By Josh Greenberg

September 3, 2025 

As the new academic year begins, Canadian universities will once again face pressure to issue public statements on complex, controversial issues.

Last year’s campus unrest over the significant escalation in the Middle East conflict exposed deep ideological rifts, with student protests, union declarations, and administrative responses creating controversy. With this conflict and many other policy challenges ongoing (e.g., climate change, DEI, transgender rights, etc.), demands for institutional statements will persist. The question remains: should universities speak out?

This question isn’t new. In the 1960s, during the civil rights movement and Vietnam War protests, the University of Chicago faced similar demands from faculty and students to take a stand. In response, a committee led by law professor Harry Kalven Jr. produced the Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action, commonly known as the Kalven Report, which argued that a university’s proper role is to foster free inquiry, not take positions on the political issues of the day.

As the report stated, “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” While individuals within the university should be free to express views, the institution must remain neutral to protect its integrity and ensure a climate where diverse perspectives can thrive.

Amid eroding public trust in higher education and deepening ideological polarization, university leaders are wisely revisiting the principle of institutional neutrality. By embracing it, universities not only resist mounting pressure to take sides; they also reaffirm their core mission—teaching, research, and public service—while protecting the academic freedom and intellectual diversity that make higher education indispensable to democratic society.

Neutrality policies at Canadian universities

Several Canadian universities have adopted neutrality policies. Laurentian University’s 2023 policy commits to impartiality and the free exchange of ideas, avoiding advocacy for political parties, candidates, or causes beyond its mandate. In 2024, the University of New Brunswick committed to institutional autonomy and political neutrality, claiming that its primary role is to foster open debate, not take sides.

The University of Waterloo similarly pledged a policy of institutional neutrality and restraint, avoiding “issuing statements or communications that take positions on broader social, political, or moral matters.”

Simon Fraser University’s President and Vice-Chancellor issued a statement  acknowledging that while past public comments were intended “to be responsive to issues our community is concerned with,” over time she came to accept that taking a public position on behalf of the university can undermine the university’s purpose.

There is also positive progress at McMaster University, whose faculty association last year endorsed the Kalven principles, emphasizing that as a “community of scholars” it must remain “scrupulously neutral with respect to the views of its members.” Why? Because if a faculty association chooses one side of a conflict or issue over others, it undermines its fundamental obligation to protect academic freedom for all members.

Critics of neutrality

Institutional neutrality is not universally embraced. Some argue that neutrality policies suppress dissent and undermine the university’s duty to address and help solve social problems.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) warns that neutrality may be used to muzzle faculty who challenge controversial topics, especially when reputational risk and donor influence is involved. In such cases, neutrality can be seen as a form of implicit partisanship—upholding the status quo by refusing to condemn it.

Others assert that universities are inherently non-neutral. Harvard law professor Janet Halley contends that universities take implicit political and ethical positions through their daily operations. For example, investing in energy or defense companies can be understood as an implicit endorsement of the impact of these sectors on climate change or geopolitical conflict, constituting what she calls “speech acts of silence.”

In Halley’s view, institutional neutrality is “fundamentally dishonest” if it masks the real-world consequences of a university’s actions or affiliations. While compelling, it’s worth noting that in Canada, university administrators do not make investment decisions on behalf of the institution—such responsibilities fall to boards, trustees, and independent financial advisors with fiduciary duties.

These critiques raise valid concerns about power and institutional responsibility but often conflate two distinct issues: the freedom of individual scholars to speak and act and the role of the institution itself. Institutional neutrality does not silence faculty members or students—it preserves and protects their right to express and access diverse viewpoints without worrying about whether the university has taken a position; it ensures the university will provide a forum for debate, not become an active participant in it.

The case for institutional neutrality

Universities engage with the world through research, teaching, and partnerships, supporting inquiry across disciplines and perspectives. By fostering debate rooted in diverse intellectual traditions and exposing students to competing worldviews, they cultivate critical thinking and deeper insight.

Neutrality policies help preserve this environment by resisting politicization and promoting inquiry over ideology—protecting the university’s credibility as a space for rigorous, evidence-based scholarship. They also safeguard faculty freedom to debate without fear of institutional bias or coercion. When universities take positions on political issues beyond their core mission, they risk appearing to speak for their entire community — student, academic and staff — and fostering intellectual homogeneity by discouraging dissent.

Canadian universities should adopt neutrality policies reflecting their institutional complexity and diverse accountabilities. As publicly funded entities, they’re bound by legislation, reliant on philanthropy, and entangled in cross-border and cross-sector relationships. Unionized environments further entrench academic freedom through collective agreements. These factors require universities to act—and be seen—as impartial institutions.

A coordinated, sector-wide approach to neutrality could reduce inconsistencies in how universities respond to politically sensitive issues, minimizing confusion, reputational risk, and internal conflict. While diverse governance models and campus cultures likely demand context-specific strategies, all Canadian universities share a moral obligation to steward public resources responsibly and uphold academic freedom and scholarly rigour.

Neutrality policies are increasingly essential as public trust in universities declines—sharply and across the political spectrum. Rightly or wrongly, universities now face increased skepticism about their impartiality and purpose. To restore confidence and trust, universities must look above the trenches and confront this reality directly.

Embracing neutrality is not a retreat from principle—it’s a principled stand that reaffirms the university’s role as a forum for open inquiry, not partisan activity.

Josh Greenberg is Professor of Journalism and Communication and Associate Dean in the Faculty of Public and Global Affairs at Carleton University. He also serves on the Carleton University Senate and Board of Governors. The views expressed here are his own.