In Defense of Institutional Neutrality

By Rhys Adams ‘26

As of June 2024, Milton Academy has declined to take political positions on external matters. Since then, external matters have heated up furiously in East Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and Washington, affecting members of the Milton community profoundly. The natural response to these clashing realities is to brand the school as callously silent in times that require fearless advocacy and reject the policy of so-called “institutional neutrality.” Such an approach, however, misunderstands the purpose of a school and casts institutional neutrality as more comprehensive than it could ever be.

Let’s first clarify how far institutional neutrality reaches in practice. Teachers can still freely share their partisan leanings and policy perspectives; the Department of Equity, Inclusion, and Justice can still sponsor legislative advocacy; student organizations can raise money for political causes and spread political messages; and assembly speakers can applaud or condemn the political personalities of the day. So, who is neutral? The name says it all: “institutional neutrality” mandates that Milton Academy itself, via the collective voice of twelve administrators and twenty-seven trustees, does not comment on the news if the news does not directly pertain to school policy.

The most salient critique of this policy—and, indeed, of any credo that hinges on neutrality—is the certainly true notion that neutrality is impossible and that all actions are inherently political. However, this analysis should not steer schools away from policies like Milton’s, for two reasons. Firstly, neutrality—like equality, kindness, fairness, or excellence—is an abstract virtue that has not yet been achieved to its greatest philosophical extent, but for this fact of the human condition to stain the reputation of neutral institutions suggests that no value is ever worth striving for.

Secondly, we mustn’t confuse social apathy and inaction with political impartiality. Milton is right to make the politically-charged decisions to maintain a gender neutral dorm, a separate orientation for minoritized students, and an endowment that divests from weapons companies complicit in ethnic cleansing. In these cases, the school consults its values to assess the best course of action, regardless of the factional connotations that follow. Anti-neutrality advocates are incorrect to insist that the school instead reverse the order of operations and issue declarations on national and global topics as a prerequisite to acting within our walls.

Ultimately, democratic societies require apolitical institutions. If universities, major news outlets, and scientific journals decided that their goals hinge on one party, candidate, or policy, they would be cast into the ash heap of history every election cycle, banished to the realm of Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney. The pillars of pedagogy, journalism, and research have not lasted decades and even centuries by applying such a shortsighted strategy. Harvard University can afford to stand up to Donald Trump only because it does not overextend itself beyond fighting for its own autonomy. Milton Academy is the same. If you believe that our aims as a school are sound, then your first priority ought to be pushing the school in a direction that ensures it can make good on those aims as the years advance. Political punditry simply distracts from the charge to provide a high-quality, morally instructive education to as broad a group as possible. Schools must refuse to cooperate with ICE and defy mandates to erase Black history, because such despotic, small-minded demands jeopardize the ideal of a safe space in which we seek the truth. A schoolwide statement about who is to blame for the Colombia–Venezuela conflict? Clearly extraneous.

Truth be told, you should not need your principal or her immediate superiors to validate your convictions, and as authoritarianism crashes on the shores of the free world, the modus operandi of activism-minded students must never become “ask the adults in charge for permission before acting politically.” No successful student protest movement in history was catalyzed by a dean’s announcement at a morning assembly, and Milton is right to prepare students for the courage and the independence required to effect political change after graduation day. The Milton Paper certainly does not lean on the administration as a moral compass, and all students should get comfortable doing the same.

Has Milton always met the standard of allowing uncensored history curricula, balanced DEIJ programming, and assembly speakers who challenge students’ or parents’ beliefs? Before and after June 2024, the answer resounds: certainly not. However, campaigns for free speech and political engagement at Milton should focus on fulfilling the above criteria rather than seeking inconsequential pronouncements on current affairs. In the words of Brazilian teacher Paulo Freire, a pioneer in the field of radical education, “if the structure does not permit dialogue, the structure must be changed.” Because I believe a structure focused on free intellectual exchange between teachers and students permits more dialogue than a top-down culture of political orthodoxy, I stand in defense of institutional neutrality.