Students and faculty members gathered to listen to journalist and researcher Neetu Arnold speak about the cost of silence in higher education on Wednesday, Oct. 22. Arnold, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an outspoken critic of ideological conformity on college campuses, traced what she views as a troubling erosion of free expression across American universities over the past decade.
Arnold began by referencing a recent Gallup poll showing a sharp rise in public distrust of higher education.
“That loss of trust,” Arnold said, “didn’t happen overnight. It reflects a broader cultural shift in how we think about disagreement, speech and academic freedom.”
Arnold structured her talk into three phases: breakdown of civil discourse, ideological enforcement (post-2020) and the fallout. According to Arnold, the first phase began when campuses increasingly limited spaces for open discussion. She pointed to the rise of “safe spaces” and an expanding list of topics students are discouraged from discussing.
“We began telling people to avoid offending certain groups,” Arnold said, “and in the process, we stopped learning how to talk to each other honestly.”
She referenced the 2017 Middlebury College incident, when political scientist Charles Murray was shouted at and prevented from continuing a lecture, and a faculty member was injured amid the protests. Similarly, at UC Berkeley, a speaker’s appearance sparked violent protests that resulted in property damage and arrests.
“These weren’t just isolated disruptions,” Arnold said. “They were early warning signs that universities were losing their role as an environment for free exchange of ideas.”
Arnold pointed out that this period is when we begin to really see the emergence of cancel culture and its prominence.
Arnold described the second phase, which she believes accelerated after 2020, as a period of ideological enforcement. This, she said, stemmed largely from the expansion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and from what she called the politicization of COVID-19 policies.
She also criticized what she saw as racial preferences in faculty hiring, citing examples from the University of New Mexico and Vanderbilt University, where administrators publicly promised to prioritize certain racial groups or disregard others.
In the final phase, Arnold turned to the consequences of universities taking political stances. She noted that institutions began releasing statements about events like the war in Ukraine or the murder of George Floyd, setting a precedent that made silence on future issues seem hypocritical.
“Once universities start commenting on world events,” Arnold said, “they’re pressured to comment on everything, and that alienates both donors and students who disagree.”
Arnold identified a slight increase in trust in universities in 2025, according to the Gallup poll. She explained that this is likely because the current presidential administration has targeted research and academic innovation, bringing attention and renewed appreciation from the public. Yet she warned that this may be fragile because it risks being an overcorrection or overreach.
“When ideas aren’t challenged, they become radical. You stop seeing the other side as human,” Arnold said.
To rebuild trust, Arnold advocated for institutional neutrality: the idea that universities should refrain from making political statements unless an issue directly affects the institution or its statements. She emphasized, however, that it will only work if both the faculty enforces it, and the students buy into it.
Arnold encouraged students to take practical steps toward open dialogue. These include asking professors to clarify unfamiliar terms, respectfully questioning dominant viewpoints and seeking out trusted mentors to process difficult conversations. Arnold acknowledged how it can feel risky or scary to speak up, especially when you have not been in many political conversations before, but she also emphasized the importance of building community and uplifting those who demonstrate that courage.
Sophomore John Turnbull shared that although he disagreed with Arnold on many political points, he acknowledged and appreciated her lecture, demonstrating her central message: to encourage open dialogue of differing viewpoints.
“She argued that viewpoint diversity in colleges needs to be actively administered and that the so-called monoculture of viewpoints that surrounds higher education is problematic. I agree with her diagnosis of the problem, but I think that viewpoint diversity must be more passively fostered and allowed to take place rather than actively enforced in order to ensure that these different ideas are organic and true to the individuals that hold them,” Turnbull said.
Junior Naomi Valentine, like Turnbull, expressed disagreement with Arnold but appreciated the discussion around higher education.
“It made me consider why we are here at Colgate, and what the goal of higher education is,” Valentine said. “I disagreed with Arnold on lots of things, but enjoyed the opportunity to challenge my beliefs and think about how I would respond.”
When questioned about the line of when a platform should be taken away from a controversial speaker, Arnold explained how it depends on the subject at hand and that it is necessary to hear all sides of an argument, even those you may disagree with.
“[Regardless of our differing viewpoints, Arnold and I] agree that it is evident that American universities must put effort into ensuring that all reasonable beliefs have a place on campuses,” Turnbull said.
