By University of Washington President Ana Mari Cauce:
At this pivotal moment in history, those of us in leadership positions need to ask not whether but how our universities can best meet the need for critical and constructive debate.
Over the last few months, there has been a great deal of debate about what role universities should play vis-à-vis our society at large. One school of thought draws from the Kalven Reportopens in new tab/window, published by the University of Chicago in 1967, when protests against the Vietnam War were erupting on campuses across the US. The report asserts that university communities “cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness,” namely the ability of its members to openly hold a diversity of perspectives that they should consider, debate and act upon as individuals. The report can be interpreted more or less narrowly in terms of how much it should limit university-wide involvement in social or political statements and action. In fact, Kalven’s sonopens in new tab/window, as well as other scholars, have suggested that some have used it as a “shield,” ignoring the report’s nuances, as President Emeritus Michael T Nietzel of Missouri State University writes about in Forbesopens in new tab/window in response to campus turmoil over the Israel-Hamas war. However, in keeping with the concerns expressed in the report, there have been increasing calls for university presidents and administrative leaders to curtail their direct statements about, and engagement with, current issues affecting our world and related political and social action.
There is no question that our universities must remain arenas where social and political issues can be freely discussed from a broad array of perspectives. It is important for presidents and other university leaders to be thoughtful and measured about when and what topics to make statements about. And they certainly should do so in a manner that allows for critical and constructive debate. Many universities, including the University of Washington, have guidelines that address the responsibilities — and limitations — of speaking publicly on difficult or sensitive topics. Yet in my experience, more often than not, when we have chosen to speak on such topics, it has been not just important to our community but productive in reaffirming our values and our ability to work together in an open society.
For example, I have been personally involved in contentious debates about the role of the police both on and off campus, with some arguing there should be no police presence on campus, and others arguing that we don’t have enough. We are now working on a campus safety plan that draws from both perspectives. My office has also co-sponsored a lecture series in our Jackson School of International Studies on “The War in the Middle East,” which features speakers with a range of perspectives and lived experiences. Some have criticized the series for platforming speakers who are Zionists; other critics argue that some speakers have not sufficiently condemned Hamas, which suggests to me that we are striking a good balance.
Read the rest of the article in the Elsevier.