WashU Chancellor Andrew Martin recently penned an op-ed with Vanderbilt Chancellor Daniel Diermeier, in which the two laid out their vision for the ideal research university. Unbiased. Neutral. Apolitical. These traits, according to the chancellors, “are not new. They have defined America’s great research universities for decades.” I am not convinced this is true.

The chancellors’ op-ed begins with a bleak description of the current state of higher education. They describe the position universities find themselves in today as “a crisis” and “a crossroads,” stating that, “Universities are now in the crosshairs of government and activists alike.”

Martin and Diermeier then go on to argue that universities have become mired in “ideological agendas” which have prevented them from producing quality education and research to their fullest capacity. They imply that WashU and Vanderbilt — conveniently for them — are not a part of the general trend of ideological corruption in academia. The two chancellors argue that WashU and Vanderbilt’s exonerated status is only possible because of their commitment to the “core principles” of academic institutions: “excellence,” “academic freedom and free expression,” and “accessibility.” 

These three categories of values seem fairly arbitrary. One could argue, for example, that accessibility is simply a sub-point in universities’ goal of excellence, in which case a third point like creativity or collaboration might be added. What matters most seems not to be the values themselves, but simply the fact that the chancellors can point to a vague sense of “excellence” that they can encourage other institutions to adopt. 

Besides the positive visions of university greatness they offer, the actual criticisms Martin and Diermeier make of US universities are quite nebulous; besides their explicit insistence that universities ought not to “take official positions on political and social issues,” their other critiques amount to vague gestures towards institutions that have “allowed excellence to become compromised” or have “lost sight” of “their foundational purpose.” 

But has this idealized foundation of academia ever existed at all? Regardless of the exact list of “core principles,” can we explain the ability of academic institutions to thrive in a brief collection of buzzwords? Is it ever possible, as Martin and Diermeier claim, to separate academic institutions and their work from “ideological agendas” of any kind?

University presidents and administrators have a rich and admirable history of political actions, one of the most impactful coming in 1936 from University of North Carolina president Frank Porter Graham. When a UNC professor faced dismissal from the Board of Trustees for his decision to share a meal with leaders in the NAACP, Graham declared, “If Professor Erickson has to go on the charge of eating with another human being, then I’ll have to go first.” Martin and Diermeier likely imagine that they would have made the same decision if they had been university leaders in the 1930s, but it is difficult to imagine them squaring such a decision with their dogmatic commitment to political neutrality.

Is it ideological, then, when climate scientists at research institutions around the world come to a consensus on the dire threat of climate change? Certainly in some ways, as it promotes the ideology that our current scientific research methods are fairly reliable and ought to be trusted. But that kind of ideology isn’t a bad thing; scientific paradigms naturally shift with time, but academic work requires a certain collection of assumptions about theory, experimentation, and knowledge creation in order for it to happen in the first place. WashU, Vanderbilt, Saint Louis University, The University of Chicago, and every other research university are so much more than giant buildings churning out numbers and graphs without any human value attached to them. 

Martin and Diermeier’s hubris becomes even clearer when applied to other university departments. Is the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies department expected to be neutral on the topic of feminism? The Latin American Studies department on human rights abuses by the U.S. government? WashU’s own WashU & Slavery Project is certainly not neutral on its subject matter, nor should it be! Academic work is often quite political, and that’s OK. 

Perhaps Martin and Diermeier meant to distinguish between university administrators and faculty more strongly, as they champion “academic and free expression” as one of the “foundational principles” of great research universities. However, even if we assume Martin and Diermeier only wish to advocate against “ideological agendas” for university administrators, academic faculty across the country have a very different opinion about the promotion of “neutrality” as a core value at U.S. universities. Earlier this year, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released their statement “On Institutional Neutrality,” in which they argued against the increasing prevalence of universities taking stances they are commonly labeling as “institutional neutrality.” The authors of the statement explain that institutional neutrality, in the many forms it takes among universities, is not “necessary or sufficient for academic freedom to flourish.” More specifically, academic freedom actually requires a more substantive stance to be taken, as the AAUP writes, “The defense of academic freedom has never been a neutral act.” Given both Martin’s and Diermeier’s backgrounds in Political Science — particularly Martin’s work on the allegedly neutral, yet anything but, US Supreme Court — I am surprised the chancellors still think the neutrality they describe is even possible. 

In addition to this dubious endorsement of neutrality above all, a very pointed ideological commitment emerges despite its authors’ ostensible opposition to ideology of any kind: nationalism. Twice, Martin and Diermeier argue that “national security” is threatened when universities stray from their allegedly-neutral pasts, and they even highlight “the nation’s competitiveness and strength abroad” as another important bastion to be cultivated by academic institutions. Besides these explicit instances, the op-ed is laden with vivid language that frames its authors as champions for the great rise of universities as a sort of nation themselves, following nationalist rhetorical patterns with acrobatic flexibility: pointing to an imagined past ideal, describing the tragic fall from that ideal, and providing an invigorating opportunity for the triumphant rebirth of an ideal that never existed in the first place. 

I fully recognize the difficult place all university administrators currently find themselves in, as the Trump administration’s funding cuts are horribly threatening to the existence of many institutions. But nowhere in their op-ed do Martin and Diermeier advocate against cuts to education funding, a pathetic omission considering the obvious awareness they have of the Trump administration’s eyes on any and all university communication at this time. Instead, Martin and Diermeier acknowledge budget cuts as threatening to their universities’ functions before rolling over and blaming the rise of “politicization” at universities for the cuts instead of rampant anti-intellectualism. 

Martin and Diermeier seem to have seen Jeff Bezos’ reorientation of The Washington Post towards “personal liberties and free markets,” Mark Zuckerberg’s removal of fact-checking features on Facebook, and Elon Musk’s general vibe as perfect models for the kind of faux-neutrality they would love to emulate. We deserve it! It’s our fault academic resources are being slashed! We’re sorry! At best, it’s a completely spineless waste of 1,000 words. At worst, it’s a full validation of the Trump administration’s demonization of normal, valuable, and vital academic work.

It isn’t particularly often that Martin makes public statements that amount to more than rushed PR moves. The growing movement to defund educational institutions across the U.S. is an excellent time to speak out. I just wish Martin took the opportunity more seriously.