DO UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS HOLD FORTH AS PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS OUT OF A SOCIAL OBLIGATION?

Duke political economist Michael "Kids Prefer Cheese" Munger suggests they resist the temptation.

The only choices are:

A. Don't issue public statements on things that do not directly affect your university. DIRECTLY.

B. Issue statements on some things, but not others, and THEN be prepared to issue a statement on why you choose not to issue a statement.

CORRECT Answer: A

He's responding a statement from a Stanford dean, Jennifer A. Frey, who seeks to codify when Senior Administrator qua Public Intellectual is doing the Responsible Thing.  "But as a dean, it isn't my job to weigh in with my students on current affairs unless they are somehow disrupting the work of the college I oversee."  Within her post is a statement from the president and provost of Stanford.  That statement might refer to things that DIRECTLY affect Stanford, ranging from "triggering" chalkings on the sidewalk to demonstrators yelling at each other.

Stanford University is a community of scholars. We believe it is important that the university, as an institution, generally refrain from taking institutional positions on complex political or global matters that extend beyond our immediate purview, which is the operations of the university itself. Maintaining university neutrality allows for our individual scholars to explore them freely. In recent years, many universities have gotten into the habit of issuing frequent statements about news events. This creates a number of difficulties. The decision to take a position about one event or issue yields implications for silence with regard to other issues; given that different subsets of a campus community may be more or less affected by particular issues, this inconsistency is felt acutely. It can enmesh universities in politics and create a sense of institutional orthodoxy that chills academic freedom. In addition, crafting each message is challenging, from gathering facts and context on complex issues at the speed of online media and the news cycle while also walking a line between platitudes and overly political positions.

And yes, the culture warriors are in full cry, particularly when other institutions of higher learning you might have heard of unleash the Hamas cheerleaders.

What, then, is the proper response to a world event that has the chalkings and the raging demonstrators?  Wisconsin chancellor Jennifer Mnookin offers reasons that trump her reluctance to weigh in.

I worry, too, that these devastating developments will fan the global flames of both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, making peace and justice in the region even more elusive.

Politics in the Middle East are exceedingly fraught, and there are many deeply held perspectives. But the massacre of ordinary citizens, in their homes, at music concerts, in their cars and on the streets of their villages, is a horror that we must all, in our common humanity, condemn.

As a general matter, I am skeptical that those in roles like mine should frequently comment on global or world events.  However, in this case, I recognize the grave degree of impact these events have had on so very many in our own community. It is for this reason that I write, even as I recognize that these or any words are inevitably inadequate in the face of such unspeakable tragedy.

Over the last few days, as details about the massive scale and brutality of the weekend attacks have emerged, I have spoken to and heard from students, faculty, staff, parents, alums and community partners. It is clear many of us are struggling with how to process this horror. Some are finding it difficult to focus on their classes or their jobs in the face of what has occurred.

Yes. "Rally at noon, Library Mall" is still a thing.

Florida president Ben Sasse also issues a statement, and his, while taking issue with the woke orthodoxy, suggests "institutional neutrality" might not be possible.

What Hamas did is evil and there is no defense for terrorism. This shouldn’t be hard. Sadly, too many people in elite academia have been so weakened by their moral confusion that, when they see videos of raped women, hear of a beheaded baby, or learn of a grandmother murdered in her home, the first reaction of some is to “provide context” and try to blame the raped women, beheaded baby, or the murdered grandmother. In other grotesque cases, they express simple support for the terrorists.

This thinking isn’t just wrong, it’s sickening. It’s dehumanizing. It is beneath people called to educate our next generation of Americans. I am thankful to say I haven’t seen examples of that here at UF, either from our faculty or our student body.

As for us, our educational mission here begins with the recognition and explicit acknowledgment of human dignity – the same human dignity that Hamas’ terrorists openly scorn. Every single human life matters. We are committed to that truth. We will tell that truth.

He's receiving hosannas from National Review columnist Charles C. W. Cooke.

This letter is morally clear. It is outraged without being saccharine or flustered. It’s universalist in tone and in detail. It defends free expression. It makes it clear what is speech and what is not speech. It distinguishes between principle (“our Constitution”) and analysis (“the rights of people to make abject idiots of themselves”). It is, in short, what every such statement ought to be — and, because it is in response to something concrete (“the chaos at the event”) it has an obvious rationale for existing in the first place.

He was not issuing a generic Public Intellectual statement; rather he was responding to a rally on campus to which an ambulance was summoned after a student fainted. There were no fisticuffs or obscenity-spewing juveniles in Biden muzzles.  All the same, Mr Sasse is likely to get some push-back, you know, from the sort of Excessively Earnest Person who takes offense at language such as "the rights of people to make abject idiots of themselves."