ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Universities must include moral considerations in?the discourse they promote and regulate, but they must not themselves take moral stands. That view was articulated by Carolyn Hughes Tuohy in?her recent opinion piece in?Times Higher Education, and recent turmoil on?campuses and in?the political arena demonstrate that there are good pragmatic reasons for this stance.

However, as pointed out by Tuohy, a?distinguished fellow at?the University of Toronto¡¯s Munk School of Global Affairs &?Public Policy, what is at?stake is?not merely public relations strategy but the very nature and mission of?the institution. That mission must be?founded on?fundamental principles that tether the university¡¯s stance on?public comment in?the crosswinds of?social and political controversy.

Tuohy argues persuasively that universities should establish the terms of campus discourse to include moral considerations, but their leaders should?not comment publicly on moral issues. But that difference is easily blurred by passionate commitment to causes. Reluctance to comment can be taken as moral cowardice or indifference.

That reflects a serious and pervasive misunderstanding of the role of the university, and it underlines the need for university leaders and governing bodies to reaffirm?it. That mission itself involves self-examination, in debate that is characterised by vigour and generosity, by rigour and humility. All levels of university governance ¨C departments, councils, senates, boards ¨C should make time to consider afresh the university¡¯s mandate for free and informed discourse.

A straightforward way to accomplish this crucial exercise is to debate and adopt a Statement on Public Comment. Many institutions have statements on free expression and academic freedom, often reflecting the Chicago Principles. These statements are important for the protection and exercise of individual freedoms, but they do?not directly address the university¡¯s own mission to foster and regulate informed and responsible discourse. Nor do they explain why officials should not exercise these freedoms in public comment on behalf of the university. A?formally adopted statement would serve to educate members of the institution, alumni, donors and the public, and it could be relied on whenever a contentious issue arises to inform responses and protect institutions and their leaders from misguided criticism of what they have and haven¡¯t said publicly.

Such a statement would build on the foundational principles of the mission of the university. Although these principles find different forms of expression in differing contexts, here is a proposal:

1. Democratic societies are founded on freedoms that are guaranteed and supported by institutional freedoms such as freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary.
2. A fundamental institutional freedom is the autonomy of the university, guaranteed in legislation and charters, so that it may pursue its mission.
3. The mission of the university is to discover, create, transmit and preserve knowledge and to assess and critique received opinion.
4. The autonomy of the university is the necessary guarantee of academic freedom and freedom of expression within the institution.
5. To carry out its mission, the university sets the institutional conditions under which teaching and research are conducted. The university also sets institutional conditions for forms of expression, debate and protest that are carried out on its premises and in association with its name. These forms of expression are subject to applicable legislation, but also to the university¡¯s own codes of conduct.
6. It is within the university¡¯s mission that its governing bodies and officers comment publicly on any matter that relates to the university¡¯s ability to carry out its knowledge mission.
7. The university¡¯s governing bodies and officers will not comment publicly on behalf of the institution on any social or political issue not directly related to its mandate.
8. University autonomy requires moral seriousness, not moral indifference. University codes of conduct are based on moral values, by which the actions of members are to be governed. Although the university as institution acts neither as advocate nor judge on matters of public concern beyond its mandate, its members may do so, and the university has a responsibility to structure and encourage their informed deliberation.
9. In response to requests for public comment, the institution may facilitate informed debate and commentary from its members and permit peaceful protests, in conformity with its commitment to academic freedom and under the provisions of its codes of conduct.
10. No policy or code will abrogate the right of individual, as distinct from institutional, expression, as guaranteed under law.

Although the proposal to endorse such a statement is a straightforward step, the actual process of debate may provoke passionate discourse. If that is necessary for understanding and agreement, why should it not be embraced?

It is not enough for universities to talk among themselves about demands piled on them to take positions in a fraught world. They can try to craft anodyne messages that anger some and please none. Or they can draft, discuss and adopt a statement on public comment and their mission that makes clear to everyone ¨C including internal constituencies ¨C what they should and should?not be?expected to do and say when the next controversy erupts.

Paul W. Gooch is professor emeritus in philosophy at the University of Toronto and president emeritus of Victoria University in the University of Toronto. He is author of Course Correction: A?Map for the Distracted University (University of Toronto Press, 2019).