Last week, the University of Otago came out with its new statement on institutional neutrality – a statement that was not only new, but that also forged a bold new approach to the whole concept of neutrality. 

Institutional neutrality, the statement declares, ‘means that University leaders will not communicate institutional positions on controversial political topics except where such issues directly impact the University’s role or functions.’ So far, so neutral – and nothing much that’s new.  

But then the statement goes on to say that ‘examples of such functions are the safety and wellbeing of staff and students, financial and regulatory concerns, sustainability, equity, ethical investment, and obligations under the Tiriti o Waitangi’ as well as everything in the university’s ‘strategic documents and frameworks.’ 

Presumably, this includes the university’s ‘Vision 2040’ scheme, which aims ‘to integrate te ao Māori, tikanga Māori, te reo Māori and mātauraka Māori into our teaching, learning, research and support services.’ 

All of this, I would submit, constitutes a highly innovative take on neutrality. Rather than taking the boring, old view that institutional neutrality involves remaining neutral on controversial topics, Otago has decided that neutrality can involve universities being decidedly un-neutral on the very topics that people are most concerned about. 

That’s not just my hunch. The Treaty of Waitangi consistently emerges as the number one issue that academics feel uncomfortable discussing, with fully half of respondents telling a Free Speech Union survey in 2022 that they didn’t feel free debating the topic. 

They will surely be comforted by the news that their employer has now found a way to be absolutely, 100% neutral except regarding the Treaty – as well as other topics (like sustainability and equity) that have a habit of evoking debate and disagreement.  

It is entirely coincidental, of course, that Otago’s announcement comes just as the Education and Training Amendment Bill has passed its first reading in Parliament. That bill asks universities to commit to institutional neutrality as part of free speech policies that universities will be expected to draw up. 

Luckily, though, Otago has already made clear how committed it is to real institutional neutrality. Everyone who is convinced by their statement should now immediately refrain from supporting the new bill. And from pressing for changes to it that would force universities like Otago to adopt old-fashioned, outmoded concepts of neutrality that actually involve universities remaining neutral on hot-button issues.