The University of West Florida Board of Trustees will consider whether to adopt an Institutional Neutrality statement, a recent trend promoted by FIRE (now the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). Neutrality
Many universities across the United States have adopted institutional neutrality statements, formally committing not to take official stances on contentious political or social issues unrelated to their core educational missions. This approach is rooted in the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, when Vietnam War protests were occurring on college campuses. In the wake of recent Gaza protests, over 140 universities, including Harvard and Stanford, have adopted neutrality-related statements, but they vary from school to school.
Background: Trustee Adam Kissell served as the Director of the Individual Rights Defense Program and later as Vice President of Programs at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), now known as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He worked at FIRE from 2007 to 2012. Kissel, who has not been confirmed by the Florida Senate, chairs the UWF Academic Affairs Committee.
An example of a statement of neutrality, specific to UWF, has been offered for discussion by the trustees. It is only an example, and it draws upon some language used by the Kalven Committee:
The mission of the University of West Florida requires institutional neutrality.
Universities play a unique social and cultural role by cultivating, hosting, and teaching
Both established wisdom and leading thought. In this role, UWF facilitates freedom of
academic inquiry and of expression on any subject, which may challenge prevailing
social norms, public policies, and institutional practices; however, as an institution
devoted to the intellectual pursuit and communication of truth, the university itself takes
no official position on public controversies outside its regular activities, so as not to
undermine the freedom of thought and expression necessary for that endeavor.
Alongside this commitment to free expression and viewpoint diversity, UWF
adheres strictly to the free speech and academic freedom requirements of the state and
federal constitutions. UWF also reaffirms the right of individual faculty, staff, and
students to engage in political discourse and social action as private citizens.
At UWF, dissent and critique belong to the individual faculty member or the
individual student. While the university and its academic and administrative units are the
settings in which these critiques can flourish, neither the university nor any of its
component parts speaks with a single voice or requires one on public controversies.
Our common academic purpose is to foster teaching, research, and expression in an
environment of open dialogue, free inquiry, individual rights, individual prerogatives, and
respect for each individual.
As a public university, UWF may advocate for the public and toward
government bodies and officials on issues related to its stated mission and the means to
achieve that mission. Otherwise, only in rare cases, such as when a controversy
threatens the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry, should the
institution actively defend its interests and its values.
Criticism-Conceals More Than It Reveals
The Association of University Professors (AAUP) adopted a statement in January 2025 that examines the concept of “institutional neutrality” and its relationship to academic freedom. The document argues that institutional neutrality is neither necessary for academic freedom nor incompatible with it, contrary to claims made during recent campus protests.
- The statement traces the historical use of “institutional neutrality” from the Progressive Era through recent student movements, showing how the concept has been deployed tactically to protect universities from external interference or to limit internal dissent. Key examples include the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report and subsequent policies restricting campus expression.
The AAUP addresses four main areas where neutrality claims arise:
- institutional statements on political issues,
- departmental statements,
- financial investment decisions, and
- campus protest regulations.
In each case, the document argues that supposedly “neutral” positions actually represent substantive value choices that affect academic freedom.
The central conclusion is that “institutional neutrality conceals more than it reveals.” Rather than pursuing an abstract neutrality, universities should make decisions about speech, investments, and policies through transparent shared governance processes that explicitly consider their impact on academic freedom. The AAUP emphasizes that defending academic freedom “has never been a neutral act” and requires active protection of faculty voices and governance principles.
To learn more about how Kissel went from free speech advocate to political censorship, read “Adam Kissel’s Totalitarian Turn.”
