Levine | ‘No Justice, No Peace’: Neutrality is the easy way out
Maybe it’s my background in competitive debate, or maybe it’s just my confrontational nature, but I can’t recall the last time I was “neutral” about a topical issue in the cultural or political zeitgeist. Although emotions can have disarming effects on governmental institutions and feelings like anger and fear often encourage bad civic behavior, the alternative – a world where politics are separated from emotion – would be remarkably grim.
I was disappointed and upset to hear that Stanford had removed the Black Lives Matter banner hanging from Green Library, citing a policy of institutional neutrality as justification. Like many of my peers, I found this behavior a disturbing continuation of an institutional push to further silence and exclude Black voices, coming after news of decreasing Black enrollment from the class of 2028 and reduced DEI information on university-wide websites. Most unsettling, however, is the ease with which such a notable institution has avoided issuing messages of support for the students, faculty and staff who risk vitriol and oppression at the hands of legislation and an altered social climate.
I understand how appealing neutrality can be. No one wants to be disliked or considered an enemy. However, those who can afford to “stay neutral” on controversial topics are necessarily those with the privilege to escape those issues’ effects.
“Politics” is whether or not my future children receive a comprehensive history education in school. “Politics” is frantically texting my best friend last spring about the active shooter alert in his school. “Politics” is the challenging of my very existence. I cannot separate the personal from the political, nor would I want to – more than just an academic pursuit or career possibility, it is my way of life.
Perhaps the most common example of a neutral body, Switzerland, was not immune to the allure of institutional security and accumulation of wealth. Despite claiming neutrality in World War II, the Swiss National Bank was the only institution willing to exchange money for the Third Riech’s gold, prolonging Nazi Germany’s reign. Accepting looted Jewish gold, their reputation as the country that “stays out of it” is only supported by their placation of the aggressor to prevent invasion. This strategy worked for them – unlike most of Europe, Switzerland escaped WWII topographically unscathed. It did so at the expense of aiding the Holocaust.
Hate has a disturbing way of permeating throughout generations, usually in the form of a small group perpetuating the same rhetoric towards whatever scapegoat is most convenient. In her book “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” Isabel Wilkerson reveals that Nazis “sent researchers … to study Jim Crow laws here in the United States.” She argues “how the United States had managed to subordinate and subjugate its African American population” laid crucial groundwork for systemic, legal oppression and eventual genocide. No one needs lessons in hate, but historical precedent legitimizes it into an unfortunate inevitability rather than a preventable atrocity. As such, this harmful practice becomes a pattern easy to repeat without us explicitly working against the standard. When institutions normalize hateful actions through the guise of neutrality, hate transforms from a jarringly evil word to one that makes us sigh and move on, avoiding conflict by not challenging and therefore normalizing such vitriol.
As an individual, I recognize it’s much simpler to take a stand when the reputation of a wealthy, prestigious university and institution isn’t resting on my shoulders. Stanford is obligated not only to its students, but its donors and those they rely on to maintain such a high standard of education. And, just as institutional action and public statements signal social change and regression for citizens, these gestures have the capacity to quell opposing views in a way that limits growth and discussion between peers. That being said, when we fail to express any belief, we yield to the status quo, leaving our implicit biases unchecked.
Furthermore, a lot of damage has already been done: Stanford’s work with scholars (and even its founding president) has propagated eugenicist beliefs that disproportionately affected Black and Brown women by forced sterilization. This, however, was not seen as “biased” since it upheld a social norm considered to be the standard for those privileged enough to voice their opinions. Science has become increasingly political in our modern climate crisis, as fact gets intertwined with fiction and critical policy research is called into question. Questions of bias do not exist in a vacuum. Stanford has never been neutral, and it’s unrealistic to change that now. In the same way that conforming to the status quo is never a true neutral, we can’t just claim neutrality without confronting and dealing with our past, inherently political choices.
This is not to say that embracing diversity of opinions is not valuable. If I believed that, I wouldn’t be a columnist. But when neutrality is made the blanket norm, it discourages any critics of the status quo from expressing themselves, which prevents the opportunity for debate and personal growth.
Rather than a policy of neutrality, I encourage Stanford and all its students to instead adopt a mindset of openness. Hold your strong opinions with pride, and share them with others. Listen to a diversity of ideas, engage in respectful discourse and do not allow your thoughts to be silenced in favor of impartiality.
No one is truly objective, and it’s disingenuous and inaccurate to believe that we can be. Lean into subjectivity and, rather than presenting your belief as fact, consider what external factors may have influenced you in coming to that belief. What privileges do you hold in our society? You may not be suffering the consequences of your neutrality now, but I guarantee that someone else is.
The post Levine | ‘No Justice, No Peace’: Neutrality is the easy way out appeared first on The Stanford Daily.