Wisconsin’s stand on institutional neutrality also was politically useful—by disclaiming any power to dismiss or denounce controversial professors, the regents sought to protect themselves from political intrusion and further demands for investigations. While most debates about institutional neutrality today focus on the minor question of statement neutrality, the Wisconsin declaration recognized the core meaning of academic neutrality, that universities must not punish or denounce anyone for their beliefs.

The Wisconsin declaration is remembered today in part because of another academic freedom controversy. Edward Ross’ dismissal from Stanford in 1900 stands as one of the legendary moments in the history of academic freedom. Ironically, after his firing, Ross ended up at the University of Wisconsin. But in 1910, anarchist Emma Goldman visited Madison and was invited by students in the Socialist Club to speak. After Ross saw a woman tearing down posters for Goldman’s speech, he told his class about the talk: “I take no stock in philosophical anarchism, but I do believe in the principle of free speech.” 

The notion that universities served all the people, and therefore could not silence any voice, represented the strongest ideal of institutional neutrality ever put forth in academia.

Once again, critics demanded Ross’ firing, and though the regents did not punish him, they did not publicly defend him as they had with Ely. The students of the Class of 1910 decided to remind the regents of their prior noble words by presenting them with an inscribed plaque quoting their 1894 statement. The board preferred their words to be historic rather than metallic, and declined the gift. But the students were not easily deterred and launched a campaign with ads on Madison cable cars and with the support of newspapers across the state, demanding to be heard. The board finally agreed to accept the plaque, and today it remains a literal part of the foundations of the University of Wisconsin, mounted outside Bascom Hall on campus.

The students chose the evocative phrase that concluded the Wisconsin declaration for their plaque: “Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.” It was a noble statement for freedom, and a nice way to trash talk other colleges.

While some might misinterpret “sifting and winnowing” as an argument for censorship, the true message of the phrase is that professors and students must do the sifting of ideas and discover the correct theories without political intrusion or prohibitions. The concept of “sifting and winnowing” requires allowing bad ideas as an essential part of the intellectual process—you don’t sift something that’s already pure.

The 1894 declaration inspired resistance when academic freedom was threatened at the University of Wisconsin. A century later in 1996, UW-Madison professors invoked it when they created the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights and overturned a faculty speech code. In 2015, the Wisconsin Board of Regents responded to concerns about growing censorship of offensive speech by issuing a statement that quoted the 1894 declaration’s “sifting and winnowing” clause, and reiterated its support for academic freedom and free expression, albeit with some exceptions made to “restrict expression.” 

While most debates about institutional neutrality today focus on the minor question of statement neutrality, the Wisconsin declaration recognized the core meaning of academic neutrality, that universities must not punish or denounce anyone for their beliefs.

Ely wrote in 1938 about “that famous pronunciamento of academic freedom which has been a beacon light in higher education in this country, not only for Wisconsin, but for all similar institutions, from that day to this.” Unfortunately, the words of the declaration that weren’t emblazoned on a plaque have been largely forgotten. “Sifting and winnowing” rather than “diversity of views” and “absolutely free” became the legacy of the 1894 declaration. The Wisconsin arguments for institutional neutrality as the basis for academic freedom have disappeared over time.

Reexamining the 1894 Wisconsin declaration can help clarify academia’s core values of academic freedom, truth, institutional neutrality, and intellectual diversity. Absolute freedom for academic inquiry is not a naive ideal, but an essential part of a free university. Truth is not a fixed object decreed by authorities, but an elusive goal that requires the full freedom to consider and express ideas that can be sifted and winnowed. Institutional neutrality means that universities must refuse to punish or condemn controversial ideas. And “diversity of views” justifies not political intrusion and administrative compulsion, but the liberty to explore any views without repression.

In the 131 years since the Wisconsin regents defended the freedom of a controversial professor, we have witnessed growth in legal rights, policy protections, and organizations devoted to defending academic freedom. But our concept of academic freedom has narrowed in some ways, with a growing number of exceptions and caveats now accompanying every ideal. The 1894 declaration by the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents provides not just a look back at the early history of academic freedom, but also offers a reminder that powerful and courageous institutional defenses of free expression can be found in academia’s distant past. 

While a more recent academic freedom movement has pressured colleges to adopt the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report and Chicago Principles, no similar movement has arisen calling for universities to embrace the eloquent and powerful Wisconsin declaration. The 1894 Wisconsin report is such a clear and concise statement of uncompromising academic freedom in the name of neutrality that it seems unlikely that any university would have the courage to adopt its principles today.