Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-11-2025

Abstract

When controversies arise, colleges and universities often find themselves in the crossfire of heated debates over institutional neutrality. Some institutions claim neutrality to distance themselves from controversy and defuse tensions surrounding sensitive issues. However, when institutions choose not to engage—whether through nonresponse or by stating they will make no response—they may inadvertently suggest that their current position is neutral, a premise many dispute (A. Ford, 2024). How should higher education institutions (HEIs) navigate the various demands they face to either act or maintain neutrality? Moreover, once institutional leaders understand these competing pressures, how should they respond? This paper has two main aims: to analyze the dynamics surrounding calls for institutional neutrality and to guide HEI decision-makers in crafting appropriate responses. In Part I, we examine HEIs amid recent campus controversies and renewed debates over institutional neutrality. Using the Spring 2024 campus encampments and protests over institutional involvement in the Israel/Gaza conflict as our primary example, we develop a framework for understanding the crossfire—situations where decision-makers face competing demands for institutional response during controversies. This framework is an analytical tool for HEI leaders and others interested in debates about institutional neutrality in higher education. Part II explores a key implication from our framework: Pluralism is most challenging during controversy. Before presenting our recommendations for responding to the crossfire, we first motivate the importance of recognizing and attending to pluralism during controversy through appeals to political liberalism and organizational theory. We then conclude by recommending a two-pronged response strategy: education and dialogue facilitation.

ORCID

0000-0003-3805-3856

Download

Share

COinS