Carleton University’s proposed “Policy of Institutional Impartiality” is being framed as a simple safeguard and way to keep the university from appearing to take political positions, but neutrality at the institutional level must not mean enforced silence at the individual level.
This policy crosses that line and risks discouraging open debate, undermining the very purpose of a university.
Universities exist to produce knowledge and challenge assumptions, not avoid discomfort. Faculty are not spokespeople for the institution but scholars and researchers with expertise that matters far beyond campus.
If faculty start to second-guess whether speaking publicly about their research might be interpreted as “representing” the university’s stance, academic life becomes much more timid, to the detriment of the reputation Carleton is attempting to protect
Shielding the institution from imagined reputational risk is simply not leadership.
Free expression is an integral part of university life, and students come here to learn and hear unfiltered perspectives. Faculty engage publicly to contribute their expertise to society, not to “represent” Carleton.
If Carleton believes in academic freedom, it must act like it.
That begins by withdrawing this policy and replacing it with one that will clearly distinguish institutional neutrality from individual expression. The university should openly consult with staff to hear their concerns; reaffirm that scholars do not speak for the administration when they speak for themselves; and commit to protecting (not managing) public engagement.
Carleton said in a statement to the Charlatan that community members “will continue to enjoy broad rights to express their views as individuals, in keeping with the principles of academic freedom, freedom of expression, university policies, and the law.”
But having to reassure a community that its fundamental rights remain intact signals a troubling precedent.
If this policy goes forward unchanged, Carleton won’t just be quieter – it will be weaker.
