Adam Walker, Contributing Photographer

Pro-institutional neutrality group Faculty for Yale hosted a panel discussion Wednesday afternoon on whether Yale should refrain from taking stances on current events. 

Pro-institutional neutrality members of the panel expressed concerns that the University taking a stance on world issues could deter junior faculty interested in joining Yale who have dissenting opinions due to the power dynamic between University administrators and junior faculty. 

A common sentiment among the Faculty for Yale panelists was that the University taking a stance would “chill” discourse and place those who oppose the University’s position in an uncomfortable position. 

Wesleyan University President Michael Roth, who opposes neutrality, joined four Faculty for Yale members who support the concept on the panel. The event featured panelists law professor and former dean of Yale Law School Anthony Kronman, political science professor Hélène Landemore, professor of political science and global affairs Ian Shapiro and associate professor of psychiatry Michael Strambler. 

A crowd of approximately 75 community members, mostly professors, raised their hands to ask questions and voice their opinions on institutional neutrality throughout the panel. Institutional neutrality is the policy under which higher education institutions decide not to take positions on current events that do not directly relate to the university.

The panelists discussed the role an institution should have in discussing world issues and how an institution taking a stance on an issue could affect professors at the University. Roth was the only member of the panel who dissented against institutional neutrality, arguing that universities should be allowed to comment on world events that affect members of their communities.

“What did Rick Levin say on behalf of the University that corrupted the conversation of free speech at Yale?” Roth asked. “What did [the presidents] say that made you feel like they’re really getting in your way to pursue the truth?”

Administrators such as University Provost Scott Strobel and former Law School Dean Robert Post LAW ’77 were present at the event. Most members of the University committee that will advise University President Maurie McInnis on whether to adopt neutrality were also present, including Sterling Professor of Philosophy Michael Della Rocca, School of Management Dean Kerwin Charles, religious studies professor Jennifer Herdt and history professor Stephen Pitti ’91.

Law professor Kate Stith, one of the architects of Faculty for Yale, said that the panel had been planned since last spring before McInnis was chosen and initiated consideration of neutrality at Yale. 

Faculty for Yale formed in February, inspired by the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, to promote free expression and diverse viewpoints at Yale. The group does not have hierarchies or official leadership positions, and formed from “just a bunch of us sitting around,” Stith said.

Stith said that institutional neutrality was not intended to be the main focus of the faculty group, but that it’s now a timely discussion since the idea is under official consideration.

“We thought it’s something you could put your arms around, but then it turned out to be the issue of the day,” Stith said. “One of the missions of the group is to have serious, contested conversations. So in some ways, this [panel] is an example about what we want to see more of at Yale.”

Stith said that Faculty for Yale asked Roth to join the panel because they were interested in his public statements on the topic, including a New York Times opinion piece, and wanted to include him as “our neighbor.” Wesleyan is located in Middletown, Conn., approximately 20 miles from Yale.

Stith said that a handful of Faculty for Yale members met with McInnis before the panel and communicated the organization’s goals.

“We told her we’re having this,” Stith said. “She thanked us for meeting with her. She had read our statement. She said she couldn’t come but she would send some people from her office.”

Beyond institutional neutrality, faculty members focused on the idea of departmental neutrality. Kronman expressed concern for departments releasing unsigned letters, such as a 2021 statement by the program on Ethnicity, Race & Migration that recognized the “Palestinian struggle as an indigenous liberation movement” and condemned “Israeli state-sponsored attacks” on Palestinians. 

“In some ways, I think institutional neutrality is even more important at the departmental level,” Strambler told the News.

While he thinks faculty members can take stances as individuals, Strambler warns faculty in administrative positions and senior faculty to be careful about “proselytizing in the classroom.” 

“I think it was a good variety,” professor Steven Smith, who provided closing remarks to the panel, told the News. “It probably didn’t cover the entire range of opinions, but Michael Roth certainly was a provocateur. Certainly, the panel didn’t suffer from consensus. I think there was a lively debate.”

Harvard University adopted institutional neutrality in May 2024.