NYU’s widely-marketed global campus is an important part of its appeal. Though most schools co-opt international points of view, style or language during their sales pitches, our system of international campuses is truly one of the most expansive in the world. As we continue to gather disparate global campuses under a single purple banner, the NYU community inevitably encounters difficult ethical questions.

In particular, as the NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute expands, the department faces a particularly troublesome challenge: restrictions on free speech. Journalists in the United States have a large amount of legal leeway in pursuing stories and, when necessary, can criticize public figures, corporations, governments and other powers that be, mostly without fear of legal repercussions. President Donald Trump’s neo-fascist anti-media rhetoric has had some terrifying results, though. According to a report in the Hill, 67 percent of Republicans have convinced themselves that the media simply fabricates negative stories about Trump. This report also shows that 46 percent agree with the president’s assertion that the federal government should have the power to revoke the broadcast licenses of news organizations the government claims are fabricating stories. But the fact that I can voice my view of the president as a neo-fascist is important — thanks to constitutional checks and balances, American journalists are, so far, still allowed to speak their minds.

Schools like NYU are responsible for training journalists to stand up to all types of authoritarianism, and to put the right to information and democratic free speech above nationalistic allegiances. However, two of NYU Journalism’s flagship campuses are located in areas that are hostile to free speech: Abu Dhabi, UAE; and Shanghai, China. In light of recent events, and because China’s anti-press sins are more widely known, I will focus on Abu Dhabi.

In the words of press watchdog Freedom House, “Nearly all media outlets serving Emirati audiences are either owned or heavily influenced by the authorities, and individuals who use internet-based platforms to publicize dissenting views or sensitive information increasingly face arbitrary detention or criminal prosecution.”