More than 150 universities and colleges have now committed themselves to policies of statement neutrality, the majority adopting such policies in the past year. Consequently, they will generally refrain from taking official positions on contested social and political issues.

Institutional neutrality is not a form of censorship; it is, in fact, quite the opposite. As the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report advised, “The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” When institutions of higher education remain neutral on social and political issues, their scholars and students can be anything but.

By preventing the chill faculty and students can feel when the institutional voice disagrees with their own, institutions remain committed to open inquiry and exploration. When a social or political controversy captures public attention, a college or university has a unique opportunity to elevate and improve public debate. Its scholars can articulate and defend their expert opinions. Its campus can host thoughtful discussions. Its students, faculty, and staff can freely formulate and express novel views that enrich the range of possibilities to be considered.

But what happens when real-world events do seem to demand formal institutional response?

This scenario raises two distinct questions:

• Under what conditions should an institution deviate from its general policy of statement neutrality to weigh in on a social or political issue?
• When such statements are appropriate, what constraints must the institution follow to maintain fidelity to the ideal of statement neutrality?

The first question is particularly thorny, as there's no algorithmic solution that just tells us when an institution is justified in taking a stance on a social or political issue. However, in “Extraordinary U: the HxA Model of Statement Neutrality”, Heterodox Academy (HxA) has proposed a useful framework: institutions should speak out when and only when an issue “directly, significantly, and specifically affects the academic mission of the institution.”

Let's unpack these three criteria of directness, significance, and specificity.

Directness: how close? An issue must affect the academic mission through immediate, first-order effects rather than indirect ripple effects.

To illustrate this distinction, consider two contrasting scenarios. Suppose a state legislature passes a law that directly restricts what professors can teach in their classrooms. Such a scenario would clearly meet the directness criterion, because the law in question immediately impacts the core educational function of the university.

On the other hand, general political turmoil that might eventually lead to decreased enrollment would not qualify, as the turmoil is far upstream of any direct impact on academic activity.

The key is distinguishing between immediate effects on academic functions versus longer causal chains that may (but won’t necessarily) eventually affect the institution.

Significance: how big? The significance criterion requires that an issue's impact on the institution's academic mission be truly substantial rather than merely peripheral or incidental.

To illustrate this distinction, consider two scenarios. A law that bans scholars from inquiring into certain research topics (or bans research involving certain keywords) would clearly meet the significance threshold. Such a restriction would fundamentally impair a university's ability to pursue knowledge and advance scholarship.

In contrast, a new state requirement that universities submit additional paperwork when purchasing laboratory equipment, while creating administrative burden, would not rise to the level of significance that warrants breaking statement neutrality with a public statement. Such a policy might be inefficient or frustrating, but it doesn't fundamentally impair the university's ability to conduct research or educate students.

The key question is whether the impact meaningfully compromises core academic functions rather than creating mere administrative friction or peripheral challenges.

Specificity: how focused? The specificity criterion requires that an issue's impact be particular to the missions of academic institutions rather than broadly affecting society at large.

Consider, for instance, policies regarding student visas or student immigration status. These clearly meet the specificity requirement since they distinctly affect universities' ability to maintain an international student body, which may be a core part of their missions.

In contrast, general economic policies that affect all sectors of society equally—such as changes to interest rates or broad tax reforms—would not meet this criterion, even if they impact universities alongside other institutions. The key distinction lies in whether the issue creates unique challenges for academic institutions or merely affects them as part of broader societal changes.

The Ideal Institutional Statement

The three criteria that help determine when an institution may take a public stance on a social or political issue also provide guidance on how it should speak. Even when universities and colleges determine that deviating from statement neutrality is warranted, they should follow a bounded advocacy model:

1. Focus on specific mission impact: Rather than making broad moral proclamations or taking sweeping political stances, institutions should narrowly focus their statements on explaining how the issue specifically affects their mission, and how taking a stance on that issue is done in aid of that mission. For example, instead of condemning a political movement broadly, a university might specifically address how certain proposed policies favored by that movement would specifically and negatively impact its research or teaching capabilities or academic freedom.
2. Show clear causation: Statements should clearly articulate the direct causal link between the issue at hand and institutional impacts. This means avoiding arguments based on indirect effects or speculations about chains of consequences and instead focusing on immediate, first-order effects on functions core to the institution’s mission.
3. Substantiate size of impact: When speaking out, institutions might provide concrete evidence of to what degree their mission would be affected. This might include specific data, examples, or detailed explanations of how core university functions would be impaired.

The bounded advocacy approach helps institutions maintain their commitment to statement neutrality even when they determine they must speak out and take a side. It ensures that when universities do take positions, they do so in a way that remains tethered to their missions rather than drifting into broader political advocacy.

Consider the difference between these statements:

Unbounded advocacy: The university condemns Policy X as an assault on human rights and democratic values.

Bounded advocacy: “Policy X would directly impact our ability to conduct research in the following specific ways... These restrictions would significantly impair our capacity to fulfill our educational mission by…”

The bounded approach maintains institutional credibility while still allowing universities to defend their core functions when genuinely threatened.

Statement neutrality isn't about institutional self-muzzling. It is about ensuring that viewpoint diversity and free expression remain cherished pillars of higher education. The framework that highlights considerations of directness, significance, and specificity, coupled with the bounded advocacy model, offers a practical path forward for universities navigating today's contentious social and political landscape in which there are many policies and changes that may directly and significantly impact university missions.

By taking public stances only when core functions are genuinely threatened, and doing so in ways that remain tightly focused on institutional mission, universities’ administrators can maintain their unique role in society: not as arbiters of social and political matters, but as caretakers of spaces where truth can be pursued through open inquiry and rigorous debate.

This approach allows universities to defend their essential functions when necessary while avoiding the pitfalls of becoming just another voice in our increasingly polarized public discourse. In doing so, they preserve something invaluable: their capacity to serve as forums where difficult questions can be explored, where unpopular ideas can be debated, and where the pursuit of knowledge remains paramount.

In an era when many institutions feel compelled to take stands on every issue, perhaps the most extraordinary stance a university can take is to remain true to its fundamental purpose—fostering the conditions that make the search for truth possible.