Northeastern’s ranking as one of the most liberal universities in the nation may seem like a statistic to boast about, but in today’s evermore polarizing climate, this distinction actually hinders students’ ability to reason. Don’t just take my word for it — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sent a letter to Northeastern on April 25, calling out our administrators for “viewpoint discrimination, an unacceptable outcome at an institution with laudable commitments to freedom of expression.” True intellectual freedom cannot occur without a firm commitment to free expression, something Northeastern currently lacks.
In 2014, the University of Chicago released the Chicago Principles, a fervent defense of free speech on campus. In the statement, former President Robert Hutchins said that the remedy for ideas we disagree with “lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition.” These principles protect all ideas and opinions, even the controversial and offensive. They ensure that the university will not shield students from ideas they may find unwelcoming.
If Northeastern were to adopt the Chicago Principles, it would still be able to discipline students who violate student conduct. The difference is in how and why speech is regulated. Adopting the principles would require Northeastern to clearly distinguish between disruptive behavior and the disagreement of ideas.
Since 2014, 112 universities and colleges have adopted the Chicago Principles. Northeastern is not one of them. Instead, our university outlines “general expectations” within its Code of Student Conduct, emphasizing that students are afforded freedom of expression only if it is done peacefully and falls both within the bounds of the law and university policy. While these expectations protect decorum and the university’s safety, they also allow for speech to be suppressed at our administrators’ discretion.
Models like the Chicago Principles allow for students to actively listen, engage deeply with intellectual conversations and think critically. Without them, we risk becoming intellectually complacent, surrounded by only those that affirm our beliefs. As President Joseph E. Aoun once said, “It is through the integration of our differences that we truly thrive as a community.”
A 2024 survey revealed that a third of college students were uncomfortable sharing their political opinions at their college, a 153% increase from 13% in 2015. While this may not come as a surprise, it should be concerning.
While many feel that political polarization is the core problem facing our country, the real problem is that politics and identity have become deeply integrated. Whereas the terms “conservative” and “liberal” used to be purely ideological labels, they have become representative of a person’s identity. Our political identities are so intertwined with our sense of self that emotional polarization has reached an all-time high.
Social media is only adding fuel to the fire. Nearly three out of four college students regularly use social media as a news source, further exacerbating the issue and allowing for further partisan sorting, where people group themselves by political ideology. These echo chambers have now expanded beyond the internet and are infiltrating our campus. Echo chambers are not the marker of a healthy university. Exposure to a diverse array of thought is imperative to developing a nuanced opinion and achieving compromise with those we disagree with.
Operating under a policy that is compliance-driven and cautious places the core emphasis not on freedom of expression but on institutional control over speech. We have already seen what happens when universities place more regulations on freedom of expression — just look at Columbia University. Columbia falls dead last in The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2025 Free Speech Rankings. After recent policy changes, Columbia is now a cautionary tale on what happens when universities protect order over expression. Their increased police presence, heightened emphasis on disciplinary actions and stricter protest rules have stifled debate and undermined the university’s role as an institution focused on intellectual diversity.
Whether you have a differing opinion on health policy, social welfare, international relations or human rights, you cannot make an active difference by talking to those who already share your perspective.
Last year, Northeastern’s campus was gripped by protests and a pro-Palestinian encampment, sparking passionate reactions from both sides, including pro-Israel and some Jewish students who felt unsafe or alienated by the protests. One Northeastern student told WBZ-TV that, “If it were up to me, everyone would have been told to leave, disperse or be arrested.” Conversely, Associate Professor of Philosophy Matthew Smith told the station that those who were calling for a cease fire should be heard, and that “As professors [we] have a responsibility to look after our students’ welfare.”
The protests and encampments were eventually dispersed, and at Northeastern, 98 people were arrested. In the fallout, 14 Northeastern students filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, claiming that the university “participated in ‘anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian’ discrimination.” Regardless of where you stand, the need for a principled commitment to freedom of expression from the university could not be clearer. Students with all perspectives on this issue have valid concerns, convictions and opinions — and both deserve to be heard.
In a university setting, disagreement should never be a cause for censorship. Even faculty members have taken issue with Northeastern’s freedom of expression and academic freedom policies. Cultivating a campus culture that welcomes diverse perspectives starts with a shift in messaging. We as Northeastern community members must have no shadow of a doubt that our speech will not be met with punishment.
With free speech on the line on every campus, we must be able not only to express our own viewpoints but also to learn how to digest opinions we disagree with. Intellectual discomfort is not a threat — it is the cornerstone of education.
Spencer Lyst is a second-year pharmaceutical sciences major. He can be reached at lyst.s@northeastern.edu.
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email comments@huntnewsnu.com with your idea.
