Neutrality's effects on academic freedom.

Abstract

The idea that universities in the United States-and especially their presidents-should be politically neutral was taking hold long before their recent struggles in responding to the Israel-Hamas war. A document called the Kalven Report that was produced at the University of Chicago in 1967 famously declared that "the university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic." Thus, in matters of political controversy, the university best serves its faculty and students by remaining neutral so that those with disciplinary expertise can opine freely. Neutrality makes good sense when it comes to political issues that by their nature are matters of opinion. But what about matters of science, especially when a finding has powerful political implications such as studies on climate or vaccines? Where should universities draw the line?