The world today is widely considered more polarized than ever. Schools in the U.S. are often perceived as places where ideologies and agendas from both political parties are promoted. Both the left and the right argue that the opposition is brainwashing children and censoring people. As a result, people are advocating for institutional neutrality: the idea that institutions, such as schools, should be apolitical. However, institutional neutrality is both idealistic and, ultimately, harmful to the most vulnerable members of our communities.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the basic argument for institutional neutrality is that when schools promote one biased political narrative, it cuts down on free speech and silences those with opposing viewpoints. As a result, FIRE argues, schools shouldn’t push biased opinions. This desire to support students’ freedom of expression is admirable, but it misses key nuances, including the question of what should be considered a biased political stance.
One important factor to consider is the difference between identity and ideology. An identity is something you cannot control, like your race, gender identity, sexual orientation or ability. An ideology is a belief or idea you hold about political and social issues, like being a communist, a liberal, a conservative, a feminist, a homophobe, etc. You can change ideologies, and you are not born having one; you develop one as you grow up and build your worldviews.
A community should strive to be accepting of all identities, because it is unfair to be mean to or harm people for things they cannot change about themselves. Therefore, schools should aim to make people of all identities feel welcome.
Ideologies, on the other hand, do not have the same moral basis in terms of a community’s duty to accept them, especially if they are harmful to certain people. Because individuals are responsible for their ideologies, they can change them. Therefore, if people hold beliefs that others think are incorrect, the community should allow debate on these beliefs.
On the other hand, an identity that is unchangeable should be protected. An argument of ideology vs. ideology should be allowed, but an argument of ideology vs. identity should not. Institutional neutrality ignores this nuance by failing to establish a position that certain issues, such as accepting identities, should not be subject to debate.
Then, there is the issue of harm. The high school has pride flags and Black Lives Matter (BLM) signs displayed around its hallways. This is because queer students and students of color are some of the most vulnerable members of the community and are regularly exposed to prejudice and hate regarding their identities. The school wants these students to feel safe and welcome, so it has these signs and flags up to show its support and acceptance. The school does not espouse any ideology through these flags, but rather spreads the idea that our community should be accepting and kind to people, regardless of their identities.
In an opinion article published by The Cypress last year, a student wrote, “classrooms across campus [are] lined with social justice flags that the school defends by implying that they’re somehow apolitical.” Pride flags are apolitical. They do not stand for any political party or ideology; they simply stand for the idea that queer people should be accepted. School is one of the only places where many queer students feel accepted. Getting rid of pride flags would make many queer students, including myself, feel much less accepted in school. If you are offended by pride flags being in classrooms, you might want to reevaluate your views.
Institutional neutrality would be difficult to adopt in a way that truly achieves what its supporters want. Proponents of institutional neutrality argue against schools making official statements on issues and events because, they say, supporting one viewpoint will alienate the students who don’t share that viewpoint. In high school, even if the school doesn’t make official statements about world issues, the school-approved curriculum inherently takes stances on issues. In history class, the curriculum supports a viewpoint that decries hatred, colonialism and Nazis, and promotes civil rights movements (among a plethora of other historical issues). While I agree with these ideals, it is undeniable that they are not shared by all Americans.
For the high school to be neutral, it would have to eliminate bias in its curriculum, which is both difficult and absurd, especially when it comes to atrocities such as slavery or the Holocaust. People who support institutional neutrality shouldn’t ignore that this curriculum, which is signed off on by various administrators and department heads, will inevitably promote a biased viewpoint.
With regards to institutional neutrality, the school should continue as it has been. The high school has done well in supporting all identities, including in its use of “Days of” in recent years and its support of the various identity-based student unions at the school.
