When the cultural issue was Black Lives Matter, universities could not contain their need to take a stance. After all, who could be against Black Lives Matter, and how could universities not assuage the feelings of their students by validating them at the institutional level.

Gaza, on the other hand, was a problem. To some students, the moral issue was not only as clear, but the need was even greater. After all, this was genocide, and what sort of monstrous institution would not take a stand against genocide? To other students, the call for the destruction of Israel, death of Jews and deprivation of unfettered access to the university by Jewish students was not the obvious moral stance.

In recognition of the institutional hypocrisy and damage done by siding with some students and against others, some universities have adopted the position of institutional neutrality, that the universities would henceforth take no position as to cultural, social and political issues. Of course, none of those institutions have as yet been tested, so whether they will adhere to their claimed position under uncomfortable circumstances has yet to be seen. Will they take no position should another round of Black Lives Matter burn up the streets? I’ll believe it when I see it.

But Johns Hopkins has taken its own path. Rather than institutional neutrality, it has chosen a “restrained approach.” What does this mean?

As leaders of Johns Hopkins University, we are often called upon in the face of global, national, or local occurrences to issue public statements on behalf of the institution. These requests are usually grounded in a sense of connection to the values and purpose of our university and our common humanity, and on the occasions when we have issued such statements, we have attempted to choose our topics and words carefully.

Are they “called upon,” or do they choose to leap in uninvited when they see an opportunity to pander to the feelings of their students and faculty, and by doing so, generate cheap good will? After all, it costs nothing to put out a statement supporting a cause with which the vast majority of the students agree. The PR value is huge and it doesn’t cost a dime. Why not?

In recent years, requests for institutional statements have increased in frequency. The subjects upon which we have been urged to speak have varied widely—human rights violations, acts of discrimination, changes in health regulations, incidents of targeted violence, military conflicts, and natural disasters, among others, have led to calls for a university statement. Often those seeking such statements want us to identify and condemn the actors whom they regard as principally responsible. In other cases, those seeking statements simply desire an expression of concern or sympathy for the persons directly affected by the incident in question.

Once the institution leaps into the fray once, why not every time? Why not every issue? Why wouldn’t every group, large or small, demand that the institution back its cause, for if they aren’t with them, they must be against them, right? And doesn’t a putative safe space rub the tummies of those whose feelings are hurt?

However, we must recognize that taking institutional positions can interfere with the university’s central commitment to free inquiry and obligation to foster a diversity of perspectives within our academic community.

Oh? Was this not the case before? Why was the “central commitment to free inquiry and obligation to foster a diversity of perspectives” not a guiding principle when invited speakers were  attacked and silenced, even when the issue wasn’t Gaza?

As is the case with many of our peers, we have been weighing the value, appropriateness, and limitations of such institutional statements. We—as university leaders and deans—have arrived at a strong commitment to make institutional statements only in the limited circumstances where an issue is clearly related to a direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the university. We write today to share our reasoning on this important issue and to clarify and deepen our commitment to a posture of restraint.

You can take a posture of neutrality, where you say nothing even when students demand you condemn who they hate. Of course, holding to that position will be hard, perhaps even impossible, but at least it’s a viable position to take.

But “restraint”? How would that work? Who decides “where an issue is clearly related to a direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the university”? What are the bases upon which such a decision is made? Will it be that the students are all behind it, such that there will be no one challenging the university’s position? It’s mere baby steps to connect pretty much every social, cultural and political issue to a direct function of a university. Hell, it’s one of the few things students appear competent to do.

There are black students on campus, so Black Lives Matter directly relates to their safety and comfort on campus, their feeling of being welcome and embraced by the university community. Is that not a direct function of a university? But then, there are Jewish students on campus too. Uh oh.

Johns Hopkins is attempting to do what so many institutions caught in the web of their own hypocrisy are trying to do. They present untenable official positions and pray that circumstances don’t force their hypocrisy to smack them across the butt. Maybe they’ll get away with it. Maybe not. For now, it creates the appearance of a palliative position that seems to thread the needle so that no one feels completely slighted, but when the next social, political or cultural issue arises, will the “restraint” hold or crack under the weight of its own hypocrisy?

And lest Johns Hopkins think it bought some breathing room, students will soon be returning to campus for the fall semester, tents and keffiyehs in hand, and test the university’s fortitude. Of all the students arrested and suspended last spring, almost none have been prosecuted or expelled as their “wrongs” were swept under the rug after the media attention waned. Will Johns Hopkins pass the test this time? Will any university?