Kalven Report Institutional Neutrality

Jessica Wills
Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression

Excerpt: At the end of May, Stanford’s faculty senate formally voted to approve free expression and institutional neutrality statements, making Stanford the third university in the last month to put into writing its dedication to these principles.

The new Statement on Freedom of Expression proclaims that the “freedom to explore and present new, unconventional, and even unpopular ideas is essential to the academic mission of the university.” The language in Stanford’s statement closely mirrors the “Chicago Statement” on free expression, which FIRE considers to be the gold standard for campus free speech policies.

Daniel Diermeier
Wall Street Journal

Excerpt: Harvard University announced last week that it will no longer “issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function” as an academic institution. This is welcome news for all of us who have long been concerned about politicization of universities and the resulting erosion of free expression in academia.
     
Yet [the] new policy makes a crucial omission that is at the core of the current controversy on campuses. Students at universities nationwide have called on their institutions to join the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. According to the Harvard working group co-chairs, it didn’t “address, much less solve, the hard problem of when the university should or shouldn’t divest its endowment funds from a given portfolio.

Jeremy W. Peters
New York Times

Excerpt: Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have each recently announced that they will no longer require diversity statements as a part of their hiring process for faculty posts.

The decisions by two of the nation’s leading institutions of higher learning could influence others to follow suit.

Ryan Quinn
Inside Higher Ed

Excerpt: On Monday morning, the student-edited Columbia Law Review published its latest issue online. Hours later, the website became a blank white space with a one-line note saying, “Website is under maintenance.”

The issue had contained an article by Rabea Eghbariah, the same Palestinian Harvard University law degree candidate who had a different piece rejected by the Harvard Law Review in November after an unusual editorial intervention. Unlike what happened at Harvard, Eghbariah received the Columbia Law Review’s imprimatur for this new article and saw it published. But not for long. On Monday morning—seven hours after the article was published, according to one outgoing student editor, Erika Lopez—the Review’s Board of Directors, which includes the law school’s dean and other faculty members and alumni, took down the Review’s entire website due to Eghbariah's article.

Andrew Manuel Crespo and Kirsten Weld
Chronicle of Higher Education

Excerpt: Two weeks ago, roughly sixteen hours before commencement exercises at Harvard University were set to begin, the institution’s governing board, known as the Harvard Corporation, rejected the list of undergraduate degree candidates put forward by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. In its place, the corporation adopted a list that omitted thirteen graduating seniors. Each of those students had met all the academic requirements to graduate. But a few weeks earlier, they had also each participated in a pro-Palestine encampment in Harvard Yard. For that reason, the corporation refused to grant them the degrees their teachers had voted to confer.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is True

Excerpt: The problem with the Harvard policy lies not in its specifics above, but how it appears to be interpreted by the creators/op-ed writers, who seem to misunderstand the principle of institutional neutrality, try to diss our Kalven Report (perhaps to say, “Hey, Harvard has its own report, and a better one”), and then suggest that Harvard’s policy can in some cases be applied in a non-neutral way. In other words, what we get is a decent policy whose authors (at least two of them) have described for the public as a dog’s breakfast. This does not bode well for any future “institutional neutrality” of Harvard.