Universities in the United States are undergoing a shift in how they approach contentious global issues, spurred by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and student protests earlier this year. From Harvard to the University of Michigan, higher education is adopting “institutional neutrality” policies, aiming to remain apolitical in the face of mounting pressure to take stances on divisive matters.
Earlier this fall, Columbia University’s sister college Barnard took a bold step by officially committing to neutrality on global political matters, pledging to “refrain from taking an institutional stance.” Soon after, Columbia University’s interim president Katrina Armstrong hinted at similar intentions for Columbia, framing the move as a response to “the vitally important question” of whether institutions should involve themselves in public debates. Earlier this year, Columbia’s campus saw high-profile protests over the conflict in Gaza, which reflected student demands for the university to take a position.
Universities have historically embraced activism, taking strong stances on issues like civil rights, the Vietnam War, and apartheid. Columbia itself divested from companies in apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s after significant student pressure, signaling its opposition to racial oppression. Similarly, the University of California system, in 2015, divested from private prisons in response to student campaigns that advocated for criminal justice reform.
Still, the nonpartisan free speech organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has long been a vocal advocate for institutional neutrality and is a key advocate for apolitical policies. “The university is not the critic, it’s the host of critics,” says Laura Belz, director of policy reform at FIRE, referencing the principles set forth in the influential 1967 Kalven Report by the University of Chicago. The report recommended universities refrain from taking positions on social and political issues to protect the integrity of academic freedom. Belz believes that neutrality policies can “empower students and faculty to challenge the university.”
In light of this year’s protests, however, critics of institutional neutrality say these policies ultimately prioritize a university’s reputation, donor relations, and other institutional interests over the rights of students and faculty to express their views on urgent global issues. Some activists who spoke with Teen Vogue refer to this as a “Palestine exception” to free speech, claiming that neutrality policies are selectively applied to discourage support for Palestinian rights while other political stances are allowed to go unchallenged.
These activists also point out that, despite claiming neutrality, many colleges and universities have established partnerships and financial connections that inherently reflect a political stance. Institutions like Columbia, for example, have funds that invest with corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Elbit Systems, companies that either directly provide defense technology and equipment or are otherwise involved in the global military-industrial complex.
But divestment is a tricky sell for university administrators. Martha Pollack, president of Cornell University, recently declined to support divestment from companies involved in the war in Gaza, explaining that the university’s endowment serves its mission, not political goals, and that divestment could violate New York laws against penalizing Israel. Activists argue that such policies favor institutional interests and select financial alliances over true neutrality.
