Desmond Tutu, a Nobel peace prize winner and one of the foremost activists involved in the fight to end South African apartheid once said, “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”. Across history this message has been echoed by many other famous names in the struggle against oppression, such as Martin Luther King Jr, Elie Wiesel and Paulo Freire. It is one of the clearest lessons that history has attempted to teach through the words of those venerated as visionaries and heroes.
Today, the University of Connecticut seeks to reconsider this idea, as there are “active discussions” within the administration of adopting a policy of “institutional neutrality.” This stance comes in response to months of student protest over UConn’s alleged complicity in the Israeli genocide of Palestine. If put into place, it would have UConn “limit their public statements to only matters that affects school operations, and refrain from taking a stance on social or political issues,” according to CT Insider.
If history is to be the teacher, then the answer is clear: it is an ethical and moral imperative that UConn must reject the idea of institutional neutrality.
For context, UConn is not alone in considering institutional neutrality as a solution to controversy surrounding universities participating in international human rights abuses. Harvard, the University of Wisconsin, the University of North Carolina system, Stanford and many more across the country have already adopted such measures in recent months. Now, even within the state, Yale is undergoing similar talks. One of the only schools which has taken an active stance against the policy also happens to be in Connecticut, with Wesleyan University President Michael Roth going to the New York Times and Time Magazine to voice his opposition to the idea.
The problem with policies like these is that, especially in UConn’s case, they are fundamentally dishonest and vague. What counts as “matters that affect school operations” in today’s interconnected world? After all, three of the top ten employers of UConn graduates are the military contractors Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon Technologies and General Dynamics Electric Boat. Lockheed Martin was just shy of the list at 11th place. These companies have extensive financial ties to the university and their representatives sit on our Board of Trustees, so is their profit off the slaughter of Palestinians not incredibly relevant to the university itself?
Furthermore, when President Radenka Maric herself and CT Governor Ned Lamont traveled to Israel in 2022 to advance currently ongoing partnerships with Israeli universities and government leaders, did that not constitute school operations? The idea that UConn can simply back off from the issue entirely and say that it doesn’t affect them is absurd. They are actively involved in ongoing events all across the world and don’t have the right to shy away from answering questions about that.
Aside from the clear hypocrisies that exist within UConn’s specific application of institutional neutrality, it is also important to understand the entire premise need not apply. When this policy was first applied to college campuses by the University of Chicago’s Klaven Report in 1967, it was seen as a general principle that could be applied in limited fashion to specific instances. It was never intended to be the blunt scapegoat that administrators can point to whenever they need out of an issue. Plus, the Klaven Report explicitly laid out exceptions to the rule of neutrality. For example, it left alone corporate actions like “university ownership of property” or “its receipt of funds,” especially when they went against “paramount social values.”
The idea that institutional neutrality is even necessary to protect academic freedom is also heavily suspect. Some legal scholars refute the idea outright, saying that “analysis should focus on how particular university actions affect academic freedom, not on institutional neutrality as such.” It is not inherent that all violations of institutional neutrality will harm academic freedom, but a matter of specific investigation. An excessive type of blanket policy is not the correct way to protect healthy discourse.
Aside from generally addressing why institutional neutrality is the wrong solution to UConn’s problems, it’s also important to address why it’s in conversation in the first place. The fact that this discussion is happening now specifically is important to consider. Historically, UConn has often taken sides in its messaging following big social events. When Maric was Vice President of Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, she directly condemned the death of George Floyd in 2020. Similarly, in 2022, the Human Rights Institute publicly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine as “a blatant violation of international law and as a catastrophic attack on human rights.”
The only difference now is the subject matter itself, and the fact that UConn has too much to lose from calls to divest from war. This tactic is an attempt to stonewall activists and community voices by hiding behind the same concept which was originally intended to quell student voices raging against the Vietnam War (a movement frequently looked back at with regret for sure…). Instead of meaningfully engaging with valid questions over the ethical decision-making processes of the university, there is now potential for an even further backslide into worse accountability to the community through policies like institutional neutrality.
As always, it is the current struggle which faces the most backlash, but that is why we look towards the past to see what must be done now. Although UConn appears determined in its willingness to sidestep the issue, the moral weight of this challenge shows why action must be taken. This change towards institutional neutrality cannot be permitted at UConn, and it is the responsibility of community members, students and faculty alike to ensure that this university does not remain silent in the face of oppression.
No one goes to academia for freedom of speech. Academic tenue is nice but the fact of the matter is the internet changed all of that. As long as a institution has Codes of conduct it does not have 100% freee speech.
Look most students just stay there four years and leave. You don’t really think they care about staying in CT let alone Storrs do you? Does it look like CT’s population is growing? Ok then.
I would also point out you didn’t mention Jared Israel. He led SDS and did the first shutdown of Harvard University. By the 1990’s he had a conspiracy website called The Emperors New Clothes which made Alex Jones look normalized! He defended people that committed genocide so please when you talk about free speech by students that you look at the real end results of what it leads to.
He actually defended people from Pentagon-promoted lies that they committed genocide, the same lies that Western media foists every day with regard to Israel. His website is meticulously researched and documented, not actually any kind of ‘conspiracy’ site, other than that it exposes the lies of US/EU leaders.
This claim is not unique to the DC, nor is it libel. I struggle to understand how genocide denial has EVER been acceptable?
I feel like the opening quote is misleading. The issue isn’t that neutrality is violence, though this is absolutely true, but that UConn is an active and fully-cognizant auxiliary of the genocide.
For instance, UConn’s department on engineering received a $760,000 contract from the Israeli Ministry of “Defense” named “Advanced Modeling for Impact Point Prediction for Short and Medium Range Thrusting Objects” (an absurd euphemism for “missiles” because these people are fully aware that they are evil and must resort to eye-glossing obfuscatory babble to avoid thinking about what they do).
Genuine question: what do you think is happening? Keep in mind that this genocide has NOT begun last year on October 7th. Israel’s government has been systematically murdering Palestinians for years. How is this NOT genocide?
BTW, There is a serious issue of antisemitism in this country. However, stating facts – that Palestinians are being murdered – is not libel nor intended to harm Jewish individuals. Israel as a country should be held accountable for the violence they are perpetrating: Jewish people should be able to feel safe where they are, but creating an ethnostate by driving out people who were already living there is not right. There is no God-given right to land: if that were the case, then America’s Native American genocide would be acceptable because Westward Expansion was seen as a God-given right. Nobody is ever entitled to displace families and murder them when they don’t comply.
@Cobson, Did you read what I wrote?
I am anti-Zionist. The fact that you are immediately attacking me because I’m Jewish is incredibly concerning. Did you just see that I was Jewish and disregard everything that I said? Anti-semetism is not going to help the murder of Palestinians. You’re hurting our cause.
If the Gaza war is genocide, then EVERY war in history is genocide and the word has no meaning. I’m glad UCONN supports Raytheon and others who build the missile defense systems like iron dome. That system has saved countless lives on both sides of that conflict. Without it, the Palis would have probably made more attacks and taken more hostages over the years and the Israelis would have had to enter Gaza many times to retrieve their people (including US citizens) and stop the terrorism and rocket attacks from Gaza- tens of thousands since Israel handed Gaza over to the Palis in 2005.
UCONN has a right to make their own policy on what to talk about or not and it make sense that they should stay out of political commentary regarding things thousands of miles outside of CT.
Most genocides occur within the context of war and armed conflict. Calling the attack on Palestine genocide is not a misapplication of the word when you look at what is being done and the intent with which the attacks by the Israeli government are being carried out.
It is not far from CT when our money, our labor, and our graduates are building the bombs that murder tens of thousands.
Also: “dc is wildly bias” ur bias is showing. I suggest some self reflection.
If what’s going on in Gaza isn’t genocide then the Holocaust wasn’t genocide either.
I see your other comment above saying “Jews do this thing called hasbara…”. You’re a bigot. Go hide under a rock somewhere.
If Israel wanted to commit genocide, it certainly has had the power to do it for a long time. Instead, it unilaterally handed land over the Pali people, even digging up and removing its cemeteries from Gaza in order to “disengage.” On the other hand, most of the Palestinian Arab groups like Hamas and PIJ openly desire genocide against the Jews of Israel. Even the “moderate” PA is not very clear about what land they want for their Arab state. What they would do with the other ethnoreligious groups after eliminating most of the Jews is unclear. I’m glad they don’t have the power to enact their disgusting ideology. UCONN students who protest for Palestinian rights but aren’t clear to differentiate from these hateful Palestinian nationalist genocidal desires are being useful idiots. Protest to release the hostages, which would remove Israel’s casus belli and then it makes sense for US groups to demand Israel’s exit from Gaza again.