Academic Freedom
The recent events on university campuses in the US and abroad have generated critical questions about the continuing relevance and resilience of academic freedom in the academy. Traditionally considered a defining feature of the academic universe, academic freedom is under attack on multiple fronts. Questions have been raised concerning its conceptual reach and, in particular, whether it should be confined to "freedom of inquiry and research and freedom of teaching within the university" or whether it can also encompass "freedom of extramural utterance and action" (as per the AAUP's 1915 Declaration). Questions have also been raised concerning the relation between university autonomy and academic freedom in light of the growing interventions by entities outside the academy (lawmakers and donors) and the impact of such interventions on institutional autonomy and shared governance. These queries also point to the broader issue of the university as a bearer of rights and responsibilities.
Our year-long focus on academic freedom and human rights will seek to address some of the following focal issues and questions:
- What is the relation between academic freedom and human rights?
- What does academic freedom entail for faculty? for students?
- What is the relation between academic freedom and university autonomy?
- What are the main challenges posed to university autonomy and shared governance by entities inside and outside the academy?
- The university as a bearer of rights and responsibilities-whose rights? whose responsibilities?
- How are challenges to academic freedom perceived and addressed in other countries?
Institutional Neutrality
Wednesday, October 15, 2025
On Wednesday, October 15, 2025, the Center for International Human Rights (CIHR), the Department of Political Science, and the Office of Academic Programs hosted a panel discussion on Institutional Neutrality. The panelists included Brian Soucek, Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis, and AAUP Committee A member, and Will Creely, Legal Director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE); George Andreopoulos, the Director of the Center for International Human Rights, moderated the event.
Our event kicked off our academic freedom series amidst an unprecedented attack on higher education institutions. The goal of this series is to explore ways of maintaining university/college campuses as spaces for fact and reason-based debates on contentious issues. Institutional neutrality refers to the notion that institutions of higher education should not, as institutions, take positions on political and social issues unless those issues “threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” Proponents of institutional neutrality would argue that these discussions should be left to faculty and students. To prepare participants for this session, a background note was distributed in advance prepared by CIHR staff that included references to some key documents that are framing the ongoing conversation on institutional neutrality and academic freedom.
Will Creely explained that the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), following significant internal debate, formally endorsed the principle of institutional neutrality in a statement released on October 12, 2023. The position, modeled on the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee Report (1967), holds that neutrality best preserves a university’s mission by enabling the expression of the widest range of viewpoints and minimizing pressures toward censorship. Further noting that institutions should speak when their core mission is threatened, he cautioned against using neutrality to silence student or faculty expression, emphasizing that it applies to institutions, not individuals. Creely also stressed that neutrality should be developed through shared governance and viewed as a default stance that can be set aside in exceptional cases.
Brian Soucek argued that true institutional neutrality is often unattainable, as universities inevitably make value-laden choices through actions like renaming buildings, setting diversity policies, or filing court briefs. He cautioned that framing neutrality as “speaking only when the mission is threatened” merely shifts debate to defining the mission itself, which varies across institutions. From the AAUP’s perspective, neutrality is neither inherently required for, nor opposed to academic freedom; what matters are the practical effects on open inquiry and dissent. Soucek emphasized creating safeguards for departmental statements, such as anonymous voting and clear authorship, rather than banning them, and opposed any externally imposed neutrality mandates that could undermine institutional autonomy.
The discussion raised several important questions, including whether neutrality is prudent in the current climate, who determines institutional missions and expectations, and how these issues affect fields such as women’s and human rights studies. Panelists also explored topics such as divestment and academic boycotts, anticipatory obedience, and the influence of institutional image. Areas of agreement emerged around the importance of protecting individual academic freedom and dissent, relying on shared governance to shape policy and determine when institutions should speak. Panelists also emphasized resisting external mandates that threaten university autonomy and avoiding the misuse of neutrality to silence student and faculty voices.
Background Note on Institutional Neutrality [view document here]
Antisemitism, Islamophobia & the Preservation of Universities as a Space for Academic Deliberations
Tuesday, November 18, 1:30 PM
On November 18, 2025, the Department of Political Science, the Office of Academic Programs, and The Center for International Human Rights hosted the second event in our series on Academic Freedom with a panel discussion on Antisemitism, Islamophobia & the Preservation of Universities as Spaces for Academic Deliberation. The event featured Professors Mucahit Bilici and Jack Jacobs, and was moderated by Professor Avram Borstein, all long-time scholars at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The event provided an opportunity to students, faculty, and other community members to think critically about how universities can remain places for open dialogue, intellectual rigor, and inclusive debate.
Professor Jack Jacobs began his remarks by asking attendees to consider our understanding of Antisemitism in light of the competing definitions offered by the Jerusalem Declaration and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). He suggested that universities should adopt the Jerusalem Declaration for it is more inclusive and offers constructive examples. He noted that the Jerusalem Declaration, though far from perfect, is clearly preferable to the IHRA one. He also explored the role of critical theory in the study of Antisemitism and Islamophobia, which he argued were best studied in a comparative manner. His discussion placed Antisemitism and Islamophobia in a shared analytical space, noting that both concepts would benefit from a comparative study and careful scholarly attention.
Professor Mucahit Bilici emphasized that universities should remain places of understanding and not places of politics, stressing that free speech must be protected to preserve the integrity of academic inquiry. The author of “Following Similar Paths” spoke about the mission of universities calling for the preservation of educational space as an open and deliberative space. He criticized university administrations for their failure to uphold freedom of speech in academic spaces. According to him, the preoccupation with "identity politics" has had negative effects on academic freedom, leading to the firing of professors and the censorship of students. He concluded by noting that fact-based conversations on contentious issues, even when uncomfortable, are essential to the maintenance and flourishing of an intellectually vibrant academic community.
During the discussion that followed the presentations, participants including administrators, faculty, and students raised thoughtful questions regarding faculty responsibility and boundaries between scholarship and activism. Several attendees highlighted their concerns about how political tensions, both local and global, are shaping university life and impacting vulnerable communities. Participants also raised questions about the responsibilities of full-time faculty, opportunities for teach-ins, the interplay between academic work and activism, and the importance of shared governance and institutional autonomy.
Resources from the Event
Chapter from Heilman and Bilici book, Following Similar Paths: What American Jews and Muslims Can Learn from One Another (University of California Press, 2024) [view chapter here]
The IHRA definition: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism:https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
The Nexus Task Force definition: https://nexusproject.us/nexus-resources/the-nexus-document/
Islamophobia Resource Page at ISPU (Institute for Social Policy and Understanding): https://ispu.org/countering-islamophobia/
PEW Research Forum's Muslim American reports: https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/religion/religions/islam/muslim-americans/