When Words Aren’t Enough: When Should Presidents Speak and What Should They Say?
In the 1960s, political and social unrest created hotbeds of dissent and, at times, revolt on America’s college campuses. Students burned flags and draft cards,...
In the 1960s, political and social unrest created hotbeds of dissent and, at times, revolt on America’s college campuses. Students burned flags and draft cards, occupied buildings, marched on Washington, D.C., and otherwise voiced their opposition to racism, gender inequality, the Vietnam War, and other powder keg issues.
At the University of Chicago, students and faculty pressured the administration to take positions on the issues they were protesting and also called for divestiture of corporate investments tied to those causes. In response, the university convened a committee led by law professor Harry Kalven Jr., and the committee’s report, “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Activism” (The Kalven Report), issued in 1967, became the accepted wisdom on the issue of institutional activism. Key points expressed in the report include:
- Institutional Neutrality: Avoid taking an institutional or collective position on political and social issues. This is essential if a college or university is to remain an unbiased forum for discussing diverse opinions on campus.
- Individual Expression: Individual faculty and students should be encouraged to engage freely in political and social discourse. Each person should feel comfortable in exercising their right of expression without fear of institutional opposition.
- Marketplace of Ideas: It is the institution’s responsibility to create and safeguard an atmosphere that supports diverse opinions, while promoting wide-ranging inquiry and debate, the cornerstone of the higher education community.
- Exceptional circumstances: Colleges and universities are justified to speak and act when their campus’s core mission and values are under attack.
Who on a college campus would fall under the guidance of these principles? Clearly institutional restraint would be called upon for the president and senior officials, as well as members of the governing body. In fact, most institutions have rules for who speaks on behalf of the campus. The freedoms afforded to faculty members often extend to faculty groups, i.e. senates and academic committees, while student voices typically include formal student organizations. Quasi and ad hoc student groups might come under more scrutiny and restrictions.
The Kalven Report is almost 60 years old. In the face of recent headlines — Black Lives Matter, Climate Change, the situation in Gaza — there is renewed interest in the report’s principles. The University of Chicago still stands by the original report. Other institutions — the University of California and Amherst College are two examples — have become more active in their official pronouncements on controversial issues.
How several of our most prestigious institutions have dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides useful commentary on how best to react to a controversy that is thousands of years in the making, with the most recent acts of violence being the latest chapter in a long-running story.
Allow me to recount the key events from nearly two years ago: On October 7, 2023, Hamas, the Palestinian militant group, attacked southern Israel and killed more than 1,200 civilians. Over the ensuing months, as Israel responded to the attack with repeated military actions in the Gaza Strip, many college students protested the Israeli actions and voiced support for the Palestinian people. More than 60 campuses sprouted encampments, and protests turned into building takeovers, classroom disruptions, vigilante attacks, vandalism, and police in riot gear.
In December 2023, several Ivy League presidents testified before Congress concerning the tensions taking place on their campuses. University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill was unable to categorically say that calling for the “genocide of Jews” would violate Penn’s code of conduct. She said it was a “contextually dependent” decision. Within four days, she was forced to resign from her office. Harvard President Claudine Gay, in answer to the same question, said “It can be, depending on the context,” and further stated antisemitic speech could trigger disciplinary action if it constituted bullying, harassment, or intimidation. Gay’s resignation came a month after her testimony.
At those same hearings, MIT President Sally Kornbluth offered clear counterpoint. She described the Hamas attack as “horrifying. In my opinion, such a deliberate attack on civilians can never be justified.” She also answered a question about Israeli sovereignty by saying, “Absolutely, Israel has a right to exist.”
This moral certitude was applauded in many circles, and was backed up with a number of on-campus actions that President Kornbluth took to secure a peaceful climate in which healthy discussion and debate could take place. She endorsed the International Hillel Campus Climate Initiative, launched the Standing Together Against Hate program, enhanced campus security, created a Committee on Academic Freedom and Campus Expression, and facilitated faculty-led discussions in support of Jewish and Muslim students.
MIT was lauded for its president’s morally grounded public rejection of hatred and bigotry and its quick and decisive actions on campus. Harvard is catching up. At Harvard, Gay’s successor, Alan Garber, has acknowledged Harvard had a problem with antisemitism (as well as Islamophobia), launched an internal review of potential improvements, and pledged to share progress being made. In addition, he announced a policy of institutional neutrality on most controversial issues that was promptly endorsed by the Governing Corporation. Yet despite these actions, Harvard’s response has been criticized by some as being too little, too late.
What are key takeaways from these select institutional responses to the Hamas/Israeli conflict?
- The president is the voice of the university and holds the institution’s moral compass in his/her hand. In this world of 24/7 news, cell phone videos, and social media amplification, the whole world hangs on every word. If you are not quick enough on your feet in tense, fast-moving, public settings, to recognize and denounce a clear moral issue — like advocacy of genocide — then you are in danger of undermining your effectiveness or even losing your job.
- Taking a position on a moral issue does not have to be a repudiation of the Kalven principles — it can validate them. How can a college campus engage in civil discussions on issues of controversy without some moral guideposts? Students and faculty want their leaders to model moral clarity by speaking out when the institution’s values are attacked. Such clarity sets boundaries for discussions between opposing viewpoints and tells everyone — discussants and observers — that passionate advocacy cannot justify immorality. The challenge presidents face in this regard is distinguishing between those events, issues, and controversies that truly infringe upon the institution and its values, versus those broader matters that, while perhaps counter to its values, do not directly relate to the institution, its constituents, and their day-to-day engagement and activities.
- It is important to combine clear words with reasonable actions on campus. If the institution’s actions are understood as aligning with the university’s core values, the majority of stakeholders — including faculty and students — will be on board. For example, preserving safety not only recognizes the value and dignity of each individual on campus, it provides a secure environment in which vigorous yet civil discourse may occur and promotes a truly rich diversity of opinion and ideas. Establishing and supporting groups, forums, and situations where opposing viewpoints can be civilly addressed is why campuses exist.
- Neutrality does not mean the campus needs to be silent or indifferent. The most important role a president and his/her administrative team can play is ensuring that the “marketplace of ideas” is as robust as possible, and that not only is everyone free to participate, but encouraged to do so in a safe and respectful environment. A college campus should not be a place where students seek like-minded individuals to reinforce their views — social media algorithms do that. Going to college should be a time when students test their ideas against opposing viewpoints, because we learn more in disagreement than in agreement. The president’s role in this should be to protect – and encourage – the voices of individuals that challenge the current campus orthodoxy – for example, to welcome speakers to campus even though their ideas may be deemed controversial or antithetical to conventional wisdom.I submit that university presidents would gain public support if they were to personally invite controversial speakers from both sides of issues to campus to speak. I could envision a “President’s Forum” on campuses, with a purpose of bringing in divergent viewpoints to educate and stimulate student and faculty discussion. U Chicago, for example, has launched a Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, a series of events throughout the year. Having the president sponsor such speakers would place them under the protective cloak of institutional neutrality and allow for the type of robust point and counterpoint too often missing from our campuses.
- Public opinion and media scrutiny are important to navigate. However, college and university presidents serve a set of primary stakeholders who need to know that they are being heard. Students, faculty, alumni, donors, and governing bodies are all vocal in pressing presidents and their administrations with their interests and opinions. How does one balance neutrality with this ongoing onslaught of advocacy? It is easy to speak out against bigotry, hunger, and genocide — it’s the same as praising Gandhi, remembering 9/11, or applauding the new Pope.Complex issues and those with strong opposing opinions owned by entire peoples is another matter. Even something that most people believe in — climate change and the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals — has opposition. Interestingly, neither Harvard nor Princeton have formally adopted the SDGs. Adherence to the principle of institutional neutrality sometimes calls for presidents to avoid directly supporting goals in which they strongly believe. But that does not mean that the universities they lead cannot engage in activities that advance societal understanding and knowledge on these divisive issues, for example, studying environmental, social, and economic equity. Perhaps that is the takeaway. It is what you do, more than what you say publicly, that resonates most in your campus, especially to the stakeholders who constitute your campus community, including students, faculty and alumni. The local community is also a key stakeholder that campuses can positively impact with their actions.
There are many topics less polarizing than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we can bring both sides of that conflict together for meaningful dialog, surely we can apply that principle to other issues. In so doing, higher education can fulfill its most important role — to create an informed citizenry and preserve our democracy.
