Throughout my career, I have believed that universities should generally avoid making statements on political issues on behalf of the institution. The reason for this principle, known as “institutional neutrality,” is that the university is the forum in which debates about important and controversial issues occur. We are educating students in how to engage in thoughtful, well-informed and respectful conversation. The positions expressed are those of the members of the university community — faculty, staff and students. If the university is going to create an inclusive space for diverse perspectives in which these debates can take place, it cannot itself be a participant in the debate. If Hamline as an institution took a side on a controversial issue — e.g., Israel/Gaza, abortion, capital punishment, etc. — what message would this send to students or faculty with a dissenting view? The best known articulation of institutional neutrality comes from the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report: “The neutrality of the university as an institution arises not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.”
While I still believe that the concept of institutional neutrality should hold for most controversial political issues, there is a clear exception found in the Kalven Report itself: “From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.” We are now at that moment. We have reached the limits of neutrality.
We face an administration in Washington that is unconstrained by morality, decency or a commitment to the Constitution and rule of law. The President has contempt for the norms and principles that underlie our political and legal systems, and undisguised ambition for unchecked power. With loyalists surrounding him, he is on a vindictive campaign to destroy his perceived enemies using the power of the federal government. His targets have included government agencies, law firms, judges and, most relevant to Hamline, colleges and universities. Higher education has never in its history faced a comparable threat, as this administration, following the example of authoritarian governments throughout history, actively seeks to stifle dissent and critical thinking. An administration characterized by anti-science policies, rejection of evidence and logic based thinking, disregard for expertise and contempt for multicultural perspectives would obviously see universities as a threat.
Never has the power of the federal government been so effectively weaponized against colleges and universities, and there has been a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom. Historian Ellen Schrecker argues that the MAGA movement has much in common with McCarthyism, as “both repressive movements emerged from the efforts of powerful right-wing forces to roll back the progressive social and economic reforms of an earlier era,” and she concludes that “today’s assault on the university is immeasurably worse.”
Universities that are far wealthier and more powerful than Hamline have acquiesced in the face of these attacks, even though they have billions of dollars with which to resist. Many institutions are engaged in anticipatory compliance, trying to avoid becoming a target. The withholding of federal funds would be devastating for many institutions. There have already been painful consequences for some universities, including the loss of large amounts of money and resources, the suspension or elimination of research projects, the revocation of student visas, the silencing of scholars working in areas that question or oppose the government’s view and, most profoundly disturbing, the physical seizures — essentially abductions — of students and faculty without anything resembling due process. We should all be horrified by images of students who have been accused of no crime being grabbed on the streets by federal agents because of their alleged political views and speech. These are actions that have long been characteristic of the most repressive autocracies.
Universities must speak out against these abuses. However, there are pragmatic reasons to avoid drawing the attention of a bully. No institution wants to be singled out as the next target. So, solidarity among colleges and universities will be essential, as speaking collectively does not expose individual institutions to the same risk. Organizations like the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expressions (FIRE) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which have already put out statements, must continue to speak out.
Universities can only carry out their mission in a meaningful way in a nation that is democratic and committed to the rule of law and civil rights, especially freedom of speech and expression, the lifeblood of our enterprise. Therefore, institutions of higher education must not only speak out in defense of their own missions and values, but also for democracy itself. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment for the future of the nation. Universities must lead the fight against authoritarianism; we must not let our nation be dominated by a personality cult that is reversing hard-won progress and destroying so much of what we have built.
This unprecedented moment should remind us of the importance of our mission. No matter how bad things get, universities must preserve and transmit the spirit of intellectual inquiry, critical thinking, free speech, social justice and appreciation of diversity. We must resist this administration’s anti-intellectualism and its many forms of bigotry (including vicious transphobia and xenophobia), defend our mission and join other universities in solidarity to preserve our values. We will need courage to do so. The importance of what we do here has never mattered more. We can hear the question posed to each of us and our institutions by the historians of the future looking back on the crisis caused by this dangerous President and his enablers — what did you do to stop it?
