Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier has emerged as a staunch advocate of institutional neutrality in recent years, saying institutions often overstep their primary goals when they base themselves on public issues. He explained those views in an interview with Within Higher Ed where he discusses the growing number of institutions that have embraced institutional neutrality and how tensions in the Middle East and related protests on campuses are causing university leaders to rethink how they engage in controversial issues at home and abroad.
Excerpts from the interview, edited for space and clarity, follow.
Q: How did Vanderbilt arrive at its institutional neutral status?
A: Vanderbilt has had a commitment to institutional neutrality since the late 1960s, early 1970s, and it was first articulated by our fifth chancellor, Alexander Heard. When I arrived on campus, the speech I gave to the community at my inauguration, I spoke about the importance of free speech and the neutrality of the institution. Then about two and a half years ago I wrote a piece in between Within Higher Ed – I had an episode in between The Chronicle [of Higher Education] a few months later—it was Oct. 7, making this issue a priority for everyone.
I had been provost at the University of Chicago for four years before [coming to Vanderbilt]. The Kalven report, of course, is a very important part of how the University of Chicago thinks [speech] decades. I can say that during these four years when I was provost [2016 to 2020]the focus was on free speech—the Stone report, the Chicago protocols—because the main issues were speakers being yelled at and things like that, not so much the neutrality of institutions.
Now the focus, I think it should be, is not so much on speaking freely; free chats are a red herring right now. The real problem is more than institutional neutrality. Why? Because the protesting students – in particular, pro-Palestinian groups – asked the universities to take a clear position against Israel verbally, but also through endowments and by boycotting Israeli merchants or merchants who do business with Israel. So I’m glad to see that universities are, finally, joining [institutional neutrality] movement. One of the first was Harvard, of course; now there are a lot of them.
Most interpreted this as a commitment that the president will no longer issue statements. That is part of institutional neutrality, but not everything. The University of Chicago and Vanderbilt have been translating the institution into practice and action—not just words—because the key issue is taking a position. Are you taking a position on a controversial or political and social issue that goes beyond the context of university operations?
Q: Why do you think institutional neutrality seems to be gaining momentum at this time?
A: Taking up a position in universities has always been a problem. Now the question … is front and center in the campus controversy. People are realizing that this was never a good idea. Now they realize that the cost is very high, because the effective results of [not having] The neutrality of the institution is that you create the political environment. If you say, “Where should we be—this side or the other?” people depend. And what makes this type of argument different is that it has two sides, not just one. He has a pro-Israel side and a pro-Palestine side, and that creates a lot of drama on campus. It makes the problem stand out. That momentum is now leading university presidents and their boards to see the wisdom of a position of institutional neutrality.
Q: What is your limit to talk about a certain issue now by taking a position on something?
A: Institutional neutrality means [asking]”Am I taking a position that is beyond that primary purpose of the university?” … It’s not that he’s quiet all the time. Yes, you can talk to your community, but you must be careful that you limit your comments and focus your ideas on values related to the main purpose of the university, such as access to students, financial aid, support for your faculty’s research. . All these are related to values, but they are related to the main purpose of the university.
You can and should talk about the significant value that universities bring to society, powerfully. That is not a problem with institutional neutrality, because that is its core purpose.
If there is a crisis, for example, that affects members of the community, I think there is a need for the leader of the institution, the president or the chancellor, to have a shepherding job, where he communicates with the community emotionally, with compassion, and suffering, with the concerns they have. That could be a natural disaster or, as happened in Nashville, a school shooting that happened far away from an institution of higher education, and that affected members of our community in a terrible way. When you do that, you need to comfort people and connect with them with empathy in an authentic way. But it’s not about making decisions. It is not about taking a position on policy issues. In the case of a school shooting, you can relate to people as a suffering community. What you shouldn’t do now is take down the position of gun control; that is a policy issue.
Q: After October 7, many presidents issued statements, and many of them were wrong. Do you think that the backlash and perhaps the inaccuracy of some of those statements has been the reason why many leaders have embraced the neutrality policies of the institution?
A: If you carelessly—or perhaps willfully—take positions on one side or the other, you will hear from the other side, and you will hear it with great force. That’s another example of how this particular conflict makes the benefits of the institution’s neutral position more apparent. It still took a long time for people to arrive. I think it was the backlash from the statements, and then the political dominance in the institution related to these topics, that made people more aware [institutional neutrality] and create this movement towards institutional neutrality.
Q: Some universities make their political leanings clear, both liberal and conservative institutions. Can those who are openly political take a stance of institutional neutrality? I can’t help but wonder to some degree if that would hurt their marketing or recruiting efforts as they draw in a certain type of reader.
A: Institutional neutrality follows the mission of the university. And if your goal is about creating and disseminating knowledge or being a place for cross-disciplinary research and transformative education, you should have ideas from different backgrounds, perspectives and ideological commitments that exist on campus. That’s not consistent with taking a particular ideological position, I would argue. The system of institutional neutrality is deeply bound or based on the goal of what is sometimes called a liberal arts education, where universities want to have many ideas, and have students to engage deeply with them, that does not mean, “This is right. ” or “Of course,” that encourages debate, not resolves it.
Now, if you don’t want that, if you have a different purpose, then, obviously, the principles that come with that should be consistent with that purpose. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “We want to have a free flow of ideas on both sides, and by the way, we have a progressive or conservative value position.” That’s not going to work … I don’t mind if people say, “We have a certain political opinion.” But your principles should be clear along those lines.
Q: Where do you think net neutrality will go from here? Will it continue to gain momentum and be adopted by other institutions?
A: My biggest hope is that this movement will continue. People value the wisdom of institutional neutrality; they realize that it supports the main goal, and it also helps to avoid, or at least reduce, political dominance on campus.
Institutional neutrality should not only be done by universities, but by professional organizations as well… When the American Sociological Association condemns the killing of Israelis, that is very problematic because professional organizations are important gatekeepers in the academic world. They give awards and honors, organize conferences … and publish academic journals, which are very important … The disastrous decision of the American Association of University Professors to allow an academic boycott makes it worse.
Q: Public confidence in higher education is clearly very low, whether that’s more in terms of student return on investment or ideas about ideas. Do you think that the status of institutional neutrality that is widely accepted by institutions can help restore trust in higher education?
A: Everything universities can do to clearly state their purpose, and act accordingly, will help restore trust. The purpose of universities is good, they have great benefits for society. But when we deviate from that, or don’t act according to our purpose and the values that support that, that’s when we get into trouble. So a reconfirmation of that is a very good idea, and can help restore trust.
Q: Historically, presidents and chancellors have often been seen as ethical leaders, and some have used their platform to push the envelope on issues. What do you think of this idea that university leaders are withdrawing from public discussion by not talking about the problems?
A: Your number 1 responsibility is to your university and the world of higher education. There are many areas where you can make a significant contribution to society: in access to education, in innovation, the importance of higher education to America’s prosperity and the inclusive economy. I don’t think it’s a good idea to get into foreign policy. You have no expertise in that, and it has nothing to do with the role you play in society. You are the leader of the university, and to focus on that mission and that purpose is abundant and very important.
Source link
