On Institutional Restraints and Academic Freedoms: Reflections on Berlin

Abstract This article reflects on the place of institutional neutrality in international legal scholarship at a time of heightened geopolitical conflict, the politicization of universities and increasing demands for institutional voice. Drawing from personal reflections to revisit the 1967 Kalven Report, the article considers neutrality not as dogma or indifference but, rather, as a form of principled restraint aimed at safeguarding academic freedom from the potentially chilling effects of collective institutional speech. While recognizing that absolute neutrality is neither possible nor desirable, it is contended that unrestrained institutional speech risks narrowing the space for scholarly disagreement and undermining pluralism and dissent. The article distinguishes academic freedom from general freedom of expression, framing the former as a collective responsibility to protect spaces for critical inquiry and dissent. While acknowledging the profound ethical tension where silence feels like complicity in moments of global tragedy, the author concludes that institutional reflexivity and restraint remain vital – if imperfect – tools for sustaining academic institutions as open, pluralistic sites for the contestation of ideas.