Over the past year, college campuses have seen mass protests urging university leaders to make official statements on contentious issues. Recognizing the divisive and chilling impact these controversial statements can have, some schools have elected to take a more restrained approach by implementing institutional statement neutrality. Significant names like Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard University, and Brown University appear among the growing list of institutions.

But how do these policies differ in details, and how can they be improved?

The Heterodox Academy (HxA) Model: Building on the Kalven Report

Most statement neutrality positions share the principles outlined in the University of Chicago's 1967 Kalven Report. The Kalven Report emphasized that the university should remain neutral on political and social issues “out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.” It advocated that universities must not act as critics but rather as hosts for critics, ensuring an open and diverse intellectual environment.

By combining Kalven’s core insights with pragmatic advice for today’s academic landscape, HxA has offered its Model of Statement Neutrality as a guide for best practices for academic institutions.

Honoring Kalven’s principles, the following summary policy statement stands at the heart of the HxA Model:

When a contested social issue arises that does not directly concern the academic mission of our college or university, institutional leadership will not issue a position statement on that issue. On rare occasions when a public issue arises that directly affects the mission of this college or university, institutional leaders may issue statements that articulate the significance of that issue to our campus community.

In addition to the summary policy statement, the HxA Model provides practical advice to help university leaders implement the principle of neutrality in a manner appropriate for their institutions.

Three key features of the HxA Model are worth highlighting:

1. Attention to changing the culture: The HxA model stresses the need to inform members of the campus community of the merits of statement neutrality and to prepare them for rigorous debates on controversial issues as they arise.
2. Implementation institution-wide: Although this approach is implied by the Kalven Report, the HxA model specifies the importance of regulating the institutional voice to ensure official units and administrators are not perceived as speaking on behalf of the entire university.

Cornell’s Institutional Neutrality: A Step in the Right Direction

In August 2024, Cornell University’s administration reaffirmed its commitment to free speech and declared a new adherence to institutional statement neutrality by stating that “the President and Provost will refrain from opining on national or global events that do not directly impact the university.” This is a positive development.

However, it is unclear if this reflects a new official policy of Cornell or simply the intended practice of the current officeholders. Institutions would be wise to make institutional statement neutrality a durable official policy.

Cornell’s approach could also be improved by incorporating two other key elements of the HxA model.

While Cornell’s policy is self-imposed by top leadership, the HxA model emphasizes that statement neutrality should be formally extended to all official units of the university to ensure those units are not mistaken for speaking for the entire institution. If sub-units are perceived as speaking for Cornell, the whole purpose of adopting a statement neutrality position will be undermined.

Cornell could also enhance its stance by adopting the HxA model’s proactive approach on community engagement. University leaders should regularly explain the value of institutional statement neutrality to the campus community and engage in discourse defending the principle of open inquiry. Institution-wide buy-in is fundamental to re-orienting expectations and ensuring success.

Johns Hopkins University: A Better Approach with Room for Growth

Johns Hopkins University has also recently taken steps toward institutional statement neutrality. Last month, the university’s president, provost, and deans formally committed to refraining from statements on political and social issues, recognizing that such statements can suppress debate and undermine intellectual diversity. Johns Hopkins is actively seeking buy-in from the campus community. These moves align well with the HxA model regarding protecting academic freedom by avoiding political partisanship.

Still, Johns Hopkins’ policy leaves room for improvement. Unlike Cornell, Johns Hopkins expands implementation beyond two specific offices yet focuses exclusively on the president, provost and deans. Incorporating HxA model’s of statement neutrality to sub-units would help to ensure that the entire university remains aligned in its neutrality goals. Johns Hopkins' commitment to engaging academic departments, centers, and other units of the university is crucial to gathering the needed buy-in, but it must stress that none can present as if speaking for the entire university.

The HxA model emphasizes fostering a campus culture that values viewpoint diversity and rigorous debate. Johns Hopkins could adopt this approach by creating programs that prepare students for constructive dialogue. Johns Hopkins is actively seeking buy-in from sub-units, but did not include students as an intended engagement group. Everyone in the campus community should have a clear understanding of why the university adopted and maintains a policy of statement neutrality, and students are indispensable to this effort.

Harvard’s Policy Offers a Different Take on Expressions of Empathy

Harvard University’s statement neutrality policy, as described in its Report on Institutional Voice in the University, shares many similarities with the HxA model.

But Harvard goes further than Cornell and Johns Hopkins in explicitly applying the principles of statement neutrality to the university and its leaders. It states, “[t]he university and its leaders should not, however, issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.” While defining university leadership as, “the president, provost, and all deans as well as heads of departments, centers, and programs; [and] in principle extend to university governing boards and faculty bodies.”

One interesting feature of Harvard’s policy on institutional neutrality is that it explicitly rejects the notion that the institution or its leaders should express empathy in times of tragedy:

The most compassionate course of action is therefore not to issue official statements of empathy. Instead, the university should continue and expand the efforts of its pastoral arms in the different schools and residential houses to support affected community members.

The HxA Model differs from Harvard’s policy in countenancing the possibility that university leaders be sometimes permitted to issue statements of empathy. However, Harvard’s policy need not be faulted for differing in this respect, as the HxA Model also urges that university leaders be cautious about issuing statements of empathy in ways that signal an institutional preference for certain political or social causes.

Brown: Advancing from Statements to Policy

Brown University adopted a formal policy on Public Statements in 2022. To the best of our knowledge, this alone sets Brown apart from the other examples in this article. Theoretically, an advantage of having an official policy on the books, as opposed to a declaration from a university leader, is that an official policy may have additional staying power as leaders come and go.

Brown’s policy grants the institution specific authority to issue statements when certain conditions are met:

As a research university with an international reputation, Brown University may exercise its leadership by issuing institutional leadership messages, or Public Statements, for matters of direct impact to the Brown community or matters affecting higher education and/or the ability of Brown or other educational institutions to fulfill their mission of education and research.

But another feature of Brown’s policy that makes it really stand out is that it expressly applies to all academic units and centers. Brown provides faculty with a clear framework for determining when an academic unit/department of the institution can issue a policy statement and provides a process for those units to adopt policy statements. A key feature is that the policies allows academic units to comment on matters when, “[t]he message speaks to the implications of the external issue/precipitating event for the education, research, initiatives or operations specific to the Academic Unit and/or its field of study.”

We're Seeing Progress, But There's Still Work to Do

Institutions that have adopted statement neutrality are ahead of the curve. But as this analysis has shown, small variations can make a noticeable difference in how the policies may play out in practice. Some of the challenges of adopting statement neutrality will be universal and others unique to the institution. Inevitably questions will arise in regard to what qualifies as taking an institutional position and clear guidelines should dictate this at the institutional level. For any policy to succeed, transparent procedures, clear expectations and consistent practice must be developed.

HxA believes moves to adopt statement neutrality represent a positive reform that fundamentally strengthens free inquiry to advance the academic mission of discovering truth and disseminating knowledge. We commend all the institutions that pursue this path and encourage all to follow suit. We believe the HxA Model of Statement Neutrality offers a balanced and comprehensive framework that builds on the legacy of the Kalven Report while adapting to the complexities of modern higher education. Institutions like Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and Brown are making admirable strides, and there may be even more room to improve their policies so as to strengthen the cause of open inquiry from diverse perspectives in higher education.