Amid a national influx of universities formally enacting institutional neutrality policies following the outbreak of the war in Gaza, GW is not considering adopting the approach.
Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza last October, more than 15 universities have adopted an official position toward “institutional neutrality,” which would require universities to refrain in issuing statements regarding any political issues, specifically those that do not directly affect the university’s main goals. University spokesperson Julia Metjian said GW isn’t considering adopting the stance, but some faculty and academic freedom organizations said GW should adopt policies that enable students to discuss and learn about both sides of political and social issues.
“At this time, the University is not considering implementing institutional neutrality,” Metjian said in an email. “If the administration were to consider adopting a stance on institutional neutrality in the future, we would consult with faculty, staff, and students as part of the process.”
GW has issued a host of statements on political issues, including after the June 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and after a shooting in Buffalo that killed 10 people in May 2022. University President Ellen Granberg has also released statements regarding Israel’s war in Gaza, using language describing Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel as “evil” and condemning the “acts of terrorism.”
Officials also condemned various forms of protest and expression by their students and faculty in the wake of Oct. 7, calling a student vigil for Palestinians killed by the Israeli military in the days after the attacks a “celebration of terrorism” that “glorifies acts of violence.” Some speakers at the vigil hailed the attackers, adding that the attacks marked a new era in Palestine’s struggle for liberation.
University leaders across the country have struggled to address the war in Gaza and in some cases faced a tug-of-war between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions on and off campus that are critical of their messaging to community members.
This year, universities like Harvard, Stanford and Syracuse have adopted the principle that administrations shouldn’t comment on political issues that don’t directly affect their mission. Other universities, like the University of Chicago, adopted the principle for all political issues decades ago, following a report from a commission that sought to address how the university should respond to political and social upheaval of the 1960s as simmering racial tensions exploded into riots and the death toll from the Vietnam War mounted daily.
GW’s mission statement says the University has a duty to educate individuals, conduct scholarly research and publish the findings of their research.
Spokespeople for Harvard, Stanford and Syracuse did not return a request to comment on why officials decided to implement institutional neutrality and what impacts it has had on their campus. The universities said in their announcements of the policy that the adoption of institutional neutrality aims to promote academic freedom and free speech through on-campus civil discourse.
Three national free speech organizations — Academic Freedom Alliance, Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — issued a joint letter in July calling on all college and university trustees to adopt neutral policies on political and social issues that do not concern core academic matters or institutional operations.
The letter calls on institutions to only comment on policy issues that impact the university’s ability to fulfill its mission, like the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn affirmative action, the consideration of race and other characteristics in college admissions.
Ryan Ansloan, the senior program officer of policy reform at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said GW is “uniquely positioned” to foster different perspectives on campus, and institutional neutrality can only further this discourse by allowing all sides to voice their opinions. He said GW is “absolutely the sort of school” where officials should prioritize free expression because of its location in D.C. and its “politically loaded environment.”
“The purpose of remaining neutral is that the university should be the home and sponsor of the critics and not the critic itself,” Ansloan said. “I think making clear from the outset to the campus community how the university is approaching making statements in general is a useful thing for schools.”
Ansloan said when institutions pursue a neutrality policy, the focus of students’ protests shift from the administration to the campus community, since the university makes clear it will not comment on social and political issues.
“When you don’t have a policy of institutional neutrality, silence becomes its own statement, in a sense,” Ansloan said. “Conversely, when you adopt the policy of institutional neutrality, it is clear that silence is not a statement. No additional statements will be forthcoming. It falls on the university community to have that conversation themselves.”
Raheem Williams, the policy analyst of the Heterodox Academy, said it’s impossible to “unring the bell,” but GW officials should stop “compounding” potential past mistakes by continuing to weigh in on Israel’s war in Gaza. He said officials should make it “absolutely clear” that they will respect the free speech and academic freedom rights of students and faculty who disagree with their past statements and do everything they can moving forward to avoid the impacts institutional statements have by implying that there is a “campus orthodoxy.”
“GW should adopt an institutional statement neutrality policy because doing so ensures that University leadership will focus on creating a forum where faculty and students are free to debate the issues and make up their own minds,” Williams said.
Some faculty senators said they want officials to consider implementing institutional neutrality to encourage conversations about political and social issues on campus.
Katrin Schultheiss, a history professor and a faculty senator, said GW should adopt a neutral stance because the policy would encourage debate and discussion between students and faculty on political and social matters. Schultheiss said the University’s neutral policy would allow students and faculty to freely express their perspectives knowing that certain voices will not be perceived to be more important than others at the University.
“There is no presumption that certain voices will be more valued than other voices,” Schultheiss said. “I would imagine students, but certainly also faculty, will feel less constrained in what perspectives are welcome at the University.”
Schultheiss said officials should engage in shared governance — the consultation of students, faculty and staff — if they were to consider institutional neutrality.
“It’s always good to consult,” Schultheiss said. “There are mechanisms for talking to the student government, for example, what do they think, and talking to the Faculty Senate, what do they think, you can get the pulse of what people are thinking.”
Guillermo Orti, the chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Professional Ethics & Academic Freedom, said he believes institutional neutrality is a “good beginning” because every topic and issue has two sides. He said universities are supposed to generate the environment for people to learn and discuss ideas, meaning academic freedom to build these opinions are vital.
“As controversial as that may be, there’s always going to be disagreements and two sides to every issue,” Orti said. “I think the University should stay away from taking a stance and let the faculty speak and to express their own views. Their own views are not the University’s views.”
Orti said the only way for officials to decide if institutional neutrality would be beneficial to free speech conversations on campus would be through conversations with the University community about implementation itself. He said officials must prioritize shared governance, the participation of faculty, students and staff in decision making regarding institutional neutrality.
“This is clearly a shared governance issue that needs to be discussed widely in the open,” Orti said. “I think it would be good to have a discussion and see whether or not the administration or the Board of Trustees would support this.”
