By Walter E. Block

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Opinion: University presidents have been hoist by their own hypocrisy Back to video

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

University presidents are leaders of our society. Have they not a moral obligation, though not of course a legal one, to lead by speaking out on abominations such as the attack on Israel on Oct. 7?

In my view, they do not. No one expects such declarations from the heads of other important institutions, such as hospitals, auto manufacturers, computer companies, steelmakers, airlines, law firms, fast-food emporia and so on. Why should spokesmen for institutions of higher learning, together only with politicians and clergy, be called on for such comment? Yes, universities are concerned with intellectual pursuits, and we need all the knowledge we can muster about events now taking place in the Middle East. But anyone who thinks these other sectors of the economy do not require brain power of the highest order should think again.

Comparative advantage, specialization and the division of labor also come into play. The study of war, murder, politics, history, punishment — the issues that arise in the present Gazan context — are all specialized disciplines. Expertise in any of them takes years to develop. Suppose the background of a college president is in astronomy, poetry, physics, mathematics or music. He or she might be an entirely successful leader of a university, but professional credentials in these or a hundred other disciplines do not confer any special authority to comment on the Hamas incursion. Except by chance, university presidents won’t be trained to weigh questions of fact and interpretation on this or similar issues and they certainly won’t be any more qualified than anyone else to make the value judgments so often involved in such vexing issues.

Of course, nothing should preclude a university president or anyone else from commenting on current events. We are all entitled to an opinion. And we all have the right of free speech — or did, until Woke arrived, though it too shall pass.

But leaders of academic institutions are being singled out for failing to condemn Hamas’ rape, murder, kidnaping and torture of Israelis and others as clearly as they might. Threats of reduced giving are being used to this end. That should give pause. Everyone should be free to speak out, but no one should be embarrassed or coerced into doing so.

Except on rare and narrow occasions having to do with campus occurrences, the president of the university does not speak for the entire institution. He or she is usually not even first among intellectual equals; far from it, in many instances. This holds true even in the off chance a president’s expertise is of great relevance to the issue under discussion. But any such coincidence is serendipitous. The president was chosen on the basis of quite different criteria: at least middling scholarship, yes, but also demonstrated mastery of management and fund-raising.

Should a university president be indifferent to the fact that there are now protests, either on the Israeli or Hamas side, very often both, on his or her campus? Not at all: university presidents need not be silent on such occasions, far from it, but their message should be pure pablum: everyone should speak less and listen more, engage with one another in a collegial way, and never for any reason suppress another’s speech or employ violence, the penalties for which are and should be expulsion from school and possible prosecution by the civil authorities. No more, but no less, is what’s required of any university administrator.

In 1967, the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee report (see below) spoke clearly on this matter: “… there emerges … a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be.”

Of course, for the past half century most university presidents have enthusiastically ignored Kalven principles. Which clearly opens the door to financial boycotts of universities whose presidents have issued only lukewarm statements about Oct. 7. These campus leaders have not scrupled either to maintain a dignified silence or issue only “let’s all be civil and listen to each other” statements regarding a whole host of other issues on which they have no expertise. They have verily bellowed about abortion, police brutality, Black Lives Matter, Donald Trump, the supposed evils of capitalism and so on and have waxed eloquent — or at least tried their prolix best to do so — on the importance of feminism, anti-racism, the evils of straight white males and even the politically proper use of pronouns.

Their silence, or at best mumbling, in the present context has therefore been deafening. If Jewish and other organizations were withdrawing funding from universities whose presidents had scrupulously followed Kalven principles of not officially commenting on social or political matters, that would be one thing. But in recent decades too many universities have too often “been diverted” from their true mission “into playing the role of a second-rate political force or influence,” as the Kalven report phrased it.

Hypocrisy, thy name is — all too often — “college president.” Whatever policy we should want them to follow in the long run, presidents now being hoist by their own hypocrisy have no grounds for complaint.

Financial Post

Walter E. Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans.

Nota bene: Universities should debate, not take stands

These are excerpts from a report on the university’s proper role in political and social action commissioned by the president of the University of Chicago in February 1967 and delivered by a committee chaired by jurist Harry Kalven, Jr., 10 months later.

… The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge. Its domain of inquiry and scrutiny includes all aspects and all values of society. A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices, and institutions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. In brief, a good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting.

The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.

Since the university is a community only for these limited and distinctive purposes, it is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.

The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest. It finds its complement, too, in the obligation of the university to provide a forum for the most searching and candid discussion of public issues.

Moreover, the sources of power of a great university should not be misconceived. Its prestige and influence are based on integrity and intellectual competence; they are not based on the circumstance that it may be wealthy, may have political contacts, and may have influential friends.

From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values. There is another context in which questions as to the appropriate role of the university may possibly arise, situations involving university ownership of property, its receipt of funds, its awarding of honors, its membership in other organizations. Here, of necessity, the university, however it acts, must act as an institution in its corporate capacity. In the exceptional instance, these corporate activities of the university may appear so incompatible with paramount social values as to require careful assessment of the consequences.

These extraordinary instances apart, there emerges, as we see it, a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be.

These are admittedly matters of large principle, and the application of principle to an individual case will not be easy. It must always be appropriate, therefore, for faculty or students or administration to question, through existing channels … whether in light of these principles the University in particular circumstances is playing its proper role.

Our basic conviction is that a great university can perform greatly for the betterment of society. It should not, therefore, permit itself to be diverted from its mission into playing the role of a second-rate political force or influence.

The Kalven Report

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters financialpost.com.