The Principle of Institutional Neutrality Is What Matters, Not the Name
An Interview with HxA member J.P. de Ruiter, who helped lead Tufts in its adoption of “institutional pluralism”
Is institutional neutrality a one-size-fits-all policy? Some institutions say no, opting instead for policies and principles that bolster open inquiry, but sans “neutrality” in the name. Tufts University is one such institution, having embraced “institutional pluralism” and rejecting “institutional neutrality.” To learn more about this, I spoke with HxA member and Professor of Psychology and Computer Science J.P. de Ruiter, who was tapped to serve on Tufts’ Institutional Neutrality Working Group and had a bird’s eye view of Tufts’s path toward pluralism. (De Ruiter offered his perspective to HxA on behalf of himself, not on behalf of the working group or Tufts University.)
In 2024, Provost Caroline Genco charged a faculty working group with exploring recommendations for implementing institutional neutrality at Tufts. The working group swiftly got to business, engaging with community members through listening sessions, meetings, and an online portal to better understand different perspectives on whether and how Tufts should embrace neutrality. “Some faculty, staff and students were concerned about leadership speaking out on some political issues but not others,” de Ruiter shared. “Others expressed the opposite concern, that not speaking out on important current issues by adopting a policy of ‘neutrality’ suggests that we as a university are trying to duck our responsibility.”
Over 800 members of the Tufts community ultimately weighed in, expressing a range of views. But it quickly became apparent that while the importance of defending free expression and academic pluralism were widely acknowledged, the term “neutrality” itself felt like a poor fit for the community. Some felt that “it is impossible to have a neutral stance. Even silence is a political stance, and therefore taking a position is unavoidable,” de Ruiter said. “It was clear that [neutrality] was not what members of the Tufts community wanted.”
Instead, “institutional pluralism” emerged as a guiding principle that best suited the needs of the Tufts community. “What we really wanted to focus on was that everyone at Tufts would feel free to speak in their own name and would not feel constrained in their individual expression by general leadership statements,” said de Ruiter. In gravitating towards a distinctly positive vision, rather than abstaining from an action, the group “chose the word ‘pluralism,’ which focuses more on diversity of opinions than on staying neutral.”
In its final report, the working group recommended that “... university leadership adopt a policy of refraining from issuing statements on political and social matters that are not directly related to the educational, research and service mission of the university.” This stance is precisely what the Kalven Report and HxA’s own policy model on statement neutrality call for. Also in alignment with HxA’s model, the report provides an important lane for university leaders to use their voice by encouraging “leadership to speak forthrightly when [the university’s] mission is threatened.”
The working group’s recommendation was adopted by the Academic Council, Tufts’s highest policy-making organization. Later, the Board of Trustees affirmed three core principles that align with the working group’s recommendations:
In the interest of protecting and encouraging pluralism of viewpoint among its faculty, students, and staff, leaders at the university will refrain from making statements attributable to Tufts as an institution about political or social matters that do not bear directly upon the university’s core teaching, research, and service mission or its corporate responsibilities.
This continues Tufts’ long-standing commitment to free speech, open inquiry, and academic freedom.
It implies neither neutrality nor indifference on the part of Tufts leadership, faculty, staff, or students. Rather, it intends to encourage Tufts community members to speak in their own voices.
De Ruiter believes that it is too early to gauge the impact of Tufts’s institutional pluralism principle on the university’s culture, but he did share that there are several other units on campus exploring pluralism, including the Chaplaincy and the Center for Expanding Viewpoints in Higher Education (led by HxA member and 2026 HxA Open Inquiry Award recipient Eitan Hersh).
Notably, Tufts’ commitment to institutional pluralism is a principle, not a strict policy with explicit implementation expectations and guidelines. The working group recommended “a guiding standard instead of a rule, because we didn’t want to paradoxically control speech while advocating for pluralism,” de Ruiter said. As for how the principle will endure through future changes in leadership and administration, de Ruiter is confident that “if our leadership changes, the recommendation will either be followed or appropriately re-evaluated if that turns out to be necessary.”
De Ruiter offers some advice to other institutions that are reconsidering their own statement-making habits and policies. “I would strongly advise them to be very careful with their choice of words. Words do not necessarily mean what we intend them to mean, but rather what the recipients think they mean,” he wrote. Additionally, he suggests “having a wide, open, but structured community dialogue to ensure that whatever policy or recommendation is decided upon, it has the support of the community. This is how we chose the word ‘pluralism’.”
There’s good reason to think that institutional neutrality and similar policies are best shaped by faculty. It is faculty who are at the vanguard of defending open inquiry at their institutions. It is faculty who stand to gain the most from well-crafted policies that strengthen intellectual vitality in teaching and research. And it is faculty who stand to lose the most from weak, ineffective, or overly broad policies. Without campus community input, policies and principles that aim to elevate free expression and recalibrate institutional statement-making habits may be built on shaky foundations.
While the exact amount of daylight between “neutrality” and “pluralism” may be a matter of perspective, either label for the principle is a welcome advancement in the service of open inquiry and free expression on campus. The expanding landscape of similarly-spirited policies (including “institutional restraint” and “institutional voice stewardship”) signals a growing commitment to enriching the climate of intellectual expression on campus and honoring the core telos of the university.
Team HxA applauds Tufts University for its dialogue-driven approach to developing its principle of institutional pluralism, and for demonstrating what is readily apparent to open inquiry advocates: faculty are stalwart defenders of their institutions’ truth- and knowledge-seeking missions, and are eager to work with leadership to do what’s right.
To learn more about how to implement institutional neutrality at your institution, see our website for our policy model, research report, databases, reading guides, and more.