University president Jonathan Levin ’94, alongside other members of University leadership, elected not to sign a letter published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) this Tuesday condemning “government overreach and political interference” in higher education.

The presidents of over 180 U.S. colleges and universities signed the letter, which opposed the “coercive use of public research funding” and promoted a commitment an “exchange of ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation,” the letter wrote.

The AAC&U’s letter, entitled “A Call for Constructive Engagement,” emphasized the importance of higher education as a cornerstone of innovation, professional development and research and “economic and cultural vitality.”

“America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy,” the letter said.

While University leadership elected not to sign the letter, presidents of peer institutions such as Harvard, MIT and Princeton were included in its signatories. According to a statement to The Daily from Levin, he and Provost Jenny Martinez adequately expressed their perspective on the matter in a statement on April 15.

“Provost Martinez and I shared our views in our statement last week and appreciate others doing so now,” wrote Levin in a statement to The Daily.

The statement asserted Levin and Martinez’s alignment with Harvard, which refused to comply with a list of demands from the Trump administration.

The list, which Harvard received on April 14, demanded that the university reduce the power of students and faculty in its proceedings, report international students who commit conduct violations to federal authorities and ensure “viewpoint diversity” in each department. Harvard’s rejection of the commands was met with a freeze of $2.2 billion in federal grants.

“Harvard’s objections to the letter it received are rooted in the American tradition of liberty, a tradition essential to our country’s universities, and worth defending,” wrote Levin and Martinez in the April 15 statement.

Larry Diamond B.A. ’74 M.A. ’78 Ph.D. ’80 said that the University’s absence from the signatories was “pretty glaring and pretty disappointing” and that the “completely reasonable provision” of institutional neutrality did not apply to the letter. He emphasized the need for unity and coordination amongst universities at a time of “creeping authoritarianism.” 

“I think we’re facing an immensely dangerous situation, and it is not a situation that is going to reward efforts to just be as low profile as possible,” Diamond said.

Mandarava Kaiya Jamyangling-Kawaguchi ’27 said the University was inconsistent in releasing public statements, citing Stanford’s absence from the letter in the context of its public support for Harvard last week. 

“I don’t think we can really use institutional neutrality as an excuse anymore,” she said, describing the inconsistency as self-contradictory. 

Jack Correy ’27 shared Jamyangling-Kawaguchi’s sentiments, saying he was “disappointed” by the University’s inaction and that it was “absurd” to maintain institutional neutrality at a time when higher education is under federal attack. 

“You’re not going to have an institution if [Trump] keeps getting his way,” Correy said. 

Juhae Song ’28 believes that institutional silence is not politically neutral but “politically suppressive and unsupportive of students who just want to be able to learn.” She added that the University has not historically supported its students, citing the lack of support for political dissidents on campus and the absence of an explicit refusal to abide by Congressional demands for information about Chinese national students. 

The University’s political action “has historically just been a small update on a website or very under wraps in terms of the legal support that they can give students who are under attack by the Trump administration,” Song told The Daily. “Political neutrality is not working, and it’s not keeping students safe in an academic environment.”