In the hallowed halls of academia, there exists an impossible dichotomy. On the one hand, universities are being told not to speak out against pressing political issues, and if they do, their comments are heavily critiqued. On the other hand, if they do nothing, then their ability to retain a diverse student body and maintain their reputation as centers of innovation becomes jeopardized. Given Harvard’s heavy political turmoil over the past few months, the concept of institutional neutrality in universities has come under scrutiny.
Interim Harvard President Alan Garber ’76 is set to announce a working group to consider whether Harvard should adopt a policy of institutional neutrality or not. If Harvard were to adopt a policy on institutional neutrality, the University’s leaders, presidents, provosts, deans, department chairs, and others, would not be able to offer statements on social and political issues, despite any strong opinions of their own.
Some argue that universities should remain politically impartial, abstaining from taking sides on contentious issues to cultivate an environment of open debate and intellectual freedom. However, the idea of institutional neutrality is deeply flawed and maintains undeniable limitations. Universities should abandon the notion of neutrality and instead embrace a more engaged and principled stance on social and political issues.
Arguing for institutional neutrality is in itself taking an institutional position.
Historically, higher education has often been at the forefront of movements that challenge the status quo. Universities do not exist in a vacuum, especially in institutions like Harvard with prestige and fame, where our stances are taken to broadly influence other higher education institutions. In place of retreating into a stance of neutrality, universities need to embrace their role as engines of knowledge production and actively contribute to public debates.
The modern mission of the university is to nurture critical thinking. Universities thus cannot shy away from controversy. Engaging with social issues encourages critical thinking and fosters a culture of debate, disagreement, and even discomfort. Students need to grapple with complex societal challenges and develop the skills to be informed and engaged citizens. Universities are hubs of knowledge cultivation, and to argue that these institutions should remain silent is to argue that knowledge is somehow neutral.
Universities can inspire campus discourse by critically speaking out on social issues. The focus should be on the merits of the issue itself, not aligning themselves with a particular political agenda. Navigating social issues requires a nuanced approach. Universities should be looking to cultivate a vibrant, intellectual environment that tackles complex issues without stifling dissent.
It is crucial to differentiate between an institution taking a stance and creating a space for diverse viewpoints. When a university takes a public stance, it normalizes discussion about the issue on campus, empowering students to feel their own voices are relevant and encouraging them to engage with the topic. Neutrality does not guarantee fair debate but rather creates a vacuum where no clear guidelines exist for student engagement. Taking a stance does not silence opposing viewpoints but instead encourages a more structured and supported environment for discussion.
It is misguided to think that a university can ever be an entirely neutral space. In an era defined by increasing polarization and global challenges, the notion of institutional neutrality appears increasingly outdated and unrealistic. The global issues facing society today require decisive action, not passive neutrality. Universities, with their wealth of knowledge and resources, have a positive historical track record of sparking political change.
In the 1980s, Harvard, along with several other peer institutions, divested its endowments from companies doing business with South Africa in protest of apartheid—a powerful statement that placed significant pressure on the South African government. In the 2010s, Harvard was the grounds for a robust student movement advocating for fossil fuel divestment. After hundreds of student activists stormed the field at the Harvard-Yale football game in 2021, Harvard announced that they would divest from fossil fuels.
Fundamentally, taking a position is not easy for a university and must be done with caution and intention. Instead of shying away from controversy, universities should embrace their role as agents of change and moral leaders in society, reclaim their role as vanguards of truth, and confront ignorance with conviction.
Rania Jones ’27 (rjones@college.harvard.edu) is the Associate News Editor of the Independent.