After over a year of debate over a neutrality policy, Tufts has adopted a position of “institutional pluralism,” involving a plot in which the word “neutrality” has been swapped out for “pluralism,” to make it seem like Tufts is actually doing something productive. Spoiler alert: they’re not.
In an email released on Sept. 3, University President Sunil Kumar declared that Tufts is not going to comment on political matters, except when it “[bears] directly upon the university’s core teaching, research, and service mission or its corporate responsibilities.” It’s an interesting choice in wording, because the “core teaching, research, and service mission” doesn’t appear to connect to a specific policy; the closest would be the university’s Mission and Vision statement, which is too vague to even directly address teaching, research and service, much less guide political and social commentary.
The new statement then goes on to instruct us on exactly how we’re supposed to interpret its meaning, saying that it “continues Tufts’ long-standing commitment to free speech, open inquiry, and academic freedom” and that “it implies neither neutrality nor indifference on the part of Tufts leadership, faculty, staff, or students.” I’m glad they spelled it out for us — why should students think critically about the outcome of this statement when we can instead be spoon-fed propaganda?
While I take issue with the policy, I’m sympathetic to the motivations: It’s true that not every organization needs to be taking a stance on every issue in today’s world. Oftentimes, that can crowd out important voices and even lead to the spread of misinformation. I’m glad Tufts seems to recognize this on some level, but the way they’ve handled this process indicates they’re less worried about properly navigating our complex political situation and more interested in crafting a carefully worded ‘get out of jail free’ card for any future sticky situation the university may find itself in.
This statement of plurality is a political statement unto itself. Does it actually represent a change in what statements the university will make? Are there previous statements the university has made that it regrets, that it doesn’t stand by? It seems more likely that the university is signaling a shift in its own political perspective, one that many colleges are making in the era of Trumpism. This neutrality — or plurality, as they like to call it — is a trojan horse for a rightward shift. In a country increasingly moving towards far-right authoritarianism, announcing a policy of silence seems suspiciously indicative that Tufts is willing to fall in line with this administration.
In the same breath as this new policy, the university announced two new initiatives to help them carry it out. The more eye-catching of the two is the creation of the Center for Expanding Viewpoints in Higher Education, a center with an acronym so close to ‘ceviche’ it leads one to wonder why they didn’t add yet another nonsense jargon word to its title to complete the joke. I’ll start by saying what I do like about the center: I think it’s good for a college to ensure that numerous viewpoints are present in students’ conversations and learning. My issue begins, however, with the center’s assumption that creating a plurality of viewpoints means lending a microphone to a specific political ideology. Eitan Hersh, professor of political science and director of this new center, may claim that the center is “genuinely committed to expanding viewpoints, which means making sure we do have conservative voices on campus but other voices as well,” but it feels a little difficult to believe that conservative viewpoints won’t be the majority of their focus.
Not only does the head of this organization call himself a “right-leaning centrist,” the examples of topics it purports to research and discuss line up pretty well with key perspectives the conservative playbook seeks to promote. These examples of topics include pornography, climate change and gender identity, all of which are hot button issues which the Republican party rails against. Regarding climate change and gender identity, Hersh laments the “discounting” of those who go against the “dominant narrative.” Will this center, then, be putting resources towards research aimed at disproving climate change and disrespecting people’s gender identities? I find it hard to imagine that CEVIHE will be much more than an attempt to amplify Tufts’ conservative minority.
All of this makes me wonder: Are conservative voices really that silent on this campus? Even leafing through the pages of the Daily, you’re more than capable of finding conservative opinions. You can also find them in the Tufts Tribune, self-described as “where Tufts speaks freely,” which frequently publishes conservative perspectives. Conservative voices can be heard in CIVIC, a club devoted to promoting a diversity of viewpoints at Tufts.
There are, of course, both liberal and conservative students who don’t speak up about their opinions in fear of their peers’ disapproval. But characterizing this disapproval as suppression of speech overshadows an important nuance. Free speech is not something that is taken away because someone disagrees with you, because they might not be friends with you, because they may yell at you. It’s a freedom we exercise in spite of those challenges. In a day and age in which universities facilitate the arrest of their students and governments detain people off the street, where finding fault with Charlie Kirk is enough to get you fired, real protection of free speech is not giving a leg up to one side of the conversation. It is standing up against any institution that seeks to punish those who speak up with long-term physical, emotional or financial consequences. It is Tufts allowing itself to speak out against the real injustices that aim to silence us.
Ultimately, I agree with the university — we need to ensure that we have a diversity of viewpoints on our campus and that everyone feels safe to share their opinions. These statements and initiatives, however, are not that. They are nothing more than caving to the conservative tide in our increasingly authoritarian era.
