Join fellow scholars, educators, and academic leaders in Boston April 12–14 to shape what comes next for higher education. The work is urgent. The moment is ours.
Institutional
Neutrality
By adopting institutional neutrality, universities signal their dedication to debate, viewpoint diversity, and the pursuit of knowledge rather than undermining academic dialogue with political statements.
Your generosity supports our non-partisan efforts to advance the principles of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement to improve higher education and academic research.
To better improve your site experience, we collect some data. To see what types of information we collect, read our Cookie Policy.
In recent years, when a controversy over a hot-button social or political issue arises, many college and university leaders have made statements of support, opposition, solidarity, or concern. But such statements may actually prevent a college or university from fulfilling its special purpose: as a place where individuals can argue for or against a wide range of views, and where just one voice of unpopular dissent can make everyone smarter and wiser.
When an institution of higher education takes a stand on a social controversy, undesirable and unintended consequences can follow:
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 higher education institutions are neutral on social and political issues, their scholars and students can be anything but.
Today, the idea of institutional neutrality is experiencing a revival.
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.
This resource is prepared by Heterodox Academy (HxA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in higher education. Not every HxA member endorses neutrality in college or university statements, and some may prefer different formulations than the one presented here. Still, we hope this resource proves useful to institutions considering adopting a policy of statement neutrality.
This guide provides interested readers with a wide range of articles and reports on the topic of institutional neutrality: what it is, what it is not, key data about the policy, and supporting and dissenting opinions.
We have been tracking institutional statement neutrality policies since the surge of adoptions in 2024 to create the most comprehensive and up-to-date database of policies across the academy. For each institution, we documented when it adopted the policy, who was involved in making the decision, what parts of the institution the policy affects, the institution's type, and documentation of the policy.
Heterodox Academy has joined with the Academic Freedom Alliance and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to issue open letters in February 2024 and July 2024 urging universities to adopt institutional neutrality policies on political and social issues that do not concern core academic matters or institutional operations.
Some universities, no doubt chastened by experience, have done what we urged them to do and adopted the principle of institutional neutrality on disputed political issues. These include prestigious universities such as Harvard, Stanford, Syracuse, Purdue, and more.
By committing to the principles of institutional neutrality, these universities signal their dedication to debate, diversity of opinion, and the pursuit of knowledge. They also protect themselves from accusations of political bias and disincentivize outside forces from pressuring them to take sides on complex political problems on behalf of the entire campus community. These schools are choosing, as the University of Chicago’s 1967 “Kalven Report” states, to act as the “home and sponsor of critics” rather than the critic itself and building an arena for students and faculty to debate the issues of the day.
We stand ready to support universities in their pursuit of institutional neutrality and assist those that have pledged to stay true to their principles. Join the fight for institutional neutrality and urge institutional leaders to adopt neutrality today.
We joined with AFA and FIRE urging universities to adopt institutional neutrality in February 2024. Since then more than 120 universities have adopted policies of statement neutrality or institutional restraint, bringing the total to over 160 institutions. Below is a list institutions with known policies.
In 2024, North American universities and colleges dramatically shifted their approach to controversial social and political issues. By the end of 2024, at least 148 institutions had adopted a policy of institutional statement neutrality. This first-of-its-kind report analyzes the catalysts for adoption, traces what kinds of institutions adopted such policies, reveals how statement neutrality became a policy at these institutions, and examines variations on the content of the policies.
They delve into the Kalven Report of 1967 from the University of Chicago. This landmark report sought to balance the preservation of academic freedom with the responsibility to uphold the university's mission and values. The report's nuanced approach is examined in the context of Harry Kalven’s legacy, a key figure in First Amendment jurisprudence. They also analyze the report's implications for addressing contentious political issues within academia.
The 2023-24 academic year began with political statements. At Harvard and Cornell, these were followed by clarifying statements, and at Stanford there was a new interest in not making statements at all. In this webinar, Tomasi, Stossen, and Whittington discuss the costs to university cultures of inquiry when leaders weigh in on political controversies, and how institutional neutrality as advocated in the Kalven Report and the Princeton Principles can offer a better path forward.
In this member story, Jeff Brennaman, Vice President for Government Relations and External Partnerships at Western Michigan University, explains why his campus adopted a formal institutional neutrality policy and how that decision reshaped campus dialogue.
Steven G. Brint, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at the University of California, Riverside, explains how university activism has driven declining public trust in higher education, and how institutional neutrality can help rebuild it.