When Institutional Neutrality Isn’t Neutral

Recent controversies at UNC System universities show difficulties in applying the policy consistently

The University of North Carolina System’s commitment to institutional neutrality has been invoked by university officials at least twice in recent months, in very curious circumstances that suggest institutional neutrality is being used to avoid any engagement whatsoever with potential political controversy— even controversies that universities are well-positioned to engage in.

In October, Palestinian-American author Hannah Moushabeck was scheduled to read her children’s book, Homeland: My Father Dreams of Palestine at North Carolina State University (NC State) at an event organized by the campus libraries. Set in Palestine, Homeland centers on Moushabeck’s father and his recollections of his childhood home and community.

However, Moushabeck’s reading was cancelled just a few days before it was set to occur. According to the NC State Technician, Moushabeck was told by event organizers that “university administration prohibited her from reading the book, citing the UNC System’s Equality Policy that requires university departments to remain neutral on political and social issues when representing the university.”

Moushabeck’s entire event was not cancelled outright, but was re-cast as a more generic celebration of reading. Moushabeck did end up reading her book on campus, though it is not readily apparent if university officials knew about the reading. (In her Instagram video, Moushabeck claimed that NC State “banned” her book, but that is not true. As an NC State student myself, I popped by Hill Library on Friday November 7 and checked out Homeland without any issues.)

Later, in correspondence with the Technician, the Director of Communications at NC State Libraries confirmed that the decision to cancel Moushabeck’s reading was related to the UNC System policy on institutional neutrality. But based on the available information from Moushabeck and from reporting in the Technician, it’s unclear why Moushabeck’s reading would have violated NC State’s institutional neutrality policy.

Simply hosting a speaker is not tantamount to an endorsement of any particular view. Institutional neutrality invites universities to embrace their role as “the home and sponsor of the critics” rather than engage as the critic itself, but it does not prohibit the exploration of controversial ideas.

The UNC System’s guidance on the policy even states that “the driving principle of institutional neutrality” is “that each institution will be the forum in which others may fully debate but will not itself be a participant in that debate.” But if universities shy away from hosting voices that could be even potentially perceived as “the critic,” then they really aren’t much of a home, or a sponsor— or even much of a university.

Moreover, hosted speakers do not speak for the university, only for themselves. The presumption that an academic unit has given its blessing to any and all worldviews of guest speakers undermines a robust scholarly culture. Such an assumption immediately jams the machinery of academic exchange.

No reasonable person would suggest that by hosting the recent talk on “The Horn of Africa and Somaliland” that NC State used their institutional voice to proffer a particular stance on East African affairs. Similarly, the event on “Becoming History: Species Extinction and Capitalism” was not NC State’s official airing of grievances against capitalism. Likewise, Moushabeck’s reading of Homeland would not represent NC State’s library’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But it seems that Moushabeck’s event was held to a different standard than other recent university events, almost certainly because of the book’s focus on Palestine. Such immediate proximity to a hotly contested issue — even via a children’s book — seems to have given university officials pause. The cancellation of Moushabeck’s reading in the name of institutional neutrality was a transparent attempt to avoid even the slightest hint of controversy.

When asked about the incident directly, UNC System Vice President for Communications Jane Stancill commented to Free the Inquiry:

“Principled neutrality is a broad concept and applying it consistently across the huge range of university activities and decision makers is always going to be a work in progress. In this case, the decision at NC State was to expand the scope of a proposed event to accommodate more voices; the author was welcomed to campus and read from her book, along with other authors in attendance. Nothing in the UNC System’s neutrality policy should be interpreted as constraining individual faculty or visiting speakers, as our guidance makes clear.”

Another UNC System institution recently invoked a very different, but equally peculiar, use of institutional neutrality. In April of this year, UNC Pembroke (which lies about two hours south of Raleigh and enrolls over 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students) found itself named as the potential host to a new presidential library in honor of President Trump. North Carolina House Bill 812 was proposed by several Republican lawmakers and allocates $10 million dollars for the construction of a new library dedicated to housing archives from Trump’s time in office.

What did UNC Pembroke officials think about a proposed presidential library on their own campus? Well, it’s hard to say, because they invoked institutional neutrality. According to the Chancellor’s office, “In accordance with UNC System policy, on institutional neutrality and out of respect for the legislative process, [UNC Pembroke] is not allowed to nor will it take a position on this or any bill currently under consideration.”

A presidential library on their own grounds is not an example of the “political controversies of the day,” but directly involves the campus community. Invoking institutional neutrality may have been a way to sidestep conflict with a largely Republican state legislature. However, the chancellor’s office did offer this brief statement on UNC Pembroke’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the library proposal:

“UNC Pembroke was not consulted on the bill before its introduction. In addition, this project is not included in UNC Pembroke’s current six-year Capital Plan, which was vetted and approved by the UNC System Office and is the official guiding document for our university’s physical growth and facility investments.”

Their barebones statement doesn’t quite rise to the level of a clear position against the library. However, one can assume that UNC Pembroke officials are less than thrilled about state legislators making plans on behalf of UNC Pembroke and with no regard to the university’s own capital plan. But institutional neutrality should not have prevented university administrators from weighing in with less uncertain terms.

Institutional neutrality neither compels nor precludes institutions from taking positions on issues directly related to the institution or offering a forum for politically controversial ideas. However, these two recent examples from the UNC System demonstrate the very real risk of institutional neutrality being misused as cover to avoid doing what universities are supposed to do: to host interesting (even if potentially controversial) ideas, and to advocate for the interests of their own campuses.