DETROIT — While the nation has faced numerous tragedies and wars over the decades, the University of Michigan has not taken a stance on myriad issues, including the Civil War, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or the influenza pandemic in the early 1900s.

But many UM officials have made statements more recently on social and political issues that have suggested the institution mostly embraces liberal values, many university leaders said.

Former UM President Mark Schlissel made public statements opposing former Republican President Donald Trump when he won the election in 2016. When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, then UM President Mary Sue Coleman and Michigan Medicine CEO Marschall Runge issued a statement that providing access to abortion care services remained a priority. The UM Dearborn's Women's and Gender Studies program in 2021 endorsed the Palestinian Feminist Collective when it issued a statement along with others across the nation that condemned "the forced removal of Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, the raiding of the al-Aqsa mosque" and more.

But these statements “disserve the university’s mission” because they undermine the UM’s commitment to a diversity of opinions, and some statements might suggest the university embraces only one side of the political and social spectrum, according to a report from a recently formed UM committee that examined the campus' diversity of thought and freedom of expression.

That is why UM regents plan to consider, possibly as early as this month, adopting a policy known as institutional neutrality, which would mean that university leaders, from the president to department heads, would refrain from weighing in on issues that are not directly connected to academics or internal university functions.

While the policy is controversial among some faculty and one local university president, a growing number of universities, including Harvard, Columbia, Stanford and Johns Hopkins, have adopted institutional neutrality. Supporting the concept is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based speech group. Critics noted that some universities have adopted the policy in the past year since campuses have been divided by the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

But UM has been examining the issue of greater diversity of thought on campus long before turmoil erupted on the campus following the Middle East war, said two regents on both sides of the political aisle.

There has been "an astonishing absence of diversity of thought" across UM for years, said board Vice Chair Mark Bernstein, a Democrat who was a primary regent, along with others, to push the university to examine the issue.

"We don’t have many conservative voices on our faculty, students and faculty and administrators who have views that are contrary to the articulated positions of the university on many of the most consequential issues facing society" and they "feel silenced and in some instances feel intimidated," Bernstein said.

He added that he routinely speaks with students who self-censor themselves in the classroom for fear of sharing a view that counters the view of the majority in a classroom, and has concerns about tenure track faculty members who may not share the same views as leaders or peers in a department.

"University of Michigan is a public university that is in a state that has a diversity of opinions on consequential issues and yet the dialogue on our campus does not reflect that in any real, robust way," Bernstein said. "University of Michigan must be a home for individuals who are liberal and individuals who are conservative. It cannot be a liberal institution either in practice or in our words."

The issue is critical to UM, the regent added, and all who are concerned with educating future generations.

"There is a ton at stake here," Bernstein said. "The legitimacy of higher education is at stake."

For many UM faculty, the proposed institutional neutrality policy is problematic, said Rebekah Modrak, chair of UM's Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs.

'We all feel the statement is full of holes, full of vague terms, poorly written and very ambiguous," Modrak said.

In addition, elected faculty members have not been part of the process, she said.

"There is no such thing as neutrality," Modrak said. "It’s far more honest to acknowledge the biases we have and to talk through how we can ensure that there is academic freedom and free speech and it’s a campus where people can say things openly. It’s far more dishonest to suggest that we ever reach a point of neutrality because it does not exist. "

SACUA and the UM chapter of the American Association of University Professors have organized a Wednesday afternoon panel on Zoom to discuss institutional neutrality.

Among the panelists will be Silke-Maria Weineck, a UM professor of German studies and comparative literature, who said the idea of institutional neutrality "sounds appealing."

"But there is no contentious political issue that does not relate to matters of internal governance at a university of this size," Weineck said. "There is no neutrality because you have to make policy. Neutrality is impossible when you have to make a choice.

"We either provide abortions at the University of Michigan health system or we don't. We either have DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs or we don't. We either pepper spray pro-Palestinian protesters or we don't. There is no neutral middle ground that we can take when it comes to policy. The idea we can make all these choices but can't talk about them is, frankly, absurd."

'A copout and a crutch'

Committee representatives presented a 131-page report to the regents in September and recommended that UM adopt a policy of institutional neutrality. While Hubbard called for a resolution to come before the board this month, UM began asking for public comment last week, and a timeline for taking up the issue remains unclear.

The Board of Regents has had a decided Democratic majority on the eight-member board since at least 2010. The Democrats have mostly had 6-2 majorities, although the edge narrowed to 5-3 for a two-year period following Trump's election victory in Michigan in 2016.

UM Regent Sarah Hubbard, immediate past chair of the eight-member board and one of two Republicans, agreed with Bernstein on the need for institutional equity.

"We have heard for a long time that some on our campus don't feel comfortable speaking up about their views, and they think it could impact their grades or their standing," Hubbard said. "Institutional neutrality is an element of free speech on our campus. If the university takes a position on some policy not related to our internal governance, that could have a chilling effect on others who disagree."

"Individuals are always going to be welcomed and allowed and encouraged to take positions on whatever issues they are most passionate about," Hubbard continued. "The difference is between their individual and a view that might represent the university in a larger way."

Among the most prominent voices opposing institutional neutrality is Oakland University President Ora Pescovitz, who penned a commentary in The Detroit News outlining why she disagrees with it.

During an interview, Pescovitz said there is some justification for an institutional neutrality policy but finds it interesting that so many universities and other institutions have "gotten religion" and adopted such a policy.

"I consider it a copout and a crutch that institutions have adopted it, especially since they have only very recently adopted it," said Pescovitz, who previously led UM's health system from 2009-14. "Up until this year, the same institutions that are now adopting it feel very comfortable speaking out on many other issues.

"I do believe there are rare times when a president’s voice is important, and when my leadership is required to provide moral clarity, when there is a time for clear leadership and when there is a time to provide comfort," Pescovitz said.

University presidents should be neutral on most issues, but there are rare times when a president's voice should be heard, including when a hateful incident occurs, such as the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers in May 2020; on health issues, such as the COVID virus and the health of the planet; and local matters because a university is part of a community, she said. But if there were an institutional neutrality policy at Oakland University, she might not feel comfortable speaking on some issues.

"Adopting institutional neutrality means the campus is going to debate issues and then the loudest voices on every campus are going to take over … and the presidents will not demonstrate leadership," Pescovitz said. "When campuses are struggling with difficult times, there are times when a leader needs to lead."

Report: 'Diversity of thought is lacking'

Many note that institutional neutrality is being embraced more than 50 years after the University of Chicago adopted a policy in 1967 following the Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.

But Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, wrote that little has been written about the concept that can be traced to a century ago.

"As it was originally framed by Arthur O. Lovejoy in 1915, institutional neutrality was a principle aimed at curtailing the readiness of academic administrations to take sides in disputes in which some of their faculty members were on the other side," Wood wrote in an online essay. "Institutional neutrality was meant to be a bulwark protecting academic freedom. But even Lovejoy recognized that the principle could not be absolute. Universities had to stand for something. They couldn’t be neutral about essential issues."

At UM, discussions about institutional neutrality began in February 2023 when President Santa Ono was with the UM law faculty and was asked if the university should adopt a policy similar to the University of Chicago's or whether UM's existing policy and practices were enough for diversity of thought and freedom of expression, according to the report. At the time, nearly 100 colleges and universities, or faculty units, had adopted it.

"Like other schools, we had heard calls to disinvite speakers deemed controversial by some and seen instances where protestors shouted down speakers who did come, neither of which is consistent with our values as a public University bound by the First Amendment," the report said, adding that Ono told the law faculty he wanted the university to consider "craft(ing) a Michigan specific policy that is even more speech protective."

The Committee on the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression was assembled and included 32 faculty members, a librarian, seven staff members and two students from UM's Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses and Michigan Medicine. It was chaired by UM General Counsel Tim Lynch and met from March to August.

The members were separated into three subcommittees and reached several conclusions about UM.

"(D)iversity of thought is lacking, as most respondents agree that liberal or progressive voices dominate the conversation," the report said. "Deficiencies in constructive disagreement are compounded by social pressure that silences people who disagree with prevailing perspectives. Individuals holding conservative, libertarian and traditional Christian views report significant pressure to self-censor."

"The Israel-Hamas war has heightened tensions and raised the stakes," the report continued. "We heard from several Jewish students who objected to the lack of constructive dialogue coming from the pro-Palestinian side and expressed safety concerns regarding growing antisemitism. At the same time, several respondents expressed frustration that demands for divestment from companies linked to Israel weren’t given adequate consideration after the Board of Regents declined to do so in March of 2024."

Comments were solicited from the UM community, and more than 4,000 responded.

"I am frequently formally and informally pressured to agree to statements with which I do not agree particularly as it pertains to moral and political views," according to a comment from an unidentified individual in the report. "It is 'assumed' that everyone agrees with the political leanings of the University, which tends to skew left. If we expressed our disagreement, we would be prevented from holding certain positions, and possibly even fired."

Another comment from an unidentified student in the report said: "I wouldn’t say I felt personally discouraged by the University to speak my mind. My overall impression about the University of Michigan as a student, is that while there is certainly an identifiable ideological aspect to every class, we are encouraged to share our opinions and have a constructive dialogue, regardless of what it may be about.”

UM leaders, including presidents, deans and department heads, have issued statements on behalf of the university or the school or college that takes a position on a social, political or legal development in the world and have suggested there is only one answer to a question, said UM law Professor Kristina Daugirdas, who chaired the subcommittee that recommended UM adopt institutional neutrality.

"That suggestion there is one right answer to a contested question can be alienating to members of the community who disagree," Daugirdas said. "It can disagree that they are welcome. It sends a message that scholarship that explores contradictory positions is unwelcome at the university. For universities to serve their mission of creating and advancing knowledge, we need to be able to ask a lot of questions."

Universities should also be thinking about what is being communicated to students about how they should approach these issues and train them to be citizens who "think deeply and broadly and empathetically ... for themselves," she said.

"When you have a message that comes from the top, that suggests there is only one answer. It undermines the university's mission," Daugirdas said.

University leaders could address issues in a personal or scholarly capacity under an institutional neutrality policy.

Instead of making statements on controversial issues, UM leaders could and should do other things that are appropriate and consistent with the university's mission, Daugirdas said. For instance, UM leaders could organize pop-up panels and other events to help students understand the issue of the day with greater depth and more perspective, tapping faculty with expertise to help explore nuances of complicated issues, she said.

"I would much rather see university leaders use their energy for those kinds of events," Daugirdas said.

An institutional neutrality policy would be part of a process that would foster an inclusive community across UM's three campuses and academic medical center, she said.

"We think this is a really important, although incremental, step in the right direction," Daugirdas said, "to make sure the university is acting in line with its mission."

_____

©2024 www.detroitnews.com. Visit at detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.