Reflection inspired by a public discussion on the role of universities, and not only, in society
The reflection that follows was inspired by a
recent text by Professor Zyhdi Teqja, which addresses a sensitive experience
within a university context. While the original reflection emerges from a
specific institutional situation, it raises a question that reaches far beyond
a single university. It invites us to consider a broader phenomenon that
concerns not only academic institutions, but society as a whole: the phenomenon
of silence.
Silence in public life rarely appears as an open
prohibition. More often, it manifests in subtler forms—through avoidance,
through the quiet marginalization of voices that raise inconvenient questions,
or through the collective decision not to engage with certain issues. Sometimes
it appears not as censorship, but as indifference.
In this sense, silence can become a powerful social
mechanism. It does not necessarily silence people directly; instead, it reduces
the visibility of those who speak. Their ideas are not openly rejected; they
are simply ignored. Over time, this silent ignoring can achieve what open
opposition sometimes cannot: it gradually erodes the public presence of ideas
and concerns that deserve attention.
Social theory has long described this phenomenon.
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann famously conceptualized it as the “spiral of
silence,” a process in which individuals become reluctant to express views
they perceive as unpopular or unsupported by dominant institutions. As this
reluctance grows, the apparent consensus strengthens, and the spiral deepens.
Universities, however, were historically created
precisely to resist such dynamics.
A university is not merely a place where knowledge
is transmitted. It is a space where ideas are tested, confronted, and debated.
It is an institutional environment where disagreement is not a disturbance but
a necessary condition for intellectual progress.
The history of universities—from Bologna to Oxford,
from Humboldt’s reforms in Berlin to the great research universities of the
modern era—shows that academic institutions flourish not because they enforce
unanimity, but because they cultivate pluralism of thought.
A university where only one vision is considered
legitimate gradually loses its academic nature. It risks becoming something
closer to an administrative structure than a living intellectual community.
For this reason, the phenomenon of silence is
particularly concerning when it appears within universities. When silence
becomes normalized, it does not only affect individual scholars. It weakens the
very institutional culture that allows universities to fulfill their role in
society.
Universities should therefore be understood as the
core of intellectual courage in a society. They are the places where the
ability to think differently should not merely be tolerated, but actively
protected.
If universities themselves begin to fear the
plurality of visions, society risks losing one of its most important safeguards
against intellectual stagnation.
Breaking the spiral of silence is not only an
individual act of courage. It is also an institutional responsibility.
Universities must remain places where voices are
not reduced through indifference, where debate is not replaced by quiet
conformity, and where the diversity of ideas continues to be recognized as the
very foundation of academic life.
Because in the end, universities endure not through
silence, but through the courage of those who continue to think—and
speak—differently.
