A new analysis by Jose Eos Trinidad (Journal of Further and Higher Education) pulls back the curtain on “institutional neutrality” in the US. The findings are sobering if unsurprising: for many American universities, the decision to stay silent, or to speak out, is rarely driven by high-minded ideals. Instead, it is a tactical calculation.

Trinidad finds these decisions are driven by “resource dependence” (appeasing donors) and “social movement demands” (appeasing activists). In this model, neutrality is a transaction, not a value. Institutions retreat into silence to save funding, but issue statements when the social pressure boils over. This reactive approach turns university governance into a weather vane, shifting with the political winds rather than holding to a moral compass.

Our Take

For Europe, this transactional model is a trap. We must resist the “mimetic pressure” to copy the American errors that have paralyzed their campuses. The stakes here are higher: because our universities are overwhelmingly public, the “donor” is the taxpayer. When a European institution abandons neutrality to take a collective political stance, it violates the democratic social contract and alienates the citizens it serves.

We advocate replacing “Strategic Silence” with Principled Neutrality.

• Not as a muzzle: It does not silence individuals.
• But as a shield: It acts as a governance “firewall” protecting the Core Mission from external disruption.

We help institutions build the capacity to host fierce disagreement without compromising their legitimacy.