“The university needs to defend a woman’s constitutional right to abortion!”
“We insist that the institution condemn Israel’s invasion of Gaza!”
“Our school must publicly oppose the Trump administration’s attacks on academic freedom!”
Universities have long been pressured to take stances on public controversies, but the frequency and stridency of such demands have dramatically escalated. Facing insistent calls to respond in the heat of a social media moment, many institutions make ad hoc, short-sighted decisions about taking stances that could set them up for future problems. Instead, universities need a thoughtful and principled way of responding that can be consistently applied across different disputes, time frames and pressure points.
To succeed in our fractious world, a university must stay grounded in pursuit of its mission. Its touchstone must be fidelity to the institution’s highest goals and a sustained focus on its fundamental purposes. At the same time, recognising that the university is meant to be a source of new and disruptive ideas, its leaders should help it fulfil its compact with broader society – one that ultimately rests on mutual respect, tolerance and care.
Progressive advocates would have universities plunge into public debates on the side of social justice, while conservatives call for universities to remain staunchly neutral on all topics. But the wisest path for institutions is much more complicated, requiring nuance where there is more grey than black and white. Universities should consciously choose to be reticent, with their default position not to take a stance.
- Spotlight guide: Dealing with division: the polarised university
- Universities must promote pluralism to ward off threats to democracy
- Academics must resist the creeping degradation of academic freedom
This approach rests in part on philosophical bases. Thus, taking stances can undercut the university’s academic mission. Its effectiveness and credibility are reduced when it pursues fundamentally different goals such as promoting morality. Likewise, taking stances can infringe on academic freedom. The ardour of scholars may be restrained if they fear their individual views might be at odds with an institutional position decreed on the same issue.
Further, taking stances on today’s controversies undervalues the long-term horizon of the university’s work. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the full dimensions of many current problems, their relative and absolute importance and the long-term consequences of direct institutional involvement. And taking unequivocal stances similarly undervalues the inherent uncertainty of “truth” and “correctness” – concepts that must often be provisional, and call for intellectual modesty.
The case for reticence also rests upon “pragmatic” bases. To begin with, taking stances can fray the always-delicate social compact. Becoming embroiled in political, economic, moral and social issues also diverts the university from its mission, pulling attention, time and resources away from its principal goals. Next, there are practical challenges in determining what the institution’s position is (eg, Who decides, and how?). And last, taking institutional stances leads the university down a series of potentially slippery political and operational slopes.
For instance, is it possible to draw distinctions between types of issues, between different actors worthy of condemnation, or between different levels of moral culpability? Can a line be drawn between institutional statements and actions? Such breakwaters may not hold.
However, a purposeful reticence faithful to and focused on the university’s mission also generates circumstances when universities can – or even must – take stances. I see four such domains.
• The first is when the university has special institutional knowledge or experience that will enlighten debate and hopefully lead to wiser policy. This would include speaking about the impact and wisdom of particular educational practices (eg, teaching about race and gender) and about the value of higher education in general.
• The second is when a stance is needed to counter challenges to the university’s ability to provide the necessary tools or environment for intellectual work. Examples include defending academic freedom; defending the scientific method; and explaining why libraries must have access to scholarly materials.
• Third, a university needs to speak up when its mission is called into question. Obviously, the positions taken will vary between institutions, with a research university and a community college adopting stances on different matters.
• And fourth – less common, but critical – a university must take a stance when its very existence is at risk. If its ability to achieve its core goals is threatened (eg, if it is being blocked from hiring the faculty or enrolling the students it wants, or if its leadership cannot make decisions that are in its best long-term interest), the institution must publicly assail and resist such threats.
When universities take stances in these instances, they should be forthright and brave, because they adopt such positions from a place of principle and strength. Departing from reticence in this way ultimately enhances institutional credibility and respect.
At a moment when universities are under pointed assault and public confidence in their work is shaky, this approach to taking stances will keep universities true to their core missions, reinforce the social compact, allow them to realise their aspirations, and to flourish – to everyone’s betterment.
Steven G. Poskanzer is president emeritus and a professor of political science at Carleton College, US.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment