Universities Must Foster Open Dialogue, Not Just Silence

University and college administrations may view a quiet campus as a managerial achievement, especially during an election year or after prolonged conflict and polarization. However, this silence can also indicate fear of speaking out and a growing distance between different social groups. An institution that only addresses overt incidents and complaints risks overlooking underlying issues. New data from a survey by the Accord Center reveals that both Jewish and Arab students are avoiding political discussions. While individuals have the right to opt out of political conversations, it is crucial to distinguish between a conscious choice and avoidance stemming from fear of personal or social repercussions for expressing an opinion. Campuses where students feel inhibited about expressing themselves require institutional attention even in the absence of overt conflict. Politics inevitably permeates classrooms, labs, and cafeterias, and demanding its exclusion leaves faculty and students to manage the resulting tension alone. Academic institutions have a responsibility to create conditions for constructive disagreement and enable participation in discourse without fear of harm or exclusion. This commitment applies to all, though the fears and consequences are not uniform. Beyond the apprehension of conflict over political stances, some students fear their treatment will be affected by their group affiliation. Arab students, in particular, require special attention, as political discussions can quickly become a test of belonging, demanding they explain, justify, or condemn on behalf of an entire community. Even their silence might be interpreted as a political stance. The institution's responsibility is to allow them to participate in campus life without hiding their identity or speaking for their group. Similar attention is needed for other minority groups who may experience fear and anxiety. Freedom of expression requires more than a principled declaration; when students fear expressing views or being judged by their identity, their ability to exercise this right is diminished. Administrations must protect the expression of strong opinions and challenges to conventions while clearly defining boundaries against threats, violence, and offensive remarks targeting individuals and groups. These rules must be clear, consistent, and universally applied. Institutional commitment is demonstrated through action: serious handling of complaints, accessible points of contact, and faculty equipped with the knowledge and support to manage escalating discussions. Declarations of belonging lose meaning without tangible support when needed. Preparation should begin before crises arise and include spaces for political discourse and opportunities for learning and collaboration. Simply sharing a classroom does not guarantee familiarity or trust; institutions must actively build conditions for positive encounters, especially when public reality fosters suspicion and distance. Drawing on experience from recent years, academic institutions must prepare for the upcoming semester, regardless of the election outcome. Academia's core mission is critical thinking, evaluating claims, and engaging with difficult ideas, a commitment that must extend to intergroup relations on campus. This preparation is part of their academic and educational responsibility: enabling dissent while safeguarding every student's right to learn, voice their opinions, and feel a sense of belonging. Dr. Maya de Vries is the Director of Academia at the Accord Center at the Hebrew University.