To the Editor:
Rev. John I. Jenkins and I share concerns about the stifling of free speech on campus. But his commentary on institutional neutrality (“Institutional Neutrality Is a Copout,” The Chronicle Review, January 7) demonstrates several fundamental misunderstandings.
First, Rev. Jenkins bemoans the absence of a “moral pedagogy.” But universities are not amoral. Their clear moral purpose is grounded in shared values. That purpose is the pursuit of truth through reason, argument, and evidence, rooted in a culture of free inquiry and rigorous debate. Free expression, institutional neutrality and civil discourse are essential to fulfilling this purpose. But taking positions unrelated to the university’s core purpose lies beyond that purpose.
To pursue the truth wherever it lies, a university cannot have a political ideology or pursue a particular vision of social change. A university contributes to the betterment of society not by pursuing an agenda, but through the research and innovation of its faculty and students, by producing educated and knowledgeable leaders, and by serving as a model for civil discourse grounded in critical reasoning.
Second, Rev. Jenkins confuses institutional neutrality and free speech, arguing, “institutional neutrality is itself a substantive position with which one may disagree,” and “colleges must take pains to ensure that all members of the community are free to voice disagreement with the administration without repercussions.” Both statements are correct and are not in conflict. All subjects, including the practice of institutional neutrality or free speech, must be fair game for debate. Universities that are firm proponents of institutional neutrality and free speech, such as the University of Chicago or Vanderbilt, have always understood that their policies and decisions can be freely questioned and criticized by anyone.
Finally, Rev. Jenkins prescribes institutional restraint as a better alternative to institutional neutrality. But institutional restraint solves nothing. It is a presumption against position-taking not a prohibition. By taking positions even selectively, universities risk chilling debate, undermining faculty expertise, and making themselves vulnerable to politicization. To best support students’ moral and intellectual development, universities need to adopt institutional neutrality.
Daniel Diermeier
Chancellor
Vanderbilt University
