Should universities engage in politics or remain neutral?

First, it was Harvard. 

Then, Cornell and Northwestern followed.  

Over the last several months, numerous universities have announced their intention to remain politically neutral as the political climate becomes more polarized. As more institutions join the trend, it begs the question: Will this be a lasting approach for higher education, or will more universities re-enter these conversations? And, with apologies to the band Midnight Oil, how do colleges and universities sleep when their beds are burning?

A landscape of political tensions

Today’s social media landscape has become a wasteland of volatility characterized by rising tempers, unsubstantiated claims and a growing unwillingness to listen. Public-facing brands, including universities, that take on political agendas — one way or another — often face scrutiny and even “cancel culture.” For universities, the key consideration is clear: “Is there anything to gain by taking a stance?” 

Brian Kelley, a 20-year public relations professional and vice president of public relations at BlueText, shared his perspective. 

 “Along the way, colleges and universities have lost their role as an arbiter of freethinking and taken a stance on issues,” Kelley notes. “Taking a stance could remove 50% of your support from students, faculty and alumni.”

The case for neutrality

Emerson College made headlines in August when it announced its commitment to political neutrality, emphasizing that neutrality does not mean indifference. Instead, the institution aims to  uphold its “long history of fostering civic engagement and civil discourse.” Sandra Lo, head of global corporate communications for Zoho and a 27-year public relations professional who previously worked with companies such as Adobe and Salesforce, agrees with this approach. 

“Universities should ensure students and faculty maintain the freedom to express their points of view in the classrooms and in public spaces,” said Lo. “Universities should foster meaningful discussions and not dictate right or wrong.”

Political positions and public perception

Kelley suggests that many institutions that have taken political stances did so in response “to the loudest and most vociferous groups that wanted the universities to take a stand.” However, such moves may have been poorly timed. A 2023 Gallup poll revealed that only 36% of respondents expressed confidence in higher education — a steep decrease from 57% in 2015 and 48% in  2018. While rising costs of education contribute to this decline, Kelley believes other factors could play a role in this distrust. 

“Costs and endowments are high, but political agendas are likely eroding [that confidence as well],” Kelley explained.

The strategic gamble of neutrality

Universities that publicly embrace political neutrality could benefit strategically, but they risk the highest potential loss. Outsiders may view these stances as a refusal to support causes, which could backfire. From a public relations perspective, today’s decisions are based on predictions for tomorrow. 

“Universities should ensure students and faculty maintain the freedom to express their points of view in the classrooms and in public spaces … not dictate right or wrong.”

As Kelley put it, “A closed mouth catches no flies; from a communications perspective, you want to be sure you’re not doing any harm to yourself, your stakeholders or the public at large.” Kelley advises institutions to consider the long-term impact of their statements:

“It’s hard to predict. Institutions must think: ‘What am I willing to put on the line today in order to make these statements tomorrow?’ While statements look brave in the moment, often the longer-term effects are not taken into consideration.”

Navigating the path forward

So, what is the next step?  What should universities do to right the ship?

Kelley believes it’s time for higher education institutions to “bring it back to center and regain their status as an arbiter of free expression.” Lo agrees, emphasizing the decision to take a stance should align with the university’s mission.

“It’s a decision where you must balance between short- and long-term impact and it should [mesh] with the university’s mission,” she noted. “Even the policy you come up with is a balancing act between students, faculty and the university’s position.”

Balancing free speech and institutional values

While political statements from universities often arise in response to global and national conflicts, such as the unrest in the Middle East, not all causes are volatile or divisive.

The Harvard Gazette recently highlighted that, while partisan positions can limit freedom of speech, universities should retain “the leeway to comment on issues that are important to its functioning.” With another Presidential election this November, many universities are encouraging thoughtful discussions among their students, faculty and alumni.

“The ability to opine and demonstrate should never be taken away,” said Lo. “This exchange of differing opinions will help the youth bridge this growing divide.”

The road to restoring trust

As institutions like Harvard and Cornell take steps to promote free thinking, the clear goal is to create environments in which students can form their own opinions.

“They must be serious about it,” said Kelley. “But if they are, they’ll get back there.”

In a polarized environment, universities face a difficult decision: remain neutral or take a stand. As more institutions choose the former, they aim to provide a space for free expression and dialogue — a mission that may ultimately restore confidence in higher education.

Perhaps, that’s the best value of all.