A Reminder to Resist Moral Neutrality
There is too much suffering for social cowardice by individuals + universities.
When interviewed on podcasts (such as here) or a panel of “experts” I’m often asked, what have you changed your mind on? It’s a reasonable question to ask anyone, much less someone who studies curiosity and intellectual humility.
My most recent revised view is that universities, and by extension, individuals at these institutions, should express their values publicly. If this leads to productive conflict, so be it. Productive conflict is how groups become smarter. A bigger problem than conflict is pretending to be devoid of beliefs and values.
In a world still finding its feet after COVID-19, a torrent of alarming news greets us whenever we open a browser. Conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, the dwindling affordability of cereal, healthcare, and housing, extreme weather, and misogyny join a pestilence of rage-filled shouting matches on social media and city streets. And yet, the world shudders on, trapped inside an economic and political machine that seems beyond any regular person’s control. Keeping pace is difficult, outpacing seems unattainable.
If anyone should have a non-neutral thought on these psychological, sociological, and geopolitical topics, it should be taxpayer funded knowledge production centers - otherwise known as universities (which happen to be filled with professors paid to conduct research and uncover solutions to societal problems).
Universities Possess Values
It’s strange to contemplate a university without public opinion when it is impossible to muster daily operations without moral decisions. Just consider the last four Sustainability plans of George Mason University.
To me, these four attempts at sustainability seem north of neutral. That is, I agree with the non-neutral values that undergird them. Others might disagree. There is nothing wrong with a disagreement as long as it is used as a tool to improve decision-making. What determines whether freedom of inquiry exists in a university is how people respond when the minority points out dysfunctional beliefs and practices the majority holds. Forcing neutrality, by definition, prevents free inquiry. This is the path to less practical wisdom, something no university should aspire towards.
Individuals Should Not Be Value Neutral
More than a decade ago, I had dinner with executives from a corporate behemoth in Minnesota. After sharing scientific discoveries on regret, a highly successful woman told me about her moment of “moral neutrality.”
In my late 20s, my husband and I stopped at a convenience store one chilly fall evening. As he went inside, I stayed in the car, watching the cold drizzle turn into a driving rain. Under the building overhang, a girl, perhaps 13, sat shivering. Her jeans and t-shirt were ragged and soiled, and she had no coat. Through the foggy windshield, I thought I saw bruises on her face and a cut on her lip. She began to cry, and I felt torn between the urge to help and the fear of not knowing how. I sat there, warm and dry, paralyzed by indecision. When my husband returned, I couldn't find the words to explain my moral struggle. We drove away, leaving the girl behind.
The memory of that young woman, huddled against the plate glass storefront, utterly alone and bone-cold, has haunted me for decades. How many evenings have I lain awake, wondering if she’s okay? How many times have I asked myself why I stayed in the car? Perhaps I should not consider this a regret, as it deeply altered the rest of my life.
This woman recognized that her own moral neutrality reflected a moral failing - for zero gain.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri
Take a stand when you witness human (or animal) suffering.
Do not walk away with your head held down, pretending indifference while your heart screams with cowardice.
Hope this was valuable. If so, you can support me in 3 ways:
Share this on social media and send it to friends;
Leave a ❤️ and comment;
Subscribe (with benefits such as the chat room and 200+ article archive).
Todd B. Kashdan is an author of several books including The Upside of Your Dark Side (Penguin) and The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively (Avery/Penguin) and Professor of Psychology and Leader of The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University.
I always thought one of the benefits of going to university was learning how to think critically and to challenge ideas. If universities can’t walk the talk, what hope is there for creating a generation of people willing to stand up for what’s right? Sitting on the fence isn’t neutrality, it's maintaining the status quo.
That said, I get it—speaking out comes with risks, especially in the age of social media. The fear of making a mistake and being publicly dragged through the mud is real.
For a masterclass in not being neutral Universities could learn from a New Zealand Māori Member of Parliament performing a haka in Parliament to protest a bill trying to revoke Indigenous rights. She wasn’t silent, she didn’t sit on the fence—she stood up, used her voice, her culture to say, “This isn’t right.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_836NQcW2TI
As I watch people around the world stand up for what they believe in (and sometimes I don’t agree or I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion - which on reflection is probably a cop-out and allows me to go on with my daily life without feeling too bad) I ask myself “what would I fight for?”… it reminds me of the line in the musical Hamilton “If you stand for nothing, Burr, what'll you fall for?”
Where would we be if we didn’t have people like Rosa Parks, Kate Sheppard, Desmond Tutu, Carolyn Martin and hundreds of thousands of other just “normal, regular” people standing up for what they believe in?
Great topic! Thank you!