In anticipation of a renewal of student protests against the war in Gaza, Cornell recently announced that it has adopted an official policy of institutional neutrality, meaning that it won’t take sides. Harvard had adopted the same policy last spring.
I agree with this policy. Universities are places for learning, debate, study, and free expression of ideas. They lose their role as guardian of free thinking and open exchange of ideas when they take a stand on controversial issues. Conflicting groups of students and faculty want the University to “take a stand,” but that’s not the role of a university. That’s their responsibility.
Laurell Duggan of Unherd wrote:
Cornell University announced on Monday that its president and provost will refrain from making statements on issues that do not directly impact the school. This makes it the second Ivy League university to adopt such a policy in pursuit of institutional neutrality, after Harvard.
The school pledged that its response to expected protests in the coming months will be content-neutral, and said it will need to balance free speech rights with the legal obligation to protect students from harassment and discrimination. “Thus it is our responsibility and our obligation to enforce our policies ensuring that speech or actions by some members of our community does not violate the rights of others,” the announcement read.
This spring, Cornell was subject to widespread media coverage of its campus protests over the war in Gaza, with one piece in Tablet describing a campus culture which was hostile to “normal” students — including the one-third of the student body who belong to Greek life — and permissive of rule-breaking protests and encampments. The university also received pushback from pro-Israel donors and alumni, who expressed concerns about campus antisemitism. Going forward, Cornell will ensure that protests, particularly encampments, do not block other students from accessing campus spaces.
Institutional neutrality, most famously articulated in the 1968 Chicago Statement, is a policy under which universities remain neutral on hot-button issues in order to protect academic freedom for staff and students. In past years, most notably during the racial reckoning of 2020, American universities took stances through official statements in violation of this principle. After years of taking public stands, universities were slow to publish statements in the wake of the 7 October attacks and the ensuing war in Gaza, angering those on both sides of the debate and leading to a donor revolt by pro-Israel alumni as well as months-long anti-Israel campus protests that derailed the academic year at many Ivy League universities.
The debacle of the past year has prompted a change of heart among university leaders. Earlier this month, Johns Hopkins University announced that its president, provost and deans would no longer make public statements on current events unless they were directly related to the functioning of the university, instead adopting a “policy of restraint”. There has been a growth in demands for the university to make official statements in recent years according to the announcement, which explained that such statements “can be at odds with the university’s function as a place for open discourse and the free exchange of ideas”.
“The very idea of an ‘official’ position of the university on a social, scientific, or political issue runs counter to our foundational ethos […] to be a place where competing views are welcomed, challenged, and tested through dialogue and rigorous marshalling,” university leaders wrote.
As with other universities’ policies, this update at Johns Hopkins is not intended to prevent staff from engaging in politics. “In fact,” the announcement read, “one intent of the commitment is to extend the broadest possible scope to the views and expressions of faculty, bolstering faculty in the exercise of their freedom to share insights and perspectives without being concerned about running counter to an ‘institutional’ stance.”
Harvard implemented a similar policy in the spring, indicating that university staff wanted to move away from official statements and instead adopt institutional neutrality.
“We value free and open inquiry and expression – tenets that underlie academic freedom – even of ideas some may consider wrong or offensive,” Cornell’s core values state. “Inherent in this commitment is the corollary freedom to engage in reasoned opposition to messages to which one objects.”

It’s about damned time. Maybe they just needed a bit of leadership from Captain Obvious.
LikeLike
The very first campus class better be on how to actually listen & hear one another with our hearts, our minds & our bodies. Because this politically-calculated group death is painful down to the bone.
A deal for their return had been “on the table” for two months via a U.S.-Brokered hostage exchange list. Now murdered by Hamas “shortly before” the IDF “RESCUED” them. Retrieved from a subterranean tunnel dozens feet deep in Rafah/Gaza. Includes Israeli American Hersh Goldberg-Polin. “Netanyahu knew there were orders to kill them if there were rescue attempts.Their deaths could have been prevented through a deal.”
https://www.haaretz.com
LikeLike
Their deaths could have been prevented by a Hamas surrender. Why won’t the Gaza government surrender?
LikeLike
Why should they? So were I to come and blow your family and home to bits you should surrender to me?
LikeLike
Why should Hamas surrender?
LikeLike
One of the points of all of the demonstrations last Spring was to have the universities divest from their investments that support Israel’s military. They can claim all of the neutrality they wish, but they have skin in the game of supporting the ghastly war in Gaza. Imagine taking a position of neutrality with respect to apartheid in South Africa. I was at the University of Chicago when the admin took the position that “the life of the mind” precluded opposing the war in Vietnam (while their top economists were conspiring to overthrow Allende in Chili.)
LikeLike
Agreed. Schools–and probably instructors–should not unnecessarily take positions on controversial issues. Public school teachers face that same question, too. My high school students would ask me if I was a Democrat or a Republican. I would sometimes answer, “Yes.” Or maybe I’d ask them to try to figure it out. Sometimes I would tell them, “I will tell you at the end of the year,” etc.
When they’d ask “Which party is best for the economy–or some such question–I’d use that as a research project, with agreed upon criteria such as economic growth, inflation, unemployment, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love that approach, Jack
LikeLike
“War is Hell!” Nothing anyone thinks, says,or does is ever going to change that. Scream and yell all you want. Nothing will change that.
Getting angry and violent against those you disagree with isn’t going to change that either. That will only make it worse.
William Tecumseh Sherman said “War is hell”, a Union general in the American Civil War, and also wrote: “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it” while occupying Atlanta during the Civil War. He also said, “I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine”
Those that think war is glory are insane, or never fight and stay far away from the battles and violence.
How many of the world’s leaders throughout history, who are sane and start the wars, fought or were victims of wars first?
I agree with these Mahatma Gandhi quotes:
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.Satyagraha Leaflet no. 13 (1919)
If we are to reach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.in Young India 19 November 1921
Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed.speech at Shahi Bag, 18 March 1922, on a charge of sedition
LikeLike
Rhetorical cover to avoid the issue.
One can hardly claim neutrality when one is invested in and benefitting from the economic and logistical machinery of war.
Boycott, Divest, Sanction.
LikeLike
mhrd2,
Institutional neutrality is necessary for free inquiry. Institutional boycotts are a clear violation of academic freedom of faculty (despite the recent AAUP statement). Allowing the institution to dictate who you can and can not collaborate with in research is simply not acceptable.
For the second point about divestment, you will perhaps be relieved to know that outside of a small group of rich universities, university endowments do not own a single share of stock in any weapons manufacturer, largely because they do not own any stock. Most endowments, like my own university, are too small to own stock. They have shares of mutual funds.
Finally, I think the Ukrainians are thankful that some people in Nato countries have invested in the machinery of war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Long overdue.
LikeLike
Yeah, it is a careful balance. Both Zionists and Palestinians feel unsafe, so we need to respect both. Palestinians are afraid of being killed by 2000-pound bombs. Zionists are afraid of experiencing the psychological discomfort of encountering protests against a mass slaughter that they support. Hard to tell the difference.
LikeLike
The war in Gaza is not simple. Both sides have leaders who don’t want peace. Both sides have committed war crimes. Universities should not take one side. Both have blood on their hands.
LikeLike
It’s complicated, but one thing that is NOT complicated is the toxic relationship between Netanyahu and Trump, which is one reason that Netanyahu ignored all the pressure from the Biden administration for a ceasefire. There are protests against Netanyahu in Israel going on now. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis who want a ceasefire.
Using the term “Zionists” instead of “Israelis” is an antisemitic trope used by people who hate Jews and believe the state of Israel is not legitimate. It’s often used by descendants of white Europeans living in land that white European Christians took from Native Americans and cultivated with the help of slavery and racism. Hypocrites who defend Putin’s annhilation of Ukraine.
There is a reason that there is vigorous debate about this in one party and Netanyahu wants the Democrats to be defeated, while Republicans welcome him with open arms.
If this person was viciously criticizing Trump and the Republicans from 2017-2020 for their Israel policies, I must have missed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, all the protests I personally witnessed in New York City last spring were thinly veiled antisemitic rallies so we’ll have to see if the universities actually deal with those appropriately. I’m not holding my breath
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, demanding that the university that you are paying tens of thousands to stop funding the slaughter of women and children is so anti-semitic.
LikeLike
Diane and Dienne77: Dienne’s comment rightly reveals just how twisted the whole situation is. Diane, you probably watch closer than I, so correct me in my brief “standing on the sidelines” comments below of you think otherwise.
In the first place, from what I can tell, despicably, the Hamas leadership hides behind “their own” civilians who, themselves, apparently for the last generation have been brought up on a “kill all Jews” cultural education (propaganda for injecting in the blood of children). So, if the civilians are not at least complicit in their shielding of Hamas, and that some even loved their invasion of Israel, I would be surprised. If so, then they ARE, and they AREN’T hostages to Hamas’ hate-Jews tribal ideology, though, on the other hand, Israel killing all Muslims in Gaza makes Shakespearian fools of everyone concerned.
On the other OTHER hand, Netanyahu (and many on the Jewish right, (in some sense rightly) cannot politically or spiritually step beyond the Hitler Holocaust, they KNOW how intense and long-lasting the tribal bloodlust is with Hamas under the present situation AND probably so many of the Palestinians too, after having received years of antisemitic propaganda and witnessing firsthand some of Israel’s incursions in the West Bank, and generally, Israel’s defensiveness (right or wrong, situation-aware or downright nefarious) manifest in their political over-control of the Palestinians and their (what I think is) abuse of world and U.S. support of historical and humanitarian, and might I say, blind but civilized, protections.
Also, the right-wing Israelis hold at least some of the Trumpian MAGA right’s cards in the United States and, again, are in flagrant abuse of U.S. support of Israel–and my guess is, many in that camp including Netanyahu, relish their control over a huge part of the anti-democratic electorate here and where, further confusion of the issue is the complex of antisemitism AND anti-Muslim, racist sentiments that abound here.
Add to that Netanyahu’s personal situation both pre- and post- the Hamas invasion, the WORLD’s pain and grief over the civilian slaughter on both sides, and you have the twisted mess we are in. I think to add to that, this: here in the US, many only see the slaughter and have little or no idea about the recalcitrant and centuries-long history unfolding there as we speak and where the international community’s hands are quite literally tied behind their backs, (seemingly blindly) trying to apply civilized remedies to those who are still immersed in tribal consciousness. And this is where dienne’s comment is so relevant:
“Yeah, demanding that the university that you are paying tens of thousands to stop funding the slaughter of women and children is so antisemitic.”
CBK, . . . who selfishly hopes that all of that mess “over there” won’t end up getting Trump elected. CBK
LikeLike
I personally witnessed 3 antisemitic rallies in NYC they all sported pro-hamas signage, river to the sea, intifada everywhere, chants and signage were all very antisemitic. Even your language “funding the slaughter of women and children” shows a very simplistic interpretation. At the end of the day, yes Netanyahu is a disaster but the current situation was instigated by Hamas and not just on Oct 7 also by their taking all that aid from yes, Israel and others and turning it into tunnels and rockets when they could have had a 2 state solution and improved the lives of the people living in Gaza.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve seen actual Hamas and Hezbollah flags at multiple marches. In person—I’m not including the ones I’ve seen on Twitter from rallies in Manhattan that I didn’t see personally.
LikeLike
Dienne,
Please stop sending anti-Semitic comments. There are many other sites that would welcome them. Not here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Attempts at neutrality are the only honest approach for any academic institution where conflict of equal moral areas of gray spill over into the minds of students who need to be awakened to the idea of moral conflicts in general.
That said, we must generally admit that history teaches us the necessity of taking sides on some issues. In the age of white supremacy in the United States, university support for Jim Crow, widespread even out of the south, was an indefensible position. I am not aware that any university was neutral when it came to opposition to the Axis powers during World War II.
LikeLike
People may need to take sides. But I don’t see why an entity like a university needs to take positions on any political issue that doesn’t impact its core missions, including the Axis powers.
LikeLike
I strongly recommend college president Michael Roth’s op ed in the NYT today – “I’m a College President, and I Hope My Campus Is Even More Political This Year”
Absolutely perfect.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I read that with great interest this morning. I think it likely that one’s views of the protesters are colored by the variety of impacts they had on the campus. If Wesleyan had suffered the $2 million in damages that Humboldt State suffered or the over $1 million in damages on my own campus, he might be more careful about what he wished for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Humboldt State is an interesting example of a university that responded with an extremely aggressive police action from the very first hour of protest.
The Guardian has a good story about it.
LikeLike