How schools still abuse ‘institutional neutrality’ to silence speech

Defending the rights of students and faculty to speak freely has been part and parcel of FIRE’s mission for 26 years. We’ve seen universities try all sorts of ways to restrict expression, from free speech zones and excessive security fees to extensive pre-approval requirements for events. But one technique is particularly disturbing — using ostensibly pro-free speech policies to chill student and faculty expression. 

As my colleague Graham Piro recently wrote, colleges and universities regularly claim to embrace “institutional neutrality” — an institution’s commitment to refrain from speaking out on the issues of the day — only to silence speech in the principle’s name. Under a genuine policy of institutional neutrality, students and faculty are empowered to debate such issues, without feeling as if the school administration has declared the matter settled.

As the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report famously warned, a university “cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”

Institutional neutrality must not be used to prevent student groups or the wider campus community from expressing their views.

FIRE is quick to celebrate whenever a college or university adopts a policy substantially similar to the Kalven Report, which is the gold standard of institutional neutrality statements. Schools that make this commitment are rewarded in our College Free Speech Rankings and recognized on our Official Adoptions page. But as Graham explained, adopting the report doesn’t automatically translate to neutrality in practice. FIRE is concerned not only with colleges improperly applying institutional neutrality to infringe on free speech, but also with imperfect adoptions that leave wiggle room in the policy language for universities to apply standards unevenly.

To the first concern, UT Austin used institutional neutrality to stop its Graduate Student Assembly from considering resolutions expressing opposition to a state law that ended university DEI programs.

An administrator claimed the resolution constituted “political speech that is not permitted to be issued by a sponsored student organization in their official capacity.” But as FIRE and the ACLU of Texas explained in a letter to UT Austin, institutional neutrality must not be used to prevent student groups or the wider campus community from expressing their views. UT Austin didn’t stop in response to our letter, prompting FIRE and the ACLU of Texas to write another letter urging the university to apply its institutional neutrality rules to itself, not student speech.

Unfortunately, UT Austin is not alone. At North Carolina State, Palestinian-American author and publisher Hannah Moushabeck was initially barred from reading her children’s book at an event in the name of institutional neutrality. North Carolina State Libraries had invited Moushabeck to participate in various campus events — including “storytime” sessions for local families and students. NC State, under the impression that its duty to neutrality “regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action” extended to speakers coming to campus, blocked the reading. 

UNC System Vice President for Communications Jane Stancill told Heterodox Academy’s Free the Inquiry blog that the decision at NC State was “to expand the scope of a proposed event to accommodate more voices,” and that “the author was welcomed to campus and read from her book, along with other authors in attendance.” She further clarified that “nothing in the UNC System’s neutrality policy should be interpreted as constraining individual faculty or visiting speakers.” 

Indeed, institutional neutrality does not create an obligation for events to give equal time to every perspective on an issue — it merely requires that university leadership refrain from endorsing one perspective. FIRE is pleased to see that the UNC System clarified this point. But the example serves as a reminder for institutions to give clear guidance to those applying institutional neutrality on the ground, and to ensure neutrality is not construed to silence protected expression.

Meanwhile, a University of Florida “Institutional Neutrality” policy threatens to put leaders’ thumbs on the scales of debate and chill faculty and student voices: 

UF institutional and unit leadership teams may not make statements or proclamations regarding Social Issues or other issues not directly related to UF’s mission, governance, or operations . . . The authority to make any such statement or proclamation is limited to the President in consultation with the Board Chair. 

This seems to imply that the president can make statements about issues not directly related to UF’s mission, governance, or operations. To be fair, a message from Interim President Donald Landry does seem to help. Writing to employees, he said the president should only speak out on issues tied to the university’s core mission. Great. But unless that language is actually written into the policy, it doesn’t solve the real problem. The policy still leaves people guessing about when leadership can speak out on issues of the day. 

The policy also includes a footnote disclaiming that it does not prohibit incidental personal use of communication resources for statements on social issues. While this is an important clarification, UF’s email signature rules, mentioned in the policy, are confusing because they ban personal quotes, statements, and links to personal websites in university emails. UF should clarify that, even though there is an official email signature format, faculty and staff are free to include personal statements, quotes, or links in their emails, even if they touch on social issues.

When universities attempt to avoid controversy by restricting discussion of social issues, they undermine academic freedom and interfere with meaningful debate.

FIRE is also concerned that the policy treats “instructional activities” as “university business,” which must avoid all statements on social issues. Such an overly broad prohibition could discourage faculty from teaching controversial but important topics. Faculty should be free to teach their students as they see fit, provided the material is pedagogically relevant and follows the law and university policy. They should also have the academic freedom to make fleeting, non-disruptive personal remarks — even controversial ones — without fear of punishment.

When universities attempt to avoid controversy by restricting discussion of social issues, they undermine academic freedom and interfere with meaningful debate. Narrowly tailored guidance, as outlined in the Kalven Report, offers a better path forward. By protecting open inquiry and expression, universities can avoid silencing speech while preserving their role as forums for intellectual discovery.