Crossing the Street: On Dogs, Masks, and the Case for Campus Neutrality
Consider the experience of an international student arriving in the Netherlands for a semester abroad. They may come from a cultural background that differs significantly from the one they are entering. Their understanding of certain social signals, symbols, or behaviours is shaped not by lived experience, but by media exposure or second-hand information.
This is not unusual. People often interpret unfamiliar things through the framework they already possess. It is a basic psychological mechanism rather than a political one.
For instance, take the example of dog breeds. If someone has only seen portrayals of a particular breed, such as a pit bull, in negative contexts, they may instinctively avoid the animal when encountering it in person. This reaction does not reflect a deeply held belief or prejudice. It is a cautious response based on limited information.
A similar principle applies in social situations. If someone’s only exposure to people wearing face masks has been through media coverage of threatening or alarming scenarios, their reaction in a real-world context, such as a university campus, might be one of discomfort or uncertainty. This does not necessarily indicate bias. It often stems from unfamiliarity and a desire to feel safe.
In multicultural and international environments such as universities, mismatches in perception are common. These differences are not always ideological. More often, they are the result of individuals interpreting new environments through their own limited reference points.
This is one reason why institutional neutrality can play an important role. When a university decides not to take a public stance on a complex political issue, this decision does not automatically imply indifference or lack of values. It may instead reflect an effort to maintain an open and inclusive space for students from a wide range of cultural and personal backgrounds.
Neutrality, in this context, should not be mistaken for apathy. It can represent a commitment to creating an environment where learning, discussion, and reflection are possible without the pressure to conform to any particular position. A university’s primary role is to support inquiry and intellectual development. For many students, especially those from abroad, it may be the first place where they can safely encounter and examine difficult or unfamiliar ideas.
Criticising neutrality as a form of complicity assumes that all institutions operate within the same context and that silence always implies agreement. This is an oversimplification. In reality, institutional neutrality can allow for a greater range of voices to be heard without fear of marginalisation or misinterpretation.
It is reasonable to expect universities to promote safety, inclusion, and mutual respect. However, it is not reasonable to expect them to publicly endorse every political position brought forward. If educational institutions are turned into platforms for ideological alignment, the space for learning may narrow rather than expand.
In diverse communities, unfamiliarity often explains more than ideology. Acknowledging this reality allows for a more empathetic and practical approach. Many individuals are not trying to make statements. Sometimes, they are simply trying to make sense of their surroundings and, quite literally or metaphorically, cross the street safely.
