Naisha Roy, Editor-at-Large:
The concept of institutional neutrality is inextricably linked to freedom of speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which gave NYU an “abysmal” free speech ranking this year, has strongly advocated for universities to adopt institutional neutrality in order to “welcome the fullest range of views — and reap the benefit of the wisdom produced by the resulting debate.”
In some ways, FIRE is right — when a university takes a political stance, it will inevitably deter conversations opposing them. There is a real danger of universities becoming echo chambers if they champion sociopolitical takes.
But equating the avoidance of political and social opinions with neutrality is reductive at best and cowardice at worst. Universities, especially those in densely-packed areas like NYU, take political stances through a myriad of ways outside of public statements: its donors, investments, expansion and programming all carry inherent political weight. It’s impossible to claim neutrality while naming the university’s largest library after a blatantly antisemitic person, or while calling the New York City Police Department on students for protesting. How can NYU maintain neutrality while both providing access to on-campus reproductive care and refusing to comment on entities advocating to take that care away? How can NYU both provide safe spaces for LGBTQ+ students without acknowledging the dangers these students might face in light of the current election?
Students deserve to know the values of an institution they pay thousands to attend, because those values and stances do exist — even if they don’t come in the form of universitywide endorsements.
Unless the university plans to take a long, hard look at its own history of political moves and remedy its current funding pipelines, institutional neutrality will simply be an illusion. Neutrality would be a noble promise if it were feasible, but given the impossibility of that goal, I urge NYU to go beyond restraint and aim for institutional transparency instead.
Mehr Kotval, Opinion Editor:
Discussions around institutional neutrality cannot be separated from the context in which this trend has emerged. Many colleges have adopted this policy not from a genuine belief in its benefits, but as a reaction to pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses across the country, which has made it prudent for universities to have an excuse on hand not to deal with the matter.
Institutional neutrality, in theory, is meant to empower students and faculty to lead discourse and activism without fear of interference or punitive measures. In NYU’s case of “institutional restraint” — allowing them to claim impartiality when they wish while also avoiding criticism for wholly participating in this trend — neutrality seems less like a principled stance. It is a cop-out that allows the university to sidestep addressing controversial issues under the guise of principled silence.
Worse, this newfound “restraint” allows institutions to selectively choose when and where to express moral outrage to align with political or financial considerations rather than its stated principles. NYU has issued bold statements on affirmative action or climate change — issues that align with broad public sentiment — but has remained silent on issues that are divisive enough to risk alienating donors. The guise of “institutional restraint” is not enough to make a university apolitical — its financial incentives and threats, board members’ conflicts of interest and direct suppression of student protest are a clear indicator of its politics.
Noah Zaldivar, Opinion Editor:
Recently, Jeff Bezos — the owner of the Washington Post — published an opinion article laying a case for the paper’s decision not to endorse either presidential candidate. His justification was to kickstart the transition from the apparently untrustworthy and biased media that Bezos claims the public sees now to a new commitment to neutrality that would reinstate trust of the media.
There are genuine virtues in the idea of practiced neutrality, however it is impossible to obtain real impartiality. Everybody has inherent biases and institutions are no different; they’re merely made up of a coalition of biases instilled into regulations, rules, press releases and selective enforcement. Biases are revealed, not said — there’s never going to be any true way to remain completely neutral while still being a representation of multiple influences. But to commit an institution to not leaning towards any positions, while encouraging those under the institution to share their own, does represent the best of both worlds.
In order to stick to this commitment, it requires NYU to maintain a true vested interest in protecting the freedom of speech of its students. This has been quite the sticking point in recent months, and so it would require a good-faith effort to match NYU’s actions with its priorities.
In an ideal world, where NYU’s sole interests are the preservation of its values and the academic support of its students, institutional neutrality would be an admirable idea. In the real world, where financial incentives, conflicting interests, political hurdles and career considerations all confound the situation, institutional neutrality is a policy ripe for abuse. Institutional restraint would only provide NYU with further leeway to ignore its own values. NYU needs to ensure its commitment to its own ideals of free expression and political speech are both followed through and defended against the outside world.
Omar Drissi, Staff Writer:
NYU must practice indiscriminate neutrality regarding issues that don’t seriously and directly impact its ability to be an effective learning environment.
Universities are social institutions whose voices carry great weight and whose walls serve as a place of learning. Such an environment is conducive to learning if participants are free to present ideas as and when they see fit. To facilitate the free exchange of ideas for students and faculty alike, the university needs to refrain from making official statements and positions regarding social or political issues. When it does, it can create intimidation around political speech and undermine its goal of encouraging free speech. However, there is one exception to the rule.
Only in the event that a policy or political figure seeks to seriously and directly inhibit students and faculty from engaging in free discussions should the university take an official position. In this case, I can’t imagine neutrality would be the correct course of action.
On the other hand, the middle-ground stance of “institutional restraint” NYU has taken is equally harmful. When we don’t take a consistent stance on the issue, we give the university carte blanche to pick and choose what issues to platform. This leaves the university’s board members with the ability to weaponize press-releases and school-wide policies for their own ends. When NYU practices restraint, what it doesn’t choose to comment on is an inherently political act. Why comment on the atrocities of Oct. 7, but not ongoing genocides in Gaza and Myanmar?
To avoid opening the floodgates, the university should abstain from commenting on political and social issues unless said issues seriously and directly impact its ability to be an institution of free ideas.
Up for Debate is WSN’s forum for bold ideas and open debate, where students share opinions on current political and social issues.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
