Biting their tongues

Though college campuses have long been centers of political thought, universities have become increasingly cautious about expressing formal political opinions. University presidents must make careful calculations of when it is appropriate to speak on behalf of their institution.

"There has always been political correctness, but there's been a big change over the last century," University Professor Sol Gittleman said. "At the start of World War I, if you opposed war, you were fired," he said.

Much has changed over the past 60 years. This year at Tufts, about 20 professors have openly pledged to join a walkout in protest of war with Iraq, and these professors have faced no threat to their positions.

The change has been for the best, Gittleman said, and it can be credited to an increasingly diverse university population that discusses old issues while incorporating new attitudes.

Universities today are more advocacy-oriented and more concerned with policy than specifics, Gittleman said. "Sometimes people -- faculty, students, researchers -- get opinion ahead of fact. They need to remember we're supposed to be detached objective scholars."

In expressing opinions, a college president can walk a thin line between encouraging dialogue and imposing silence, according to Tufts President Larry Bacow. "Presidents who speak too often or too forcefully run the risk of intimidating others," he said.

Not everyone is as cautious when it comes to administrators' opinions, though. Freedom of speech should allow the president to speak on any issue, according to sophomore David Ng. "It's just his opinion," Ng said. "If he gives a chance for other people to counter the argument, then he has the right to do whatever he wants."

But while presidents are entitled to their opinions on issues of national interest, "they must be careful not to speak for their institutions on such issues or to claim authority by virtue of their position," Bacow said.

University presidents have more leeway when the issues are central to the future of their institution or its educational process. In the cases where a president may have special personal expertise, he should speak out, Bacow said.

This was the case in the recent state budget cut of all $3.6 million in funding to the Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine. Bacow sent out a bulk email to the University community proclaiming his surprise and deep concern "about the implications of this cut."

Bacow has also spoken out recently on national issues by expressing support for the University of Michigan's position in the Supreme Court case on affirmative action. The president's opinion should not be surprising since "the University has been committed to affirmative action for some time," Gittleman said. Since Tufts receives federal funds, the Supreme Court's decision could ultimately affect the University.

Administrative opinions are also sought on matters of student body safety. After an off-campus house fire claimed the life of junior Wendy Carman, administrators sent home a letter notifying parents of the tragedy along with a list of important housing safety information.

Though many students approved of the administration's handling of the tragedy, other instances in which Bacow has spoken about public safety have not met with much support from students. Student support has often lagged when the administration's opinions threatened their personal interests. The recent outcry over Bacow's disapproval of the Naked Quad run was one such instance.

But according to Gittleman, Bacow was simply trying to remind students of their own mortality in a way that was "absolutely appropriate," he said. "I don't want my grandchildren going off to college and not being aware of the fact that there are dangers," Gittleman said. "That's something the president can and should speak out on."

Some circumstances require the president to censor his personal opinion in favor of University policy, though. "There are times that the president has to muzzle himself," Gittleman said. But since Tufts is a private school, its administrators have more freedom to speak than those at public universities. For "land grant" universities like MIT, "there's always a Congressman standing there saying when you want to take federal money you do what you're supposed to do," Gittleman said.

Personal discretion is another way university presidents can withhold their opinions. Earlier this year, Harvard president Lawrence Summers condemned campaigns for divestiture in Israel as a form of anti-Semitism. History professor Gary Leupp, a signatory of the divestiture petition, called the speech "out of line" and "intimidating."

Bacow also opposed the divestiture campaigns and was mentioned in The New York Times for his support of Summers. Bacow later said that he agreed with the "open and vigorous debate" but said universities should not take official positions through their investment policies."