A big problem we've seen recently is that the idea of an institutional voice depends on willingness to hold fast to stated beliefs in the face of political threats. US university leaders/managers have been, almost without exception, incapable of this. In these circumstances, a policy of institutional neutrality leaves universities in a better position to defend the fundamental value of academic freedom. Saying "the university takes no position on issues of this kind" implies both "Professor X is not speaking for the university on this issue" and "The university will not take the position that Professor X is wrong and should be silenced"
A big problem we've seen recently is that the idea of an institutional voice depends on willingness to hold fast to stated beliefs in the face of political threats. US university leaders/managers have been, almost without exception, incapable of this. In these circumstances, a policy of institutional neutrality leaves universities in a better position to defend the fundamental value of academic freedom. Saying "the university takes no position on issues of this kind" implies both "Professor X is not speaking for the university on this issue" and "The university will not take the position that Professor X is wrong and should be silenced"
That's clearly the plan. But I doubt it will survive reality