The University of Michigan should adopt a position of institutional neutrality on political or social issues not directly connected to internal university functions, according to a report by a faculty, staff and student advisory committee on diversity of thought and freedom of expression.

The report urges the university to join a growing number of universities that have adopted institutional neutrality, which sets a strong presumption against institutional statements. 

“As our political and social climate has grown fractious in recent decades, it has become increasingly common for university leaders or departments to issue statements on social and political developments. These institutional statements might condemn a new development, express solidarity with those affected by it, or advocate for a specific policy,” the report said.

“Such institutional statements disserve the university’s mission. They undermine our commitment to open inquiry by suggesting that those who disagree are unwelcome. They cause would-be dissenters to worry that voicing disagreement may jeopardize admission, grades, or advancement. This risk is especially acute for statements issued by or on behalf of departments or other units that make up the university because of the closer connections among the individuals within those units.”

The 131-page report was issued by the Committee on the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression, formed earlier this year to evaluate the campus climate and recommend how U-M could strengthen diversity of thought and freedom of expression.

The Principles Committee, as it has become known, included 32 faculty members from 12 schools and colleges, a librarian, seven staff members and two students — all drawn from across the university’s Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses and Michigan Medicine, U-M’s academic medical center. Its recommendations — including that of institutional neutrality — will be considered by the Board of Regents and university leadership.

In making its case, the committee pointed to the mission of the university and noted that the creation of knowledge “requires us to examine what we think we know and consider the possibility that we might be wrong.”

“We learn through immersive study, unfettered exchange of ideas, contestation of principles, robust disagreement, and questioning of longstanding assumptions,” the report said. “This intensive process advances the state of human knowledge and it allows us to revise, and sometimes discard, beliefs that were once considered unassailable.”

The report drew from a communitywide survey, open from May 24 to June 30, that collected responses from 4,133 students, faculty, staff, alumni and retirees.

It described the responses as “deeply thoughtful, strong, and sometimes anger-filled perspectives” that were “cause for both hope and concern.” Excerpts from responses were highlighted in the report to reveal detailed, ground-level perspectives from inside classrooms, offices, conference rooms and other locations.

The report came to several conclusions, most notably that “diversity of thought is lacking, as most respondents agree that liberal or progressive voices dominate the conversation. Deficiencies in constructive disagreement are compounded by social pressure that silences people who disagree with prevailing perspectives. Individuals holding conservative, libertarian, and traditional Christian views report significant pressure to self-censor.”

Beyond institutional neutrality, the report puts forward a dozen other recommendations, including a proposal to create a campuswide pluralism initiative that would promote models for civil discourse.

Other suggestions included developing an essay prompt that would ask applicants to explain how they would engage individuals with whom they disagree, and the creation of a required course for incoming students on freedom of expression, diversity of thought, and dialogue across differences.

The principles committee was divided into three subcommittees led respectively by Jenna Bednar, professor of political science in LSA, professor of public policy in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and faculty director of UMICH Votes and Democratic Engagement; Mika LaVaque-Manty, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and associate professor of political science and of philosophy in LSA; and Kristina B. Daugirdas, Francis A. Allen Collegiate Professor of Law and professor of law at the Law School.

The principles report is a continuation of an effort that in January produced the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression, which reinforced the university’s commitment to freedom of speech.

“There is much work to be done to live up to the principles,” said Timothy G. Lynch, vice president and general counsel, who chaired the effort. “The university should take pride in the robust and collaborative endeavor that took a critical look at the challenges on campus, and — by soliciting thousands of individual perspectives from across our community — produced a meaningful analysis to help us become stronger, more inclusive of diverse perspectives, and to better able to live up to our mission.”