Should Academic Departments Take Official Positions on Controversial Political Issues? (Part Two)

Yesterday's guest post by Cary Nelson, emeritus professor at the University of Illinois and former president of the AAUP, included a group letter (written by Prof. Richard Ross) to the UIUC chancellor and provost, setting out the reasons that academic departments should not take formal positions on controversial political issues, such as the Israel/Palestine conflict. As Professors Ross, Nelson and colleagues put it, "The distinction between individual and departmental speech is critical."

Prof. Nelson reports, "A month later we received a response from the Chancellor’s office, one I and others regard as immensely troubling," including this passage:

[I]nstructing departments not to advocate on political issues unrelated to their academic or research missions could chill the campus conversation and cause some of your own colleagues to challenge such instruction as an unacceptable intrusion on shared governance.

In other words, as I understand it, the chancellor and provost are wary of taking steps to avoid intimidating students and faculty, because that would chill the expression of the intimidators.

The UIUC administration's full response is after the jump.

Your letter of Sept. 6 outlining your concerns about departments or units creating and disseminating public statements is timely and it touches on one of the challenging issues facing higher education today. Institutions of higher education are expected and accustomed to engaging with and debating intense, difficult, and divisive societal and geopolitical issues. In some cases, our foundational values of academic freedom and the free and open exploration of ideas seem to be at loggerheads with our equally critical values of respect and inclusivity to all people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, political affiliation, or socioeconomic background. While there are no easy answers and no clear, simple ways to reconcile these impasses between equally important values, as you note in your letter, failing to act presents the potential for real, lasting, and negative impacts to our university community

We are in full agreement that this is an issue that our university must

address.

We have asked the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to develop a plan to convene a campus conversation around this issue. Engaging all appropriate stakeholders (members of the faculty, Academic Senate, department and college leadership, students, legal scholars), the objective of such a conversation will be to lead us to an actionable outcome our university could put in place that is aligned with our values, protects the academic freedom of our scholars and allows ideas and perspectives to be debated in ways that advance all of us to shared solutions.

With that said, instructing departments not to advocate on political issues unrelated to their academic or research missions could chill the campus conversation and cause some of your own colleagues to challenge such instruction as an unacceptable intrusion on shared governance.

Please do not interpret this response as any rejection or refutation of your perspective. We know you understand that there is very real division of thought on this subject in our own academic community, and we are grateful that you have shared your perspective. As we proceed with the plan to engage the university community to openly and publicly discuss and address the issue, your support this approach confirms our belief that this should be a campus priority.

We will share more information about this process and the timeline with you when we have it, and make sure you all have the opportunity to participate in these important conversations.

Chancellor Jones and Provost Cangellaris