Universities Abandoning Political Neutrality Harm Free Inquiry

Many presidents of universities, including my own, have committed their institutions to supporting the Grand Coalition on Climate Change.  The founding statement of the Coalition criticizes President’s Trump decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and offers support for various policies by state and local governments to pursue the objectives of that agreement.

It is a serious mistake for universities as institutions to criticize or support controversial political initiatives, let alone become part of political coalitions.  Universities must stay of out of politics and refrain from policy endorsements that are by their nature political. By maintaining their institutional neutrality they can best foster debate and further the progress of knowledge about controversial issues of the day. Universities are brokers of knowledge. To be honest brokers, they must eschew politics.

Wading into politics imposes two kinds of costs.  The first is a chilling effect on debate and free inquiry within the university. Will professors and lecturers, particularly untenured ones, feel as free to take a position against the Paris agreement if their President has committed the university to a political position? Or indeed take any position against the conventional wisdom on climate change? The second is creating the appearance that the university has an ideological or indeed partisan orientation, an appearance which will make some people dismiss research coming out of the university as biased. Particularly in a world where it is widely recognized that university professors and administrators are overwhelming left-liberal in ideology and Democrat in partisan affiliation, the university should bend over backward to avoid reinforcing an impression that it has an institutional ideological slant.

Some might argue that there is no problem in effectively endorsing the Paris Agreement, because it is just science and any university should support science. But this is precisely the kind of mistaken notion that of which universities should be disabusing students.  The predictive claims of science are of a different order from the policy proposals of politics. For instance, even if  science shows that global warming is likely to occur, it remains an open policy question of how much we should focus on adapting to it rather than preventing it.

Others might argue that the Paris Agreement is something from which no reasonable person could dissent and that the university’s opposition to the United States’ exit is like a statement opposing genocide. But this is a frivolous claim  There are  serious arguments like those of Oren Cass that the agreement is unfair to the United States by requiring it to sharply change its policy to curtail its carbon emissions, while allowing other nations simply to continue down their own,  often not very ambitious, trajectories, of reducing emissions. And disagreement with the Paris pact is not limited to President Trump. The  Paris Agreement does not command even majority support in Congress, let alone the supermajority needed to conclude a treaty. That is why President Obama  claimed that is was a non-binding executive agreement that did not require submission to Congress– a characterization that respected legal scholars,  such as Mike Ramsey,  have disputed.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on June 08, 2017 at 11:20:52 am


Can universities be placed and publicized as either GCCC advocates or not? This might aid in parents and students in their choices, given that there is already more than enough politicization on campus that is not advertised.

The front end, known burdens of being signatory to the PA, are bad enough, but the real objection is what happens next. Who can imagine the "necessary" entangling protocols and political pressures that will be in place 5, 10, 20 years down the road. The PA is scientifically wobbly, but very politically appetizing for the unaccountable "elites" who would, and desperately want to, move minds and fortunes in support of pampering their lessers in the name of redistribution justified by global "unfairness". The GCCC would be part of the preliminaries.

As to the last paragraph, I don't understand why the malfeasance of Obama is not called malfeasance, for what he attempted to do the American people. Also, it seems like he inserted us well inside the PA if, as I read, it will take 3 or 4 years to get us out. What contracts did Obama make to make our withdrawal--and dollars, of course--so hard? Cannot the current president cut the funding that the previous president gave?

read full comment
Image of d s
d s
on June 08, 2017 at 13:03:30 pm


Well, kiddies, it appears that not only Universities arrogate "treaty" standing to themselves, BUT the State of Hawaii has just announced that it will act (as if) it were a signatory to the Paris Accords.

I guess Ole Greve was right: "We will always have Paris."

read full comment
Image of gabe
on June 10, 2017 at 08:13:48 am

"The global climate agreement is controversial, not only for its negative impact on American jobs and embrace so-called climate change, but also its fostering of abortion, contraception and gender politics."



read full comment
Image of Nancy
on November 06, 2018 at 05:47:13 am

[…] Many foundations have programs pressing for the expansion of “reproductive rights.” Prominent universities have explicitly endorsed the Paris Climate Change Accords and relentlessly promote issues of identity politics that lean […]

read full comment
Image of Why We Should be Grateful to Religious Groups at Election Time
Why We Should be Grateful to Religious Groups at Election Time

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.


Boys State

Playing Politics

Programs like Boys State can recreate only the game of politics. But that game must be premised on a deeper reality.

Antifa Protest

Contending with Demons

Dostovesky suggests an appeal to the nation untouched with a concern for eternity itself will prove insufficient to defeat ideology.