Free Speech on Campus

Professor Lee Epstein and Chancellor Andrew D. Martin
Political Science 334
Spring 2025

Essay

TO BE NEUTRAL OR NOT
(THAT’S THE QUESTION FOR UNIVERSITY LEADERS)

During our course, we learned the responses of university leaders—deans and presidents—to free speech controversies. E.g.,

  • White Supremacist Speakers. Florida’s president condemned the “racist rhetoric of Richard Spencer,” while expressing the university’s “unwavering” support for free speech.

  • Provocateurs at Commencement. NYU’s president called the commencement speaker’s words “one-sided and tendentious” and suggested NYU wouldn’t have allowed the speaker to deliver his pro-BDS speech.

  • (What to Do About) Student Hecklers. A dean at Stanford Law told that speaker that  “For many people here, your work has caused harm.”

The response of universities to free speech controversies moved to the fore once again, in October 2023, in the days after Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s retaliation against Gaza. Below are two of the more prominent examples.

Below are two prominent examples, one at Harvard and one at Penn. We’d like you to review the controversies and tackle the following problem. Suppose you’re an advisor to WashU’s Chancellor. Based on what you’ve learned this course (including all the readings), would you advise the Chancellor to pursue a policy of neutrality, reject neutrality, or adopt something in between? (More specific instructions are at the end of the controveries.)

Before you get started, please (re)read the following material, which will provide you with some additional background on the meaning of institutional neutrality, as well as arguments for and against it.

Statements on Institutional Neutrality

  • University of Chicago, “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action,” November 11, 1967 (the “Kalven Report”). This is in your readings, here.

  • University of Chicago, “Report on the Committee on Freedom of Expression,” 2014. This is in your readings, here.

 Commentary in Support of (Some Version of) Institutional Neutrality

Commentary in Support of Other Approaches

Now review the two case controversies. Be sure to read all the linked material.

Case Study #1 (Harvard University)

[Drawn from three articles in the Harvard Crimson (here, here, and here)  and in two  articles in the New York Times (here and here).]

On the day of the attack, the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) issued a statement, originally co-signed by 33 other student organizations, holding “the Israel regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”

When Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, and other leaders didn’t immediately respond to the statement, Harvard’s former president, Lawrence Summers, posted messages on X (formerly Twitter):

  • In nearly 50 years of @Harvard affiliation, I have never been as disillusioned and alienated as I am today.

  • The silence from Harvard’s leadership, so far, coupled with a vocal and widely reported student groups’ statement blaming Israel solely, has allowed Harvard to appear at best neutral towards acts of terror against the Jewish state of Israel.

    Instead, Harvard is being defined by the morally unconscionable statement apparently coming from two dozen student groups blaming all the violence on Israel. I cannot fathom the Administration’s failure to disassociate the University and condemn this statement.

  • I am sickened.

Politicians expressed similar views. E.g., Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a Harvard Law graduate, wrote “What the hell is wrong with Harvard?” Rep. Elise M. Stefanik (R-N.Y.), also a Harvard grad, wrote “it is abhorrent and heinous that Harvard student groups are blaming Israel for Hamas’ barbaric terrorist attacks that have killed over 700 Israelis.”

Later that day, President Gay, joined by 17 other senior Harvard administrators, released a statement stating that they were “heartbroken by the death and destruction” caused by the Israeli-Gaza war. The next day, on October 10, perhaps in response to criticism that the original statement was too meek, Gay issued a stronger statement:

As the events of recent days continue to reverberate, let there be no doubt that I condemn the terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Hamas. Such inhumanity is abhorrent, whatever one’s individual views of the origins of longstanding conflicts in the region.

Let me also state, on this matter as on others, that while our students have the right to speak for themselves, no student group — not even 30 student groups — speaks for Harvard University or its leadership.

And in yet a third statement, Gay released a video message to the Harvard community.

But controversies at Harvard continued. Students allegedly affiliating with groups that signed the PSC statement were doxed on websites and social media. And a billboard truck with the names and faces of the student signatories drove through streets near the university.

Some donors also pulled their financial support. As one put it, “We are stunned and sickened at the dismal failure of Harvard’s leadership to take a clear and unequivocal stand against the barbaric murders of innocent Israeli civilians by terrorists last Saturday, the Sabbath and a festival day.”

Ultimately, Gay established an Antisemitism Advisory Group. But she continued to face criticism, this time for refusing to give a definitive answer, at a congressional hearing, to the question of whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the university’s code of conduct. In an interview with Harvard’s student newspaper, Gay apologized for her response, saying: “Words matter.” And that “when words amplify distress and pain, I don’t know how you could feel anything but regret.” (See reports here and here.)

On January 2, 2024, Gay resigned from the presidency. Controversy over her response to the Hamas attack on Israel likely played a role, as did accusations of plagiarism. (Her letter of resignation is here.)

Case Study #2 (University of Pennsylvania [“Penn”])

[Drawn from three articles two  articles in the New York Times (here and here) and one in the Philadelphia Inquirer.]

Even before Hamas’s attack and Israel’s retaliation, tensions were running high at Penn, with Jewish groups raising concerns about speakers scheduled for a Palestinian art and cultural festival to be held on Penn’s campus (but not officially sponsored by Penn) on September 22, 2023. The groups claimed that some of the speakers were antisemitic. 

Two days before the conference, Penn’s president, M. Elizabeth Magill, responded in a letter to one of the Jewish groups. She called the inclusion of some of the speakers “deeply offensive,” but reiterated “Penn’s commitments to open expression and academic freedom are central to our educational mission. This is true even— and especially— when keeping those commitments is most challenging.”

Critics of the festival were not pleased with President Magill’s response. Apparently, nearly 4,200 Penn alum signed a protest letter:

[M]any scheduled speakers at the upcoming event…have a history of antisemitic rhetoric, actions, and hostility towards Jewish people. The fact that University of Pennsylvania academic departments are co-sponsoring the Festival and its platforming of outright antisemitism without denunciation from the university is unacceptable.

Magill faced even more pushback after the Hamas attack out of anger that it took her three days to issue a formal statement; and some alumni thought the statement was too tepid. They complained about Magill’s “failure to condemn all forms of hatred, including antisemitic hatred.” On October 11, 2023, one alum, Marc Rowan, urged “all UPenn alumni and supporters who believe we are heading in the wrong direction to ‘close their checkbooks’ until President Magill and (Board of Trustees) Chairman Bok resign.”

Three days later, on October 15, 2023, Magill sent a message to the Penn community to provide “some measure of clarity and comfort in this difficult time.”

I want to leave no doubt about where I stand. I, and this University, are horrified by and condemn Hamas’s terrorist assault on Israel and their violent atrocities against civilians. There is no justification—none—for these heinous attacks, which have consumed the region and are inciting violence in other parts of the world.

The next day, Penn’s Board reaffirmed their faith in Magill: “President Magill and her existing University leadership team are the right group to take the University forward.” Important donors, though, disagreed and joined Rowan in pulling their funding. One resigned from the Board saying that the university’s leadership had “a broken moral compass.”

In early November, Magill expressed regret that some Penn community members doubted her position on antisemitism and her hope that “with time and progress on our goals, that they will once again engage with Penn.” She also released a plan to “combat antisemitism,” writing that Penn will counter “this evil urgently on our campus and in society.”

But that wasn’t the end of the matter. Four days after testifying at the same congressional hearing as Gay, Magill resigned amid the same criticism: that she seemed to evade a question on whether Penn would discipline students “calling for the genocide of Jews.”

Your Essay: The Big Picture

As you know, the 1967 “Kalven Report” called for a policy of university neutrality: with limited exceptions, universities should steer clear of taking positions on issues of the day. 

But, as you also know, some commentators and even university administrators oppose this policy. Among their critiques is that many universities don’t follow it on at least some issues, potentially forfeiting the right to be neutral on others. As Summers, the former president of Harvard, put it, “When you fly the Ukrainian flag over Harvard yard, when you issue clear, vivid and strong statements in response to [other issues of the day], you have decided not to pursue a policy of neutrality.” (According to one scholar’s inventory of 17 major universities, 15 issued a statement about Ukraine. The scholar didn’t include the University of Chicago among the 15, but several administrators did, in fact, post a letter stating “We continue to watch the ongoing invasion of Ukraine with anguish and sorrow. Our thoughts and sympathies are with those in Ukraine and elsewhere who have been affected by the suffering, violence, and loss of life that the invasion has caused, and we hope for a peaceful end to the conflict.” See also this article.)

We want you to tackle the following problem. Suppose you’re an advisor to WashU’s Chancellor. Based on what you’ve learned this course (including all the readings), would you advise the Chancellor to pursue a policy of neutrality, reject neutrality, or adopt something in between?

Your essay should address this question. Please justify your response with relevant materials and please don’t forget to acknowledge arguments that may not support your position.

Your Essay: The Specifics

  1. Your essay should be no longer than 3 pages (including any references), double-spaced with 1-inch margins, using 12-point Times New Roman (or another serif) font.

  2. Feel free to use any materials you want but be sure to reference them appropriately. Any citation style is fine as long as we can identify the source.

  3. You should not collaborate (or discuss the exam) with your classmates (or any other humans for that matter). It's OK to use AI (e.g., ChatGPT) but if you incorporate any information it generates please cite it as you would any other source.

  4. Your grade will be based on your understanding of institutional neutrality and the strength of the justifications provided for your recommendation to the Chancellor. Additionally, essays that are well-organized, clear, and to the point will earn higher scores.

  5. Please email your essay to your TA by Friday March 21, 2025 by 5 pm central time (your TA is the law student who led your group on March 1, 2025). Essays will be marked down (from, e.g., an A to an A-) for each day late—including essays received after 5 pm on March 21, 2025.

  • Zej Moczydlowski, m.zej@wustl.edu (White Supremacists Speakers)

  • Nareh Derhartounian, d.nareh@wustl.edu (Provocateurs at Commencement)

  • Tylah Gantt, g.tylah@wustl.edu (What to Do About Student Hecklers)

  • Ethan Knoll, e.knoll@wustl.edu (The Pronoun Dispute)

  • Perri Wilson, perri@wustl.edu (The Controversy Over Academic Freedom at Penn)