Published on 12/20/22
In November, an enlightening panel discussion was convened under the auspices of Princeton University's James Madison program in American Ideals and Institutions. The panel, spanning three hours, brought together an array of experts, including college professors, legal scholars, and civil liberty advocates, with a notable presence being the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union. The central focus of this panel discussion revolved around a critical concern at the heart of America's ongoing culture war: institutional neutrality and the role of universities in upholding the principles of free speech.
In recent years, the issue of freedom of speech within American universities has assumed paramount importance. Research conducted in 2021 by the Heterodox Academy, as part of their study titled "Understanding the Campus Expression Climate," revealed that a significant percentage of students perceive their campus environment as inhibitory, preventing certain individuals from freely expressing their opinions. Of particular note is the finding that Republican students exhibit the greatest reluctance when it comes to engaging in discussions pertaining to politics, race, gender, and sexual orientation, in comparison to their Libertarian and Democrat counterparts. This hesitancy is vividly illustrated by recent incidents, such as the disruptive protest during conservative federal judge Stuart Kyle Duncan's speech at Stanford Law School, which even included a protester calling for harm to his family.
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the history of free speech within American higher education institutions, it is essential to revisit the tumultuous 1960s. This was a decade marked by the civil rights movement, heightened tensions with the Soviet Union, and widespread counterculture protests. College campuses were often regarded as "safe havens" where many of these demonstrations, serving as a form of free speech, were held. However, these demonstrations rapidly evolved from simply denouncing government policies to demanding that universities, like the University of Chicago, take explicit positions on political matters, including the Vietnam War.
In response to considerable social and political pressure, the Kalven Committee was established under the leadership of President George W. Beadle at the University of Chicago. The committee's primary mission was to formulate "a statement on the University's role in political and social action." The University of Chicago has a distinguished history of defending academic freedom, as demonstrated by its opposition to the Broyles Bill in the 1940s, the Jenner Committee hearings in the early 1950s, and the Disclaimer Affidavit in the National Defense Education Act of 1958, all of which were attempts to influence students' beliefs regarding communism.
In 1967, the Kalven Report was published, reaffirming the University's commitment to maintaining a neutral stance on political and social issues. Instead, the report advocated for the University to function as a "sponsor of critics, not itself the critic." Its role was to create a platform that facilitated informed and respectful discussions. For instance, universities could promote education, research, and community engagement related to socially and politically significant matters without adopting a specific stance.
The Kalven principle raises critical questions about the university's mission. The term "uni" in university suggests an institution that serves as a vital forum, bringing together students from diverse backgrounds through the dissemination of knowledge. Such diversity inevitably results in clashes of ideas and perspectives. Students should be exposed to rigorous challenges from their peers or professors, even if it means being confronted or disproved. In essence, a truly commendable university, akin to the teachings of Socrates, should be unsettling for some.
When universities falter in maintaining their independence due to internal and external pressures, and they engage in collective actions that cater to the voices of the majority or avoid offending the sensibilities of a minority, they run the risk of stifling the full freedom of dissent.
Colleges vary in their approach to institutional neutrality. Some colleges opt to uphold institutional neutrality by refraining from commenting on issues that lack immediate campus relevance. Others believe that, especially on matters related to social and political issues, it is imperative to convey institutional positions while maintaining a broader campus stance of neutrality. It is important to note that the applicability of the Kalven report may not be universal, particularly for faith-based institutions. For instance, when John Garvey, the president of Catholic University, expressed support for the recent Dobbs decision, which returned the decision regarding the restriction or protection of abortion to states, it was received differently than when public non-religious universities criticized it.
Denominational universities hold steadfast to their beliefs, values, and commitments, and they do not compromise their stance on these matters. However, they are equally responsible for engaging in ongoing ethical reflection, interpretation, and theological discussions based on their specific faith confession. As a crucial part of this process, they should thoroughly assess current social and political issues as opportunities for reflection.
The primary drawback of the Kalven report lies in its absence of legal implications. The report essentially functions as a guideline, providing universities with instructions on how to promote free speech. Consequently, it lacks specific details regarding the consequences for the university and its members if they breach the principle. As a result, the Kalven report is often regarded more symbolically and lacks legal substance.
Nevertheless, while the Kalven report may have its limitations, the central mission of a university, which involves promoting intellectual diversity and academic freedom, should be upheld, irrespective of whether the institution is public or private, religious or secular. Even when a university chooses to adopt a stance on certain social and political matters, it should acknowledge that such a statement does not necessarily represent the views of all members within the institution. It should also encourage public discourse among its members, recognizing that diversity of thought and dialogue are essential components of a vibrant academic environment.
References
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "Climate Refugees: The World’s Forgotten Victims." UNFCCC Climate Champions, https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/climate-refugees-the-worlds-forgotten-victims/.
McKinsey & Company. "Solving Africa’s Infrastructure Paradox." McKinsey & Company, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/solving-africas-infrastructure-paradox.
Natural Resources Defense Council. "Bangladesh: A Country Underwater, a Culture on the Move." NRDC, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/bangladesh-country-underwater-culture-move.
World Economic Forum. "The Clean Energy Employment Shift by 2030." World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/the-clean-energy-employment-shift-by-2030/.
Comments