Guest blogger: Altay Coşkun, UW Classical Studies & think-centrist.com

I would like to share three recent experiences on our campus with you before I try to explain the value of Institutional Neutrality and explore what this may mean today.

In February, I put forward a concern in one of the university’s committees. I acknowledge the generosity of the host who gave me sufficient time to speak despite my short notice. My problem was with the wording of a template letter that I was expected to use. I was asking for permission to employ an alternative that I found better suited for a public and inclusive institution of learning. Some of the feedback was polite, conceding that I potentially had a case and that there was nothing to object to the alternative in principle, but timing made it difficult for these colleagues to endorse my request. Others insisted that no one should disagree with the Human Rights Charter, although I was far from doing this, and nothing of the kind could be substantiated in my approach. Yet others outright denied my claim that the terminology at stake was politicized or controversial; the fact that I expressed my own moral conflict (or that other Faculties do without the problematic wording) should have sufficed to prove the controversial nature, and I had just taken for granted that my colleagues follow a wide range of national and international news to be aware of the politicized nature. 

Yet others even rejected my explicit recourse to the principle of institutional neutrality, insisting that the university should rather actively promote ‘universal values’, though there was little time to discuss which authority to follow in the selection of these values and what to do when there might be a dilemma, that is two values conflicting with each other. About half of the colleagues present were silent, whereas one who was not in the meeting, later wrote me an email to thank me for my courage to raise this important issue. I am unsure about which reaction caused me the most disappointment. I was not expecting full agreement with any of my concerns, but I was hoping that at least someone would speak up in favour of granting accommodation to a colleague who had a substantiated conflict of conscience. 

Recently, I had a similarly awkward feeling when I read in the Daily Bulletin that smoking is now going to be banned completely from campus. In my youth, I would have celebrated this, as I am a life-long opponent of smoking (long before such a stance had become mainstream). But I wonder now whether the existing regulations are not already enough to protect non-smokers. The new ruling is more than just a warning against the health risks of smoking and reasonable protection against passive smoking: it sends out the message that those who are addicted to nicotine do not belong to this campus. What or who is next? 

But then I had an elevating experience this March, at one of the focus group meetings of the Freedom of Expression and Respectful Engagement Task Force. The host put right in the centre of the conversation a quotation from the Chicago Principles of institutional neutrality, formulated with timeless wisdom and urgency in 1967 on the basis of the Kalven Report, which I had also referenced in my memo to the colleagues in February. The responses from the audience were overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, positive, enough at least to make me hopeful that our self-governing body is on a path to correct mistakes of the recent past. The document states, among other things: 

The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge. Its domain of inquiry and scrutiny includes all aspects and all values of society. A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices, and institutions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. In brief, a good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting. The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. 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. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.

There is so much to like about these sober warnings, but let me, as a Classical scholar, pick out Socrates. He was (and still is) admired by young and old, democrats and aristocrats. He is the embodiment of free and fearless inquiry, who exposes the prominent and powerful for their biases and limited understanding of justice. His constant emphasis on the good and the just may sound moralizing and antiquated, but his belief that politics should be pursued on the basis of knowledge and that education should focus on virtue and justice make him a potential champion for conservatives and progressives alike. But Socrates would also challenge both of them, and me, the centrist, as well: while constantly seeking for the good and the just, the philosopher was humble enough not to claim that he ever found it. This, I think, was his greatest wisdom: he refused to define an absolute, definite form of justice. He countered the idea that any categorical imperative could be imposed on everyone to make this world a good place. 

Human beings are too complex and diverse for a rigid definition, and positive values should never have absolute claims, as they compete with other ethical principles. The best way forward for a society and especially its think-tanks, the universities, is to approach the questions of the world with honest curiosity and respectful pluralism, rather than by prescribing the results of the inquiry before it started. We know of states that did (and do) curtail the freedom of thought and expression, and we know how much harm and suffering they cause(d). We can do much better and thus become the more useful to students, colleagues, and society at large if our own institution maintains political neutrality – or rather becomes a fierce advocate for true education and the free exploration of diverse ideas. 

If you are interested in discussing this with me and other colleagues, no matter from which perspective, please get in touch with me.

Guest blogger: Altay Coşkun, UW Classical Studies & think-centrist.com

On January 19, 2024, University of Waterloo administration launched the ‘Freedom of Expression and Respectful Engagement Task Force’. Its purpose is ‘the development of principles that will help create a campus climate of open dialogue and the respectful exchange of ideas’. This initiative is apparently a response to the increased political division and the erosion of democratic values, a process that does not stop at Ring Road, as we were – most painfully – made aware by the terrorist attack of June 28, 2023. 

Some of us are perhaps dismayed by the fact that an academic community in 21^st-Century Canada should need such guidance; many others certainly hope for another push from it for their progressive and critical values – as we could notice happening over the past half-year in a series of high-profile events, starting out with an appeal to bear with diverse views and leaving the audience with surprisingly one-sided perspectives. This is probably the reason for the suspicion of yet others that the new task force might aim for the opposite it is declaring. 

I, for sure, welcome the initiative very much and feel inspired to pursue more actively than before the stated aim of fostering a ‘climate of open dialogue’ and to enhance mutual respect. I would like to encourage colleagues from all Faculties to accept the task force’s invitation ‘to share your ideas, comments, and questions’ and to direct them to avpfpp@uwaterloo.ca or to express them on this website: https://uwaterloo.ca/freedom-of-expression/form/uwaterloo-free-expression-anonym. The best way I can contribute to this process is by sharing some reflections in the hope of stimulating lively yet respectful debate. 

Open-minded discussion of controversial matters has been a key feature of my classes on Greek and Roman History for over a quarter-century. Essential for my approach as an instructor is to avoid seeking the one truth. I rather acknowledge that there are multiple perspectives on just about everything. This does not equal uncritical acceptance of random or potentially harmful claims, but historical research has taught me to become less judgmental and to prioritize understanding over seeking confirmation of my own belief. The quality of the evidence, the plausibility of arguments, the inherent biases or interests that guide those conclusions, and the effects they may have still remain to be analyzed. And then I release my conclusions on the market of free enquiry without silencing others. I trust that the strength of my arguments will allow my conclusion to prevail, not my professorial title or my influence as editor or publisher. I am humbly aware that I, too, can err or at least learn from others’ arguments. And I also need to accept in humility that some of my arguments will remain unheard, while I should be glad about all cases in which my words were well received. Yes, there is a large portion of idealism speaking here, and the reality is not always as gentle, but I have been faring well by trying to adhere to these principles. I am truly grateful to the largely free, peaceful, and respectful communities in Germany, England, and Canada where I had the chance to be me and to give my best in return. 

The conditions for making administrative or political decisions are slightly different. Here, we need rules to be followed and potentially even to be enforced. We should engage in a fair, respectful, and transparent discussion and, if we must go forward in one direction (which is not always the case), let us put the options to a democratic vote and respect the result, at least until new conditions warrant us to resume the debate. A community based on this principle will show solidarity and resilience, and individuals will continue feeling that they belong, no matter on which side of the debate they stand.

My hope is that, based on broad involvement of the campus community, the new task force will present recommendations along these lines, that they will be put to a democratic vote, and then find the strong support not just at the polls, but also in our daily lives on campus when we will honour the privilege of free speech and call for respect if we see it denied. 

Whether you consider yourself progressive or conservative, if you’d like to be part of this process of reflection, consultation, and debate, please be in touch and stay tuned for a first round table in the Grad House in early Spring (to be announced in my next blogpost).