Sadie Roraback-Meagher: Heya Evan! How was your spring break?
Evan Wang: Hey Sadie! Mine was good, I went to D.C. and saw a major protest on the National Mall.
Sadie: Wow, a protest? In D.C.? Never heard of that happening. Wonder what they’re all riled up over.
Evan: I liked having a week off from your sarcasm.
Sadie: Speaking of protests, Evan, this spring semester is much quieter than last year, when we were entering campus-wide demonstrations.
Evan: You know, I was reminded of last year’s political upheaval when I saw the back-and-forth over the cannon.
Sadie: Yes — the university’s decision to paint over the messages endorsed by the Coalition for Palestinian Liberation made me think about the general push happening in higher ed to adopt institutional neutrality.
Evan: I think the general movement by colleges and universities towards neutrality is a step in the right direction. I’m sure you probably disagree with me.
Sadie: Not exactly…
Evan: Oh, do tell.
Sadie: Well, my main issue is that I don’t think it’s possible for an institution to be truly neutral. For instance, the issue of divestments has been a major goal for CPL. I’m sure that if Tufts were to adopt a principle of neutrality and not to cut ties with Israel, CPL would still see Tufts as partisan.
Evan: While I do understand what you’re saying, I can’t help but disagree. I think that Tufts should be an educational institution first and foremost, and while they might not be able to be 100% neutral, we should still try and be as neutral as possible.
Sadie: Truly, I’m hesitant to think what neutrality will actually accomplish. I can guarantee that students would still hold protests even if the university decided to be neutral on issues, however. In fact, I can hear them chanting “silence is violence” already.
Evan: I think that neutrality isn’t necessarily going to accomplish a certain objective, but it also doesn’t inflame political tensions amongst students, unlike when the school takes a side.
Sadie: I agree with that … sort of.
Evan: Here we go.
Sadie: Listen, I agree that neutrality may mitigate tension — especially if the university’s stance is unpopular. But I do think there are some political and social issues that colleges should absolutely take a position on.
For example, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, students were outraged by Tufts’ slow response to expressing solidarity with Ukrainians. Their initial silence seemed insensitive to many members of the Tufts community, especially when schools like Harvard released statements immediately after Russia’s attack. Universities at the very least need to acknowledge significant political events when they may personally impact their students.
Evan: I don’t see what a Tufts statement could possibly do to help in this case. It offers nothing but ‘virtue signaling’ while silencing dissenting voices, which should not be happening in an education setting.
Sadie: While I don’t think universities taking political stances will lead to world peace, I believe it’s important for students to know their tuition money is going to an institution that supports them.
And I also don’t think universities taking stances silences dissenting voices. For example, Brandeis University has repeatedly expressed their support for Israel, yet this hasn’t dissuaded pro-Palestinan groups from speaking out.
Evan: Well, it sets a precedent that if they speak out on one issue, then they have to speak out on every other issue. We can hope that a university’s statement is always on the right side of history, but what are the chances of that happening?
