Universities should be as private as shoe stores now are. These emporia are free to offer whatever wares they wish. If they do a good job serving their customers, they will prosper. If not, they will lose profits and eventually go broke if they do not correct the error of their ways.

The same should apply with regard to every university. They should all be free to decide how to approach each situation for themselves. Some will take positions on controversial, external issues such as Israel v. Hamas, and others will not. Customers—students and parents—can then determine which education firms they will patronize.

I suspect that if this plan were implemented, both types of colleges would survive the market test. Customers would sort themselves out in terms of which type of practice they preferred. Professors, too, would gravitate toward institutions with which they most aligned. My prediction is that this decision of college presidents would not be determinative as to the success of the institution since some students, parents, and employees would prefer the one, and others the other.

The same applies as to whether or not the university leader supports Israel or Hamas or attempts to be wishy-washy and calls for peace. In this latter case, timing is crucial. If the statement occurs right after a Hamas incursion, or before Israel has prevailed in chastising its enemy, then it clearly favors Hamas.

Now, let me address an entirely different question. If I were the president and owner of Block University, what would I do? Or, given that I am now a member of a university’s faculty, what stance would I like its president to take vis-à-vis the present Israeli-Hamas conflict?

I would issue the following statement, as coming from the president of an institution of higher learning:

I take no public stance as president of this university on the Israel-Hamas war, or, indeed, on any other issue outside of the strictly narrow purview of this educational organization. I have my own views on this matter, of course, and shall be glad to share them with you, if anyone is interested, but I don’t see why they should be of interest, since my own academic field is far removed from history, the Middle East, ethics, etc. I believe in specialization and the division of labor, and my own intellectual background gives me no inner track on this issue.

As president of this university, I take no views on this issue since, were I to do so, I would be speaking for the entire institution, and I am a strong supporter of intellectual diversity. My professoriate, as is the case for the general public, does not agree on this issue. If I took one side or the other, I would be misrepresenting the faculty, staff, and students who disagree.

I go further. Even if my own educational expertise fully prepared me to comment on this issue, say, a specialization in Middle Eastern studies or in history with an emphasis on that corner of the world, I still would not do so. I can only speak, or write, on behalf of myself.

I go still further. Even if there is an issue upon which we all agree (the Earth is round, not flat; the Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around; 2+2=4; triangles have 180 degrees), I should still not speak out on these issues while representing other people. I can only properly represent my own views on any and all matters.

However, I will say this: If anyone engages in trespass, e.g., setting up tents on common university property, or in any other way interferes with the normal functioning of our school, not only shall I fire the offenders if they are faculty, tenure or no tenure, not only shall I dismiss them if they are students or staff, but I shall sue them for trespass. If anyone uses violence against anyone else, I will use my best efforts to see to it that the attacker is imprisoned for assault and battery. Our institution must remain open to all shades of opinion, and I will not tolerate any deviation from this principle. Yes, I fully support debate, and it does not even have to be polite, although that is the scholarly style I hope to promote. But no threats will be tolerated. None. Zero.

We are a community of scholars. It is deeply embedded in our culture that the way to deal with challenges is via logic, evidence, and the ability to interact with one another in a scholarly manner. This is our shared specialization. Let us not be detracted from this ideal in the present situation or indeed in any other.

—

Image credit: Unsplash