In recent years, some Canadian universities and faculty bodies have begun considering and adopting “institutional neutrality” policies. These policies, which may also be called “impartiality” (as is the case at Carleton University) or “non-partisanship” policies, mandate that universities must refrain from issuing public statements about contested political or social issues. 

While these policies are much more prevalent in the U.S., they are in place at Canadian institutions such as Laurentian University, the University of New Brunswick, Memorial University, and the University of Waterloo. Extant policies vary, but they generally follow many of the principles laid out in the 1967 University of Chicago “Kalven Report” on the question of political stances held by universities. 

Advocates for such policies suggest that neutrality protects academic freedom, maintains a pluralistic environment, and preserves public trust. They argue that it is possible for universities to forbid statements that are or could be taken to be made on behalf of the institution itself while preserving the freedom for students, faculty, and staff to personally express or research political views.

The assumption that neutrality is possible, desirable, and protects academic freedom is not supported by empirical evidence from Canada or abroad. Neutrality is internally inconsistent: universities routinely make institutional commitments that have political implications. Neutrality is also likely to undermine academic freedom by decreasing institutional willingness to defend scholars whose work becomes politically controversial. And neutrality is difficult to square with modern universities’ responsibilities as public institutions whose activities and partnerships necessarily have political effects.

Neutrality is neither conceptually sound nor operationally viable. Instead, universities should pursue principled engagement—a framework that preserves academic freedom, encourages knowledge creation and innovation, and recognizes that universities are embedded within political, economic, and ethical systems.

Universities are already embedded in political and economic life

As public institutions, Canadian universities are not isolated entities; they operate within and in relation to their broader societies. Moreover, politics and policymaking are embedded in the fabric of the university as a public institution, from its teaching and research missions to its institutional partnerships. Canadian universities are governed by and are accountable to federal and provincial legislation related to mandates, budgets, academic appointments, and equity obligations. Such legislation is not—and could not—be made to be impartial due to the explicit political nature of universities as publicly funded institutions enshrined in our legal system.

The partnerships that post-secondary institutions forge with governments, corporations, and international institutions carry inherent political implications and often arise from political decisions, whether universities acknowledge these or not. Boards of governors regularly face political decisions about investments; whether these decisions are explicitly politicized or not (as in the case of debates over fossil fuel divestment, for instance). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, much of the knowledge produced by researchers from within universities has policy implications, and policymaking is inherently political. The impartial university desired by neutrality or impartiality policies is an attempt to erase the complexity of the public university. 

Universities already selectively take institutional positions

Universities regularly issue statements on public issues, especially where scientific consensus, legal obligation, or research-based evidence is compelling. These statements sometimes take the form of declarations, frameworks, or policy statements, but they can be expressed in material decisions, practices, or institutional priorities. In some cases, universities go beyond the legal requirements that bind them—for example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many universities affirmed their understanding of the scientific consensus that the virus is airborne not only through respecting public health-mandated masking requirements but also through addressing insufficiencies in their HVAC systems.

Universities have made public pronouncements in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, about the realities of human-caused climate change, and expressing commitments to Indigenous reconciliation projects. While sometimes these are politically complicated positions to navigate, no institution has treated such statements as improper or beyond the mandate of the university. 

Neutrality undermines academic freedom rather than protecting it

Although its advocates defend neutrality as a safeguard for academic freedom, in practice the notion that “all ideas are equal” creates an inhospitable context for many scholars. For example,  if institutions are required to accord equal legitimacy to the views of researchers who advocate racial hierarchies in intelligence and those who study the socio-economic harms of intergenerational racism, they risk creating an inhospitable environment not only for scholars working directly on these issues, but also for colleagues and students who must interact and collaborate with individuals holding racist views. In practice, current mobilizations of institutional neutrality policies have been deployed—especially in the U.S.—to directly target people doing work on race, gender, and oppression.

Neutrality discourages institutions from taking clear positions in defense of their own researchers when their work becomes politically contested. This can leave scholars exposed to external pressures (such as coordinated harassment campaigns or even political interference) without meaningful institutional support. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), in their Academic Freedom Policy Statement, has noted that “the employer shall not abridge academic freedom on any grounds, including claims of institutional autonomy.” Similarly, in CAUT’s Policy on Departmental Statements and Academic Freedom, the union notes that “academic staff have the right to support collective departmental statements espousing beliefs about political or social issues.”

An alternative framework

A more realistic and effective alternative is principled institutional engagement. Rather than pretending that universities can exist outside politics, this framework recognizes that they are already embedded within social, economic, and political life. At the same time, it establishes clear and transparent processes for when and how institutions should speak.

Under this model, institutional statements would be limited to issues that materially affect the university’s teaching, research, community safety, partnerships, or legal obligations. For example, when students are affected by global conflicts, when a colleague is arrested by an authoritarian government, when academic institutions are destroyed during war, or when government policies directly impact the ability of scholars to teach, research, or participate in public life, universities have a legitimate institutional interest in responding. In such cases, silence is not neutrality; it is itself a choice that carries substantial consequences for members of the university community. Such statements would be grounded in established scholarship, scientific evidence, or international legal frameworks rather than partisan preference.

Crucially, principled engagement would also affirm robust protections for dissent, ensuring that institutional positions do not constrain the academic freedom of scholars, students, or staff who hold differing views. In this way, universities can remain committed to intellectual pluralism while still fulfilling their responsibilities as public institutions and communities of knowledge.

Canadian universities have already acknowledged that some public issues (public health emergencies, international conflicts that affect campus relations, climate change) require institutional engagement. Selective silence would neither reflect reality nor serve institutional integrity.

In an era defined by complex global challenges, the expectation that universities remain silent is inconsistent with their public mission. Thoughtful engagement, rather than neutrality, is more likely to protect academic freedom, maintain public trust, and support rigorous scholarship.

About the authors

Nir Hagigi

Nir Hagigi is an MA candidate in Political Science at York University and a Graduate Diploma student in Advanced Hebrew and Jewish Studies at the Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies. His research focuses on the history and migration of Tunisia’s Jewish communities. He is a graduate of Carleton University’s Global and International Studies Program.

Jody Mason

Jody Mason is a Professor in the Department of English at Carleton University. Her research examines how the book and associated ideas about literacy and self-improvement have helped to elaborate Canada's settler-colonial logics, both domestically and internationally. Her third book, Books for Development: Canada In the Late Twentieth-Century World, was published by McGill Queen’s University Press in 2026.

Alexis Shotwell

Alexis Shotwell’s work focuses on complexity, complicity, and collective transformation. A professor at Carleton University, on unceded Algonquin land, she is the co-investigator for the AIDS Activist History Project (aidsactivisthistory.ca), and the author of Knowing Otherwise: Race, Gender, and Implicit Understanding, Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times, and Liberation is Other People (forthcoming). 

Maya Papineau

Maya Papineau is an Associate Professor of Economics at Carleton University. Her work evaluates the effectiveness of government policies and new technologies that aim to achieve global climate change mitigation targets while maintaining household and community well-being and energy affordability.