Bailey\u00a0Kamau, a junior at Southern Methodist University, hunkered down to get a head start on final exams, burying herself in her books. Then, on this quiet Wednesday, at 11:31 a.m., her computer pinged.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The subject line of an email \u2014 and its sender \u2014 caught her eye.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
As she glanced through President Jay Hartzell<\/a>\u2019s email, titled \u201cInstitutional Neutrality<\/a>, Free Expression and Campus Guidelines,\u201d the initial intrigue wore off, festering into concern.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Kamau, a human rights major, worried about her department\u2019s office, where pride and Black Lives Matter flags hang. She wondered about the fate of student protests, like the pro-Palestianian ones she attended two years ago. What would happen to the free expression that had come to define her college experience?\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cMaybe,\u201d she thought, \u201cI\u2019m not going to get a whole lot of studying done.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Make Dallas News a preferred source so your search results prioritize writing by actual people, not AI.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Add Preferred Source<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n In the message dated April 29, Hartzell said the university would not issue statements on \u201cexternal events, issues, or conflicts\u201d that are not \u201cdirectly tied\u201d to campus, or its ability to teach and research. He also updated another policy: windows would remain clear of signs and flags, so university buildings \u201care not used to convey an individual\u2019s position or endorsement.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n This institution would, in effect, be a neutral one. At least it would strive to be.\u00a0<\/p>\n In today’s fraught political climate, the number of universities choosing to be neutral on hot-button issues has skyrocketed. School leaders say adopting this stance ensures students and faculty can speak freely about controversial topics. But how universities enforce the policy has triggered debates over whether university leaders are protecting \u2014 or suppressing \u2014 free speech.\u00a0<\/p>\n “Schools adopting these policies right now, like SMU, need to be careful about putting out guidance,\u201d said Laura Beltz, director of policy reform for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. \u201cIt [should] make an opportunity for students and faculty to speak, rather than shutting down student and faculty voices.\u201d<\/p>\n Institutional neutrality followed Hartzell from the University of Texas at Austin \u2014 where he served as president, where\u00a0scores of students were arrested<\/a> for pro-Palestinian activism, where his crackdown on those protests drew scrutiny<\/a> over First Amendment concerns. Nearly two years ago, the UT Board of Regents modified its free speech policy to adopt institutional neutrality, blocking its schools from stating positions on sociopolitical issues. Critics have since clashed with university leaders, arguing the policy was weaponized to suppress speech they disagreed with.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Free speech experts and students say they are now watching to see whether the same fight will come to SMU \u2014 where it was Hartzell, not trustees, who approved the policy. SMU officials declined to make Hartzell available for an interview.<\/p>\n Protesters stand with linked arms inside a circle of Texas State Troopers and police at an encampment on the University of Texas Tower south lawn on April 29, 2024, in Austin. The protest was meant to call attention to the war in Gaza and to condemn UT\u2019s relationship with defense companies .<\/p>\n Aaron E. Martinez\/American-State<\/p>\n More universities want to be neutral \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Institutional neutrality traces its origins to the 1967 Kalven Report<\/a> from the University of Chicago. Considered the golden rule, the document states: \u201cThe university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n If a school takes positions on sociopolitical issues, a \u201cchilling effect\u201d can unfold, making faculty and students feel less welcome to voice their own opinions, said Dylan Selterman, research director at Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit advocating for more viewpoint diversity on college campuses.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe want the faculty and the students to be able to speak up on issues that are within their expertise and are important to them,\u201d he said. \u201cThe university should not do anything that gets in the way of that.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n There are appropriate times for universities to comment on issues, he noted. Schools can comment on issues that impact their functioning, such as federal cuts to research, he said.<\/p>\n They can express empathy for students impacted by major events, \u201cwithout taking a side, without taking a political position, or a moral position,\u201d he added. However, even those statements can backfire, he said, as expressing concern can be interpreted as taking a side in a conflict.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n In 2022, at the University of Notre Dame, then-President John Jenkins reaffirmed his advocacy for \u201cthe protection of unborn life\u201d after the Supreme Court overturned Roe\u00a0v. Wade. The same year, at Harvard University, then-President Lawrence Bacow condemned<\/a> Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine. And at SMU, administrators released statements after the murder of George Floyd in 2020<\/a>, 2021<\/a>, and 2022<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Those days may be gone, free speech advocates say.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cBy remaining neutral, the University ensures that members of the SMU community feel free to explore concepts, ask hard questions, and speak openly,\u201d Hartzell wrote in his recent email, \u201cwithout the University\u2019s voice overshadowing their own.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Jay Hartzell takes the podium as Southern Methodist University\u2019s 11th president during a formal inauguration ceremony on Sept. 12, 2025.<\/p>\n Shafkat Anowar\/Staff Photographer<\/p>\n The Israel-Hamas war served as the flashpoint for colleges, spurring changes in free speech policies. A flurry of universities \u2014 and now, SMU \u2014 learned that the best way to address hot-button issues was to stay out of them, experts say.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u201cBefore that, there wasn’t a lot of pushback against colleges making political statements,\u201d Beltz said. \u201cWhen you had October 7, there was a big divide.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Before the Oct. 7 attacks, only eight universities had an institutional neutrality policy, according to Heterodox Academy. Now, there are at least 165 universities, including SMU, Texas Woman\u2019s University and Texas A&M.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The vast majority of universities have not formalized the policy. In 2024, Rutgers University Senate advocated against the policy saying it would <\/a>give administrators \u201cpowerful tools to wield against the expression of disfavored views.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n On the other hand, the same year, over 100<\/a> Duke University<\/a> faculty members called for its adoption, according to The Duke Chronicle. It\u2019s unclear to what extent administrators considered the policy, Selterman said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Policy shakes up SMU campus \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In a statement, SMU spokesperson Megan Jacob said the new neutrality policy \u201cwas not driven by any single incident or complaint.\u201d The policy, she said, formalizes a recent practice and \u201cis part of a broader effort to support open dialogue while ensuring the institution itself does not take positions on external issues.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Murmurs of institutional neutrality had been unfolding before it was officially announced.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Preston Patten,\u00a0the former president of SMU\u2019s Turning Point USA chapter, remembers Sept. 10 as \u201cone of the worst days of my life.\u201d That was the day conservative\u00a0political activist Charlie Kirk<\/a> was assassinated. Overtaken by anxiety and confusion, the senior watched his phone blow up \u201cleft and right\u201d with messages.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n But there was one message, from one person, he wanted to see.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAfter the death of Charlie Kirk, we were waiting for President Hartzell and SMU to make a statement,\u201d Patten said. \u201cIt never came.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Over several days, he corresponded with Hartzell, urging the school to issue a statement condemning political violence. SMU came out with statements after Floyd’s death, as well as one on the violence in Israel-Gaza in 2023, Patten wrote.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The exchange<\/a> was first reported by The Daily Campus<\/a>, SMU\u2019s student newspaper.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI am aware of the counterexamples you provided, but my understanding is that SMU\u2019s practice has shifted in recent years,\u201d Hartzell responded.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Though Patten agrees with institutional neutrality, he said there was no \u201cmoral clarity\u201d from the institution when it came to Kirk\u2019s death.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t actually like when institutions step in and take a side, whether it be conservative, whether it be liberal,\u201d Patten said. \u201cThe problem … [is] I don\u2019t see murder as a particular political problem or a social problem. I see it as a moral stance.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n With update to flag policy, institutional neutrality is tested\u00a0<\/p>\n As more universities adopt neutrality, a question has emerged: How, exactly, does a school enforce this policy?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Much of the debate circulating among SMU students is the updated flag policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n It\u2019s a decision attributed to institutional neutrality and could serve as a litmus test for how the policy is enforced.\u00a0<\/p>\n Signs, flags or other materials must be removed from \u201coutward-facing University facilities and displays that could reasonably be interpreted as representing an institutional position,\u201d Jacob said. When asked, SMU did not provide insight into how it determines which flags fall under that category.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAs questions arise, the University will continue evaluating them consistent with existing policies and its commitment to supporting open inquiry, respectful dialogue, and viewpoint expression across campus,\u201d Jacob said.\u00a0<\/p>\n A student can display those materials inside their dorms, but not on surfaces visible to the public, she added.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Kamau frequents the human rights program\u2019s office, where pride and Black Lives Matter flags hang.\u00a0<\/p>\n Kamau understands the point of neutrality, but it went too far when the flags came down, she said. The flags are not endorsing a certain viewpoint; rather, they validate one\u2019s identity, she said.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis is my quiet space. This is my study space,\u201d she said. \u201cFor myself, for other students who come from marginalized communities, how are they going to respond emotionally to these big changes?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Rick Halperin,\u00a0director of the human rights program, also considers the flags to be affirmations of human dignity, not comments on sociopolitical issues. But the office voluntarily took down the flags after Hartzell\u2019s email.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf that\u2019s the policy from one end of the campus to the other,\u201d he said, \u201cthen I have no problem in complying.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Could turmoil at UT Austin come to SMU?\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n