By Kayla Ross, Staff Writer

Undoubtedly, Dr. Hanycz has faced challenges in her time as the first layperson and first female president of Xavier University. The past four years have been marked by political unrest, a pandemic and a tense international landscape. These external challenges have led to hardship for the entire industry of higher education, Xavier included. 

In the wake of current events, students across the nation are restless as hope for an equitable college experience becomes smothered by extreme conservatism. Earlier this month, Dr. Hanycz wrote an opinion article for The Hill, outlining her approach to addressing the current political climate as the president of Xavier University: institutional neutrality. She states that this mindset allows for the best environment to foster a “marketplace of ideas,” citing the dissent from Abrams v. United States. 

I do not disagree that institutional neutrality fosters a marketplace of ideas, and I understand the dangers higher education institutions face for making statements that may be interpreted as partisan. However, students are not asking the administration to make “sweeping political pronouncements” as Hanycz puts it. What students are asking is that their differences be acknowledged and protected. The frustrations from students at large are not with the administration of Xavier University, but with their refusal to deny external political pressures to conform to social regression. 

Last week, an event was scheduled for Xavier College Republicans titled, “Her Story and Protecting Women’s Sports.” Inviting the rhetoric that sports must be protected from transgender people is inherently harmful for members of the Xavier community who identify as transgender. Furthermore, this subject is not a discussion that non-athletes need to be a part of, nor is it applicable to Xavier, as there are 10 or fewer NCAA athletes identifying as transgender in the United States. 

The event was cancelled, not for concerns about the implications of the speech being shared there, but because the invited speaker contracted the flu. Two Xavier clubs, Young Democratic Socialists of America and LGBTQ+ Alliance, condemned this event, but there has not been any recent information from administration about updating speech and expression policies to protect marginalized students from what could be perceived as hate speech. 

In her recent opinion piece, Dr. Hanycz writes that “We cannot achieve this (a marketplace of ideas) through institutional statements that prescribe how our community must interpret an event or action.” In February 2021, just five months before Dr. Hanycz would become the president of Xavier University, a Black Lives Matter flag was vandalized and accompanied by the placement of white supremacist propaganda on campus.

The previous president of Xavier University, Father Graham, condemned this act publicly to local news outlets. There are scenarios in which this university unquestionably should be compelled to release statements that prescribe how our community must interpret an event or action. There is only one way to interpret hate speech or actions on Xavier’s campus, and that is as “an attack on our community,” as stated previously by Father Graham. 

Institutional neutrality is definitively the contrast of a “bold commitment.” Its refusal to dictate is also refusal to try to relieve students of their concerns surrounding their identities. If the administration of Xavier University will continue to state that the stance of institutional neutrality is not passive, we must arm our defense. Our institutional neutrality will continue to be mischaracterized as passivity until the members of this community feel that they are protected. The guidelines for speech and expression on campus must be expanded to prevent marginalized groups from feeling as though their existence is a subject of debate. Protection of student identities and institutional neutrality do not need to be mutually exclusive. 

I invite the administration to reconsider what institutional neutrality looks like for Xavier. Institutional neutrality can act as an invitation for students to join our boastful marketplace of ideas; it cannot be an excuse for our administration to neglect difficult conversations. As Justice Holmes once said, “Greatness is not where we stand but in what direction we are moving.”