The Uncertain Future of Institutional Neutrality at Yale

Last month, Faculty for Yale hosted a panel discussion on institutional neutrality and why it matters at all institutions of higher education. The takeaway for most participants was simple: institutional neutrality is fundamental to the mission of a great university, yet it remains a heavily debated topic with an uncertain future on American university campuses.

The panel discussion featured mostly Yale professors but also Michael Roth, the President of Wesleyan University who is firmly against institutional neutrality. The panel took place about one week after Yale President Maurie McInnis announced the formation of a committee “to examine when the university, or those speaking on its behalf, should comment on matters of public significance,” through a campus-wide email. 

During the panel discussion, former Yale Law School Dean Anthony Kronman set the narrative for the pro-institutional neutrality side of the panel, stating “I am strongly disposed to think that, except in rare cases, those holding official positions of responsibility in a college or university should not, in speaking on behalf of the institutions they represent, partake or express partisan views of any kind on matters of public political controversy.” 

Kronman spoke critically of the Dean of Yale Law School’s response –the communication of staunch discontent– to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to strike down Affirmative Action, which he considered “wildly inappropriate from the Dean.” However, he noted that the email “did not chill anyone’s speech in the Law School […] but it set a tone and defined a cultural attitude, orientation, a compass heading” that impacted everyone at the Law School, which “disturbs, […] distorts, and […] corrupts the environment of open and free exchange.” He finds this to go against the core mission and values of a university.

By contrast, Roth believes that institutional neutrality is “an attempt to silence people who are saying things you don’t want to hear,” stating that the belief that administrators expressing their opinions on global issues “curtailed the speech of undergraduates or researchers […] is ridiculous.”

Most audience members and panelists noted their support for institutional neutrality, noting historic examples of non-neutrality being problematic, like the Harvard v. SFFS case, President Trump’s remarks on immigrants, and the Affirmative Action case, amongst many others.

Nevertheless, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Yale, Michael J. Strambler, remarked that institutional neutrality faces an uphill battle, having “heard from a number of people who said, ‘look, I didn’t sign [Faculty for Yale] because I’m worried about how that’s going to have an impact on my promotion.” He warned that due to the administration at Yale, the current pro-institutional neutrality movement at Yale is not as big as it actually would be.

Before the event, The Beacon was able to exclusively interview some of the panelists. Social and Natural Science Professor Nicholas Christakis, a main organizer, stated that institutional neutrality is an urgent ideal to pursue as “over the last ten years, Yale has become alienated from what many people think should be the core mission of a great university, which is the preservation, production, and dissemination of knowledge.” 

Law Professor Kate Stith expanded on Christakis’ response, urging that events on institutional neutrality are important because they “increase the engagement of intellectuals at the university, to have the university be a neutral place.” She believes that having regular panels and presentations will keep institutional neutrality an important talking point on campus.

On a more personal level, Political Science Professor Hélène Landemore expressed her objections to institutional non-neutrality. While clarifying  that she “is not an absolutist” and would “make very rare exceptions,” she claimed institutional non-neutrality often silences her. While she was on tenure, she was constantly “biting [her] tongue in every meeting,” to keep her job, but now that she is a full-time professor, she is more free to express her true views. That being said, she finds that still, on many issues like “Ukraine, there is only one acceptable view [by the university] and that’s not okay. […] [Faculty] should be allowed to disagree.”

Roth closed by adamantly warning against institutional neutrality. Much like the other panelists, Roth is committed to free speech, though his conceptualization of it is different from the other participants. For him, “free speech is encouraged by people talking, not by people being told not to speak.” He believes that free speech is not suppressed by a campus ideology, but rather a campus ideology is a form of expression of free speech. He expanded on his claim, stating that “even [university] presidents should actually have a point of view and they should be heard. Otherwise, they should be paid considerably less if they’re just signing out the forms.” Perhaps a good question is whether the free speech of individuals at the university, or the free speech of the university as an institution, is to be prioritized.

In response to the creation of a committee at Yale, Roth had some stronger words: “why in the last eight months do presidents and trustees suddenly want committees that are telling people to shut up?” Roth wondered “what that problem is at Yale” as they “do not have that problem at Wesleyan.” The panel discussion did not convince him otherwise.

Institutional neutrality remains a controversial ideal that faces a bumpy road ahead of it. While many professors and administrators are already on board with embracing institutional neutrality, many are still unconvinced or stand in firm opposition to it. Likely, this debate will not be resolved as soon as people may hope. Until a new consensus is reached, the current norm of institutional non-neutrality is expected to be upheld.