When Hamas carried out shocking terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel, university presidents sent out public statements of all kinds. At Harvard and Cornell, these were followed by clarifying statements, and at Stanford there was a new interest in not making statements at all. Should universities -- homes of open inquiry and viewpoint diversity -- issue official statements about public issues and current events? Is "institutional neutrality" as advocated in the Kalven Report and the Princeton Principles, a better approach? Or are there certain moments of moral clarity when leadership requires a response?
In this video, panelist discussed:
- How can a university sustain freedom and avoid taking positions while maintaining institutional neutrality?
- Why do Institutions Strive for Neutrality Based on Principles and Practicality?
- How can Institutions Safeguard Academic Freedom by Embracing Strategies Such as the Princeton Principles?
- Should Universities Address Policy-Related Political Issues?
- What Should Define the Limits for Universities Speaking Out on Issues?
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.