On Monday, Harvard University President Alan Garber published an open letter to his community, addressing demands issued to Harvard by the Trump administration under threat of cancellation of federal research funding. Citing the unprecedented attempt to impose “direct governmental regulation of ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard,” Garber responded: “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

We write today to invite the Vanderbilt and VUMC community to participate in today’s national day of action by calling upon Chancellor Daniel Diermeier to join Harvard in defending academic freedom — an action wholly consistent with the Chancellor’s long-held commitment to institutional neutrality. 

When institutional neutrality demands action: Theoretical underpinning

Diermeier, a tireless champion of institutional neutrality, exhorted all American research universities to adopt a similar stance in February. This stance, he argues, is one in which controversy may be avoided through recommitment of the university to core principles of excellence, free expression, academic freedom and accessibility.

But what happens when society — or segments thereof — declare these core principles controversial?

In an interview last fall, the Chancellor offered practical guidance. To test for situations in which inaction would be most appropriate, we can ask: “Are [we] taking a position on a controversial or political and social issue that goes beyond the core functioning of university?”

Silence is never truly neutral. To fail to take a position is to align with the status quo. Thus, we suggest a test for action, too.

The 1967 Kalven Report, to which the Chancellor points as a guiding light for institutional neutrality, states: “[When forces] threaten the very mission of the university and the value of free inquiry, the obligation of the university [is] to oppose such measures actively to defend its interests and values.”

Though the Chancellor has not, to our knowledge, promulgated an explicit test for action, he offers a starting point: “At a time when everything is contested, universities insist on reason, evidence and truth.”

These pillars — reason, evidence and truth — are among the chief casualties of the Trump era. In his first term, President Trump himself tallied a total of 30,000 false claims. From the opening day of his second term, he has implemented an even more aggressive “flood-the-zone” strategy. Thus, insisting on these pillars in practice is to take a radically controversial and political position.

When institutional neutrality demands action: Practical implications

Our test for action follows from this premise: Are we obligated to take a position in service of our duty to insist on reason, evidence and truth, as an essential element of higher education?

In evaluating events of recent months against the tests for both inaction and action, and in light of Garber’s stark expression of the current stakes, we arrive at an irrefutable conclusion: Action is not only permissible but demanded of us.

In the twelve weeks since President Donald Trump has taken office, we have witnessed unprecedented attacks on academic freedom and freedom of expression; weaponization of federal funding, federal employment and Civil Rights law to threaten private institutions and punish political enemies, exactly as Trump promised; foreign nationals studying at U.S. universities arrested, taken across state lines and detained by ICE with no credible evidence of visa violation or notification of visa revocation; and blatant disregard for rule of law. These actions threaten the core functioning not only of the university but of every sector in a free society.

In tandem with his commitment to institutional neutrality, Chancellor Diermeier has embraced the Vanderbilt motto, “Dare to grow,” launching the Dare to Grow campaign in spring of 2023. Through this campaign, which has raised $3.2 billion, Vanderbilt has grown various programs and its geographical footprint.

The greater challenge for us all— as embodied in the Vanderbilt Community Creed — is to dare to grow in knowledge and self-awareness.

Do we dare to accept new information and let it shape who we are and our place in the world?

Do we dare to understand this moment in history? 

Do we dare to accept the duty incumbent upon us through the tenet of institutional neutrality: To take action to defend the very mission of higher education and the value of free inquiry?

We invite the Vanderbilt and VUMC community to:

• Dare to express your support for action. Ask the Chancellor to make a public statement identifying this moment as one in which his tenet of institutional neutrality not only permits but demands action — not merely to protect our funding, but also to safeguard our values. Please email or call the Chancellor today, a national day of action.
• Dare to recognize the need for a collective response. Ask the Chancellor to set aside competition and instead stand in a coordinated defense with other universities. Already, Vanderbilt has supported a lawsuit challenging the proposed NIH cut in research grant indirect cost rates to 15%. In addition to opposing financial threats to our mission, we must support Harvard, Princeton and other universities in their efforts to reject governmental overreach into the teachings and operations of higher education — even at the cost of losing grant funding.
• Dare to prioritize our scholars and community. In retaliation for their assertion of constitutional rights and academic freedom, Harvard faces cancellation of $2.2 billion in grant funding. To weather this storm, the university has, since March, issued $1.2 billion in bonds, borrowing against its endowment. Ask the Chancellor to consider a similar strategy to bridge funds for positions that might otherwise be eliminated due to grant cancellation — both to preserve our research and teaching prowess as well as minimize job loss in this climate of precarious federal funding.

We close with the final words of Dr. Garber’s message to the Harvard community — the same words we would speak to our Vanderbilt community: “All of us share a stake in safeguarding freedom [of thought and inquiry]. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity — and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.”