Front Burner (CBC) – Episode Summary
Title: Should universities have opinions?
Date: December 2, 2025
Host: Jayme Poisson
Guest: Simon Lewsen (magazine journalist, part-time instructor at University of Toronto)

Overview

This episode unpacks the debate over institutional neutrality – whether universities and their administrations should take public stances on political or social issues. Prompted by a recent lawsuit at the University of British Columbia, host Jayme Poisson and guest Simon Lewsen explore the cultural, historical, and present-day implications for academic freedom, public trust, and the role of higher education in society. Through landmark concepts, illustrative anecdotes, and real-world controversy, the discussion probes the merits and pitfalls of universities having institutional opinions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Scene: The Lawsuit at UBC

• Background: Professor Andrew Irvine, a philosophy professor at UBC Okanagan, along with colleagues, sued UBC in April, alleging the university violated the 1890 BC University Act, which requires universities to be "non sectarian and non political."
• Key Complaints in the Lawsuit:
  • Land Acknowledgments: The plaintiffs argue these are inherently political statements.
  • Statements on Israel and Palestine: Academic departments issued statements condemning alleged genocide in Gaza – seen as political position-taking.
  • Mandatory Diversity Statements: Job applicants being asked to affirm commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is seen as political by the plaintiffs.
  • "Irving and his peers say that that too is a violation of institutional neutrality." (Simon Lewsen, 05:37)

[04:19] Notable Quote

"If the big bosses are going around taking political stances, you are going to feel pressure to align your research and your arguments with whatever they are saying, because it's just human to want to be on the right side of your bosses."
– Simon Lewsen

2. Responses to the Lawsuit

• UBC: Not commenting; in court, likely to argue 'non sectarian and non political' should be interpreted narrowly—mandating only no affiliations with religious or partisan organizations.
• Civil Liberties & Indigenous Organizations:
  • The BC Civil Liberties Association opposes the lawsuit, arguing it paradoxically silences administrative free speech.
  • Indigenous leaders see the attack on land acknowledgments as an attack on Indigenous sovereignty.

[06:49] Notable Quote

"Silencing people is the opposite of free speech."
– Simon Lewsen, paraphrasing BCCLA's position

3. The Conservative Critique

• The lawsuit, while framed as neutral, has been criticized as being a "Trojan horse" for conservative politics, targeting issues coded as progressive.

[08:00] Notable Quote

"When you actually look at the specific issues they're interested in, they all have a kind of conservative coded bent."
– Simon Lewsen

4. Institutional Neutrality: History and Theory

• 1960s Origins: The ideal of neutrality was articulated by Harry Kalven Jr., a law professor at the University of Chicago during a period of campus unrest:

"The university is the home and sponsor of the critics. It is not itself the critic." (09:10)

• The principle argues that administrators should not publicly take sides, so scholars feel free to pursue and defend all ideas, even unpopular ones.

[09:57] Dinosaur Anecdote – How Institutional Opinions Chill Inquiry

• Anecdote: Debates about dinosaur extinction theories (meteorite vs. volcanism) illustrated – if a university president (non-expert) declared a position, it could pressure researchers for or against that position and inhibit dissent.

"Self censorship is something that academics are never supposed to do."
– Simon Lewsen, 11:38

5. The Shift Away from Neutrality

• In Canada, the attachment to neutrality faded over the past 20 years in favor of "moral clarity" or "outspokenness," with university administrations regularly commenting on varied social, political, and scientific issues.

[13:15] October 7, 2023 and the Collapse of Consensus

• Israel/Palestine Statements: The Hamas-led attack prompted immense pressure for university statements. However, there was no campus consensus, leaving administrators in a double bind:
  • Emphasizing Israeli context risks accusations of anti-Semitism.
  • Downplaying it is labeled as condoning colonialism.

"Whatever choice they make, they're going to make some people on campus very, very angry."
– Simon Lewsen, 15:36

6. Arguments Against Neutrality

• No Perfect Neutrality: It’s an ideal to strive for, not a state easily achieved.
  • [16:15] "Even if neutrality isn't a perfect state, even if it's imperfect, it's still a worthwhile goal."
• Universities as Political Actors: Some argue universities must speak out for justice; Lewsen counters that genuine social progress comes from unbiased, careful academic work, not from PR statements.

[17:33] Notable Quote

"If universities care about this work, the administrators, the best thing they can do is get out of the way and let academics actually do it."
– Simon Lewsen

7. Crisis of Legitimacy in Modern Universities

• Financial Strain: Fewer international students, less funding.
• Eroding Public Trust: Political attacks on universities are increasing, as politicians see public appetite for targeting perceived "woke" or politicized institutions.

"Part of that crisis in public legitimacy is this growing sense that universities are not really neutral arbiters anymore, but are much more sort of openly politicized institutions."
– Simon Lewsen, 20:26

8. The Lawsuit's Prospects and Importance

• Lewsen predicts the court will likely side with UBC, as "judges are disinclined to micromanage the affairs of an independent university" (20:41).
• Still, he values the larger conversation the lawsuit has sparked about university roles and the nature of neutrality.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "The university is the home and sponsor of the critics. It is not itself the critic." – Harry Kalven Jr., cited by Simon Lewsen (09:10)
• "Self censorship is something that academics are never supposed to do." – Simon Lewsen (11:38)
• "Silencing people is the opposite of free speech." – Paraphrasing BCCLA, Simon Lewsen (06:49)
• "Even if neutrality isn't a perfect state, even if it's imperfect, it's still a worthwhile goal." – Simon Lewsen (16:15)
• "Administrators, the best thing they can do is get out of the way and let academics actually do it." – Simon Lewsen (17:33)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 02:24–04:19 Introduction to Andrew Irvine and the lawsuit's principle of institutional neutrality
• 04:50–06:44 Lawsuit details: Land acknowledgments, statements on Israel/Palestine, DEI in hiring
• 06:44–07:51 Community responses, especially indigenous and civil liberties organizations
• 08:33–09:45 The history and purpose of institutional neutrality (Harry Kalven Jr.)
• 09:57–11:54 The dinosaur anecdote: neutrality, academic freedom, and risk of self-censorship
• 12:38–13:15 The recent decline of institutional neutrality in Canada
• 13:15–15:38 October 7, 2023, Israel/Hamas, and the challenge for university leadership
• 16:15–18:30 Arguments for and against institutional neutrality
• 18:44–20:26 The current crisis of university legitimacy and political attacks
• 20:41–21:22 Prognosis for the lawsuit and reflections on the debate's significance

Tone and Takeaway

The conversation is thoughtful, probing, and even-handed, challenging both the value of institutional neutrality and the realities of modern university life. By anchoring theoretical debates in concrete legal cases, political pressures, and compelling analogies, Lewsen and Poisson offer an accessible entry point into the ongoing redefinition of what universities owe to society: neutrality, advocacy, or something in between.

The episode encourages listeners to consider not just what universities say, but whether they should say anything at all.