According to The Wall Street Journal, professors Daniel Sargent and Will Fithian have penned a sharp rebuttal to a recent essay arguing universities should ditch neutrality. They’re responding directly to Brian Soucek’s “Universities Can’t Be Neutral” from January 3rd. The core of their argument is that while perfect neutrality is unattainable, it remains a crucial guiding principle that demands institutional restraint. They point to the University of California’s official condemnation of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision as a prime example of the problem. That statement, which called the ruling “antithetical to the University of California’s mission and values,” is criticized as a bureaucratic overreach that makes no legal arguments. Sargent and Fithian conclude that such actions undermine the university’s distinct role and its scholars’ credibility.
The Hollow Core of Institutional Statements
Here’s the thing: Sargent and Fithian have a point that’s easy to miss in today’s climate. When a massive, decentralized institution like a university tries to speak with one “coherent political voice,” what does that even mean? It’s not like there was a faculty-wide vote on the Dobbs statement. It’s almost always a small group of administrators or PR folks drafting something they think represents the “institutional values.” But a university isn’t a church or a political party with a unified doctrine. It’s a messy, brilliant collection of individuals who are supposed to be debating each other. So an official statement doesn’t represent consensus; it just shuts down the very debate the institution is meant to host.
Credibility Is the Real Currency
And that’s where the real damage is done. The professors argue that the university’s credibility is undermined when it “telegraphs an institutional party line.” Think about it. If a university officially condemns a Supreme Court ruling, what happens to the law professors on its own faculty who might have a nuanced, or even supportive, view of the legal reasoning? They’re instantly marginalized. Their employer has taken a side in the debate they’re supposed to be having. It makes the whole place look intellectually monolithic, which is the opposite of true. The authority of the scholars is diluted because it looks like they’re just parroting an approved line handed down from the admin building.
The Temptation and the Humility
Now, the professors aren’t naive. They acknowledge administrators are “understandably tempted” to use the university’s clout in high-stakes debates. In a polarized world, silence can feel like complicity. But their call is for a different kind of strength: humility. Stewarding a university’s intellectual authority means having faith in the process, not the proclamation. It means creating the conditions for fierce, open debate without proscribing the questions or prescribing the answers. Basically, it’s about building the arena, not trying to control the fight. That’s a much harder job than issuing a press release, but it’s the one that actually preserves the university’s unique and vital role in society.
