Kindling a Fire: Schools as the Forum for, not the Protagonist in, Political Debate

In today’s hyper-charged political atmosphere, schools may feel obligated or even pressured to issue statements on contentious issues in society. This practice can seem particularly necessary during an election season.

At Cincinnati Country Day School, we follow a different approach. Grounded in our mission, we commit to free expression and civil discourse as essential components of our educational environment. As a place of learning and intellectual discovery, we believe we must encourage the robust exchange of competing ideas – including difficult or even offensive ideas. And we must cultivate a sense of respectful disagreement where we are tough on ideas but gentle on people.

Equally important, but sometimes less understood, is our philosophy of institutional neutrality. As defined by Daniel Diermeier, chancellor of Vanderbilt University and one of the philosophy’s leading proponents, institutional neutrality is the commitment of a school and its leaders to refrain from taking public positions on controversial issues unless the issue directly affects the core mission and functioning of the school. Notably, this philosophy does not prevent individual students or faculty members from taking positions. On the contrary, its very purpose is to provide students and faculty with the greatest possible freedom.

Simply put, institutional neutrality recognizes that the school ought to be the forum for debates, not a protagonist in them. At CCDS, we believe this is the proper approach for at least four reasons.

First, many statements are merely performative and do not add any value to the difficult conversations already happening in society or our school community. This is especially true when the issue in question is beyond the expertise of the school or school leaders. In fact, it is often the case that statements inflame existing divisions of opinion or alienate community members without aiding the cause sought to be advanced.

Second, when the school makes a statement on one matter, it can feel compelled to opine on every possible issue to avoid suggestions of bias or offense. For example, if the school were to comment on the war in the Middle East, it might be rightly questioned as to why it did not weigh in on the famine in Sudan, the war in Ukraine, or countless other tragedies. Maintaining a consistent approach avoids confusion and unintended harm.

Third, an atmosphere of open inquiry and free expression cannot thrive without clearly articulated institutional neutrality. When the school weighs in with an official position, it can chill the open exchange of ideas or the exercise of community members’ free speech rights. Every community member is encouraged to express their own views in a respectful manner, but the school does not foster such an environment when it lends its endorsement to a particular viewpoint or cause, however worthy.

Finally, institutional neutrality helps preserve the credibility of educational institutions. In a polarized society, schools that take sides on contentious issues risk being perceived as partisan entities. By maintaining a neutral stance, CCDS can reinforce its role as an impartial arbiter of knowledge and learning, dedicated to the pursuit of truth and the development of informed citizens.

While this philosophy has gained more adherents of late (including Harvard and the EE Ford Foundation), the concept is not new. Indeed, the idea of institutional neutrality was originally espoused in 1967 as part of the Kalven Report, issued by the University of Chicago. As the Kalven Report explained, “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” Thus, “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.”

Some observers have criticized this approach as timid in the face of difficult questions. But on the contrary, as the Kalven Report articulates, “the neutrality of the university as an institution arises 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.”

At CCDS, we are not indifferent to war, famine, and complex social issues. For that very reason, we welcome principled debate in our community. But we believe that we best serve our mission by equipping our students with the skills necessary to understand complex issues, think critically for themselves, and lead their own change – whatever that may be. Institutional neutrality allows Country Day to serve its mission and its students, no matter which way the political winds blow.

"Kindling a Fire" is a column submitted regularly to Indian Hill Living by Head of School Rob Zimmerman '98. This ran in the September 2024 edition of the publication.