Thanks for asking. Whittington is certainly expert on the history, policy-making, and law involved in these matters. I think I differ with him on the proper context in which to under "neutrality" and who it impacts in different usages. I agree that university departments should issue statements very cautiously. But I also think it's important for university departments to reserve the right to do so in the current age, which often misrepresents the educational mission and practices of those departments themselves. Departments should have a right, if necessary, to advocate for the well-being of students, faculty, and the institution itself in matters of curriculum, on-campus treatment, and even proper funding. Perfect neutrality, as a result, seems more like an ideal than an attainable reality. Moreover, I wouldn't want that message to be interpreted in ways that suggest university teaching, research, and service is value-neutral. All of those things are already taking place at the behest of powerful political, economic, or social networks that sustain different institutions; adopting a stated policy of neutrality, in many such cases, is actually advocacy for an unequal status quo. So those are my thoughts; I hope they're constructive and appreciate the opportunity for dialogue.
Perhaps you might share your thoughts on Keith Whittington's perspective on institutional neutrality:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4801896
Thanks for asking. Whittington is certainly expert on the history, policy-making, and law involved in these matters. I think I differ with him on the proper context in which to under "neutrality" and who it impacts in different usages. I agree that university departments should issue statements very cautiously. But I also think it's important for university departments to reserve the right to do so in the current age, which often misrepresents the educational mission and practices of those departments themselves. Departments should have a right, if necessary, to advocate for the well-being of students, faculty, and the institution itself in matters of curriculum, on-campus treatment, and even proper funding. Perfect neutrality, as a result, seems more like an ideal than an attainable reality. Moreover, I wouldn't want that message to be interpreted in ways that suggest university teaching, research, and service is value-neutral. All of those things are already taking place at the behest of powerful political, economic, or social networks that sustain different institutions; adopting a stated policy of neutrality, in many such cases, is actually advocacy for an unequal status quo. So those are my thoughts; I hope they're constructive and appreciate the opportunity for dialogue.