Should universities take a position on hot button issues?

[secundem_artem]

Interesting reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/opinion/colleges-universities-education-politics.html?smid=url-share

I'm grateful that Artem U has not found itself in the middle of a bun fight between supporters of Palestine and supporters of Israel.  I've seen the occasional scarf or t-shirt expressing support for one side or another but it has not devolved into a screaming match and the tall foreheads and deep thinkers in the C suite have so far remained schtum.  Our response to BLM and other assorted issues in the past has also been pretty low key.   

[marshwiggle]

An excellent quotation:

[M]any universities have aligned themselves politically with their most activist students. "Top universities depend on billions of dollars of public funding, in the form of research grants and loan assistance," The Economist editorialized last week. "The steady leftward drift of their administrations has imperiled this."
One of the starkest examples of this politicization is the raft of position statements coming from university leadership. These public statements, and the fiery battles and protests behind them, take sides on what are broadly considered to be the nation's most sensitive and polarized subjects, whether it's the Dobbs ruling or DACA for young immigrants, the Israel-Hamas war or Black Lives Matter.

At last month's conference, Diego Zambrano, a professor at Stanford Law School, made the downsides of such statements clear. What, he asked, are the benefits of a university taking a position? If it's to make the students feel good, he said, those feelings are fleeting, and perhaps not even the university's job. If it's to change the outcome of political events, even the most self-regarding institutions don't imagine they will have any impact on a war halfway across the planet. The benefits, he argued, were nonexistent.

As for the cons, Zambrano continued, issuing statements tends to fuel the most intemperate speech while chilling moderate and dissenting voices. In a world constantly riled up over politics, the task of formally opining on issues would be endless. Moreover, such statements force a university to simplify complex issues. They ask university administrators, who are not hired for their moral compasses, to address in a single email thorny subjects that scholars at their own institutions spend years studying. (Some university presidents, such as Michael Schill of Northwestern, have rightly balked.) Inevitably, staking any position weakens the public's perception of the university as independent.

[Hibush]

There is a balance between having policy impacts and maintaining credibility with myriad constituencies. As noted, a lot of policy makers really don't value what university leaders have to say about national issues, so the policy impact is nil or close to it. And the university and its consitituences have lots of positions on any given topic.

One statement that made sense to me recently was when there was a move in Congress to make life more difficult for people with DACA status. There was a significant number of DACA students enrolled, and the legislation would have conflicted with a lot of sound academic policies as well as amounting to harrassment. The university opposed that proposal, and correctly so. Leadership did so in well targeted places. 

Some universities have explicit values-associated missions. When major world events are tied closely to that mission, it makes sense to make statements about how the events can be interpreted in light of those values.

[apl68]

Interesting reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/opinion/colleges-universities-education-politics.html?smid=url-share

I'm grateful that Artem U has not found itself in the middle of a bun fight between supporters of Palestine and supporters of Israel.  I've seen the occasional scarf or t-shirt expressing support for one side or another but it has not devolved into a screaming match and the tall foreheads and deep thinkers in the C suite have so far remained schtum.  Our response to BLM and other assorted issues in the past has also been pretty low key. 

Very wise approach there.  Activist minorities who insist that universities and professional organizations take stances on various hot-button issues can do great harm to their organizations.  I know that librarians in our state and others have been pleading with the American Library Association not to take any (more) boneheaded stances on such issues that will create problems for the rest of us.

[dismalist]

Interesting reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/opinion/colleges-universities-education-politics.html?smid=url-share

I'm grateful that Artem U has not found itself in the middle of a bun fight between supporters of Palestine and supporters of Israel.  I've seen the occasional scarf or t-shirt expressing support for one side or another but it has not devolved into a screaming match and the tall foreheads and deep thinkers in the C suite have so far remained schtum.  Our response to BLM and other assorted issues in the past has also been pretty low key. 

Very wise approach there.  Activist minorities who insist that universities and professional organizations take stances on various hot-button issues can do great harm to their organizations.  I know that librarians in our state and others have been pleading with the American Library Association not to take any (more) boneheaded stances on such issues that will create problems for the rest of us.

No, they can do great harm to people who disagree with the activists and don't want their organizations taken over. If vocal disagreers left, the activists would be even happier.

The secret to power is to subvert institutions, not destroy them.

[Wahoo Redux]

I guess one of the virtues of being associated with a university recently on the verge of crisis in a community that is perpetually on the verge of crisis is that these humongous, virtually insurmountable national / global problems are generally subsumed under the immediacy of the issue here.

[apl68]

I guess one of the virtues of being associated with a university recently on the verge of crisis in a community that is perpetually on the verge of crisis is that these humongous, virtually insurmountable national / global problems are generally subsumed under the immediacy of the issue here.

And it's the same way for many public libraries and state and local associations.  We've got more immediate things that demand our attention.

[marshwiggle]

One thing that universities might do, if they have faculty with the *relevant expertise, is to have public lectures about background to current debates. ("Background" explaining how things got to this place, and why the issue is potentially more difficult than can be addressed in 140 characters.) And this should still not be telling people what the proposed "solution" is to the current issue; it should be treating the audience with sufficient respect to allow them to think over the issue with all of the nuance that is required.

So, for instance, regarding the war in Gaza, if there is someone who can explain the history about the creation of Israel in 1948, the origins of Hamas, why there isn't a 2-state solution already, and so on.
Notice that what has happened since October 7 need not even come up; not because it doesn't matter, but because all of that is currently flooding the news and doesn't need yet another talking head.



*Meaning people who have been studying this since long before it was "cool"; a.k.a. for years before the current moment.

[Wahoo Redux]

One thing that universities might do, if they have faculty with the *relevant expertise, is to have public lectures about background to current debates.

They do that.  Even ours.

[Ruralguy]

Most schools, even mine in the boonies, has had Israel/Gaza talks. But in general, yes, that should be promoted (topical discussions led by experts).

I guess presidents and other officers only tend to comment on world events when they feel that a major stakeholder, usually students, but possibly others, really care about the issue, otherwise they generally don't bother. For instance, my school has an African American student population we wish to grow. The President commented on the George Floyd murder (although I think he said "killing"). He did not comment the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel, the ensuing war, or the worsening fate of the Palestinians especially Gazans). Our faculty is probably about 5 percent or so Jewish (with some from Israel). I don't think we have any Arab or Muslim faculty. The student body only has a few Jewish students (a bit under 1000 total students). There are usually also a handful of Muslim students, some being Arab and on occasion, some Palestinians. But my point is that any way you look at it, its really small % of faculty and students who deeply care about such issues. the administration just doesn't feel it *has to* comment on that particular set of events.

If you are asking me personally, I'd say "Hell no!" to commenting on any local, national or world events that are irrelevant to college operations. It gets tricky once students start protesting and such, because that sometimes leads to curtailing, or in extreme cases, banning and punishment. The school would probably have to comment on that , but they can preface by saying that their actions aren't meant as commentary on the precipitating event, but on the actions of the protestors, etc.

[marshwiggle]

I guess presidents and other officers only tend to comment on world events when they feel that a major stakeholder, usually students, but possibly others, really care about the issue, otherwise they generally don't bother.

Just like beer companies, movie studios, and every other organization with "customers".

Somebody always "really" cares about any given issue.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Any and every school should hold events that engage experts on public issues, including hot button ones. There are also some issues that universities should perhaps chime in on because they are directly related to their missions, such as the proliferation of disinformation, censorship, and attacks on academic freedom.

[Ruralguy]

It might be true that "somebody" might care about any given issue, but at a school like mine with 1,000 students, 100 faculty, 200 staff, tens of trustees, and *maybe* 50,000 living alumni, probably only 10,000 "engaged" alums, "somebody" might literally come down to 1 or 2 people. The President isn't going to address all of these constituencies head-on based on the opinions of 2 people. Maybe 200. Not 2 or 20 or even 100. My point is that not every college President is busy wondering how to deal with the Israel-Hamas War and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, or any other variety of issues. 

But, as I said before, unless the issue is directly relevant to the functioning of the college, they should stay away from  offering an opinion anyway. It just leads to too much rancor and alienation.

[marshwiggle]

But, as I said before, unless the issue is directly relevant to the functioning of the college, they should stay away from  offering an opinion anyway. It just leads to too much rancor and alienation.

The problem is, in our current culture, people will say that "making <students of group X> feel safe" at the institution is directly relevant to the functioning of the institution. And so that "demands" making a statement on whatever the issue is.

[Ruralguy]

I suppose they might.  But it was asked, so I answered. I withdraw from the circular cultural war debates.