Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes framed the concept of the “free trade in ideas” in his famous 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States. This theory of intellectual capitalism — commonly known as the “marketplace of ideas” — posits that truth emerges through open competition among perspectives held in tension.
Today, this foundational principle of free intellectual exchange is under strain. As society grapples with deep political and ideological divisions, universities — once bastions of open inquiry — find themselves at a crossroads. Public pressure and eroding trust demand we choose between two extremes: making sweeping political pronouncements or retreating into silence.
Neither path serves the true mission of higher education.
I believe a uniquely nuanced and powerful alternative to these options can deconstruct ideological divides and restore intellectual capitalism on college campuses. That pathway starts with institutional neutrality — not as an abandonment of responsibility or a retreat from uncomfortable conversations, but as a bold commitment to fostering an open marketplace of ideas.
Institutional neutrality is often mischaracterized as passivity, but when strategically implemented it is an active, intentional stance. It does not signify a refusal to engage, but rather a refusal to dictate.
There are legitimate critiques of institutional neutrality in service of this free-market ideology. What about intentional disinformation entered into the marketplace? How do power dynamics taint the authenticity of discourse and debate? All the same, the learning lab that results from this commitment remains unmatched on modern college campuses.
We cannot achieve this through institutional statements that prescribe how our community must interpret an event or action. Nor can we accomplish it through “safe spaces” that, while well-intentioned, have the inadvertent effect of promoting intellectual acceptance of all ideas, void of any analysis, judgment or assessment.
These features have turned our institutions of higher education into a landscape of ideological conformity, issuing statements that are, at best, no more than performative puffery. At worst, they create a chill across the community, framing neutral institutions as political partisans or proxies and forcing out ideas that run counter to popular opinion. Neither outcome is what our students or our country need.
Instead, we should cultivate “brave spaces,” where students are instructed in how to think, not what to think, by engaging in all the real-world complexity of divergent ideas and messy discourse. Through practice — not prescription — this commitment to an open marketplace of ideas equips students with critical thinking skills, exposure to challenging ideas and the ability to meet conflict with civil discourse and reason.
We also need our institutions to model these behaviors and give students the space they need to engage with the full spectrum of competing ideas. For our institutional leaders, this means having the courage to resist jumping to a popular stance and rather adopting institutional neutrality to create the space to fully explore all sides of an issue.
The mission of higher education is not to shape views, but to provide our learners with brave spaces where all views — popular and unpopular alike — are invited and interrogated, poked and prodded, allowing participants to arrive at independent, well-reasoned conclusions.
That is how we find the truth, how we teach our students to engage in open, thoughtful and sometimes uncomfortable discourse, equipping them with the skills they need to navigate ideological differences and preparing them to thrive in a world where disagreement is not just inevitable, but essential to a well-functioning society.
As a nation, we must navigate a chapter of significant polarization, alongside colleges capable of ensuring the formation of the next generation of thoughtful, balanced, critical thinkers. We need to form more thought leaders and fewer followers, equipping each person to grapple with the complex problems of the day.
Only when universities act from a stance of institutional neutrality, coupled with a fierce commitment to sustaining these brave spaces of intellectual diversity, dialogue and debate, do we meet our broad promise to society. We must restore trust in our ability to recognize the dignity of each of our students as able to determine their own viewpoints on what is truth.
Rather than seeing this as an abdication of the responsibility to “take a position,” we are in fact embracing our role in creating the conditions for a thriving future: forming leaders, with space and guidance, for the next chapter.
At a time when the stakes are high, I invite my colleagues who lead institutions of higher learning to join me in creating brave spaces where all ideas are tested, in search of the truth. I like to think that Justice Holmes would approve.
Dr. Colleen Hanycz is the 35th president of Xavier University.
