GW Provost Hosts Conversation Addressing Hard Questions Surrounding Institutional Neutrality and Free Speech

Experts say complex issues of academic freedom and freedom of expression call for nuanced views.

Two eminent legal scholars joined George Washington University Provost Christopher Alan Braceyin a webinar exploring institutional neutrality and free speech. Hundreds of community members attended, perhaps illustrating Bracey's introductory claim that these are challenging times for higher education institutions.

Joining Bracey for the discussion were Vikram D. Amar, distinguished professor at UC Davis School of Law, and Frederick M. Lawrence, a former dean of GW Law who is now distinguished lecturer at Georgetown Law as well as the secretary and CEO of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

Bracey began the discussion by asking his guests to reflect on both the pros and cons of having a policy on institutional neutrality. Such policies were described in a 1967 report from the University of Chicago as the refusal of a college or university to take an official position on the issues of the day. The Vietnam War-era report, from a faculty committee chaired by law professor Harry Kalven Jr., states that "The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic." It is succinctly described in a recent op-edin the Chicago Tribune written by Kalven's son, Jamie.

In fact, Lawrence suggested, neutrality is never totally neutral, because universities are moral leaders, and whatever they do (or don't do) has implications for society at large.

"When issues implicate the mission of the university, then the university has to speak out," Lawrence said.

Amar distinguished between the official speech of the university and the speech of its individual employees. Some high-profile administrators may be perceived as speaking for their institution no matter what, and if the president says one thing, the provost another and the dean something else again, the institution loses credibility. But on certain issues, Amar said, no matter how inflammatory, the university is obligated to speak out.

"I find it ironic, and problematically so," Amar said, "that few universities seem to be speaking out when they have particular expertise to bear on this huge issue of how important federal funding is for basic science research; how important it is for faculties to be able to hire whomever they want; how important it is to have faculty self-governance immune from governmental control. In a properly operating democracy, you need to not only have separation between, say, church and state, but also between state and academy."

Apart from the fact that a president will almost always be seen as speaking for the university, Lawrence said, it's a mistake to assume that important statements can only come from people in high-level positions.

"The real free expression, the real academic freedom of the institution bubbles up from all of its members," Lawrence said. "It's the conversation." Paradoxically, he added, "If the administration talks too often about too wide a range of issues, it chokes that off."

Amar spoke of the importance of confining public remarks to one's area of expertise. To do otherwise risks credibility and undercuts real expertise.

"We in the academy claim that we should be listened to because we study all these issues," he said, "but sometimes when institutions speak, they end up speaking through people who don't have that kind of heft on whatever they're speaking on.

"I'm not an international law expert, much less an international human rights expert, much less a Middle Eastern expert," Amar added, "so I run the risk of losing credibility when I talk about things that I really don't know that much about."

What does it mean to speak on behalf of an institution, Amar asked, when the community consists of a group of individuals who very likely don't share a consensus view?

Public universities differ from private universities. And among the realm of private universities, Notre Dame may be very different from Harvard. So an institution's mission will help define when institutional speech is appropriate or not. Speech that makes perfect sense for one institution may not work for another one.

Stressing the importance of expertise, Lawrence said, "We're all smart people. We've all got lots of opinions. We all read newspapers and listen to sources, but that's not expertise. That's what we do as citizens and as informed people." Nonetheless, a university president must be comfortable saying, "We stand for this."

Lawrence predicts that more and more institutions will speak out on issues such as grants being frozen without due process or tax-exempt status being withdrawn. After all, he said, matters like these are highly relevant across institutions.

"Keeping your head down is essentially sticking your head in the sand," Amar said. "I hope more universities find their voice."

Noting that free speech is an important component of academic freedom, Bracey asked how his guests view the speech of faculty and staff.

Academic freedom and free speech are not identical twins, Lawrence said, but distant cousins at best. "They're measured along very different axes. My right to speak comes from my whole human right and need to be able to express myself," whether true or false, smart or dumb.

"If I were to say on this webinar that I think the moon is made of green cheese," he said, listeners would no doubt find it odd. But if a faculty astrophysicist made the same dubious claim, then that person should not be surprised by adverse employment decisions.

"I'm purposely choosing a silly example to make the point," he continued. "The real response when somebody says the moon is made of green cheese shouldn't be 'That's wrong'-the real response of a scientist would be, 'How do you know? What's the basis for that?' And the person would be forced to say, 'Well, I kind of think that.' Well, that's not how scientists think."

The webinar concluded with questions from those in attendance. Both faculty members and students raised issues.

On the question of free speech for students, Amar said, "A student can't hijack a class and start talking about things that are irrelevant to the subject at hand."

Civil disobedience is not protected, Lawrence noted, before referring to a famous letter by Martin Luther King Jr. urging people to take direct action rather than wait for the courts to deliver justice. "It's called 'Letter from Birmingham Jail,' not 'Letter from a Birmingham Lawyer's Office.' If one breaks the law, there are consequences. … If you demonstrate in front of a college library, that's fine. If you occupy the library, there will be consequences. … Because one of the core missions of the institution is to have a functioning library."

One of the things that made the modern civil rights movement's protests so powerful, Amar said, is that demonstrators expected consequences.

"There's a time and there's a place for everything," Amar said. "I think teaching young folks how to be citizens and how to find their political voices is part of the mission of most universities."