Opinion | At the University of Minnesota, neutrality has become censorship

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Alex Pretti was killed by the government while expressing his First Amendment rights. He was also a graduate of the University of Minnesota, where I teach. In an explosive historical moment such as ours, in a city that has been through a traumatizing federal occupation by ICE agents, how should our university officially mourn the death of one of its own?

For more than a century, U presidents decided whether or not, and how, to address political issues. But since Oct. 7, 2023, amid campus debates and protests on Israel-Palestine, more than 140 colleges and universities were pressured by organizations like the Heterodox Academy to develop official policies on neutrality. The policies vary in wording and scope.

In March 2025, university regents — in a rare divided vote of 9-3 — passed a resolution stipulating that the president alone spoke for the institution, and that all its academic departments, centers and institutes had to refrain from issuing statements on matters of public concern. The resolution was broadly condemned by our University Senate, whose own draft policy on the matter was swept aside. Its implementation by our president, Rebecca Cunningham, epitomized a style of leadership one of my censored faculty colleagues has called “authoritarian.”

Defenders of neutrality policies argue that they protect free debate by allowing the community to disagree on controversial matters. But in practice, these policies are easily weaponized to achieve the opposite — censorship. Last April, Cunningham’s administration used the resolution to justify the censorship of six web posts written by faculty about Israel-Palestine. In a transparent effort to thwart accusations of discrimination, two days later, her administration censored a set of statements on Russia-Ukraine.

Dozens of statements on controversial matters from academic freedom to the murder of George Floyd remain on our university websites. This version of campus “neutrality” resulted in a two-tiered system for free speech. Free inquiry and academic freedom for most topics; censorship and chilled speech when donors and politicians complained. The reason for this two-tiered result is both obvious and unavoidable: There is no objective standard for what qualifies as “political” or “controversial.”

In her remarks, Cunningham spoke emotionally about chemical irritants, death, violence and widespread fear, but we heard nothing about who is responsible. A faculty member who had taught in the department that houses Pretti’s major was denied the opportunity to speak. Diverse perspectives were prohibited.

More disturbingly, faculty violinist Stephanie Arado, who had been invited to perform, chose a solo violin piece and made a customized outfit that featured the phrase “The evil must end now” and “ICE OUT” to commemorate Pretti. When she arrived, the president’s staff told her she could not perform at the memorial in that outfit. Arado refused to change her clothing. From her perspective, to perform in memory of Pretti meant conveying the truth of what he fought for. To make matters worse, the university police escorted Arado from the building as if she were a danger to campus safety.

In a democratic society, artists must have the freedom to create their work without interference from powerful actors. This is especially so at institutions of higher education, which depend on freedom of inquiry and expression to fulfill their missions. To condition Arado’s performance on a modification of her work is textbook censorship. To then have her forcibly removed is simply a disgrace.

One need only read recent coverage of the Grammys to see how far our universities have fallen. Many musicians wore “ICE OUT” on their clothing. Prominent musicians criticized ICE in their acceptance speeches. When there is more free speech at a private awards ceremony than at a public university, it is a sign that something is deeply wrong with the “neutrality” trends in higher education.

It is time to drop the pretense and state the obvious: Neutrality policies were never about free speech or academic freedom. They emerged as a strategy for those in power who did not want certain viewpoints recognized or given platforms. If we do not go about repealing these destructive and wrongheaded policies, they will continue to be weaponized against the public interest. The health of our society is at risk.