Universities like Otago are meant to be places of curiosity, contest and challenge — not conformity.
At their best, they question received wisdom and invite debate rather than suppress it. They help us move closer to truth by allowing ideas to be tested, not mandated.
But in recent years, Otago, like many academic institutions, has been caught in a tide of ideological conformity and fear. These are not my words, but those of academics within the university who describe a culture where certain views are difficult to express, and dissent risks professional backlash.
At the centre of this concern is an idea that is foundational to academic freedom: institutional neutrality.
Just this month, Otago became the first New Zealand university to issue a formal statement on institutional neutrality. That alone is noteworthy, and the leadership deserves credit for beginning the conversation.
However, some have raised concerns the statement includes carve-outs which may ultimately undermine the principle it aims to defend. The timing is especially important: submissions have now closed on proposed legislation before Parliament which, in part, would require universities to refrain from adopting official positions on divisive social or political issues unrelated to their educational role.
Otago is now at a fork in the road. It can lead boldly — setting a precedent for the rest of the country — or risk falling short of what academic freedom truly demands.
Institutional neutrality does not mean individual silence. On the contrary, it protects the speech of academics and students.
When a university takes a public stand on controversial issues — be it foreign policy, climate change strategies or domestic social movements — it puts pressure on staff and students who hold opposing views. Whether subtly or explicitly, it sends a message: this is what "our side" believes. Disagreeing becomes an act of disloyalty.
This undermines both intellectual diversity and the core role of a university as a place of inquiry.
But when a university like Otago refrains from taking sides, it creates space for individual voices to flourish. It invites debate and ensures academics can speak for themselves, not be spoken for by the institution that employs them.
At the Free Speech Union, we have heard from numerous members of the Otago community — students and staff — who feel constrained by a perceived ideological orthodoxy. Their concerns are real, and their trust in the institution can only be restored if Otago commits, clearly and consistently, to staying in its lane.
This is not about Left or Right. Neutrality is not a political stance — it is a commitment to not having one. It is a promise that ideas will be judged on their merit, not their popularity.
The legislation before Parliament affirms this principle not just as best practice, but as public expectation. Our universities, especially those supported by public funds, must serve all New Zealanders, not only those who dominate the cultural conversation at any given moment.
Otago can demonstrate that neutrality is not retreat, but leadership.
Otago’s move echoes steps taken overseas. In the United States, the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report still guides top institutions with the idea that universities are homes for critics — not critics themselves.
Other institutions, such as the University of North Carolina and the University of Austin, have formally enshrined neutrality to protect credibility and rebuild public confidence. Otago has the chance to be the first in New Zealand to do this well — and to do it meaningfully.
Otago holds a unique place in New Zealand’s academic landscape — not just as our oldest university, but as one that continues to shape the South Island’s social and intellectual culture.
That role comes with responsibility. Whether or not we have attended, we all have a stake in Otago. It is a public institution — funded by taxpayers, accountable to citizens.
When it drifts from its academic mission into political posturing, it risks losing the trust of those it is meant to serve. And that loss of trust erodes its ability to carry out its most important task: fostering understanding and advancing knowledge for everyone.
Institutional neutrality is not weakness. It is a recommitment to the best of what a university can be. It trusts academics to pursue hard questions and uncomfortable truths — not with a script in hand, but with intellectual independence.
If Otago wants to be a place where ideas are truly free, it must go beyond policy statements. It must make neutrality a core part of its culture — openly, unapologetically and enduringly.
This is a chance for Otago to lead, not just comply. And in doing so, to set a standard for every university in Aotearoa.
■ Jonathan Ayling is the chief executive of the Free Speech Union New Zealand.
