Institutional neutrality in US higher education: navigating organisational complexity

Abstract

In the US, debates on institutional neutrality (I.N.) focus on whether universities must take positions on socio-political issues. Studies and commentaries centre historical, philosophical, and speculative arguments that reduce I.N. to abstract and absolute terms. This paper highlights the organisational complexities of I.N., its alternatives, and factors that can increase or decrease its likelihood. First, we discuss three key elements of I.N., inclusive of the creation of an environment for diverse views, the prohibition of any corporate position on social issues, and the exemption when one’s mission is threatened. Second, we examine the complexities of this response, given some who argue its protection of individual freedoms and institutional interests, and others who argue the complicity and partiality of the status quo. Third, we outline organisational alternatives to I.N. like institutional restraint, dialogue, and commitment. Lastly, we identify organisational and environmental factors—like organisational identity and homogeneity, resource threat, mimetic pressures, and social movement demands–that affect universities’ decisions. Rather than present an argument whether universities should take socio-political positions, this paper clarifies when universities choose to be neutral, how they navigate these tensions, and what alternative responses they take on. This analysis integrates empirical examples and organisational theories to highlight the complexities surrounding demands for institutional voice or neutrality.