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.
Max Lahn
We should not be shocked by this cowardly and shameful move from university leadership. What does it mean that the university that profits off of genocide and brutalizes anti-genocide protestors calls itself “neutral”? University admin continue to abdicate their moral obligations to use the enormous power and wealth of U-M to create a better world, instead choosing to prioritize their own profits.
Michael Mancuso
I share the same sentiments and concerns as you, and in general have been just as disappointed with University leadership.
However, I see this as a step in the right direction, and not an end-all solution to the problems the University has. The university’s investments, no matter the scale, should be done in tandem with the university’s moral statements and obligations, and that should be the next step. However, all the bylaw does is restrict what administration can say regarding the University as a whole supporting one side or perspective of a political argument.
In that way, I believe the bylaw is a step in the right direction. However, I will be standing right alongside you in the next step of making not only statements of the University neutral, but the actions of the University neutral (i.e. withdrawing investments from corporations which are involved in the current global conflict)
Peter Slutzker
Disgraceful
Ruth Gretzinger
It’s sad that it took a tidal wave of antisemitism to make it happen, but institutional neutrality is clearly the right way to go. Let’s get back to teaching and learning, research and patient care, and ensuring a positive campus environment for all our students, Jews included. Thank you Regents!
Peter Slutzker
Hi Ruth,
I’m curious how confident you feel in the university’s new ability to denounce antisemitism on-campus and worldwide now that they’ve taken a stance of neutrality, as opposed to previously?
Ruth Gretzinger
U-M’s responsibility is not to “denounce antisemitism.” It is to ensure a positive environment on campus for its faculty, staff, and students. I see no problem with U-M not weighing in on world events and at the same time making sure Jewish students on campus are not being harassed or attacked. Those are two totally different things.
Mohamad Berry
“tidal wave of antisemitism”? Are you referring to the pro-Palestine protests? Those were against the genocide and the holocaust of Palestinians…not against a specific religion…
Michael Mancuso
There’s a tremendous amount of conversation here regarding the “israeli-palestinian conflict” (again, I’m not sure if naming conventions here are more or less accurate in places).
Michigan does and will continue to hold its responsibility to making sure all of the students in it feel safe. This would include any aspects of threatening any groups of people on campus. The bylaw does nothing to change this: this job falls under the duties of the University no matter the case.
I believe Ruth puts it well here. In terms of how the University will act in response to situations, it is against antisemitism and islamophobia, and will continue to be. The change made by the bylaw is no longer allowing administration like our president to issue statements to the University that seem to pick sides. I think this is a step in the right direction.
David Baker
Glad to see UM moving in the direction of ideological openness and unbiased inquiry.
This is an entirely separate issue from the treatment of protesters, and one can object strenuously to the way UM has dealt with pro-Palestine students while also recognizing that a university’s mission requires ideological pluralism.
Michael Mancuso
Once again, I have to say, the bylaw is not yet enough. It’s a step in the right direction.
With what it is so far, all the bylaw does is prevent administration here at Michigan from issuing statements on behalf of the university when it comes to political issues, which usually is a false representation of a good chunk of the student or faculty population.
I see this as a win for both “sides” of those of us here talking about the “israeli-palestinian” argument, because it allows for better individual freedom of expression of everyone. I’d like to think the bylaw is a step towards something larger that will send the University in the right direction.
Andrew Robbins
Considering the radical democratic social upheaval that took place in the following years, citing a 1967 report is certainly a choice.
Craig Smith
So, let’s say trump is reelected and continues to refer to immigrants, migrants, and refugees as ‘vermin,’ which has been a precursor to more than one horrific/deadly event in the social history of our world. In that case, U-M would have no official position on whether immigrants, migrants, and refugees are vermin? It’s up to the people at U-M to make that statement, and those who are at U-M in those targeted groups would feel no extra sense of care from U-M? Because neutrality is so effective at taking good care of the most vulnerable? (Barf)
Zeev Bareket
That’s a good point, Craig.
However: if the UM were to offer a position following each of Trump’s ridiculous and divisive statements, there will be no time left for research and education. Further, the mandate of the university’s leadership is not “taking good care of the most vulnerable”; while such care is definitely needed – it is not within the purview of the university.
Last but not least: sometimes the damage caused by taking sides exceeds that of maintaining neutrality. AAPS board is a classic example.
Craig Smith
Thanks for responding. Tho honestly i feel like it’s a bit of a straw person, since i never suggested that every trump action deserves a response. And i think you’re forgetting that the university also has values in addition to a mission. Those are always conveniently forgotten.
Michael Mancuso
I think the ultimate goal of the university should foremost be its mission: push forward the world of academics and art, and in order to do so, foster a community that values integrity, diversity, and inclusion for its students.
The truth is, we have much larger issues in the states if actual legislation gets passed that forces action being taken on the groups you mention. Michigan would have no power over it in either case. Furthermore, Michigan doesn’t have influence on these laws or politics as a University: the people here do, but the university does not. I think it’s important we remember that when we move forward towards making the University itself (not the ideas/beliefs of those in it) truly neutral.
Michael Mancuso
It’s a start. One step in the right direction towards moving University of Michigan’s actions to being verifiably neutral in the scope of global politics and social issues.
To be clear, this is not enough — All that has changed significantly is the ability for administration at Michigan (like our president) to issue statements on its behalf supporting one-sided perspectives or policies. The next step would be to extrapolate on this and further it to what Michigan is legally allowed to fund or support.
It’s a delicate process, but not much has immediately changed, however, I believe this is a step in the right direction for essentially all students here at Michigan.
Bryan Shaw
Umich is officially becoming a trash fire after that NYTimes article