On September 24, 2026, the University of Calgary officially doubled down on its commitment to remaining institutionally neutral.
The upcoming Alberta referendum, with certainty, is what sparked this gentle reminder. The University of Calgary (U of C) asserts that to declare a formal opinion concerning any matter aside from those that directly concern university policy and governance is to “shrink the space available for the speech of its members”. Simply put, the school believes that if they express an institutional position, it acts as one mass, monolithic voice and, therefore, effectively eliminates the diverse opinions of its student and faculty body.
I believe that there are innate issues with a statement of neutrality. At a baseline value, to make a statement that is actively refusing to make statements is a bit ironic in and of itself.
It seems especially ironic if you are a subscriber to any principle similar to “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor,” coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu — passive complacency and the illusion of impartiality protects systems of injustice or unethical power.
That being said, there is a difference between neutrality in political disagreement and neutrality in the face of clear harm. Things become somewhat more complex when there is no direct oppressor or aggressor to speak against.
The Alberta referendum will give those living in the province the opportunity to vote on many political issues and policies. However, the question on ballot number 10 is the one which has caused the most controversy within the current cultural zeitgeist.
“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
It is certainly this question that has caused the most concern for U of C students and Albertans alike, and it is the question I believe has pushed the university to affirm its institutional neutrality.
Truth be told, I do not necessarily disagree with this choice.
As previously mentioned, there is a difference between the choice to refuse to speak about an injustice versus a choice to refuse to speak about a political disagreement. Listen, I’m no fan of the “Not Political” Instagram bio or Hinge declaration either, but when it comes to the position of an institution such as a university, I do not believe that this decision is necessarily cowardice or complacency. It is a declaration that the institution itself does not need to have a position on all issues its members are debating.
U of C is not a political party or a campaign organization. Additionally, the university is a provincially funded institution. It would be difficult to separate any institutional position on Alberta’s future from the plausible financial and political consequences that provincial separation could have on the university itself. As an observing student, it would have been troubling to navigate the possible biases in any statement concerning the matter that would have been put out. Even if the statement was put out with the best intentions— or with what many would deem the correct position— students could very reasonably question whether or not the university’s position was entirely detached from its own interests.
Remaining neutral as an educational institution does not imply that students are neutral. In fact, in this case, I would argue that students should be encouraged to hold their own dialogues, learn from one another, argue, research the implications of their opinions, and, ultimately, vote according to what they believe. Sometimes opinions are not well-informed. Sometimes, they can be a bit ridiculous by the standards of many. However, university is supposed to be a place where people with radically different ideas can exist in the same room. It should foster disagreement, conversation and debate.
This is the beauty of democracy both institutionally and as a federal and provincial political system.
However, that commitment to neutrality cannot become an excuse for silence in every circumstance.
There is an essential difference between saying, “We do not believe our institution should tell you how to vote.” and saying, “We have nothing to say when members of our community experience harm.”
One protects intellectual diversity at school, and the other casts it aside.
Universities such as ours should not be expected to issue a statement every time the political climate becomes uncomfortable. In fact, I believe it would be irresponsible to do so. Conversely, when there are clear wrongdoings, silence is not neutrality. It is simply silence.
U of C’s neutrality statement may be imperfect, but I think its underlying principle is worth defending. On issues where reasonable people can disagree, let students disagree. This is the spirit of education— to be given space to be wrong, and the possibility of further education. However, do not conflate responsible neutrality with silence in the face of harm.
The university doesn’t need to tell us what to believe about Alberta's future. It does need to make sure that, whatever its students and faculty may believe, there is still a university community worth having that conversation in.
This article is a part of our Opinions section and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Gauntlet editorial board.
