Does Institutional Neutrality Matter in Higher Education?

Since 2024, 130 universities have utilized “institutional neutrality” as their guiding light in navigating their stance on controversial political and social issues, with Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and UVA following suit. But in the midst of stark political polarization, and speech ever more amplified and suppressed, can institutions truly be neutral? And is there any point to it, anyway? 

While the policy of institutional neutrality has only recently been popularized, especially following university demonstrations regarding the conflict in Gaza, it has been circulating since 1967 with the release of the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report. The report famously stated, “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” This report, written by faculty members under the leadership of Chairman Harry Kalven Jr., proposed a principle in which universities should not comment or take a stance on political or social issues not directly related to the university’s goals or mission. Rather, the university should act as a stage for faculty and students to practice and showcase their own beliefs to the public, instead of being an actor in the political realm itself. 

This sentiment promotes the university as a safe haven for the free exchange of thoughts and ideas—a cornerstone of this nation's values and its proclamation of free speech. Institutional neutrality and the Kalven Report serve as a blueprint for many advocates of the First Amendment in higher education, including the Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. And while it’s a beautiful sentiment, I had no idea why it all just felt flat. Though there is immense value and need for universities to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality in protecting free speech, the real challenge is not in how universities should speak, but in how they empower their students and faculty to find their voices and speak for themselves. 

When past UVA President Jim Ryan commented on the university's adoption of the new position, he expressed—with a hint of relief—that he hopes “it gets the University out of the business so that people are not expecting anytime something happens in the world, the University has to speak.” While it may not have been his intent, this comment encapsulates the core criticism of institutional neutrality: that neutrality can become a cop-out, a guise for apathy, or worse, a mechanism for suppressing speech in favor of the status quo. It allows the university to avoid responsibility and the possible backlash of having gone too far or not far enough, or not going at all, on any given topic. 

There comes a point when neutrality can start to feel like silence. The decision not to take a stance, intended to avoid alienating some, can end up isolating everyone who seeks acknowledgment or support, especially in moments of injustice or tragedy. But beyond the emotional impact, neutrality can also have real consequences for campus discourse. At its worst, neutrality can encroach on free speech by discouraging open discussion rather than protecting it. This tension becomes especially apparent when neutrality is expected not just of the institution, but of its staff, its communal spaces, and—ultimately—its students. 

True neutrality creates space, not silence, a space where students and faculty can freely inquire, debate, and disagree without fear of being censored for their political beliefs or affiliations. It allows universities to support and elevate these explorations of knowledge rather than hide behind statements that shut down conversation instead of encouraging it. 

To achieve that vision in practice, institutional neutrality must be paired with an affirmation of the university’s central mission: the “discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.” At its best, it allows the university to stay focused on operations that uphold its role as a steward of free expression and viewpoint diversity. This is reflected in the Kalven Report, which states that it is not only appropriate but necessary for universities to speak out when core values such as institutional autonomy or academic freedom are under threat.

UVA, and institutions like it, should commit to clear, transparent messaging about why they choose not to issue certain statements and, more importantly, to uplift spaces on campus where student-led expression, forums, and dissent thrive. UVA has an opportunity to lead—not through performative neutrality, but through consistent, principled action that reflects our community’s deepest values. As students, we don’t need universities to speak for us, but we do need them to make space where we can speak for ourselves. 

Institutional neutrality matters—not as the shield many assume it to be, but as a strategy: a redirection of voice that prioritizes what matters most in higher education.

Manuela is a second year studying Government at The University of Virginia.