Here is the Kalven Report (EDIT)...

...It is quite brief, but compendious of thought, I think.

Kalven Report (Accessed at provost.uchicago.edu; University of Chicago, 1967)

The Kalven Report has been much discussed over the years at Chicago; when I started there in January 1977 the debates that gave rise to the report were still fresh, and just a few years ago it was featured in the Chicago Maroon: The Kalven Report: A Discussion, Not a Law (chicagomaroon.com, Caroline Kubzansky, Managing Editor ('20-'21), May 14, 2018).

The key concepts of the report, I think, are these:

"The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic"; and

"From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values. There is another context in which questions as to the appropriate role of the university may possibly arise, situations involving university ownership of property, its receipt of funds, its awarding of honors, its membership in other organizations. Here, of necessity, the university, however it acts, must act as an institution in its corporate capacity. In the exceptional instance, these corporate activities of the university may appear so incompatible with paramount social values as to require careful assessment of the consequences."

George Stigler, who was a member of the Kalven Committee, separately suggested this alternative version of the long paragraph quoted above:

"The university when it acts in its corporate capacity as employer and property owner should, of course, conduct its affairs with honor. The university should not use these corporate activities to foster any moral or political values because such use of its facilities will impair its integrity as the home of intellectual freedom."

The Maroon article from 2018 gets into the crack in the armor, so to speak, of the Kalven Report--the "extraordinary" circumstances when the university, speaking corporately, should weight in on policy matters that are significant to society at large.

In that vein, the University High School (a/k/a The Lab School) published this piece just a few months ago: University bars land acknowledgement statements (uhighmidway.com, Clare McRoberts, Features Editor,
October 24, 2023).

(A little personal backstory. Harry Kalven was a colleague of Walter J. Blum, who, like Kalven, graduated from the College and the Law School at Chicago and then taught there from the late 1940s til his death. I lived for two years in the third floor servants' quarters of the home of Walter and Natalie Blum at 5724 S. Kimbark. Kalven had died of a heart attack at age 60 a few years before and Blum would sometimes wax eloquent about his old friend. A couple of the other committee members were Stigler (who won a Nobel in econ when I was still there); John Hope Franklin, whose Racial Equality in America lectures had just come out; and Gwin Kolb, who was a very popular teacher, an expert on Samuel Johnson and editor of the journal, Modern Philology, sort of the Frank O'Malley of the Midway. Kalven's son Jamie has been very active as a journalist on the south side and did a lot of reporting on the Laquan McDonald case.)

EDIT: I finally got the "free account" to work and have read the piece. The phrase "four legs good, two legs better" comes to mind again, as does the phrase that Kalven coined, "heckler's veto."

Institutions of higher education could do worse than to adopt the Kalven Report, though it would hardly be a panacea. I wonder what the general response would have been if the three university presidents had answered the question about genocide this way:

"The University of X is opposed to genocide. In saying this, the university does not adopt any particular party's narrative, but instead remains a forum for the free exchange of ideas." Part 1 of the answer is the "duh" part. Part 2 addresses, in a circumlocutory way, whether the university is going to condemn anyone who says that Israel practices genocide.