It seems like a strange moment to degrade the job of college or university presidents by imposing a cloak of silence on them when leaders of corporations and other institutions are called upon to engage in public discourse. I created and run the nation’s first school for college and university presidents with roughly 100 participants a year for over ten years and find they value this part of their job, even if it is not easy.
In a misguided effort to lower the temperature of conflict on campuses and save university presidents from being a punching bag for every corner of society, more than 20 schools have adopted institutional neutrality rules since last year’s Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and the Israeli response. Colleges and universities around the country are reconsidering their neutrality policies in the wake of such positions adopted by the University of Virginia, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Southern California, Harvard, Stanford, and many others. Schools are balancing, on the one hand, whether they put student rights or voices at risk when they take sides on controversial issues or whether they have a moral obligation to address societal wrongs.
Speaking in favor of neutrality, Daniel Diermeier, the chancellor of Vanderbilt University, said, “The problem with universities taking official positions is that they lay down a party line; it creates a chilling effect.” Speaking for avoid neutrality, Wesleyan President Michael Roth said, “Deans and presidents should speak, so people agree with them, argue with them, and participate in a conversation.”
Read more at Time.
