The University of Michigan Board of Regents voted Oct. 17 to adopt a bylaw establishing a new policy of institutional neutrality for university leaders.
The move means the university will adopt a heavy presumption against institutional statements on political and social issues that are not directly connected to internal university functions.
more information
The bylaw, which was approved unanimously, applies to the president, members of the president’s leadership team, deans, directors, department chairs and others authorized to speak for the university or an academic unit.
It aims to foster the greatest possible degree of freedom of expression and diversity for members of U-M’s academic community. Faculty members are still free to speak and debate on issues of the day, and university leaders may speak in their individual capacity.
“This institution should start discussions about the consequential issues of our time, not end them,” Regent Mark Bernstein said. “We must open the way for our individual faculty’s expertise, intelligence, scholarship and wisdom to inform our state and society in their own voice, free from institutional interference.
“This neutrality policy elevates individual faculty voices in honoring our indispensable mission. Institutional neutrality also eliminates the suppression of ideas in departments where faculty who seek promotion or retention — including lecturers — feel compelled to fall in line with an expressed institutional orthodoxy embraced by their superiors.”
Regent Sarah Hubbard said the new policy would not limit the ability of any individual U-M community member to speak their mind “regarding issues both on and off campus, but we will not be speaking on behalf of the institution regarding social or political issues that are not related to our internal governance.
“Institutional neutrality is the position that is the most supportive of faculty,” she said. “It says the experts and scholars should be the ones engaged in public debate and discourse. They should move knowledge and fields forward. It’s not up to chairs, deans or administrators to make those arguments on behalf of the university.”
A growing number of universities have adopted institutional neutrality in recent years, drawing from the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report and its conclusion that a university should be “the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” The critics — the “instrument[s] of dissent,” in the Kalven Report’s terms — are the individual members of the academic community.
The decision by the regents follows a 131-page report issued Sept. 17 by the Advisory Committee on the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression, made up of 32 faculty members, seven staff members, two students and a librarian.
One of the subcommittees of that overall advisory committee examined whether the university should adopt institutional neutrality, and recommended that university leaders refrain from issuing statements that do not directly relate to internal governance.
“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,” the report said.
Under the policy of institutional neutrality, leaders can continue to speak out on contested issues affecting the university, including admissions policies, among other matters. When members of the university community are affected by a national or world event, university leaders are encouraged to express concern and empathy and share available resources and practical updates, as long as this practice does not take a position.
