"Taking a position on geopolitical matters is more likely to hinder ETH Zurich’s mission than to support it"
The Executive Board has recently adopted a policy recommendation by the Ad Hoc Commission on Institutional Positioning, proposing that ETH Zurich should refrain from taking positions on geopolitical crises. Interview with the chairperson of this commission, Effy Vayena.
In July 2024, after a tumultuous year for universities worldwide in response to geopolitical crises and events, ETH President Joel Mesot appointed an Ad Hoc Commission on Institutional Positioning. The commission was given the mandate to develop the basis for the Executive Board to decide whether ETH Zurich as an institution should take a stand on geopolitical crises and conflicts and to define criteria which can be used as a guide about when to make institutional statements on such issues.
The commission was headed by Effy Vayena, Associate Vice President for Digital Transformation and Governance, and included representatives of all university groups.
Why did you take over as head of the commission when you were asked by the president?
Given what happened last year, it was clear to me that this is an important mandate with the potential to seriously impact our ETH Zurich community. I knew it wouldn’t be an easy task to develop a balanced recommendation, but I felt that this is an area I had been thinking about professionally and personally, and I wanted to support ETH’s efforts to develop a principled way of handling this issue.
The commission stated that ETH Zurich as an institution should not take a stand on geopolitical issues. What were the most debated points among the commission members?
At the heart of our discussions was a fundamental question: How does taking a position align with ETH Zurich’s mission and values? The discussions revealed a shared concern among commission members that engaging in geopolitical positioning could pose risks. The core of ETH Zurich’s mission is to advance science, technology and education while upholding principles such as academic freedom and inclusion. Ultimately, the conclusion was clear: taking a position on geopolitical matters is more likely to hinder ETH Zurich’s mission than to support it. By maintaining impartiality, the university safeguards its role as a space for open inquiry, ensuring that scientific excellence and education remain the focus of its endeavours.
Critical voices might say that not taking a stand can also be seen as cowardice. How would you respond to that?
When ETH Zurich doesn’t take positions on geopolitical crises, it doesn’t mean that our institution is indifferent to global challenges. However, the best contribution that ETH can make to the world is by delivering on its mission in research, education and knowledge transfer. Positioning on complex geopolitical crises is not part of this core mission. In addition, there is the issue of consistency. Conflicts and crises occur continuously worldwide, making it impossible for us as an institution to diligently assess each one and take a position. By refraining in all cases, we establish a clear and predictable stance that may help shield us from external pressures.
Furthermore, being an international institution means that our community includes nationals from many states that are, or might eventually be, involved in geopolitical crises. We have a duty to ensure that all our members feel safe and free to pursue their academic and professional goals. Institutional positioning can have negative effects on those members of our community coming from nations or groups we assumed a position against. This can erode our culture of inclusivity and openness. Ultimately, ETH’s stance is rooted in the belief that scientific progress should be as unimpeded as possible and that academia must remain an inclusive space for open scientific inquiry.
In the policy paper you explicitly make a distinction between institutional geopolitical positioning and institutional geopolitical statements. Why?
While ETH shouldn’t take official positions on geopolitical matters, we want to acknowledge the profound impact global conflicts can have on our diverse community. If conflicts abroad lead to tensions on campus — such as discrimination, harassment or disruptions — ETH has both the right and the responsibility to address these issues. Statements or actions taken in such cases are not about taking sides in an external conflict, but rather about upholding ETH’s own values of academic freedom, inclusivity and mutual respect. It is our responsibility to maintain a supportive and respectful environment within our own space.
How should we as ETH best support our members who are affected by global conflicts?
Often, the most vocal perspectives dominate the public discourse. However, within ETH, there are individuals from regions and backgrounds whose voices may not be as loud. ETH recognises its responsibility to all its members, including those whose voices are less heard.
To support affected members of the ETH community, the committee proposed establishing clear communication channels and support structures. This would allow students and staff to raise concerns, receive assistance and navigate the challenges they may face due to global events.
Ultimately, ETH’s priority is to create an academic environment where research and collaboration can thrive, regardless of external conflicts. The institution’s role is not to take sides in geopolitical disputes but to ensure that every member of its community feels safe and supported.
How difficult was it to agree on a final version of the policy?
Although we debated principles as well as specific words and changed the text right up to the last minute, the commission approved the final document unanimously. I made sure that if members proposed points or changes, these would be discussed, refined and incorporated. We wanted this policy to be a true consensus product. And I would like to highlight that, despite this being a sensitive and emotionally charged issue, the work of the commission was actually a great example of collegiality, professionalism, respectful conversation and rigorous thinking. Personally, I found it extremely rewarding because all members participated actively, with a great deal of interest and real commitment.
How do other institutions deal with this topic?
In evaluating how universities approach geopolitical issues, the commission reviewed institutions across Switzerland and institutions comparable in stature to ETH Zurich worldwide. The commission did not identify any university in Switzerland with a formal policy on this issue, and similarly not in Europe. In the United States, however, some universities already have established policies.
A clear pattern emerged among the institutions that had developed a policy: the majority upheld the principle that universities should refrain from taking official positions on geopolitical issues. This approach follows a long tradition, dating back to the 1960s, when the University of Chicago published the famous external page Kalven Report, emphasising the importance of institutional neutrality in political affairs.
The findings suggest that this perspective remains widely accepted among leading academic institutions, reinforcing the idea that universities should focus on their core missions of education, research and knowledge transfer, rather than engaging in political positioning.
Always up to date
Would you like to always receive the most important internal information and news from ETH Zurich? Then subscribe to the "internal news" newsletter and visit Staffnet, the information portal for ETH employees.
Comments
No comments yet