"A famous 1967 declaration by the University of Chicago called for institutions to remain neutral on political and social matters, saying..."

"... a university “is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.' But students over the years have frequently and successfully pressed their administrations to take positions on matters like police brutality, global warming and war. Dr. Summers said in an interview that he could understand the case for university neutrality in political disputes, but that Harvard had forfeited that prerogative by speaking out on many other issues. 'When you fly the Ukrainian flag over Harvard yard, when you issue clear, vivid and strong statements in response to the George Floyd killing,' he said, 'you have decided not to pursue a policy of neutrality.'...

From "At Harvard, a Battle Over What Should Be Said About the Hamas Attacks/After a student group blamed Israel for the violence, Lawrence Summers, a former university president, condemned the leadership for not speaking up" (NYT).

A policy of neutrality can be principled, but it's not principled at all it's applied on and off and as a matter of convenience. Once the university speaks out some of the time, the question becomes whether this is one of those occasions when the university should take a side. Does the fact that some students spoke out create such an occasion?

The Harvard student letter said, “For the last two decades, millions of Palestinians in Gaza have been forced to live in an open-air prison,” and concluded that as the war unfolded, “the apartheid regime is the only one to blame.” It was signed by groups including Amnesty International at Harvard, the Harvard Kennedy School Palestine Caucus and the Harvard Divinity School Muslim Association.... 

In her response on Tuesday, [Harvard President Claudine] Clark said that “while our students have the right to speak for themselves, no student group — not even 30 student groups — speaks for Harvard University or its leadership.”...

Here's the full text of that 1967 University of Chicago declaration. Excerpt:

The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest. It finds its complement, too, in the obligation of the university to provide a forum for the most searching and candid discussion of public issues.

Moreover, the sources of power of a great university should not be misconceived. Its prestige and influence are based on integrity and intellectual competence; they are not based on the circumstance that it may be wealthy, may have political contacts, and may have influential friends....

Great. I agree. But I've got to ask Harvard: Why is this — this! — the occasion for rediscovering the virtue of neutrality? Go back and examine your history of nonneutrality and be honest about your expectations of future nonneutrality.

By the way, to do critical race theory, you've got to question statements of neutrality. What's really going on?