Increasingly, university presidents are voicing opinions on thorny social and political issues even as they unfold outside their campuses — from immigration policy to gender identity to war.
On one level, their diverse universities seem to require it. A letter carefully crafted with the help of campus speechwriters and delivered online can instantly reassure thousands of students, as well as faculty, alumni, and donors.
But it may also backfire, as has happened in recent weeks. The president of the University of Pennsylvania is out of a job and the president of Harvard faces backlash over their inability to say directly whether calls for genocide against Jews violate the student code of conduct.
Amid the fallout, some observers — including a group that monitors free speech on college campuses — wonder why colleges are getting themselves into these rhetorical battles in a deeply polarized nation. Is it useful for a student who is trying to study calculus or economics to know the institution’s position on the war between Israel and Hamas?
The problem for colleges is that defining positions on some issues forces them to do so on other topics with equal passion or face criticism that they are selective in their anger, said Nico Perino, executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. .
“People in America can smell the hypocrisy and the double standards and they hate to see that, and they’re not going to be very charitable,” Perino told TribLive. “The situation in America right now is so polarized and divided. Everyone is looking for a gotcha moment. It’s what gets you likes and retweets on X, formerly known as Twitter. It’s what gets you shares on TikTok.”
What we need, he said, is “a better understanding of those with whom we disagree and having conversations across lines of difference, which is what our colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to do.”
“But it’s hard to do that when you take a stand on a social, political or geopolitical issue.”
Schools that give in to pressure to make a big impact on tough issues are doing themselves no favors at a time when higher education is already facing growing skepticism, Perino said.
“Trust in higher education has declined sharply over the past decade, and I have a hard time believing it has nothing to do with what is seen as the increasing politicization of colleges and universities, in part due to the increased frequency of writing and issuing these statements.”
His organization points to the University of Chicago, which has largely avoided backlash this fall by simply pointing out the events surrounding Oct. 7 and, without taking sides, telling the campus that support is available for those in need.
It is in keeping with the tradition of neutrality, as formulated in 1967 by what became known as the Calvin Report, which professors there presented in response to the violent social and political unrest during the Vietnam War era.
However, the school has not been completely immune to campus protests this fall due to the war between Israel and Hamas, a sign of the enormous pressure universities are facing.
State Sen. Art Haywood, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Philadelphia and Montgomery County, unveiled legislation Tuesday to combat hate speech across the state’s higher education system. He expressed alarm at the increasing number of such incidents, including one that prompted a freshman soccer player to withdraw from campus.
Her bedroom belongings were stolen, including a cherished stuffed animal, and she later watched a video of the animal being hanged.
The issue extends beyond the 10 state-owned universities, including Penn West, Slippery Rock and Indiana University of Pennsylvania in western Pennsylvania, Haywood said. He appealed to the presidents of all universities in the state, both public and private.
“Fix your (student) code of conduct now,” he said. “Make clear that hatred is unacceptable, whether verbal or physical.”
On Saturday, Pennsylvania State President Liz Magill resigned amid fallout over her December 5 testimony before the US House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee. Another speaker who has drawn criticism, Harvard University President Claudine Guy, received a vote of confidence from her board of trustees on Tuesday and has so far weathered backlash over her comments.
As Ivy League institutions, their highly nuanced answers to pointed questions posed by U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., drew national attention, as did responses from MIT President Sally Kornbluth. She appears to face fewer repercussions.
But they were not alone. College and university presidents nationwide have found themselves facing similar criticism over their statements on the war between Israel and Hamas that were deemed lukewarm, including the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University.
Farida Abdel Moneim, a Carnegie Mellon University student, said her school’s approach initially was “more of the same” and, in some ways, it felt like the institution was going through a critical phase.
“Sometimes, there are trends that universities want to follow because they think that’s what they should do,” said Abdel Moneim, 21, a senior from Portland, Oregon, studying machine learning and statistics. “Sometimes, it feels performative.”
In Pennsylvania, politicians, including Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, strongly opposed, saying universities need to more forcefully reject anti-Semitism that leads to the risk of violence.
The issue is now entangled in relations between Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly and universities including Penn State, Temple and Lincoln, the University of Pittsburgh and the state system.
Rep. Rob Mercury, R-Payne, is sponsoring legislation to require universities that receive government taxpayer support to recognize anti-Semitism and advocacy of genocide of Jewish people as bullying, harassment and intimidation in their institutional codes of conduct.
It’s part of a package of legislation Republican lawmakers unveiled Monday in Harrisburg that also affects K-12 schools.
“Taxpayer funding should only follow the university’s commitment to combating anti-Semitic behavior and demonstrating leadership on campus by clearly identifying calls for genocide as inconsistent with the Code of Conduct,” he said.
“It is hard to believe that in 2023, we have to say that genocide against the Jewish population, or any religious group, is wrong,” added Rep. Aaron Kaufer, R-Luzerne County. These actions are wrong. “The rise of anti-Semitism in our educational systems, whether at the primary or higher levels, must be stopped,” he said.
The American Association of University Professors has a very different position on what it calls “political and financial interference” in higher education in the name of fighting discrimination.
She says the Dec. 5 House hearing, intended to expose lax advocacy for student safety, did no such thing and only cooled the discourse on campus.
“The resulting scene looked more like a McCarthy-era witch hunt than a serious effort to improve campus tolerance and safety,” American University President Erin Mulvey said.
“Universities have an obligation to protect the safety of their students and promote a healthy campus culture. At the same time, universities have an obligation to ensure a climate that promotes academic freedom and freedom of expression,” she added. “These obligations are not mutually exclusive.”
Bill Schackner is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bill via email at bschackner@tribive.com or via Twitter .
In recent years, the role of university presidents in influencing social and political issues has become increasingly complex and contentious. As leaders of academic institutions, these individuals are tasked with balancing the interests of various stakeholders while also upholding principles of free speech, diversity, and inclusion. However, the polarized nature of many social and political issues has turned this responsibility into a minefield, with university presidents facing criticism and backlash regardless of their actions. Navigating this landscape requires a delicate approach, as the consequences of missteps can have far-reaching implications for both the university and its leaders.