Should universities take a stance on geopolitical issues of global relevance, such as the Israelo-Palestinian war? In this collaborative piece, we try to explore both sides of a debate that is increasingly relevant in the academic world and not only.
Why Universities should take a stance
Periodically, perhaps every few years, there are events that shake collective consciousness. Often, these events are wars, and access to media from all over the world only makes exposure more immediate and virulent. There is no way, apart from abandoning technology, to shield oneself from the images, the sounds, and the horror. One of the risks of our time is precisely a sort of habituation to barbarity that strips it of its idiosyncrasy. Yet, habituating to this horror means distancing oneself from what is humane. For the sake of sanity, the only possibility is to disconnect, at least for some time.
After becoming aware of what is happening, although one can break away from the gruesome images, the question remains: what to do? Where to stand, or to stand at all? Many of the conflicts that have shaken the world in recent times occurred far from our homes. Some would struggle to locate the countries on a map. But a primordial human instinct leads to feeling compelled to act where there is injustice. Here comes the difficulty: unless one chooses a position and decides not to change it, refusing all evidence to the contrary, it is not always painless to decide who is right and who is wrong. So, is the solution a distanced, moral relativism, especially when it comes to universities?
As usual, History can help leave the congestion of the present moment. When universities started to emerge more formally during the Middle Ages, they were not only places of study, but communities. This is reflected in the roots of the word, universitas, which means community, association. For a community to be considered as such, it must be bound together by common values, though not necessarily ideas. At the root of a university education is a refusal of indifference. In this sense, not taking a stance is taking a stance. A University is not meant to condition what students think, but it must act as a guide to stand for, at least, something. That something is not necessarily right, but the alternative is nothing. And nothing is the denial of education, creation, civilization.
Lorenzo Garbarino
Looking for common objectives for universities, I came across a student describing them as: “[University education is critical to] shaping a responsible and wise society … one which is not blind, which will do as it is told.” In its essence, universities are built to foster society not only academically but also socio-politically, and this very purpose is inherently political. Societal change implies disturbance from the status quo and requires a commitment to challenge the norms. That’s what makes a university: only those who help its students crash barriers are deserving of being called an educational institution. Censorship of any kind prevents universities from functioning, and the power of a well-functioning university can be understood by looking at how autocratic leaders try to dismantle liberal institutions in their countries: after all, Orban and Erdogan are aware of the threat those institutions pose to their regimes.
Universities should never refrain from speaking the truth, even if it means choosing a side. Impartiality implies apoliticism, which implies privilege. Especially during the digital age, when we have access to information of any kind, staying silent means being complicit. To raise the greatest thinkers of society, universities cannot be silent on issues confronting humankind. Since the war in Palestine erupted, even the most renowned institutions refrained from speaking up. In Europe, we are experiencing the erosion of freedoms that the EU once claimed as its own. Banning rallies and trying to criminalize legitimate state flags all show that the elephant in the room is even bigger than we think. And universities are responsible for fighting that elephant and creating a room for discussion. How international their campus is does not necessarily matter if they fail at protecting students’ free speech. Moreover, for an elite institution, impartiality on important matters only reveals the fear it has; and an elite institution fearing its surroundings is doomed to fail.
Egemen Aray
Why Universities should not take a stance
If you were asked to express your opinion while an organization that you also represent has already expressed its own without listening to you, how would you react? Certainly, you would not feel as free as someone who, on the contrary, can present their thoughts without carrying a label not chosen by them but that they are forced to represent. In recent times, the debate about the positions of various universities worldwide regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has ignited like never before. Two contrasting positions are put into comparison: those who support the alignment of universities and those who believe it is more correct to maintain neutrality to ensure free debate.
At the core of the issue, a principle founded on an objective truth can be established, namely that the alignment of a university or any organization not directly involved in the conflict does not lead to any physical support for one party over another. A university certainly cannot send weapons or any kind of intelligence that could provide an actual advantage to any of the involved parties. It is, therefore, a “symbolic” alignment, the purpose of which is not clearly understood. It should be noted that many universities have taken concrete initiatives, such as during the recent war in Ukraine, with various offers of hospitality from universities across Italy and Europe, in the name of international humanitarian rights. In these cases, aligning with a specific party proves to be limiting and, in a broader sense, discriminatory against displaced individuals who are also affected by the same phenomenon (war) but simply have different nationalities or ideologies.
Not to mention universities that make peace their flag, as if there were universities firmly in favour of war, or as if their stance could, in a certain sense, bring about a concrete change. The question arises: What is the purpose of these symbolic alignments, and can they truly contribute to resolving complex geopolitical conflicts? It is essential to consider the potential impact of university alignments on the broader narrative of global issues.
The principal role of a university is and has always been that of education. To instruct pupils and pass on the summation of available knowledge to its attendants. This overarching purpose is fundamentally an inward-looking one; that is to say, principally concerned with its own affairs rather than that of the wider world. To engage in politics is a direct subversion of that purpose. War is, as the Prussian tactician von Clausewitz wrote, “merely the continuation of politics by other means”.
That is not to say that politics has no place on college campuses. Protests, societies, and even politically based lectures are not unheard of nor uncommon. The typical practice of tenure, the life-long guaranteed employment of professors regardless of their politics, reinforces that universities should be shielded from the ebb and flow of the outside world. Personal politics are protected under freedom of speech and expression, both legally and by policies of the university. However, the opinions of either these students or academics do not receive an implicit endorsement by the university itself. Harvard would no sooner tell its students to vote for the GOP than Bocconi would for Partito Democratico. To take a stance in a war would be no different.
Though some would say that Universities have a moral responsibility to take a stance, this misinterprets the role of a university. Their moral imperative is that of education, and to politicize themselves is to threaten their ability to pursue that end. To jeopardize a university’s neutrality as an institution is to cross the Rubicon and forever be party to the realm of politics. It is the role of governments and citizens to take a stance on war, not of universities.
Marco Milesi & Jeremy Bacigalupi
I’m always looking for things that give me the impression I exist. I’m not a magician, so I write. And take some pictures along the way. I also happen to be in ESS.
I was born in New York, but moved to Europe as a teenager. I am currently a second year BEMACS Student. I enjoy writing as a means by which to record and disseminate the things I find interesting such as politics, history and culture.
I am an Istanbulite trying to adapt to life in Milan. I study political science here at Bocconi, and it is my first year. My interests include politics, the environment, culture, and society. I feel like it is my job to stay up to date about pop culture and socio-political events happening all around the world, and I see myself on a mission to create a better everyday life for people and the planet.
