‘Institutional Neutrality Applies to Actions—Not Just Words’

Vanderbilt University chancellor Daniel Diermeier has emerged as a strong advocate for institutional neutrality in recent years, arguing that institutions often go beyond their core mission when they strike stances on public issues. He expounded on those views in an interview with Inside Higher Ed in which he discussed the growing number of institutions that have adopted institutional neutrality and how tensions in the Middle East and related protests on campuses are driving university leaders to rethink how they engage on contentious issues at home and abroad.

Excerpts of the interview, edited for space and clarity, follow.

Q: How did Vanderbilt arrive at its institutional neutrality stance? 

A: Vanderbilt has had a commitment to institutional neutrality since the late ’60s, early ’70s, and it was first articulated by our fifth chancellor, Alexander Heard. When I arrived on campus, the speech that I gave to the community in my inauguration, I talked about the importance of free expression and institutional neutrality. Then about two and a half years ago I wrote a piece in Inside Higher Ed —I had a piece in The Chronicle [of Higher Education] a few months later—and then, of course, Oct. 7 happened, which made this issue front and center for everybody.

I was provost at University of Chicago for four years before [coming to Vanderbilt]. The Kalven report, of course, is a very important part of how the University of Chicago has thought about [speech] for decades. I would say that during these four years when I was provost [2016 to 2020], the main focus was really on free expression—the Stone report, the Chicago principles—because the main issues were speakers being shouted down and things like that, not so much institutional neutrality.

Now the focus, I think deservedly, is not so much on free speech; free speech discussions are just a red herring right now. The real issue is over institutional neutrality. Why? Because the student protesters—in particular, the pro-Palestinian groups—have asked universities to take a very clear position against Israel in words, but also through the endowments and by boycotting Israeli vendors or vendors that do business with Israel. So I’m delighted to see that universities, finally, are joining the [institutional neutrality] movement. One of the first was Harvard, of course; now there’s a whole bunch of them.

The overwhelming majority have interpreted this very narrowly as a commitment that the president will no longer issue statements. That is one part of institutional neutrality, but it’s not everything. The University of Chicago and Vanderbilt have always interpreted institutionality as also applying to actions—not just words—because the fundamental issue is position taking. Are you taking a position on a controversial or political and social issue that goes beyond the core functioning of university?

Q: Why do you think institutional neutrality seems to be gaining momentum in this moment?

A: Position taking by universities was always a problem. Now the question … is front and center to the conflicts on campus. People are realizing that this was never a good idea. Now they’re seeing that the costs are very high, because the practical consequences of [not having] institutional neutrality is that you are creating an environment of politicization. When you say, “Where should we be—on this side or the other one?” people lean in. And what makes this particular type of conflict different is that you have two sides, not just one. You have a pro-Israel and a pro-Palestinian side, and that creates an enormous amount of drama on campus. It makes the problem salient. That saliency is now leading university presidents and their boards to realize the wisdom of the position of institutional neutrality.

Q: What is your threshold for speaking out on an issue now for taking a position on something?

A: Institutional neutrality means [asking], “Am I taking a position that goes beyond that core purpose of the university?” … It’s not about being silent all the time. Of course, you can talk to your community, but you have to be careful that you restrict your comments and focus your comments on the values related to the core purpose of the university, like access for students, financial aid, research support for your faculty. These are all related to values, but they are related to the core purpose of the university.

You can and you should talk about the important value that universities bring to society, forcefully. That’s not a problem with institutional neutrality, because it’s your core purpose.

When you have a tragedy, for example, that affects the members of the community deeply, I think there is a need for the leader of the institution, a president or chancellor, to have a pastoral function, where you connect with the community emotionally, with empathy, with the suffering, with the concerns that they have. That can be a natural disaster or, as we had in Nashville, a school shooting that was only a few miles from campus, and that affected members of our community in the most horrendous way. When you do that, you need to comfort people and connect with them empathetically in an authentic fashion. But it’s not about decision-making. It’s not about position taking on policy issues. In the case of the school shooting, you can connect with people as a community that’s suffering. What you shouldn’t do is now come down with a position on gun control; that’s a policy issue.

Q: After Oct. 7, many presidents released statements, and many of them were skewered. Do you think the pushback to and perhaps missteps in some of those statements has been a factor in more leaders adopting institutional neutrality policies?

A: If you are carelessly—or maybe intentionally—taking positions on one side or the other, you will hear it from the other side, and you will hear it very forcefully. That’s just another example of how this particular conflict made the advantages of a position of institutional neutrality more manifest. It still took a long time for people to come around. I think it was the pushback on the statements, and then it was the politicization on campus associated with these topics, that made people more aware of [institutional neutrality] and created this movement toward institutional neutrality.

Q: Some universities make their political leanings very clear, both liberal and conservative institutions. Can those that are openly political adopt a stance of institutional neutrality? I can’t help but wonder to some degree if that would harm their marketing or recruiting efforts since they are drawing a particular type of student.

A: Institutional neutrality follows from the purpose of the university. And if your purpose is about the creation and dissemination of knowledge or being a place for path-breaking research and transformative education, then you have to have ideas from various different backgrounds, perspectives and ideological commitments present on campus. That is inconsistent with taking a particular ideological position, I would argue. The institutional neutrality principle is deeply tied or grounded in the purpose of what is sometimes called a liberal arts education, in which universities want to have multiple perspectives, and have students to deeply engage with them, that doesn’t say, “This is right” or “That’s right,” that encourages debate, not settles it.

Now, if you don’t want that, if you have a different purpose, then, of course, the principles that come with that have to fit that purpose. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “We want to have a free flow of ideas for both sides, and by the way, we have a progressive or conservative value orientation.” That’s not going to work … I don’t have a problem if people say, “We have a particular political orientation.” But your principles have to be clear along those lines.

Q: Where do you think institutional neutrality will go from here? Will it continue to gain momentum and be adopted by more institutions?

A: My strong expectation is that this movement will continue. People are appreciating the wisdom of institutional neutrality; they recognize it supports the core mission, and it also helps to avoid, or at least reduce, the politicization on campus.

Institutional neutrality should not only be practiced by universities, but by professional associations as well … When the American Sociology Association condemns Israel genocide, that is very problematic because the professional associations are important gatekeepers in the world of the academy. They give out awards and recognitions, they organize conferences … and they publish academic journals ,which are crucially important … The catastrophic decision by the American Association of University Professors to allow for academic boycotts makes it even worse.

Q: Public trust in higher education is obviously quite low, whether that is over issues of student return on investment or perceptions about ideology. Do you think a stance of institutional neutrality adopted broadly by institutions can help restore trust in higher education?

A: Everything that universities can do where they clearly articulate their purpose, and act accordingly, will help restore trust. The purpose of universities is noble, with tremendous positive benefits for society. But if we’re deviating from that, or we’re not acting according to our purpose and the values that support that, that’s when we get into trouble. So the reaffirmation of that is a very, very good idea, and it would help with restoring trust.

Q: Historically, presidents and chancellors have often been looked to as moral leaders, and some use their platform to strike stances on issues. What do you think of this notion that university leaders are backing away from the public debate by not speaking up on issues?

A: Your No. 1 responsibility is to your university and to the world of higher education. There are plenty of areas where you can make an important contribution to society: on access to education, on innovation, the value of higher education for American prosperity and an inclusive economy. I just don’t think that it’s a good idea to wade into the foreign policy. You have no expertise on that, and it’s unrelated to the function that you play in society. You are the leader of a university, and focusing on that mission and that purpose is plenty and it’s super important.