Institutional Modesty

As Seattle University moves into a leadership transition, President Eduardo Peñalver reflects on how universities can remain places of rigorous inquiry and open debate amid deep political polarization. In the Jesuit educational tradition, engaging diverse viewpoints is integral to the pursuit of truth and the formation of leaders of principle and purpose in a pluralistic society. In his final newsletter, Peñalver discusses why viewpoint diversity is an educational imperative, how institutional “modesty” (rather than strict neutrality) supports a culture of scholarly debate and what he hopes Seattle University continues to cultivate in the years ahead.

You have emphasized the importance of engaging across differences. Why is viewpoint diversity such an essential educational imperative for Seattle University at this moment in our national life?

EP: Our country is more politically polarized today than it has been for at least a century. In a society where thoughtful engagement across disagreement is increasingly rare, Jesuit universities should strive to be places where it is embraced and cultivated.

Learning how to engage productively with people who think differently from us is a skill. As with all skills, mastering it requires experience and practice.

This can be hard to achieve on college campuses, including at Seattle University. Political polarization and geographic sorting work together to make it likely that the range of views we encounter on our campus—as on many others—will tend to reflect a narrow range of political perspectives.

People whose views do not fit within prevailing perspectives often keep their heads down and stay silent. One recent poll found that nearly 90% of students at Northwestern and the University of Michigan had pretended to hold more progressive views than they actually do in order to succeed academically and socially. The result of this kind of self-censorship can be a distorted sense of the political landscape and atrophied skills of engagement and persuasion with people who think differently.

We cannot achieve our educational mission of empowering our students to become leaders for a just and humane world if we do not prepare them to engage with people across the wide range of perspectives they will encounter in that world. Promoting a diversity of viewpoints on our campus is an essential part of our educational mission.

How does a commitment to open inquiry and intellectual humility align with the Jesuit tradition of educating the whole person?

EP: The Jesuit commitment to the principle of presupposition, which finds its origins in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, counsels us to enter into conversation by putting the best possible interpretation on the statements that other people make, including people we disagree with or even people we see as our political adversaries.

This approach is consistent with the Jesuit commitment to seeing God in all things and all people. It pushes us to broaden the scope of our engagement through understanding, charity, and dialogue.

If we remain true to these core Jesuit principles, our institutions should seek to produce graduates who are willing and prepared to build bridges across the entrenched disagreements that prevail in our ideologically segregated and polarized communities.

Sustaining such a culture of thoughtful skepticism and productive engagement is a fragile and delicate balancing act on a campus where we also seek to sustain a sense of belonging for people from a diverse range of backgrounds and identities.

Among other things, this undertaking requires that we ourselves—as administrators and educators—be open to a wide range of people and ideas, including ideas that we might consider to be wrong or mistaken or even offensive. It requires that we ensure that a wide range of points of view are presented in our classrooms, in the readings we assign, the speakers we invite, and the perspectives we present to our students.

This is no easy task. But it is essential if we are to educate the kinds of leaders our polarized democracy needs.

You have spoken for some time now about the idea of “institutional modesty” as an alternative to strict institutional neutrality. How does modesty, or restraint, help a university foster a healthy culture of debate while remaining true to its values?

EP: An institutional aspiration towards “neutrality” is impossible to maintain regarding core values that inform the university’s operational decisions. This is true for all universities, but it is especially true at faith-based institutions like Seattle University. We cannot be neutral, but we should always seek to create space for open dialogue and disagreement even on those issues. For example, as a Jesuit, Catholic university, we are obviously not “neutral” about the Catholic faith and yet we welcome people of all faith traditions and we encourage open discussion and even disagreement about Catholic values and beliefs.

Modesty counsels us to adopt a restrained approach to institutional speech, avoiding empty or performative grandstanding and reserving official statements for situations that are necessary to explain the actions we are taking or ruling out. Even when we issue statements, we do so in ways that preserve space for the expression of dissenting points of view consistent with appropriate guidelines around the time, place, and manner of expressive activities.

Adopting a stance of institutional modesty can help us to sustain that space for open dialogue and inquiry even as we faithfully express and attempt to live out our deeply held values. We have not been neutral about diversity, or immigration policy, or sustainability. And we have made statements at various times about the steps we are taking to live out those values. But we can affirm our values even while welcoming those who disagree, either about those values or about how we have chosen to express them through our actions or policies.

Seattle University aspires to be more widely recognized nationally as a leading academic institution. What do you hope people—locally, regionally, and nationally—think of first when they think of Seattle University?

EP: As a university in the Jesuit Catholic tradition, the first thing people should think of when they consider Seattle University is our academic excellence. Of course, as a university in the Jesuit, Catholic tradition, we also want people to think about our commitment to empowering leaders for a just and humane world. That is, we want people to understand that the pursuit of excellence at Seattle University is always in the service of a larger, common good. But our mission will only be effective insofar as we are known for our academic excellence—for our uncompromising rigor in the pursuit of truth and in the preparation of our students to become the leaders of tomorrow.

As you reflect on your tenure, what gives you confidence about where the university is headed—both in its academic trajectory and in fostering a culture of robust, reasoned dialogue?

EP: I am heartened by the engagement of our students, faculty, and staff on the vital issues of our day, whether it be through their scholarship, their volunteerism, or their extramural activities. I am also encouraged by the fact that we have not experienced the kinds of affirmative suppression or disruption of expression that we sometimes see at other universities. While I think we still have work to do to ensure that our community is one that truly relishes robust and reasoned dialogue—that really enjoys it—our Jesuit commitments offer us a great foundation.

Further Reading on Institutional Modesty

In May 2023, President Peñalver shared with the campus a “statement on statements” outlining why universities should be more restrained in issuing official positions. He has elaborated on his thinking in several settings since then, including a February 2025 speech to Seattle community and business leaders. In those remarks, he argues that while universities should avoid performative statements, the common turn toward “institutional neutrality” is insufficient. Instead, he outlines his framework of institutional modesty, rooted in academic freedom, openness to dissent and a commitment to the university’s values.

Read his full remarks