'This is not a speech ban': UM board adopts neutrality policy to rein in leaders' stances

The University of Michigan Board of Regents has joined a growing list of universities that that are not allowing public officials to take a stance on political or social issues unless they are related to the internal governance of the university.

The Board of Regents on Thursday voted unanimously to adopt an institutional neutrality bylaw, which is controversial among critics while supporters say it will make the campus more welcoming to students, faculty and staff with a wider range of political and social viewpoints that don't match the stances taken by public officials in the past. One opponent said it creates "unnecessary free speech and academic freedom issues."

All of the regents disagreed, adopting the bylaw after a six-month study by UM representatives from the three campuses that included 32 faculty members, several staff, two students and over 4,000 comments from the UM community and the public. A town hall meeting also was convened earlier this week by the university Faculty Senate.

"This institution should start discussions about the consequential issues of our time, not end them," said board Vice Chair Mark Bernstein, who was among the regents who pushed the university to examine the issue. "The university should be the home and sponsor of critics — not the critic. We must open the way for our individual faculty’s expertise, intelligence, scholarship and wisdom to inform our state and society. This policy elevates individual faculty voices in honoring this indispensable mission."

Institutional neutrality also eliminates the suppression of ideas in departments where faculty seek promotion or retention but may feel compelled to fall in line with an expressed institutional orthodoxy embraced by their superiors, Bernstein added.

"As an institution we should put questions before answers, and this policy does just that," he said.

Statements made by university leaders in the past are a “(disservice to) 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 the advisory committee on the UM Principles on Diversity of Thought & Freedom of Expression. It recommended adopting an institutional neutrality policy.

Universities including Harvard, Columbia, Stanford and Johns Hopkins have adopted institutional neutrality policies. 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 and pro-Palestinian demonstrators have set up encampments that were later dismantled by university police for various violations.

The policy is opposed by some UM faculty members and Oakland University President Ora Pescovitz, who have suggested that pretending to be neutral is dishonest. University policy-making requires leaders to take stances on issues, especially when a campus is struggling with issues, they said.

Before the regents voted, UM Flint Assistant Professor of Political Science & Pre-Law Advisor Kimberly Saks spoke in opposition to the policy. The policy is overly broad, too many faculty are covered in too many situations and lines are sometimes blurred when faculty are speaking for the institution and for themselves, she said.

"We are all here to uphold the university's mission statement," Saks said. "How are we to uphold this mission while also adhering to the new proposed bylaw on institutional neutrality. The two are inherently in competition with one another, and the bylaw put the mission at risk, endangers the institution and creates unnecessary free speech and academic freedom issues."

Regent Jordan Acker supported the policy, but said he had reservations with "how overly broad it is and its enforcement mechanism" and the university's communication.

"Historically, the university has not been the best at communication," Acker said, "and it will be very important to our faculty, to our staff, to our students that this is not a speech ban. This is not a speech restriction and getting that communication out there will be very important to the success of our institutional neutrality policy."

Regent Denise Ilitich said she had spoken with a number of people in the UM community about the institutional neutrality policy, and asked UM officials to create a website and communication portal to outline frequently asked questions and provide a forum to keep people informed. She also asked President Santa Ono and his administration to report back on the policy in six months and then a year to understand how it's working.

"What is the community feedback we are receiving, and if any clarifications or changes should be needed," Ilitch said.

Regent Sarah Hubbard said the institutional neutrality policy garnered her support "because I believe in diversity of thought and freedom of expression."

"I hope this is the first step in a long process to update bylaws and procedures that will make our campus a place that is welcoming to all voices," Hubbard said. "And I can assure you this will not limit the individual voices of regents and other individuals to speak their minds regarding issues both on and off campus. But we will not be speaking on behalf of the institution regarding social and political issues that are not related to our internal governance."

"Institutional neutrality is the position that is the most supportive of faculty — it says the experts and scholars should be the ones engaged in public debate and discourse. They should move knowledge and fields forward. It's not up to chairs, deans, or administrators to make those arguments on behalf of the university; it's up to individuals to engage in robust debate regarding issues of today and our future."

_______