by Domenico Maceri * –
SAN LUIS OBISPO (USA). “Harvard University supports the people of Ukraine.” Thus Lawrence S. Bacow, when in 2022 he was rector of the prestigious university, in the aftermath of the start of the war. Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision to revoke abortion rights in 2022, the University of California announced that that ruling was “antithetical to the mission” of the university and its values.
These types of clear positions on events that affect society have not been possible with the recent war in the Middle East. In fact, the complex conflict between Hamas and Israel even prompted the editorial board of Washington Post to advise universities to stay away from the controversies of the day.
In recent weeks, however, universities have found themselves involved due to demonstrations for and against the two groups, reviving the question of the role of universities in society. The demonstrations on several highly prestigious campuses, not completely peaceful, have forced the rectors to take positions that do not convince everyone. At Harvard, current dean Claudine Gay has strongly condemned the “barbaric atrocities caused by Hamas” but she has refused calls to punish groups of students who demonstrated in favor of the Palestinians. Gay reiterated the importance of ensuring free speech for all students. Even at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), some students were not punished after some transgressions. The administration feared that some of them might be deported to countries where their lives would be put in danger.
Nonetheless, recent demonstrations over the conflict in the Middle East have prompted the Department of Education to investigate possible abuses of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia at seven universities. Some of these investigated universities include famous names such as Columbia University, Cornell University, and The University of Pennsylvania, etc.
Il Washington Post in its editorial it encourages universities to follow the principles established by the University of Chicago included in the 1967 Kalven Report. In short, the document reiterates the neutral role of the university without taking positions that would diminish its mission. However, other universities have taken clear positions on issues where feelings were not so heated. In the case of abortion, the war in Ukraine and the very well-known case of George Floyd, several universities have raised their voices in favor of positions that might seem ideologically left-wing. But these were cases where public opinion was largely uniform. In the case of the war in the Middle East the situation is very different as both sides are right but wrong at the same time. Unfortunately they are trying to resolve differences through force, resulting in the deaths of many innocent people. This is something that has been needed for many years and unfortunately we continue down that path which produces more and more deaths and does not lead to peace and security for anyone.
Il Washington Post in his editorial he recognizes the right of universities established with religious principles to take clear positions, consistent with their foundation. He suggests that these institutes initially possess a narrow ideology while public ones have the duty to remain open to all and therefore must promote different forms of thought. As institutions, however, according to the Washington Post, these universities cannot afford the luxury of deciding which position to promote. So they should in a sense remain silent on social, political or ideological issues. Some have pointed out, however, that silence is a partner in complicity. They rightly quote Dante who condemns the slothful who chose neither good nor evil in the Anti-inferno, and therefore are not desired either in heaven or in the depths of hell.
The role of universities in cases of situations such as the war in the Middle East is obviously very difficult to manage also because a clear choice in favor or against one of the groups produces reactions that endanger their sustainability. Universities are financially dependent on government funds but also on donations from private individuals. A position that doesn’t square with the political leaders du jour could result in budget cuts or worse. In America we have seen this recently in Florida where right-wing governor Ron DeSantis used his power and that of the legislature dominated by his party to target universities. But even in the cases of private donors, clear positions on thorny situations cause financial difficulties. After all, these donations are not totally altruistic. Big donors want a university that at least partially reflects their values.
Also not to be forgotten is the traditional animosity of the right towards universities considered to represent the elite, as opposed to the working class. Even some of the most well-known politicians including DeSantis scream against these elites even when they themselves are part of them. The governor of Florida is in fact a graduate of two of the most prestigious universities, Yale and Harvard University. In the Republican Party, as DeSantis himself admitted, degrees from this type of university are a stain because they are associated with progressive ideas. This concept is linked to the criticism that universities indoctrinate students with left-wing ideas. It obviously didn’t work with him, but it didn’t work with several members of the Republican Party and six right-leaning Supreme Court justices either. These include two from Harvard (Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts) and three from Yale (Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas), and Amy Coney Barrett (University of Notre Dame). The three justices leaning to the left are also Harvard graduates (Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson) and Sonia Sotomayor (Yale). If universities indoctrinate students with leftist ideology they do so only with the minority.
Universities are imperfect institutions like many others but indispensable at the same time. Considering the fact that in the past they have taken courageous positions on some social and political issues, they would do badly to change. In the case of the war between Hamas and Israel they should not choose one over the other but the middle path which would be a concern for the almost 15 thousand victims and proclaim the need for a ceasefire. This position would be difficult to attack. It would be the right way. Silence is equivalent to another position, that of maintaining the status quo which continues to sow victims. Silence kills.
* Domenico Maceri, PhD, is professor emeritus at Allan Hancock College, Santa Maria, California. Some of his articles have won awards from the National Association of Hispanic Publications..
