It’s no secret that American universities are under attack. The Trump administration has launched overreaching investigations into campus policies, including on DEI, antisemitism, and admissions, detained international students after revoking their visas, and withheld billions of dollars in federal funding. The draconian measures have left many university students, faculty, and alumni confused, angry, and scared. 

Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, argued in this week’s Stay Tuned episode that everyone, not just academics, should be deeply troubled by the executive branch’s interference with higher education. 

Roth put it into perspective: “What’s at stake here are the freedoms of civil society. What’s at stake here is this great American tradition that you can work with the government, you can even be subsidized by the government, but the government doesn’t get to dictate how you think and how you behave…If you get subsidies on your farm for soybeans, the government doesn’t get to tell you you have to go to church on Sunday, or you have to have ‘ideological balance’ among your farm workers.”

As other leaders, in academia and elsewhere, questioned whether to speak out against the Trump administration’s moves, Roth was clear eyed. He was one of the first university presidents to publicly condemn the administration’s efforts. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Roth is critical of the so-called Kalven doctrine, a model of institutional neutrality derived from a 1967 report out of the University of Chicago. Written by constitutional law professor Harry Kalven Jr. at the height of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, the report promoted the idea that academic institutions should remain neutral in moments of political turmoil. 

Roth disagrees: “What the neutrality principle does is [says] you don’t have to use your judgment. Because if you use your judgment, you have to defend your judgment. If you have to defend your judgment, you’re in a conversation.” He argues it gives leaders an excuse to evade difficult topics. “You’re not better not speaking. You’re just afraid to annoy someone.”

Roth is a champion of ideological diversity, especially in academia, which hasn’t always made him popular on his campus. Sometimes, though, more voices can’t replace a president’s voice. But how does a leader decide when to speak out?

Roth doesn’t speak out about everything: “I don’t speak out on tariffs, I don’t speak out on tax rates. I can speak out when I think my participation in a public conversation will be useful. And most of the time it’s not.”

But recently, it’s been useful. That’s why he’s in the public eye, and joining podcasts like ours. 

Roth knows his role: “The Trump administration is hell-bent on destroying the freedom of universities as part of its path that destroys the freedoms of civil society. And I think people like me who have access to platforms like yours should speak out to stop authoritarianism.”

***

 Do you think university presidents should speak out on political and cultural issues—or remain neutral? How should university leaders decide when to speak out and when to stay silent?