He did the same thing last year, a few days after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on October 7th.

But this latest statement on a major event may have been his last.

The seven paragraphs he published on October 11 about the Hamas attack drew sharp criticism. Some said his statement came too late. Others said it lacked historical context and lacked empathy for Israelis or Palestinians.

The backlash forced Ryan to confront a question that American higher education has grappled with for decades: When, if ever, should a university publish remarks on current events?

At a UVa Board of Visitors meeting last December, Ryan told the school’s governing body that he needed help answering that question. He and the panel agreed that it would be helpful to convene a committee that could consider when their president should address national and global issues.

These 11 members of the UVa community, most of them faculty members, began their work in February. Titled the Committee on Institutional Statements, its goal was to develop a set of principles that would guide decisions about when, if and how UVa should impact off-campus events.

The committee presented its findings to the Board of Visitors at a meeting on September 13th. The “University Statement on Institutional Statements” is a dozen paragraphs long and boils down to one key sentence: “The University of Virginia should not express opinions on social and political issues unless those issues directly affect its mission or operations.”

Other universities have come to a similar conclusion. In recent months, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University and others have adopted policies of institutional neutrality.

A report prepared by a Harvard University faculty committee found that making official expressions of empathy could make one appear to be more interested in some events than others.

“And since few, if any, world events can be completely isolated from conflicting viewpoints, issuing official statements of empathy risks alienating some members of the community by expressing tacit solidarity with others,” the Harvard report said.

The UVa statement makes a similar point, arguing that a university statement could “endanger academic freedom” and “deter dissidents.”

In addition, it claims that statements can weaken public trust in the university by creating the impression that it is “politically biased on issues about which there is broad disagreement in society.”

The committee was chaired by politics professor John Owen, who presented its conclusions to the Board of Visitors at the September 13 meeting. He pointed to precedent for their work, most notably the Kalven Report, a 1967 document prepared by the University of Chicago that established that a university should not interfere in matters that do not directly concern it.

Owen said the committee began the process by thinking about what makes UVa unique.

“We are a public university, and we are a special public university founded by Thomas Jefferson,” he said. “We like to believe that all universities, but this particular one we speak for, exist for the society that it serves and that it serves. And so we justify academic freedom partly on that basis.”

The committee found that statements could “threaten academic freedom.”

Stanley Fish agrees with the work of the committee. Fish, currently a professor at New College of Florida, has taught at schools across the country and believes universities should not be in the habit of releasing public statements.

Fish particularly likes one clause in UVa’s work: “As an institution, a university is not an expert on the major issues of the day, but rather a place where expertise is acquired, exercised and challenged.”

“That’s exactly right,” Fish told The Daily Progress. “Analyzing political positions is our job as scientists. It is not our job to represent political positions.”

The board ultimately adopted the statement, but not before discussing it among themselves and asking questions to Owen.

At one point, board member Bert Ellis called for a distinction between the statement and the Kalven report.

“Is this basically the Kalven report? “Does this adopt the principles of the Kalven report?” asked Ellis.

Owen responded that the UVa statement is intended to indicate that the university is not separate from the world around it, but rather an active member.

“We are explicitly concerned with the unique role of the university in the service of a constitutional democracy. If it is to do this properly, it should follow these principles. “So it’s much more of an active conception of the university,” said Owen.

According to Fish, there is “not much” difference between the two documents. UVa’s statement was “a significant revival of the position of the Kalven report,” he said.

Some academics have objected to the “neutrality” position that several universities have taken recently.

In an editorial for Inside Higher Ed, Wesleyan University President Michael Roth expressed skepticism that by remaining silent on issues, leaders would “encourage others to speak more thoughtfully.”

“The fact that the leaders of these institutions cannot possibly comment on everything does not mean that they should not comment on anything. Silence in times of humanitarian disaster is not neutrality; it is either cowardice or collaboration,” Roth wrote.

For this reason, the UVa document may have been carefully drafted to avoid using the word “neutrality.”

Professor Austin Sarat, chair of the political science department at Amherst College, told The Daily Progress that UVa’s statement was “very helpful and very good.” And while it’s not institutional neutrality, Sarat said it advocates “institutional humility,” meaning that while university leaders and students may have aligned views, UVa intends to exercise some self-restraint.

“We will not get involved in these political and social controversies outside the campus boundaries,” Sarat said. “What the university is doing is making it very clear what the limits of the university’s role are in the political world outside of Charlottesville.”

He added that while the statement was consistent with the Kalven report, there were some differences. For example, the statement said UVa leaders “should express empathy or compassion for those in our community affected by external events and point them to resources that can help them.”

Connecting students to mental health resources is a concept not considered in the Kalven report, Sarat said.

Additionally, the statement comes at a time when Sarat says there is greater pressure on universities to issue statements on a variety of issues. At the time of the Kalven report, the primary question was simply whether schools should speak out about the Vietnam War.

Ryan referred to this pressure during the recent Board of Visitors meeting.

“When October 7th happened last year, over the course of three or four days, there was a lot of pressure on university presidents across the country to say something about the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel, not just to say something, but to “It’s using certain words,” Ryan said. “And that showed how difficult it is, once you’re in the universe, to decide when to say something.”

Several board members suggested taking more time to consider the matter before the vote.

“Could this be postponed until the next meeting?” I mean, this is one of those thoughtful, difficult votes that I will ever take in this body. I have to play through this. “I’m not ready to vote,” Daniel Brody said, echoing the agreement of others in the room.

The board went ahead anyway and approved the motion, suggesting that the board could revisit the issue in the future.

“This doesn’t mean, ‘Make a decision today, walk away and never talk about it again.’ It’s going to be something that (Ryan) and we have to deal with constantly,” said Principal Robert Hardie.

When Ryan first asked about the committee and again when discussing the committee’s findings, he referenced a specific line from the Kalven report: “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not the critic himself.”

“In this context, I think it can have a chilling effect on expression within the university when the university appears to have taken a particular position,” Ryan said.

He mentioned that he would still like to express his condolences when an event occurs that affects UVa students.

“It’s not about remaining completely silent and giving the impression that you’re burying your head in the sand. It’s about not taking a position,” Ryan said.