The Kalven Report famously promoted the norm of institutional neutrality. It also recognized exceptions to the norm: position taking may be justified when “the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry” are under threat; and when in its corporate capacity, the university’s conduct may become incompatible with “paramount social values”. 

But what constitutes a threat to the university’s mission and values? Must it be direct, or may it concern background conditions necessary for academic life?   

Legal theorist Frederick Schauer’s analysis of rules and exceptions highlights the problem: if exceptions to rules are insufficiently bound, they may dissolve the constraint - in our case, the one that made neutrality a rule. 

With the recent expansion of institutional neutrality in policy and legislation, these questions have become very timely. Newly adopted policies include their own exceptions – ranging from narrow – covering only direct, concrete, or immediate effects on institutional functions - to broader formulations encompassing democracy, the rule of law, or matters of grave social importance. 

This interactive workshop will move participants from reviewing doctrine to decision-making about this doctrine. Participants will:

1. Work through escalating hypotheticals taking the role of university presidents. 
2. Deliberate and vote on whether an exception applies, and then compare the lines they have drawn
3. Leave with clearer thoughts on when statements are legitimate even under institutional neutrality policies
4. Be able, as HxA members, to play a leading role when such dilemmas arise in their respective institutions.

If you want to help your institution draw principled lines on when it speaks out, this workshop is for you.

Space is limited for this members-only workshop on December 1 at 12-1:15pm EST — Register today to join the discussion!