On April 11, 2025, the George Washington University (GW) Faculty Senate will vote on “A Resolution Regarding Institutional Neutrality.” The resolution reaffirms the university’s commitment to academic freedom, explains that institutional statements on political issues are not “the collective view of the GW Faculty,” and encourages the administration and board of trustees to treat “all members of the community with respect.”
All these points sound like elements of a thoughtful neutrality policy, but, strangely, they are made in a resolution rejecting institutional neutrality. To safeguard the “free search for truth” they claim they want, the faculty should withdraw, or vote down, this resolution and pivot toward working with the board of trustees and the administration to draft and adopt a robust policy of institutional neutrality.
The GW faculty claim they want to protect academic freedom, shared governance, and the ability of the university to defend its core values and operations. They worry institutional neutrality undermines these goals, but such concerns reflect an interpretation of neutrality that is difficult to square with a plain reading of the concept’s most powerful expression, the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Committee Report.
The Kalven Report explains that refraining from taking institutional positions on “the issues of the day” signals a profound respect for free inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints. In other words, institutional neutrality does not undermine academic freedom. It does not prevent faculty and students from encountering or providing a wide variety of perspectives. By providing a neutral forum, the university defends these goods while also securing the rights of students and faculty to engage in “political action and social protest” without fear of running afoul of their institution’s preferred position. The Kalven Report also clearly states that when a university’s mission and values are threatened, neutrality not only permits but obligates the institution to speak up and act in its own defense. In all these areas, then, institutional neutrality is fully compatible with the demands of the GW faculty’s resolution.
Public confidence in American higher education is at an all-time low. To improve their public images, and to return to their bedrock missions of academic excellence and open inquiry, many universities have found productive ways in the last year to adopt institutional neutrality while respecting shared governance and protecting academic freedom. George Washington University should join this movement.