[ad_1]
Following the adoption of the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression in January of this year, the University created an advisory committee tasked with investigating the state of discourse on campus and how the University could help foster it. In its findings released earlier this month, the committee reported that “diversity of thought is lacking” and “deficiencies in constructive disagreement” persist on campus. Among its recommendations was that the administration adopt a policy of “institutional neutrality.”
The report states that “institutional statements disserve the university’s mission. They undermine our commitment to open inquiry by suggesting that those who disagree are unwelcome. They cause would-be dissenters to worry that voicing disagreement may jeopardize admission, grades, or advancement.” Only statements regarding issues that directly pertain to campus would be accepted under the proposed neutrality bylaw.
Similar proposals have become increasingly popular on campuses across the country as administrators have struggled to respond to the polarizing Israeli military offensive in Gaza and Lebanon. University President Santa Ono has, on multiple occasions, found himself subjected to scrutiny by pro-Palestine activists over alleged bias in his emails addressing campus activism.
Sweeping policy statements are unable to capture the diversity of perspectives on campus and the nuance in the issues they’re commenting on. As such, they have understandably left many students feeling unheard. There are more than 30,000 undergraduates enrolled at this institution — representing all of them in an email is impossible, especially when it comes to controversial issues.
The University is supposed to represent all of its students, not just the select groups that happen to align with its vision. Accordingly, the only solution seems to be adopting a policy of neutrality.
The University should refrain from making statements on contentious far-away topics and opt instead for a more hands-off approach. By remaining neutral on matters that don’t directly affect the campus community, the University creates space for open dialogue and debate among students, allowing them to engage with these topics rather than relying on the administration to mediate the conversation.
That said, we fear that the University isn’t defining institutional neutrality the way that most of us would. There is nothing wrong with the approach if it means an end to Ono’s far-too-frequent emails; but if this proposed policy is to be used in bad faith, just as we believe the new Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities was, there is cause to worry.
There are multiple occasions where contentious worldwide events intersect with campus affairs. How the University plans to navigate this gray area isn’t clearly outlined in the proposal. Climate change, abortion and the conflict in the Middle East all touch our campus in one way or another. While the student body doesn’t need real-time emails about these issues, it does need effective administrative responses.
It’s impossible to create policy without taking a stance. Would the University choosing to remove fossil fuels from its endowment in 2021 violate neutrality? Would the University supporting access to abortion care in 2022 violate neutrality? Would the University stating in 2024 that it would remain invested in companies linked to Israel violate neutrality? In all these cases, the University made inherently non-neutral decisions, even if their decision was to do nothing at all.
Furthermore, the University is already supposed to be neutral under existing law. Unlike private schools like Columbia University, the University of Michigan is a public institution. This means it qualifies as a state actor and is therefore already required to maintain political neutrality. A new bylaw requiring institutional neutrality is redundant to the University’s public nature. With this new policy, it’s possible and perhaps plausible the University will use “neutrality” to defend inflexibility in its future policies. Should our collective values on these stances change going forward, the University could use institutional neutrality to avoid being responsive.
While the concept of institutional neutrality seems appealing on the surface, we believe that, in its current form, the proposal presents too many ambiguities. The University must be dynamic and capable of evolving to meet the needs of its students and the desires of its community. We don’t need any more Ono statements — but we don’t need stasis, either. If the entirety of our community has come to a consensus about a polarizing topic, the University should align itself with that consensus. If we have not, then neutrality is an acceptable stance.
The Board of Regents will vote on institutional neutrality in their October meeting. Until the campus community receives an indication and clarification that neutrality won’t be used as a cover to avoid making necessary changes to its actual policies, this editorial board cannot support the Committee’s proposal. The University must clearly define how it will apply neutrality in a way that ensures it remains a platform for dialogue and growth, before this policy is to be voted on. Only then can it truly foster an environment where diverse perspectives are heard and respected.
This editorial represents the opinion of The Michigan Daily’s Editorial Board. If you are interested in submitting an Op-Ed or Letter to the Editor, please send your submission to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Related articles
[ad_2]
Source link
