Ep36 "Institutional Neutrality: Open Debate and Moral Stands" with John Etchemendy
Nov 29, 2023
auto_awesome
Former Provost of Stanford University, John Etchemendy, discusses institutional neutrality in universities and the challenges they face in maintaining it. The importance of open debate and critical thinking, embracing doubt and debate for scientific progress, the misconception that university statements represent the entire community's opinion, and the challenges of maintaining institutional neutrality are explored in this entertaining podcast.
Institutional neutrality is crucial for universities to maintain open discussion and debate, avoiding taking stands on unrelated issues.
Universities should clearly articulate the reason for institutional neutrality and avoid making public stands on debatable issues.
Deep dives
The Importance of Institutional Neutrality in Universities
In this podcast episode, the hosts discuss the significance of institutional neutrality in universities. They emphasize that the purpose of a university is to advance knowledge, which requires open discussion and debate. The hosts argue that universities should not take stands on issues unrelated to their core mission, as this can stifle intellectual discourse. They provide examples such as the misconceptions about universities adjudicating the truth and the fallibility of scientific theories throughout history. The hosts also acknowledge that universities have deviated from institutional neutrality in recent years, particularly by publicly commenting on off-campus issues. They highlight the need for universities to maintain neutrality and avoid alienating those with differing viewpoints. They also examine the challenges universities face in balancing moral issues and the boundaries of institutional neutrality.
Defining Institutional Neutrality and Its Importance
The hosts welcome a guest, John Echomendy, a professor of humanities and former provost at Stanford University, to discuss the concept of institutional neutrality in greater detail. Echomendy defines institutional neutrality as the doctrine that universities should not take positions on debatable questions. He explains that universities have a unique obligation to maintain neutrality due to their mission of creating and disseminating knowledge through rational inquiry. This process relies on vibrant debate and avoids the university acting as an adjudicator of truth. He also highlights the importance of universities acting in accordance with their best judgment while recognizing that they are simply ordinary individuals without special access to the truth. Echomendy suggests that universities should clearly articulate the reason for institutional neutrality and stop the practice of taking public stands on debatable issues.
Challenges and Potential Solutions for Returning to Neutrality
The hosts and guest further discuss the challenges universities face in returning to institutional neutrality and potential ways forward. They acknowledge that demands from students, faculty, and alumni for universities to take positions on moral issues can complicate the practice of neutrality. They also note that universities have erred in making public divestment decisions and issuing political statements on various issues. However, they express hope for change with new generations of leadership and the ability to set clear policies that prioritize neutrality. They emphasize the importance of businesses understanding the long-term costs of taking positions on contentious issues and the potential backlash that can arise. The episode concludes with an optimistic outlook, urging universities to work towards reclaiming institutional neutrality.
What happens when universities and step off the sidelines and take a stance on contentious issues? Are they boarding a roller coaster that they can’t ever get off? In this episode, hosts and finance professors Jonathan Berk and Jules van Binsbergen welcome John Etchemendy, former Provost of Stanford University, for a discussion about Institutional Neutrality, and the long-term unseen costs of any stance institutions elect to take.
