Universities in the United States are undergoing a shift in how they approach contentious global issues, spurred by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and student protests earlier this year. From Harvard to the University of Michigan, higher education is adopting “institutional neutrality” policies, aiming to remain apolitical in the face of mounting pressure to take stances on divisive matters.
Earlier this fall, Columbia University’s sister college Barnard took a bold step by officially committing to neutrality on global political matters, pledging to “refrain from taking an institutional stance.” Soon after, Columbia University's interim president Katrina Armstrong hinted at similar intentions for Columbia, framing the move as a response to “the vitally important question” of whether institutions should involve themselves in public debates. Earlier this year, Columbia’s campus saw high-profile protests over the conflict in Gaza, which reflected student demands for the university to take a position.
Universities have historically embraced activism, taking strong stances on issues like civil rights, the Vietnam War, and apartheid. Columbia itself divested from companies in apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s after significant student pressure, signaling its opposition to racial oppression. Similarly, the University of California system, in 2015, divested from private prisons in response to student campaigns that advocated for criminal justice reform.
Still, the nonpartisan free speech organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has long been a vocal advocate for institutional neutrality and is a key advocate for apolitical policies. “The university is not the critic, it’s the host of critics,” says Laura Belz, director of policy reform at FIRE, referencing the principles set forth in the influential 1967 Kalven Report by the University of Chicago. The report recommended universities refrain from taking positions on social and political issues to protect the integrity of academic freedom. Belz believes that neutrality policies can “empower students and faculty to challenge the university.”
In light of this year’s protests, however, critics of institutional neutrality say these policies ultimately prioritize a university's reputation, donor relations, and other institutional interests over the rights of students and faculty to express their views on urgent global issues. Some activists who spoke with Teen Vogue refer to this as a “Palestine exception” to free speech, claiming that neutrality policies are selectively applied to discourage support for Palestinian rights while other political stances are allowed to go unchallenged.
These activists also point out that, despite claiming neutrality, many colleges and universities have established partnerships and financial connections that inherently reflect a political stance. Institutions like Columbia, for example, have funds that invest with corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Elbit Systems, companies that either directly provide defense technology and equipment or are otherwise involved in the global military-industrial complex.
But divestment is a tricky sell for university administrators. Martha Pollack, president of Cornell University, recently declined to support divestment from companies involved in the war in Gaza, explaining that the university’s endowment serves its mission, not political goals, and that divestment could violate New York laws against penalizing Israel. Activists argue that such policies favor institutional interests and select financial alliances over true neutrality.
“The university is actually a participant after investing in Israel… and we have the global center in Tel Aviv. So it will not be neutral,” says Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student at Columbia who tells Teen Vogue he has lost four cousins and more than 30 extended-family members in Gaza since the war started on October 7, 2023. He perceives the university’s policy as selectively restrictive, arguing it is designed to dampen support for Palestine and appease powerful institutional stakeholders who may not want the university associated with contentious political positions.
Momodou Taal, a PhD candidate at Cornell University and suspended student activist potentially facing deportation, also argues that neutrality policies seem only to apply when campus activism challenges mainstream political positions. “It’s laughable… because Cornell isn’t neutral,” he asserts. “Cornell is, by way of its investment, in active participation in the genocide against Palestinians.”
For students who are directly impacted by global issues, this policy often feels less like an expression of open-mindedness and more like an attempt to stifle their activism, where the university holds itself to a different standard than its students. Taal has felt the sting of what he perceives as faux neutrality at Cornell. Currently suspended for violating the school’s code of conduct during a protest, he views neutrality as an attempt by the institution to manage student unrest rather than genuinely support free expression. “Even the position of institutional neutrality is not coming from a neutral space,” he says. “It’s responding to pro-Palestinian speech, and it’s responding in a negative way.”
Scholars have also been forced to self-censor in this environment. Faculty opposition to neutrality policies has grown as professors voice concerns about the impact on both their teaching and research. Joseph Howley, an associate professor of classics at Columbia University who has been vocal about Palestine, warns of the potential “chilling effect” neutrality policies may have on scholarship, especially for those studying areas where political tensions are high. “How would we enforce such a policy?” he asks. “Someone's going to have to report me. So already we can identify from the get-go that… it’s going to motivate people to surveil and inform on faculty,” he explains. “Institutional neutrality can’t ultimately help but become a regime of censorship.”
Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, has also condemned neutrality, describing it as a way for administrators seeking to avoid controversy to “get off the hook.” Roth argues that the role of academic institutions includes speaking out on pressing issues, even if doing so may alienate some stakeholders. “I find it pathetic, actually, that university leaders won’t stand up for what they do believe in,” he says. “They seem to believe that their institutional position prevents them from speaking, and I believe their institutional position requires them to speak out so that students and faculty and staff know what the president thinks.”
As universities increasingly lean toward neutrality, critics worry about the potential long-term harm to campus communities. Institutions, they argue, by distancing themselves from political discourse, risk alienating students and faculty who feel their concerns are being disregarded.
“I think Columbia, by taking this stance now, is betraying the history of this university that makes it a great university,” Mahdawi said.
As critics and supporters of institutional neutrality debate whether or not it’s an aspirational concept, they also wonder whether it’s actually achievable. “Institutions of higher education are inevitably political actors," says Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia. "They can’t be neutral in their investment [or] resource allocation decisions. When a university decides to open up a climate school or open up a campus in the United Arab Emirates, those aren’t and can’t be neutral decisions,” he continues. “They have the obligation to explain [these decisions], and explaining them requires making statements and wading into the political fray.”
Because of this, Jaffer says, attempts at neutrality will likely fuel long-term challenges for institutions of higher education. “Universities have to participate in debates about affirmative action and immigration policy, for example, because those debates have profound implications for their ability to fulfill their mission,” he says. “Institutions shouldn’t be neutral on issues that relate to their core mission.”
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take.
