Thursday, March 27, 2025
After the congressional hearings that challenged university presidents on campus activism amid allegations of antisemitism, many institutions adopted policies of “institutional neutrality.” Boards of trustees resolved that they would not comment on political issues such as international conflicts, investments in certain countries, and policies proposed by elected officials. Many of the resolutions cited principles enunciated by the University of Chicago.
According to the Chicago principles, university leaders should not engage in speech that would appear to infringe on others’ speech. The university should be a protected, neutral place for the expression of all ideas, a safe space for “strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions.” (“Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action,” University of Chicago, 1967.)
There are good reasons for this. When a board or president issues a statement, it can stifle contrary views; it can suppress debate. This would violate the university’s responsibility to foster critical thinking. Making statements about some issues, but not others, could indicate that some deserve comment but others do not.
But the Kalven Report, which affirmed the University of Chicago’s mission of free inquiry and independence, did not prohibit leaders from commenting on public policies that would affect institutional autonomy and the freedom of scholars to pursue truth no matter where that pursuit may lead. So, “no” to taking partisan positions, but “yes” to evaluating proposals such as those in the much-discussed Project 2025, prepared by the Heritage Foundation, that infringe on the purposes of education.
I agree with these principles. Neutrality does not mean silence. A campus president should not remain silent in the face of proposals that would undermine free speech. A university president has an obligation to question proposals that would undercut quality controls. It is the responsibility of a president and the board to protect the university as the home of critics even as it is not itself a voice of criticism.
A university has three fundamental roles. It is the creator of new knowledge as well as of new professionals. It is the curator of knowledge in all its forms. And it is the home for critical thinking and critics who ask “why?” and “why not?” In these ways, a university is as much about the advancement of ethical character and engaged citizenship as it is about preparation for careers and commerce.
Across the country, governors and state legislators promote policies that proscribe what subjects can be taught and what books can be read. Project 2025 is a “blueprint” for multiple changes in federal policy related to knowledge and expertise. It alleges, without evidence, a radical left-wing bias in university teaching. At the same time, it would require a selective teaching of American history by omitting mention of race and slavery. It also would substitute religious belief for scientific evidence, including weather forecasting and study of the environment. It would substitute political tests for professional expertise, stifling critical thinking and free speech.
The Project calls for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education, and reclassifying federal scientists as political appointees. It would turn over consumer protections from predatory proprietary schools to the states and retract the “borrower-defense” provisions of the federal loan system put in place to protect students from for-profit schools and lenders.
Project 2025 also calls for eliminating Head Start; overhauling the educational accreditation system, reducing its political neutrality; and rolling back Title IX protections for sexual assault survivors and LGBTQ students. It calls for prosecuting all government agencies, colleges, corporations and other private employers that maintain diversity policies.
Public education was established to ensure an informed citizenry, essential to a functioning democracy. Project 2025 would deny freedoms in favor of authoritarian dictates. Instead of supporting public education, it would allow for the banning of books and restrictions on independent inquiry.
Project 2025 should be studied and debated. We should affirm the purpose and benefits of education to society and the individual. Project 2025 limits rights, opposes inconvenient history and science, and would impose biased views. We can be passionate in the defense of academic values without becoming politically partisan. Only by advocating for freedom of inquiry and free speech will we preserve them, and our democracy. On this, university leaders should not be neutral.
Dr. Robert A. Scott is president emeritus of Adelphi University and co-author of “Letters to Students: What it Means to be a College Graduate,” Rowman & Littlefield, 2024.
