Universities should be upsetting — let’s resist the calls for conformity

A good university will be “upsetting” because “by design and effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones.”

I discovered this statement by chance while preparing for a panel discussion. It dates from 1967 and is part of the Kalven Committee’s report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action opens in new tab/window. “Upsetting” — as can be understood from that report — seems to be the opposite of today’s understanding of confirmation bias, which indicates our tendency to interpret even diverging information so that it’s consistent with our beliefs and values. Or even worse, to act with conformity bias by relinquishing our own standards to accept someone else’s belief.

I adhere with dedication and empathy to the mission and values of universities to create unbiased, objective and scientifically sound information, which may result in inconvenient facts that may sometimes render us mentally or emotionally disturbed. But have we lost our ability to be upsetting as universities — and if so, why? Or are we facing a trend, like a pendulum, where we are part of an oscillatory motion and just now accept conformity bias as the new normal?

I am usually very resistant to confirmation and conformity, but this shift raises the question of whether we — as universities — are sufficiently resilient. Resilience used to be — at least before times of accelerated change (e.g., pre-COVID pandemic) — the ability to return to a stable state after a disturbance; whereas nowadays, resilience places much more emphasis on the importance of flexibility and adaptation to new circumstances after a disruptive event, as my colleagues and I point out in Chapter 3 opens in new tab/window of The New Road to Success: Contributions of Universities Towards More Resilient Societies opens in new tab/window (ISCA Geneva, 2024).

No matter what definition I use, a general attitude of not being confirmative and supporting conformity upsets many stakeholders within and outside our university ecosystem. And running a university expressing leadership without formal authority instead of using one’s own position’s power is still a challenge (even though leadership without formal authority in powerful positions is often touted as one of the key leadership competencies of the future). In a situation of crisis, where the role of a university rector or president is often bottom-up requested to be the one of a top-down acting CEO (but certainly only within the boundaries of requesters understanding of decisions needed to be taken), the reciprocity principle of leadership without formal authority is violated unilaterally from bottom-up.

At the University of Zurich opens in new tab/window, we have a unique chance to revisit the concept of “upsetting” given that we are now facing our largest retirement wave ever because of our nation’s mandatory retirement age of 65. It’s a timely opportunity to strengthen resilience or — more to the point — revisit our upsetting capacity again! Interestingly, I have never received so many hiring committee reports and recommendations arguing that the listed number one candidate is “a perfect match” for the university and “aligns perfectly with the mission” of the institute. When questioning those arguments, I often hear a response explaining that the candidate fits in with the thinking of all colleagues. Isn’t this a clear case of confirmation bias, evidencing that thinking is aligned with existing expectations and hypotheses and hence avoids being upsetting? And it seems to be clear: We do not want to hire “the other next difficult (sic!) colleague.” But why not? (I wish to underline that all those proposed are of top scientific quality).

In my view, the predominant task of university leadership is to maximize individual excellence and institutional excellence. The latter involves not only providing excellent services to the university but acting as the moderator between excellent but sometimes non-agreeing and disputing individuals.

If we as universities really have lost our ability to be upsetting, we may not fulfill our institutional roles any longer and should seriously rethink our strategies. On the other hand, much of society lately has not felt anything to be more upsetting than universities for various reasons. We need only reflect on the response to university recommendations during COVID, or recent protests and state power interventions at our universities — or the conversation about how “woke” a university can or should be. We — both universities and society — must accept a higher level of the capacity to be upsetting!

Controversy should drive fundamental values

In view of external political pressure on a university, wokeness has been seen as a leftist tendency. Paul Graham defines wokeness opens in new tab/window (and political correctness) as “an aggressively performative focus on social justice” and argues that performativeness (e.g., intended to impress someone rather than being sincere) is the real problem and not social justice. Wokeness as an ideology is upsetting and might have provoked an anti-reaction of dismantling universities. The result of exercising confirmation bias in any direction too much is that a university reaches a collective viewpoint and appears to society by speaking with one voice. This is not what I imagine we as universities should strive for: It is even a fundamentally wrong assumption or strategy. A collective position for a university should not exist, as controversy should drive the fundamental values of the university. Coming back to the Kalven report, its authors convey this idea powerfully through the lens of their time:

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.

If the pendulum swings too far to one extreme, we may be upsetting but maybe too upsetting or not upsetting in the right way. Institutional neutrality has emerged as a generic term from the Kalven report and was criticized for ignoring the possibility of shared values by an institution by using governance principles that include everyone appropriately. On the other hand, shared values might lead to institutional statements that, if phrased in such a generic manner, remove the key message from the expertise of the institution or strip it of impact.

In conclusion, upsetting in a constructive, forward-looking way is desirable, while upsetting because the pendulum has swung to one extreme is counterproductive.

Resisting interference

I have taken many measures to find the proper balance between being upsetting and being annoying. It has resulted in a moderate level of upset-ness to all sides. But I have been resistant to accepting any interference from outside to weaken or change the mission of my university.

Of course, interference is not a new phenomenon, but neither is opposing such measures. As the Kalven Committee states:

From time-to-time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.

Acting as an institution in its corporate capacity — rather than being swayed by singular individuals who claim thought leadership of any given topic — poses a significant challenge. Institutionally, we must discuss how much patience we must exercise until an institutional position has been clarified. However, we also have a moral (institutional) obligation to respond to necessary and righteous disruptions arising from cases of injustice. All unfair interference must be opposed, even by transgressing our own “institutional neutrality,” and is to be valued more highly than the necessary trouble we generate as universities. That is, creating “good trouble opens in new tab/window” is a moral imperative, both as an individual and an institution.

This is particularly challenging if the institution faces pressure from multiple groups pulling it in various directions, and the final solution for the institution is to decline to take a stance. Again, Kalven refers to an appealing situation to short-mindedly condemn or applaud political movements and values as an institution:

[T]here emerges … a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be.

In Switzerland, we face daily discussions on neutrality, and we are used to discussing it. I observe a key danger that we as universities mix legally possible scenarios with political correctness when discussing institutional neutrality. And following current political interference, there is a tendency to shift political responsibility onto science. There seem to be political benefits to interfere with institutional neutrality. There is a suggestion to position universities to follow “institutional silence opens in new tab/window.” No matter what, we must stand up for our core mission.

I applaud those leaders and colleagues at universities resisting state power interventions and striving to balance out pendulum-like oscillatory motions — all while maintaining their capacity to be upsetting as an institution and continue to foster individual excellence.

I will continue to be upsetting for the betterment of my university and hence society.