UMich Regents consider institutional neutrality policy

The University of Michigan Board of Regents will consider an institutional neutrality bylaw at their Oct. 17 meeting. If adopted, the University will not take a stance on social and political issues that fall outside University administration functions. The Michigan Daily compiled an explanation of this bylaw’s formulation and potential impacts on the campus community.

Other universities have implemented similar institutional neutrality policies in recent months, including Harvard University, Washington State University, the University of North Carolina, the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University. The University now joins several others, such as Columbia University and Yale University, in considering the implementation of a neutrality policy.

The concept of institutional neutrality rose to prominence with the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, a document that argues that a university as an institution should not have stances on sociopolitical issues. The report, however, outlines two exceptions to institutional neutrality: crises threatening a university’s mission or situations in which a university must act as a corporate entity in matters of property and funding. These exceptions create a gray area of the neutrality policy on social issues connected to finance, such as ongoing campus discourse on whether or not universities should divest from companies profiting off the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. 

University Regent Jordan Acker (D) emphasized in an interview with The Daily that institutional neutrality is not a new conversation, but it was revisited in light of the U-M community’s response to University President Santa Ono’s statements on the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. 

“I think a lot of people found (the) President’s statements leaving a lot to be desired,” Acker said. “I think a lot of universities realized that they could not articulate statements that wouldn’t leave a serious part of the campus community feeling isolated, alienated and without a voice, and so I think that a lot of universities went back to the drawing board on how they should respond to these sorts of political issues that arise, and they have seen that institutional neutrality is a good way to go.”

The proposed bylaw is based on a report by the Advisory Committee on the University of Michigan Principles of Diversity of Thought & Freedom of Expression, which argues that institutional statements on a given issue undermine the University’s commitment to open inquiry and debate. The committee, composed of 33 faculty, seven staff and two students, was established in March 2024 to recommend actions the University can take to advance goals outlined in the Principles of Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression statement, adopted by the Regents in January. Timothy Lynch, the University’s vice president and general counsel, chaired this committee and is now using its findings to prepare the bylaw for the Regents’ October meeting.

The committee surveyed the U-M community about freedom of expression on campus, and compiled a set of observations and recommendations based on more than 4,000 responses. First, the committee found that the community reports of a frustration with the University’s restrictions on free speech and with the University’s lack of diversity of thought, especially of conservative thought. Second, the committee reccommended a plurality of views should be encouraged on campus, which might involve courses, surveys, team-based teaching or a U-M application essay question focused on conversation across viewpoints. Third, the committee recommended institutional neutrality should be broadly implemented across all academic units at the University. 

The committee wrote in the committee report that they feel the title “institutional neutrality” does not necessarily reflect the entirety of the policy in consideration. 

“We use the term ‘institutional neutrality’ because most commentators do — not because we think it is the best label for the view we endorse,” the committee report read. “The term ‘institutional neutrality’ is potentially misleading because it suggests that universities must be neutral about everything. This is wrong. Universities should not be neutral, for example, about academic values like truth and respect for evidence.”

Meera Herle, the 2023-24 Central Student Government president, was one of the two students on the Principles Committee who authored this report. In an email to The Daily, she wrote that taking an institutional position is not worth alienating people on campus and that she wishes more students had a seat on the Principles Committee. 

“I think that Universities can do better work to support students than issuing blanket statements, and, in my mind, the risks posed by expressing an institutional viewpoint and possibly alienating parts of campus or making people feel unseen or unheard outweigh the potential reward,” Herle wrote. “I did sometimes find myself frustrated that there weren’t additional student voices who had a seat at the table during the committee’s deliberation to express a different viewpoint than myself on this matter.”

Law professor Kristina Daugirdas, leader of Subcommittee III of the Principles Committee, described examples of what would and would not be allowed if the University adopted an institutional neutrality bylaw. 

For example, in response to heightened campus tensions around the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, Gillian Lester, dean of Columbia Law School, shared a message with the Columbia Law School community condemning bias and discrimination on campus. According to Daugirdas, this message would still align with the institutional neutrality bylaw because it does not take a side.

University leaders may also take a stance in their personal capacity. For instance, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, wrote an op-ed published by the Los Angeles Times about the antisemitism he felt on UC Berkeley’s campus following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack last year. While this op-ed publicly takes a stance on a political issue, because it is from Chereminsky personally and was not written on behalf of UC Berkeley or a unit within the school, Daugirdas said it complies with the bylaw. 

In November 2022, the University released a “Statement on the Iranian Situation,” affirming its position to stand with Iran. In this same message, the University also shared resources for enrolled students, such as the International Center and the Dean of Students Office. According to Daugirdas, the first three paragraphs of the statement would not align with the institutional neutrality bylaw because they indicate a stance on a political issue. 

Law School student Eman Naga, a board member of Law Students for Justice in Palestine, wrote in an email to The Daily that she believes the University can never truly be neutral, as its policies and actions implicitly take a stance. 

“Any cause they choose to invest millions, if not billions in, logically, has the University taking sides,” Naga wrote. “Via their choice of investments, they are directly putting their money where their mouth is, even if they don’t explicitly spit it out. The University’s policies, including on communication, are always political just like teaching, learning and the law inherently are. Any attempt to pretend they are ‘neutral’ will always fail under a keen eye. Accordingly, the supposed policy of neutrality is only a policy of universally choosing nominal silence.”

Ryan Ansloan, senior program officer of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told The Daily he believes the institutional neutrality bylaw would promote a more positive campus environment. 

“I don’t know if anyone is really harmed by this because it is taking the megaphone away from University leadership and giving it to the rest of the campus community,” Ansloan said. “Provided that universities allow students to engage in free expression consistent with their First Amendment rights on campus, then everyone should have at least the same opportunity to speak and ultimately more space to take up.”

Ansloan also said he believes the bylaw would push people to focus on their own voices rather than on the administration’s voice.

“I think that we saw in recent years, it became common practice for (campus community members) rather than trying to either make their own voice heard or convince other people to join their position, they were advocating for (universities) to issue statements and adopt their positions,” Ansloan said. “That can have kind of a negative impact on the speech climate at universities across the country.”

University Regent Sarah Hubbard (R) told The Daily the bylaw would serve to limit University leaders speaking on behalf of an entire unit if all those working in the unit do not agree. 

“(It would) limit those who want to just take positions on behalf of the full University or a position on behalf of a department or a school or college,” Hubbard said. “It would limit them because they would speak on behalf of everyone in their department without or in the University, without regard to individuals who might disagree.”

Daugirdas emphasized that she believes this bylaw would not be a means for the University to avoid taking a stance; instead, she believes it would provide a way for students to speak up.

“It’s how the University talks about issues,” Daugirdas said. “It’s in ways that are focused on the internal communities … and it’s creating space for individual voices, especially of faculty and students, so that community members can form their own independent ideas and deepen their understanding of complicated issues that the world is facing.”

The Board of Regents is currently seeking public comment on the proposed bylaw. Those who wish to submit comments should email publiccomments@umich.edu.

Daily News Editor Sneha Dhandapani can be reached at sdhanda@umich.edu. Daily Staff Reporter Daniel Johnson can be reached at dbjohn@umich.edu. 

Related articles