by Andrew Hennlich, President of the WMU-AAUP, and Cathryn Bailey, Vice President of the WMU-AAUP
As leaders of Western Michigan University’s chapter of the WMU-AAUP, as professors, and as engaged citizens, we read your campus wide email message of February 6 with concern. In it, you state that Western’s leadership has decided to adopt a position of institutional neutrality, explaining that your goal is to “provide assurance to our entire community that we take seriously the trust conferred to us as leaders to care for the voice, mission and reputation of this University.” With the democratic checks and balances of our nation under daily attack by a presidential administration that has openly declared universities to be the enemy, we are far from reassured by the suggestion that WMU now aims to avoid controversy by remaining on the sidelines.
Far from regarding this neutrality policy as “thoughtful stewardship” of Western’s voice, as you described it, we share the position of the National AAUP: “urg[ing] universities not to hide behind the pretense of remaining neutral in times of conflict or crisis. As the second Trump administration continues its assaults on academic freedom—and on critical research that saves lives, advances science and innovation, and benefits communities in the United States and around the world—neutrality is neither possible nor viable.”
We will not summarize the AAUP’s full statement—you can find it here—but instead will highlight a few especially salient points. The first is that the impact of institutional neutrality “on academic freedom and shared governance can vary based not only on what institutional neutrality is taken to mean but also on the circumstances in which it is adopted or imposed.” We note that, at a time of historic uncertainty and instability for universities and for academic freedom, WMU’s highest leadership did not choose to issue a public statement affirming their ongoing commitment to such substantive core values, including: diversity, equity, and inclusion; and global engagement. Instead, it chose to publicly announce a new policy, that Western’s default position will now be one of “neutrality.” At a time when many other colleges and universities are stepping forward to affirm their longstanding commitments to the basic humanistic values that underlie democratic, inclusive universities, WMU appears to be receding from its value commitments.
While it may be technically correct to claim as your FAQ does, that this “neutrality policy” is not necessarily inconsistent with academic freedom—a point also acknowledged by the AAUP statement—this provides little comfort for those anxious about its real world application. As the AAUP emphasizes in its statement, “Universities inescapably act in a myriad of ways that express their values and commitments without stifling academic freedom.” Students, staff, and faculty are not operating in a vacuum. Many are already negotiating a tense campus environment that includes fears of gun violence, immigration-related harassment, epidemic diseases, economic insecurity, sexual assault, and more. We now ask you to consider whether your “neutrality statement”—together with WMU’s unhelpful recent statement about interfacing with ICE—has reassured these members of our campus community or made them feel even more vulnerable?
With all this in mind, we urge you to closely consider the AAUP’s full statement about institutional neutrality, noting its nuanced and historical handling of the subject, as well as its cautions and advice. If our university’s leadership chooses to hide behind “neutrality” as a chilling pall falls over our classrooms and our most vulnerable campus members are targeted for harm, WMU will carry a stain of moral and intellectual failure into its future. As so many have pointed out, to remain “neutral” while oppressive forces attack is effectively to ally oneself with injustice.
In addition, we ask that you clarify and enhance Western’s substantive commitment to align its practices with its core humanistic values—among them, again, academic freedom and shared governance; diversity, equity and inclusion; and global engagement. As the AAUP statement notes: “A commitment to neutrality….is not some magic wand that conjures freedom. Calls for neutrality instead provide an opportunity to consider how various practices of an institution—not only its speech or silence but also its actions and policies— might promote a more robust freedom of teaching, research, and intramural and extramural speech.”
In closing, we believe that your recent affirmation of “institutional neutrality,” raises concerns rather than addressing them. Further, we share the position implied by the AAUP statement that, having endorsed the morally and practically problematic position of “neutrality,” Western’s leaders now carry a great responsibility to clarify and invest in their commitment to substantive core values. As the AAUP statement points out, there are times when action is required to defend “the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” Now is such a time.

















