The Role of Universities in the Public Debate

In May 2024, the Rectorate established a scientific committee composed of representatives from the university community as well as external members. It entrusted the committee with the task of drafting a report aimed at repositioning the role of universities in public debate from the perspective of academic policy. The aim was to reflect on the place that the University can — or should — occupy in response to contemporary crises, whether political, environmental, or societal.

Although launched in the context of international student mobilisations in support of Palestine, the initiative formed part of a broader reflection, intended to be applied coherently in other settings. While the crisis in Gaza prompted its creation, the approach was deliberately more general from the outset.

From the beginning of its work, the Committee stressed its full awareness of the human suffering and breaches of international law that had occurred in southern Israel and the Gaza Strip. It acknowledged the commitment of members of the university community in defence of international humanitarian law, considering this commitment an honour to the University of Geneva, aligned with its humanist values and resonating with the close ties it maintains with International Geneva.

Nevertheless, the Committee emphasised that the core issue did not concern individual positions, but rather the appropriateness of the University, as an institution, taking public stances on international matters.

On 27 February 2025, the scientific committee submitted its seven recommendations to the Rectorate. Following the example of other institutions, such as Sciences Po Paris, it proposed that university authorities “should not take positions on matters of Swiss or international politics, unless these directly affect the University’s core missions.” Each recommendation was discussed, revised where necessary, and adopted in its final form during the committee’s sessions.

The report submitted to the Rectorate consisted of two parts: the recommendations, resulting from in-depth discussions, and a statement of reasons, drafted separately. As one chapter of this statement was found to contain plagiarised content, the Rectorate decided to withdraw the original report and reconvened the committee under new presidency, requesting the drafting of a new explanatory statement fully compliant with the University’s regulations and its code of ethics and professional conduct.

This explanatory report, the outcome of that renewed process, was submitted to all current members of the scientific committee before being officially delivered to the Rectorate on 16 May 2025.