Institutional neutrality is the doctrine that institutions like universities should refrain from issuing public comment on matters of public controversy. As I’ve argued here at PoT (and elsewhere), one canonical exception to neutrality is institutional self-defense: a university is obliged to speak up when the university itself comes under attack. Predictably, we now have yet another exception to add to the list: the Charlie Kirk Exception. This exception asserts that when a famous right-wing loudmouth is shot on a university campus, all institutions hitherto bound by solemn pledges of institutional neutrality are obliged to carve out a special dispensation to condemn the act.

Obviously, the exception is of such a nature that no explanation is required for it. I mean, Charlie Kirk is involved. The nation itself is grieving! Who could have the audacity to ask for an explanation under such circumstances? Yes, knowledge is the “core mission” of The University, but there’s a time and a place for everything. As St. Augustine so memorably put it, “Give me wisdom, Lord, but not right now.”

From “How College Leaders Responded to Activist’s Slaying,” Inside Higher Ed, Sept. 17: 

Many college presidents began to refrain from statements on current events in the aftermath of the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks by Hamas and Israel’s response, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and widespread campus protests.

Such statements were often sharply criticized by university communities for failing to adequately condemn Hamas as terrorists, or to recognize the suffering of the Palestinian people—or both—prompting multiple presidents to apologize for their remarks and/or refrain from future comments.

Multiple universities adopted institutional neutrality policies amid the fallout, essentially agreeing to refrain from making statements on political matters and to show more restraint, generally, on issuing statements on current events.

But following the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at an event at Utah Valley University last week, statements are flowing as institutions and presidents denounce political violence, with some leaders arguing this moment requires an exception to institutional neutrality.

The University of Wyoming adopted institutional neutrality in late 2023.

But last week, President Ed Seidel released a statement “expressing disgust, outrage and sadness at this apparent politically motivated attack” and noted his sympathy for Kirk’s family.

“Men of principle with a new principle for every situation,” to quote J.L. Mackie (who was himself quoting George Cawkwell). How I wish I could ask them what they thought of this idiocy.

Question 1: Why take institutional neutrality seriously if its supposed adherents can’t?

Question 2: Is institutional neutrality really intended as a moral principle, or is it by intention a cynical exercise in power politics?

The answers to both questions strike me as obvious, but count on its adherents to evade the questions, evade the meaning of this particular lapse, and continue the juggernaut.