A Proposal for Georgetown University to be a Model of Good Academic Governance
A Proposal for Georgetown University to be a Model of Good Academic Governance
Posted 2023
For the second time during my career at Georgetown, the University is at an inflection point. The first came in 2015 with the eruption of student social justice protests at universities across the country, many of which called for suppression of offensive and unpopular speech. At that time, I submitted a proposal to the steering committee of the Faculty Senate arguing that Georgetown could be a leader among elite universities by adopting the Chicago Statement on freedom of speech. Although the University did adopt its version of this statement, it took two years for it to do so. As a result, the University lost the opportunity to be an academic leader on the issue.
In my opinion, the University has arrived at another inflection point. Events since the outbreak of the war in Gaza and the Congressional hearing at which the Presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT testified have prompted many academics to question of whether their institutions are properly serving their fundamental mission of discovering truth and advancing knowledge. There are increasing calls for universities to commit themselves to institutional and administrative neutrality on controversial political and social issues, the preservation of freedom of speech on campus, and the creation of a culture of open inquiry, civil discourse, and the toleration of heterodox viewpoints.
Illustrative examples of such calls can be found in the Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry and A Vision for a New Future of the University of Pennsylvania . Similarly at Yale, Professors Nicholas Christakis and Kate Stith recently advocated that Yale’s faculty “re-dedicate itself to the mission of a great university, namely: the preservation, production, and dissemination of knowledge. . . .” and to
(1) to insist on the primacy of teaching, learning, and research as distinct from advocacy and activism, and to recognize the centrality of the faculty to these core activities; (2) to affirm Yale’s commitment to robust free expression coupled with institutional neutrality; and (3) to commit to identifying and challenging the institutionalized expressions of conformism and “correct thinking” that have deformed our campus ethos and culture in recent years.
In my opinion, Georgetown once again has the opportunity to be an academic leader. Georgetown is in an excellent position to demonstrate that a commitment to such fundamental academic values is perfectly compatible with a simultaneous commitment to the mission of IDEAA and with all of its Jesuit values. Doing so, however, will require several institutional reforms.
Before turning to those, it is important to note first that there is no conflict between the University’s commitment to freedom of expression and open inquiry and its commitment to suppress harassment and other forms of discrimination and misconduct. Georgetown’s speech and expression policy protects the expression of ideas that are “thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or ill conceived.” Georgetown’s harassment policy prohibits conduct directed “to an individual” that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Therefore, by definition, the general expression of offensive ideas that are not directed to individuals cannot constitute harassment. This means that the University can fully honor both policies if it has the proper enforcement mechanisms in place.
As professors of business ethics, my colleagues and I teach our students that an organization’s abstract commitments are ineffective unless accompanied by an internal incentive structure that supports honoring the commitments. We teach that ethical corporate performance requires the alignment of the internal incentives of individual employees with the collective values of the organization. In my opinion, the following internal reforms would go a long way toward aligning the incentives of Georgetown’s administration with all of its collective values–free speech, open inquiry, civil discourse, nondiscrimination, diversity in community, inclusive campus culture, cura personalis, and the rest of the Jesuit values.
1) A strict commitment to institutional neutrality on controversial political and social issues: The University should publicly commit itself to adhere to the Kalven Report. All individual members of the community, including the members of the administration, have the right to express their personal opinions on all political and social issues. However, the University as an institution should take no position on such issues.
A public commitment to neutrality that is strictly adhered to has at least two major advantages. 1) It prevents divisive internal lobbying designed to pressure the University to take a stand on such issues. 2) It prevents the alienation of those members of the community who do not adhere to whatever position the University takes. For example, during the Trump administration, President DeGioia published a broadcast email stating that the University found President Trump’s cancellation of the DACA program to be unconscionable. This was alienating not only to those who supported cancellation of the program on the merits, but also to those who supported it only because they believed President Obama’s creation of the program was unconstitutional.
2) Clarify the relationship between the University’s speech and expression and harassment policies, and alter the University’s training with regard to each.
At present, there is great confusion over type of verbal conduct that can constitute harassment. It is imperative for the University to make it clear that to constitute harassment, verbal conduct must be directed to an individual or individuals. There is currently little understanding that abstract statements of opinion that do not target individuals, no matter how offensive or hateful, cannot constitute harassment and are protected by the speech and expression policy.
The University’s training should be designed to increase understanding of this distinction rather than elide it. IDEAA should actively encourage reporting of all conduct (verbal or physical) that targets individuals because of their membership in a protected class. But it should actively discourage reporting of offensive general statements that are not directed at anyone.
It is essential that the University make it clear that statements of opinion that do not target individuals are protected by the speech and expression policy and should not be reported as bias-related incidents. Doing so will prevent Georgetown from being in the position the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT found themselves in during the December 5th Congressional hearing. Their predicament did not arise from their accurate statement of their universities’ policy on freedom of speech, but from the fact that it was patently obvious that their institutions were applying the policies selectively. Refusing to punish any abstract statements of opinion not directed toward any individual would make it clear that Georgetown is applying its policy uniformly in an ideologically neutral manner.
3) Appoint a champion for freedom of speech and open inquiry. In adopting its speech and expression policy, Georgetown made an institutional commitment to maintain freedom of speech on campus. However, it failed to designate anyone to be responsible for the enforcement of the policy. The problem with this is concisely captured by one of the principles of organizational ethics that we teach our students; “When something is everyone’s responsibility, it’s no one’s responsibility.”
The purpose of the speech and expression policy is to restrain the ability of university administrators–deans and IDEAA officials–to suppress offensive or unpopular speech. Yet, the parties currently charged with enforcing the policy are deans and IDEAA officials. It is not difficult to see that these parties have a conflict of interest.
The appointment of a dean or executive vice-president or some version of an inspector general charged with the responsibility for maintaining the University’s commitment to its speech and expression policy would guarantee that this policy interest is properly represented in the administrative decision-making process.
4) Create an Initial Review Panel for matters concerning problematic speech.
A useful illustration of the function of an Initial Review Panel can be found in the way Georgetown resolves faculty grievances. Such grievances are heard by the school’s Faculty Grievance Code Committee, which is empowered to investigate and rule on the merits of the complaints. But before a grievance is heard by the committee, it goes to an Initial Review Panel that determines whether the Committee has jurisdiction over the matter. If the Panel determines that the Committee does not have jurisdiction, it dismisses the complaint. If the Panel determines that the Committee does have jurisdiction, the Committee proceeds to a consideration of its merits. By filtering out grievances that are not within the purview of the Committee, the Initial Review Panel saves the University from unnecessary expense and the acrimony that grievance hearings frequently produce.
The same device can be used to ensure that the University’s speech and expression policy is consistently applied. Before a party is subject to investigation for what he or she has written or said, the matter can be referred to an Initial Review Panel. The panel would be comprised of individuals who have a good understanding of both the University’s speech and expression policy and its harassment policies, and are neutral in the sense that their only incentive is to make the correct jurisdictional decision. If the panel determines that the matter exclusively concerns speech protected by the University’s speech policy, it dismisses the matter. If the panel determines that the matter involves more than merely protected speech, the matter proceeds to investigation by IDEAA or goes to the relevant dean for resolution. Because investigating and litigating matters that are clearly covered by its speech and expression policy is damaging to the reputation of both the party being investigated and the University, employing such an Initial Review Panel can save the university unnecessary expense and rancor.
I believe that the majority of Georgetown’s faculty is fully supportive of the University’s efforts to provide an inclusive campus environment free from all forms of discrimination and harassment. I also believe that the majority of Georgetown faculty would welcome the University’s recommitment to its fundamental purpose of engaging in open inquiry in pursuit of “the preservation, production, and dissemination of knowledge.”
In my judgment, the current climate is the ideal time for Georgetown to make such a recommitment accompanied by the suggested organization reforms. By doing so, Georgetown can become the model of good university governance and an academic leader that other institutions will follow.
John Hasnas
Professor of Ethics
McDonough School of Business