Many European and North American universities originate in religious missions. So, for example, it was not a category error when Francis Hutcheson, then Chair of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow, wrote Hume that his draft of book 3 of the Treatise lacked “a certain warmth in the cause of virtue.” Moral edification or improvement was part of the job description. Examples like this could be multiplied endlessly.
In history, as in journalism, objectivity and neutrality/impartiality are directly opposed values. It's an objective fact that the subjects of journalism history do things which are good and evil (or, if you want to be pernickety, considered good and evil by most people). Neutrality/impartiality requires suppressing or downplaying this fact, almost invariably selectively in a way that panders to the powerful. No one in journalism or history has any problem in describing discredited figures (say Charles Ponzi) as liars and frauds. But when it comes to those who are (for journalists) or were (for historians) important and powerful, the need for neutrality is prominent. Trump has said 100 untrue things a day, but since we can't know his mental state, we can't call him a liar. And so on.
In history, as in journalism, objectivity and neutrality/impartiality are directly opposed values. It's an objective fact that the subjects of journalism history do things which are good and evil (or, if you want to be pernickety, considered good and evil by most people). Neutrality/impartiality requires suppressing or downplaying this fact, almost invariably selectively in a way that panders to the powerful. No one in journalism or history has any problem in describing discredited figures (say Charles Ponzi) as liars and frauds. But when it comes to those who are (for journalists) or were (for historians) important and powerful, the need for neutrality is prominent. Trump has said 100 untrue things a day, but since we can't know his mental state, we can't call him a liar. And so on.