul its endowment investments to be sure they are as neutral as possible, or is supporting the military industrial complex and mass killing “neutral” in the eyes of this committee? Does this mean the university will do a thorough review of class material and faculty, to be sure everything taught is as neutral as possible? This is just a ploy for the university to feign neutrality in situations of injustice, all the while supporting the oppressors behind the scenes. Disclose, divest, drop the charges, and abolish UMPD. Shame on this university.
Tom Braun
Congrats to my fellow committee members on the incredible insight offered in this imperfect, yet measured document! Haters gonna hate?
Jared Eno
I’m shocked to see Tom Braun’s comments celebrating this report. As a member of the committee who published it, I would expect him to maintain his neutrality on this issue.
The committee’s consensus on the report also shows a lack of diversity of thought that is deeply concerning. Taking a side on neutrality does a disserve to the university’s mission, and undermines our commitment to open inquiry by suggesting that those who disagree with institutional neutrality are unwelcome. It causes would-be dissenters to worry that voicing disagreement with institutional neutrality may jeopardize admission, grades, or advancement.
Instead of advocating for a specific policy, the university should have stayed neutral on this issue. In the future, I hope that the university avoids taking a side on any issues– among other things, the Record should shut down, the Regents should fall silent, and professors should retract all of their publications. Only when all communication and activity stops can we be sure that those who might disagree feel welcome.
Farah Huq
“Neutrality” = complacency with (& complicity in) the status quo. When we don’t take a clear stance against systemic oppression, we perpetuate systemic oppression.
“Individuals holding conservative, libertarian, and traditional Christian views report significant pressure to self-censor,” — this is intentionally vague wording. Please elaborate. What are the views that are being self censored? What are the perspectives you are hoping to empower with this policy? Are you saying that we need our campus to be a welcoming space for white supremacists? Is your point that we need to be inclusive of folks who are anti-Black, xenophobic, pro- police brutality, pro- mass incarceration, pro- ICE, homophobic, transphobic, etc.? Is our campus not welcoming enough of Trump supporters who would like to see a significant chunk of us deported? What are you even arguing here ??
Disappointed and disgusted at this proposal.
Robert LaRoe
“Haters gonna hate?” This is serious Tom.
Christopher Godwin
I find it frankly astonishing and a little depressing that there are those at the University who feel that taking a position of neutrality is somehow controversial. Institutional Neutrality is something that should be an obvious policy for an academic institution, especially a *public* university like the U of M.
Whether various critics of Institutional Neutrality realize it or not, the U of M does not fully reflect the diversity of the people of the entire state of Michigan, i.e., the stakeholders who fund the U of M in a myriad of ways. Whether the funding is direct via financial contributions from taxpayers who live in Michigan; from indirect contributions via tax-exempt status for the vast amounts of property across the state, from the significant amount of land in Ann Arbor, to the Biological Station in Pellston, and beyond; to the sales tax-exempt status the university enjoys in procurement, etc.; *all* of the people of the state have a direct stake in the university, not just the faculty, staff and students.
The U of M is not a private university, it’s a *public* university, which makes it vitally important to be accountable to *all* of the stakeholders, not just the people who work at the Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses, and the people who reside in those communities.
Laura Beny
Freedom of expression? Diversity of thought? For some, yes. For others? Probable criminalization.
Ellington Poston
It’s interesting that the university is now contemplating a position of “neutrality on political or social issues not directly connected to internal university functions,” as they actively suppress pro-Palestinian voices and protesters. Was this a topic of discussion during BLM? No; President Schlissel made a public statement about the “appalling pestilence of racism.” What about during the onset of the war in Ukraine? Again, no. President Mary Coleman stated, “I condemn this invasion and the ruthless attack on freedom,” and the university even divested from Russian investments at that time. So, please explain to me: why now?
Unexpressed views of the university does not mean that the university is simply not holding views that inevitably play into its decision-making; rather, it means that those views are hidden from the public, making it increasingly difficult for our community to respond. Imagine that, in a period of supposed “neutrality,” the campus community has no apparent indicators of the university’s position. Perhaps we can draw conclusions based on observations of university actions, such as financial investments or the removal of staff or faculty due to their political engagement, but if we, as a community, begin to press the issue or ask questions, the university can simply absolve itself of any critique by reportedly maintaining a “neutral” position.
While I feel strong anger and disappointment toward the university’s responses over the past year, its expressiveness has allowed students, faculty, staff, and alumni to voice their opinions and concerns for consideration (although they have been actively ignored and punished). By withholding its stance, the university takes away our community’s power to dissent or even support university stances, actively undermining the very reason it is considering a stance of neutrality.
It is stated that university statements “undermine our commitment to open inquiry,” but that is not the case. It is the brutality used by police to suppress pro-Palestinian protesters that does this. It is the issuing of hiring bans against student activists (although the university loves to tout student activism for recruiting purposes) that does this. It is the termination of a staff appointment due to political activism that does this. It is the changing of free speech policies because student activism makes leadership uncomfortable that does this. It is the lack of acknowledgment of Islamophobia on campus that does this. It is the current actions of university leadership that truly undermine our commitment to open inquiry.
A position of neutrality would not lead to a commitment to open inquiry, university action must do that.