At the start of the semester, NYU sent out the first two modules of its How We Engage Toolkit, including a Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Training, to all students via Brightspace. While seemingly well-intentioned, this compulsory training is not only ineffective, but also requires students to attest to a new policy that continues the university’s crackdown on student speech.

The toolkit’s first module is titled “Introduction to How We Engage,” and begins by claiming “our differences are among our greatest assets” and that the university is trying to ensure “every person at NYU can engage as part of our shared, complex community.” This statement rings hollow, especially after NYU effectively shut down pro-Palestinian speech this past academic year, which earned them an “abysmal” free speech ranking from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. In FIRE’s report, nearly half of NYU students expressed uncertainty about the administration’s commitment to protecting free speech.

In the second module, students are instructed to read three student conduct policies and watch a 23-minute video, which NYU says should take around 45 minutes to complete. However, unlike the university’s other mandated trainings on sexual assault prevention and alcohol use — where students must engage with the material and pass quizzes to complete them — the ease of bypassing the content in this instance reveals NYU’s true aim: not education, but forced compliance. 

While the first module’s patronizing tone and hypocritical messaging offer little more than lip service, the second module serves as a covert attempt to force students to agree to the university’s recently updated Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment policy. In a shift that has been widely criticized among student and faculty groups on campus, the policy now includes “code words, like ‘Zionist,’” as examples of potentially discriminatory speech. The updated policy cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin — not political ideologies like Zionism, which supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state. 

When the video narrator explains the scope of the updated non-discrimination guidelines, they say that the policy applies to all of the university’s global sites, except for when they “deviate from what is permitted under local law.” The caveat is both alarming but unsurprising. NYU’s study away site at Tel Aviv is inaccessible to Palestinian Authority ID and passport holders, as well as those who have called for a boycott of Israel. Similarly, its Abu Dhabi campus has an alleged dress code and operates in a country where transgender, gay and gender non-conforming individuals have been arrested due to a cross-dressing law. NYU’s willingness to compromise its stated values in pursuit of global expansion makes it difficult to assert a commitment to inclusivity and non-discrimination.

The narrator goes on to state that “excluding Zionists or Dalits from an otherwise open event or club” would implicate the updated policy. The equivalency between Zionists and Dalits — the group of people that are most marginalized in Hindu caste society — is a dangerous comparison. Zionism, as a political ideology, is not comparable to those who are born into a life of disempowerment. It is deeply problematic — as well as bizarre — to compare the two, as it makes it seem like critiquing a far-right political ideology is the same as upholding a discriminatory system that is based on power and privilege. 

A link to an FAQs document on NYU’s website includes vague consequences for not completing the training, including “various reminders” and “targeted communications” and, more seriously, “NYU Home login delays” and “other administrative actions.” The ambiguity of these consequences mirrors the vague details of the policies’ enforcement.

When carrying out its updated policies, NYU avoids clearly delineating how they will be enforced — meaning the university reserves the right to selectively apply its policies, punishing some while sparing others. The narrator of the video states that the policies “don’t usually apply” off campus but could if conduct disrupts “regular operations,” threatens the “health or safety of the community” or is “in close proximity to NYU.” The policies’ purview also extends in “online environments.” This inconsistent and opaque process leaves students unsure of how to navigate expressing their thoughts, potentially leading to self-censorship out of fear.

While universities often require students to agree to certain codes of conduct, NYU’s inclusion of its own political agenda in modules crosses a line. The toolkit’s mandatory nature means that students cannot function within the university without agreeing to its views. Students who are concerned with the examples set in the video — or disagree with conflating Zionism with antisemitism — are obliged to consent to it under duress. 

The problem presented by students agreeing to this social contract is that it can be later used against students in a disciplinary setting. Since the spring, NYU opened 180-plus disciplinary cases against students and faculty who had participated in some form of pro-Palestinian speech. If students are to find themselves in that scenario this year, it is now easier for administrators to punish those who have spoken out against Zionism with the argument that they agreed to the university’s definition in the beginning of the semester and violated that agreement. This is a slippery slope that both stifles political speech and also transforms an institution of learning into an enforcer of a narrowly defined political orthodoxy.

Other modules will be released to students on Brightspace in the coming months. The third module — the “Perspectives Program” — will teach students how to “navigate challenging discussions” while maintaining their beliefs and will be available to students in September. The fourth module, “Inclusive Dialogue and Leadership Video Series,” will be released in October and “promote more meaningful, empathetic dialogue on issues of identity.”

Hopefully, NYU will be able to engage in the “real listening” that President Linda Mills claimed was the “only path forward” instead of requiring students to complete modules that give the university the tools it needs to punish students for speaking out.

WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.

Contact Krish Dev at [email protected].