The Jesuit mission, a familiarity for most in the Santa Clara University community, encompasses moral principles focusing on holistic character formation, ethical leadership and social justice. Around the country, Jesuit schools highlight concepts such as “faith that does justice” and the attempt to “find God in everything.” This marketing champions their efforts in faith, integrity and compassion; moreover, they ask their students to recognize human dignity and respond to injustice.
But this commitment often raises a difficult question: when does a Jesuit university’s responsibility to address injustice become outweighed by a preference to remain politically neutral?
Santa Clara University has not clearly or publicly established its own guidelines for determining which matters warrant institutional advocacy. In doing so, the University risks creating a disconnect between the principles it asks its students to uphold and the principles that guide the institution itself. If the University chooses to discuss some politically contentious issues, it should be able to distinctly define when and where the institution becomes involved and when it remains silent.
Jesuit institutions have repeatedly engaged in humanitarian issues such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Rooted in Catholic social teachings and the Jesuit mission of justice, Jesuit institutions have issued several prominent collective and individual statements reaffirming their solidarity with “Dreamers,” or undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.
In 2017, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities released coordinated declarations from all 28 member university presidents. These declarations all stood in support of their undocumented student body, stating that these students enrich their campuses and that they would protect them to the fullest extent of the law. Following the declarations, over 1,200 Jesuit educators signed a letter noting how “Dreamers” are essential members of Jesuit schools and urging lawmakers—particularly those who attended Jesuit universities—to pass a clean DREAM Act.
Their efforts continued. Jesuit universities supported the One Church, One Family campaign in November 2025 aimed at demonstrating public solidarity with migrant families, refugees and asylum seekers. Santa Clara University in particular operates many community engagement programs in efforts to help impoverished and marginalized groups through our Ignatian Center; students have worked with communities dealing with homelessness, migration, farmworker issues, incarceration, environmental justice and human rights.
Our University’s efforts, however, haven’t remained entirely consistent concerning the recent humanitarian catastrophes in the Middle East, more specifically in Iran and Palestine.
The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry has stated, “Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”
Santa Clara University has responded to the situation in Gaza by holding programming and teach-ins; creating Israel/Palestine educational resources; and providing opportunities for dialogue. Despite this, I have found no official statement from the University condemning Israel’s militaristic actions. If the University truly wishes to uphold its Jesuit principles, then an issue of sufficient magnitude to prompt an investigation by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry should at least warrant serious consideration of whether institutional silence is consistent with those Jesuit principles.
The question here is no longer in regard to whether the University has acknowledged the situation in Gaza. It is now whether a Jesuit commitment to “caring and accompaniment” will require the institution to go beyond simply educating students and remaining neutral during dialogue when faced with a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude. If Jesuit institutions have set a precedent of entering politically intense debates, what principles determine when the University remains neutral?
Similarly, with the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, I have found no statement from the University regarding an official position, regardless of the UN’s statement highlighting how the attacks “undermine international peace and security.” If the University’s criteria for institutional engagement is humanitarian concerns, the institution’s silence begs the question: what threshold triggers its action?
Both of these cases accentuate the tension within the Jesuit university model, asking how an institution can simultaneously remain politically neutral while claiming to confront injustice and support those who are suffering.
Santa Clara University is not a political institution, nor should it function as one. It is not a university’s purpose to comment on every political matter. However, when an institution centers its identity around Jesuit principles such as justice and ethics, it also assumes the responsibility of acting on those very principles. If humanitarian concern is enough to justify the institution’s engagement in some politically charged issues, it should be able to express to its community what distinguishes those from others.