In June 2024, the Purdue University Board of Trustees boldly declared that Purdue does not take sides on the leading, and often contentious, issues of the day. Quoting the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, the board affirmed that, true to the principles of “institutional neutrality,” the university is host to dissidents and critics but “it is not itself the critic.”
That is, until the critics say something the university doesn’t like.
In Purdue’s case, all it took was for the independent student newspaper The Exponent to publish an editorial announcing it would remove the names and images of pro-Palestinian activists from its website over concerns that the federal government would use them in its efforts targeting what the government called “pro-jihadist” speech.
The mere act of taking an official position on an issue may stifle dissent because anyone who disagrees is now not only disagreeing with the position, but with the university itself.
Purdue’s administration then went on the offensive. Citing “institutional neutrality,” the university told the publication, run by Purdue students since 1889, to stop using the name “Purdue” in its URL. Purdue also said it would stop circulating the newspaper and end preferential parking for its staff.
But the Kalven Report’s appropriate, self-imposed limitations apply strictly to the university’s own speech. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the speech of students, student groups, or independent student publications.
Demanding that the paper drop the name “Purdue” from its web address makes a mockery of the phrase “institutional neutrality.” The Kalven Report, which Purdue professes to follow, warned:
The university 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.
In other words, the mere act of taking an official position on an issue may stifle dissent because anyone who disagrees is now not only disagreeing with the position, but with the university itself. That ends up undermining the primary reason for the university’s existence in the first place. The idea is for the university to avoid offering its own opinions in order to give community members space to freely offer theirs. That includes publications like The Exponent, which may report or editorialize in a way that favors certain viewpoints.
There’s little prospect of Exponent readers confusing the publication’s takes with official university doctrine, as Purdue apparently worries will happen when it says the paper “should not associate its own speech with the University.” A quick visit to the “About Us” section of the paper’s website reveals that The Exponent makes it perfectly clear that it’s “independent of the university” and “jurisdictionally and financially” separate from Purdue.
In its bizarre attempt to invoke “institutionality neutrality” to change the newspaper’s URL, Purdue is also ignoring trademark law. As the paper’s staff notes:
The university asked for The Purdue Exponent to no longer use the word “Purdue” for all commercial uses, even though the Purdue Student Publishing Foundation has a trademark on the name “The Purdue Exponent” [registered with Indiana’s Secretary of State's office] until 2029.
The Foundation currently uses “Purdue Exponent” for the paper’s URL and not the paper’s masthead. Even so, if Indiana’s trademark examiners thought that there was any likelihood of readers confusing The Exponent’s works with official university publications, it would have never approved the publication’s trademark application.
Along similar lines, no one (we hope) sees the name of Purdue University College Republicans or Purdue College Democrats and assumes that, because “Purdue” is in the name, either student group speaks for the school. In scenarios like these, the only confused party is Purdue.
Not all free speech advocates agree that Purdue’s actions undermine institutional neutrality. In a recent blog post, Heterodox Academy Director of Research Alex Arnold argues, “By ending its special relationship with, and consequent subsidies for, The Exponent, Purdue has chosen to treat it like any other self-described independent student news organization.” He adds, “Granting of special privileges and perks to The Exponent may further give the impression that it is, in fact, a news agency of Purdue, and even speaks in some way for the university.”
But it’s extremely doubtful that, unless Exponent staff writers are forced to use metered street parking instead of university spaces, readers will be unable to tell the difference between an op-ed and a university press release. And while it’s dubious that Purdue only circulating one paper implies Purdue’s endorsement of all the contents of said paper (including potentially conflicting op-eds), the university’s fixation on the paper’s URL is especially irrational.
Purdue’s overreaction and misapplication of its professed principles risk jeopardizing the progress made by dozens of other higher education institutions that have committed to institutional neutrality. According to FIRE’s latest tally, 32 colleges or systems of schools have formally committed to not take positions on social and political issues unless those issues “threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.”
The truth is that it’s simply not the place of the university to comment on the issues of the day.
The University of North Carolina system, Vanderbilt, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and, of course, the University of Chicago have all adopted official positions on institutional neutrality, and we’re leading the fight to get more institutions on board.
Critics have argued that neutrality is impossible because everything is political, from school calendars to core curricula. By that logic, even declining to make political statements — or deter potentially-biased student reporting — is a political act. But this merely serves as a rhetorical trap designed to justify disposing of neutrality altogether.
The truth is that it’s simply not the place of the university to comment on the issues of the day, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or changes to Medicaid, that aren’t related to the institution’s educational mission. Misapplying institutional neutrality opens the door to even more blatant violations of this time-tested principle.
Institutions that have adopted institutional neutrality pay close attention to how the others enforce neutrality, and one school’s overzealous application can translate to harmful practices across the board. In this politically fraught time, it is more important than ever for universities to give students and faculty the space they need to make their voices heard.
Purdue should be applauded for committing to Kalven principles. But it makes a mockery of said principles by censoring student journalism. FIRE hopes other universities will practice what they preach and stay true to institutional neutrality.
 | A guest post by
|
I would think granting special privileges does lend an air of condonation. Preferential parking, particularly so. Everyone knows how challenging parking is on college campuses. Additionally, if no other student publication uses Purdue’s URL, The Exponent’s use of it absolutely signals Purdue’s affiliation with and endorsement. Considering the Trump administration’s goal of enforcing impartiality, every institution must do its best to comply. Give them a break.
Purdue’s approach here doesn’t just contradict the Kalven Report, it reverses its purpose. Neutrality is meant to limit institutional speech, not to control the speech of others.
I wrote about this pattern recently, how many universities adopted neutrality policies only after facing reputational pressure. Not from conviction, but from panic. That timing often tells you everything you need to know.
The Timing Is the Tell
https://eddiegunn.substack.com/p/the-timing-is-the-tell