The university exists to pursue truth and advance knowledge. In fulfilling that mission, it can never be neutral: it must value academic freedom, pluralism and evidence-based reasoning. It must actively nurture an environment in which its members can freely research, teach and learn.

But in recent years, universities have increasingly taken official positions on a range of social and political issues far removed from their core academic mission, such as Palestine/Israel, the Ukraine war and the extent of systemic racism. This trend has contributed to the politicisation of higher education and created an untenable expectation among campus activists that universities must weigh in on every major political or social controversy.

Most critically, such institutional positions establish a campus orthodoxy. They signal that some viewpoints are institutionally endorsed ¨C and that others are not. This creates a chilling effect on those holding dissenting views and fosters an environment where individuals with differing viewpoints becomes acceptable.

This is why I believe universities should adopt a clear policy of institutional neutrality. This important principle, first articulated in the at the University of Chicago, holds that universities should remain neutral on social, political and cultural issues that do not directly affect their core function. Once a niche idea, institutional neutrality has become increasingly mainstream: , including my own, have now adopted some version of this principle ¨C particularly in the wake of the pro-Palestine protests that engulfed campuses last year amid demands that universities take a position on what was happening in Gaza.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

The precise application of this principle may vary across institutions, because academic missions vary. While a secular university¡¯s core function would be to advance knowledge through teaching and research, a faith-based institution might define its mission more broadly. One coherent and consistent way to address this variation is to define each institution¡¯s core function in terms of its charitable objects, as set out in its charter.

As a helpful guide for decision-makers, the offer the maxim: ¡°If an academic institution is not required to adopt a position in order to fulfil its mission, it is required not to adopt a position.¡± For example, universities must take a stance on admissions policy to fulfil their teaching mission. Of course, there may be cases where reasonable people disagree whether an issue directly relates to the university¡¯s core function; in such cases, the policy should be to err on the side of thoughtful restraint.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Institutional neutrality does not stem from cowardice, indifference or moral detachment. It stems from a deep respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. It calls on university leaders to ¡°¡±. By not taking institutional positions on political controversies, universities make space for students and scholars ¨C including those in senior roles ¨C to weigh in on those issues as individuals.

Some critics argue that institutional neutrality prevents universities from fully serving the public interest, since it restricts their ability to speak with a collective voice on important social and political issues. But this, I believe, misunderstands the university¡¯s unique purpose. Universities are not corporate entities with a collective voice to be deployed at will. Their role is not to adjudicate what is true or right but to provide a platform for truth-seeking and debate. As the Kalven Report pointed out, a university ¡°is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness¡±.

One interesting question, particularly in the context of the Trump administration¡¯s assaults on initiatives to promote equity, diversity and inclusion (DEI, or EDI in the UK), relates to the extent to which institutional neutrality precludes institutional action ¨C as opposed to statements ¨C on issues such as university access or climate change. Action on such issues?could be seen as politically contentious since they imply specific political or social views.?

The first thing to say is that universities must do things that are required by law or regulatory obligations. In the UK, at least, some parts of EDI policy and widening participation work is explicitly tied to regulatory frameworks, such as the Office for Students¡¯ conditions on accessibility, or legislation, such as the Equality Act.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Moreover, provided that universities take operational decisions without implicitly or explicitly endorsing specific political or social views, institutional neutrality remains intact. For instance, many universities provide childcare assistance so academics can attend conferences. On its own, such an initiative (even if it comes under the umbrella of EDI) is uncontroversial; it simply accepts the fact that some academics have family constraints. It does not amount to taking a position on a wider sociopolitical debate.

However, choosing specifically to divest from certain companies (such as oil firms) because of their perceived malign actions risks aligning the institution with a particular political stance on climate change or corporate responsibility.

Finally, some argue that institutional neutrality is unnecessary ¨C that what truly matters is protecting academics¡¯ freedom of speech to criticise their institutions. I completely agree that safeguarding such freedom is essential; indeed, recent guidance from the OfS makes this a legal requirement. However, it is hard to see how junior academics, who depend on the university hierarchy for future promotions, could avoid feeling a chilling effect when their views on hot-button issues directly conflict with the university¡¯s official stance.

Institutional neutrality is not a magic wand. On its own, it cannot guarantee that universities will be arenas of free and robust debate. But it is a vital piece of the solution, and a principled step toward promoting free speech, fostering intellectual diversity and restoring the university to its true mission.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

is professor of mathematics at Queen Mary University of London and a founder member of the London Universities¡¯ Council for Academic Freedom. He writes here in a personal capacity. This piece is based on his opening remarks at a panel discussion on institutional neutrality in June.