Harvard Adopts 'Institutional Neutrality', Won't Comment on Political Issues

Harvard issued a statement announcing the school will no longer “issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.” 

The Details: The statement was recommended by a Harvard faculty working group report, which said "To succeed, the university cultivates an environment in which its members can research, teach, and learn. This is its core function. It commits itself to the values of free inquiry, intellectual expertise, and productive argument among divergent points of view." Syracuse University followed suit with a similar statement of institutional neutrality. 

The Context: Harvard's statement comes after controversy at the university following its statements on the Oct. 7 attacks in Gaza. Then-University President Claudine Gay resigned after giving congressional testimony about antisemitism on campus. Institutional neutrality is not a new idea; it has been adopted by universities over the years, beginning with the University of Chicago in 1967 over the Vietnam War. Recently, given universities' statements on current events, the idea of institutional neutrality has become a subject of debate. 

How the Media Covered It: Across the spectrum, some celebrated this shift, saying that universities should not comment on current events and that neutrality is a necessity for academic freedom. Others were more cynical about the change. Some on the left saw it as a way for universities to dodge taking morally correct but controversial stances. Some on the right saw it as a strategically timed self-protection method for elite universities.