YuLin Zhen, Photography Editor

A faculty committee considering when Yale should take stances on current events concluded ten listening sessions with Yale community members on Wednesday afternoon.

Just over three weeks ago, University President Maurie McInnis announced that she had convened a committee of seven professors to solicit feedback from the community and provide her with recommendations on “when Yale, as an institution, speaks on issues of the day.”

Separate listening sessions were held for faculty, staff, students and West Campus community members. They varied in size from four attendees at the West Campus one to approximately 85 at the final student meeting, with attendance at most sessions hovering around the middle. Committee co-chairs Michael Della Rocca, Sterling Professor of Philosophy, and law professor Cristina Rodríguez ’95 LAW ’00 presided over each session. Other members of the committee joined occasionally.

Rodríguez told the News that in the listening sessions, she noticed how “there are not just two views, that universities should speak all the time [or that] universities should never speak — there are a range of views, and they are actually quite nuanced.”

At the student listening sessions, most attendees lambasted the notion of neutrality. At faculty and staff sessions, some attendees also expressed concern, while others spoke in favor of tight guidelines governing the University’s voice.

The News spoke with community members who attended the discussions to gauge the feedback the committee heard before drafting their recommendations to McInnis.

Arguments opposing neutrality

In 2022, former University President Peter Salovey issued a statement condemning state violence against Iranian citizens, making Yale the first Ivy League university to do so.

Susan Kashaf, an associate professor in the School of Medicine, worked with colleagues at the time to circulate a letter requesting that Salovey make the statement he ultimately did.

“It was really meaningful to us to be able to feel that our institution saw and heard us and acknowledged the impact that this was having on our community,” she said. “In particular because the vast majority of the people that were impacted could not have a voice.”

Kashaf explained that some of her colleagues were concerned about retribution from the Iranian government against their families, or worried about not being able to themselves return to Iran, if they spoke up publicly. 

Attendees across listening sessions echoed the sentiment that the University’s statements make them feel more supported and seen in their identities when current events call for it.

Another common argument was that it is a false assumption that neutrality is possible for institutions like Yale, which make investments and encompass humanitarian values in their mission statements.

Ivy Pete ’26 does not agree with the concept of neutrality because she believes Yale is inherently not neutral.

“We know that Yale has power beyond the limits of this nation and it has an impact on its surroundings. It’s not this theoretical bubble,” Pete said. “We’re a global institution and this decision is really important and means a lot in what Yale prioritizes.”

Many students mentioned that they would like Yale to issue a statement condemning Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza or supporting Palestinians.

Karsten Rynearson ’26 said that the timing of the announcement to consider neutrality felt like an attempt to quell protests and dissent that have been unfolding on campus.

“These discussions about investment policy and about institutional voice have been triggered by events in the world that have been troubling among our community,” Della Rocca acknowledged. “So the timing is not a mystery here, these issues are coming up for discussion for reasons that are clear.”

Rynearson added that Yale should make statements even though there will always be some community members who disagree because it is only possible to react if the University makes it known where it stands.

“Either put your mouth where your money is or put your money where your mouth is,” Rynearson said.

Arguments expressed in favor of neutrality

Many of the arguments supporting neutrality emphasized that the University refraining from taking positions would free up community members to speak and converse more freely about their beliefs.

Paul Grimstad, director of undergraduate studies in the humanities, said that neutrality promotes the exchange of varying beliefs on campus.

“What I had to say at the listening session was mostly to emphasize that, not only does neutrality (in university subdivisions especially) work in tandem with Yale’s Woodward report, it actually makes its protection of free and open discussion possible,” he continued, “it allows it to happen without the presumption of a university orthodoxy or the false unanimity implied by official statements in the first person plural.”

John Peters, professor of English and of film and media studies, wrote in an email to the News that in the era of social media, it’s impossible to publicize an opinion on every important matter, so silence should not be viewed negatively.

He wrote that the University should take a “slow” approach and prioritize facilitating the free expression of community members.

Yash Chauhan ’26 agreed that in terms of international humanitarian issues, he thinks Yale should focus on fostering on-campus dialogue.

“[Yale’s] primary purpose is education, so there’s only so much it can do,” he said. “I don’t think that the role of Yale is that wherever they see injustice anywhere in the world, they have to speak out. I would rather have a neutral Yale that fosters dialogue and real conversation about these issues.”

Chauhan believes that while Yale should remain neutral about international humanitarian issues to encourage conversation on campus, the institution should take an active role in local issues in New Haven. 

Leonid Glazman, professor of physics, said that the University issuing statements reminds him of how newspapers parroted the government’s positions when he lived in the Soviet Union.

“Why should universities express opinions on behalf of all these people? That’s what I find disturbing,” he said.

The committee plans to provide recommendations to McInnis before the end of the semester.