by Robert A. Scott
Lightspring/Shutterstock
In recent years, three terms have been used that bear consideration. This is especially true for campus administrators who may not study faculty concerns but interact with alumni and the broader public who may wonder about academic jargon. So, what do we mean by “institutional neutrality,” “academic freedom,” and “institutional autonomy”?
The Congressional hearings that challenged several university presidents to make statements about political issues led many institutions to adopt policies of “institutional neutrality.” By resolution, boards of trustees of numerous colleges and universities declared that they would not take public stands on controversial issues.
Such issues include international conflicts, investments in certain products and countries, and stands taken by elected officials. Many of these policies cite the so-called “Chicago Principles” enunciated in the “Kalven Committee: Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action” issued in 1967 by the University of Chicago.
In essence, the Report states that, to protect free speech and freedom of inquiry, university leaders should not engage in speech that would appear to infringe on others’ speech. It argues that the university should be a protected, neutral place for the expression of all ideas, a safe space for “strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions…”
There are good reasons for universities not to take political stands. When a board of trustees or president issues a statement, it can stifle contrary views; it can appear to suppress disagreement and debate on divisive issues. This would be in violation of the university’s responsibility to foster questioning and respect the role of expertise. Making statements about some issues but not others places the institution in jeopardy of a double standard: indicating that some issues deserve comment, but others do not. Such statements can put the institution in a partisan controversy, a place it should avoid.
However, the Kalven Report does not assert that institutions are prohibited from commenting on public policies that would affect institutional autonomy and the freedom of scholars to pursue truth, no matter where that pursuit may lead. So, “no” to endorsing candidates but “yes” to evaluating proposals that infringe on the purposes of education.
Now, governors and state legislators are promoting policies that proscribe what subjects can be taught, what books can be read, and who can be hired to teach. These actions, based on unproven allegations and often without due process and respect for the law, expose the vulnerability of colleges and universities, despite Supreme Court decisions. “Dartmouth College v. Woodward” (1819) and “Sweezy v.New Hampshire” (1957) both affirmed that universities must remain free from government interference in their teaching, hiring, admissions, and governance. Institutional autonomy and board independence are fundamental to academic freedom, educational excellence, and the fulfillment of fiduciary duties, the Court affirmed.
The protections to academic freedom are found most clearly in Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter’s 1957 statement in “Sweezy v. New Hampshire”. He said, “It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment, and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail ‘the four essential freedoms’ of a university – to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”
But what do we mean by academic freedom? It is not only freedom of speech, but also freedom from censorship. This form of freedom is not freedom from responsibility to students, colleagues, institutional mission, or society. Instead, it is freedom to inquire, i.e. interrogate assumptions and assertions to “expose the questions hidden by answers,” as writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin said, and special interests in government, media, or even institutions. It is the freedom to think independently, to have rights, to consider consequences, both intended and not.
It also is the freedom to imagine, to consider what might be and how humanity might develop its humaneness. It is the freedom to express ideas without fear of reprisal or censorship.
Finally, it is the freedom to innovate, to realize what is imagined in new forms and methods.
Too often, we think of institutional autonomy as an independent benefit. It is not. Just as each campus is a community of scholars, so higher education is a community of institutions with shared values. Whether a campus has a billion-dollar endowment and international research agenda or a modest endowment with a regional reach, each institution fulfills three historic missions: creating new professionals, new knowledge, and new citizens; curating the past through libraries of books and online services; and critiquing what is and what might be by promoting inquisitiveness and imagination.
These essential missions depend upon the essential freedoms so well-articulated decades ago, which deserve our understanding and continued support.
