戻る TOEFL Speaking C2 (6.0) English (US) – Take an Interview

Discussing When a University Should Speak Publicly

英語スピーキングシナリオ

Libby

A bright British English speaker with an approachable, conversational tone.

32 years · female

Practise talking about "Discussing When a University Should Speak Publicly" with Libby, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your TOEFL iBT C2 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

会話

When should a university speak publicly about a social issue?

大学は、社会問題についていつ公に発言すべきでしょうか？

良い答えです:

A university should speak publicly when a social issue clearly affects its own community, its educational mission or the basic conditions for inquiry. For example, if an issue threatens student safety, academic freedom or equal access to learning, silence may look less like neutrality and more like avoidance. However, the institution should not comment simply because the issue is prominent online or because other organisations have issued statements. Universities are not general moral broadcasters. Their public voice has value when it is connected to responsibility, expertise or institutional action. If that connection is weak, speaking may satisfy immediate pressure while making later statements less credible. The threshold should be relevance, not volume of demand, and that threshold should be explained consistently.

大学は、ある社会問題が自分たちのコミュニティ、教育上の使命、あるいは探究のための基本条件に明らかに影響する場合には、公に発言すべきです。たとえば、その問題が学生の安全、学問の自由、または学ぶ機会の平等を脅かすなら、沈黙は中立というより、回避のように見えることがあります。ただし、その問題がネット上で大きく取り上げられているからとか、ほかの組織が声明を出しているからという理由だけで、大学がコメントすべきではありません。大学は、何でもかんでも道徳的に発信する存在ではないのです。公の発言に価値があるのは、それが責任、専門性、または組織としての行動と結びついているときです。その結びつきが弱いなら、発言は目先の圧力を和らげるかもしれませんが、後の声明の信頼性を下げてしまうおそれがあります。基準にすべきなのは、求められる声の大きさではなく、その問題との関連性です。そして、その基準は一貫して説明されるべきです。

What risk is created when universities take public positions too often?

良い答えです:

A major risk is that public statements lose their force. If a university comments on every major issue, each message begins to feel routine, and silence on the next issue may be interpreted as deliberate rejection. That creates a trap of expectation. For example, a university that issues statements on several international conflicts may then be pressured to comment on all comparable conflicts, even when it lacks expertise or a direct role. The result is not greater moral clarity but a growing catalogue of institutional positions. Students and staff may start measuring values by the frequency of statements rather than by decisions, support systems or academic practice. Overuse can make speech weaker, not stronger, and can turn moral language into institutional routine.

How would you respond to someone who says universities should always remain neutral?

良い答えです:

I understand the appeal of neutrality, because universities need to remain places where serious disagreement is possible. If the institution speaks too readily, it may discourage students and academics from testing unpopular arguments. However, absolute neutrality can become evasive when the issue affects the conditions for learning. A university cannot be neutral about threats to academic freedom, targeted harassment or safety on campus, because those issues determine whether inquiry can happen at all. My view is that universities should be politically restrained but not morally absent. They should avoid becoming partisan commentators, while still defending the principles and people required for education to function in a genuinely open academic community where people can still disagree without fear in practice later.

What should universities avoid when deciding whether to speak publicly?

良い答えです:

Universities should avoid using public statements as a pressure-release mechanism. If leaders speak mainly because students, donors, media or politicians demand an immediate response, the statement may satisfy one audience while confusing the institution's role. They should first ask whether the issue is connected to their mission, what action will follow and how the message will affect internal debate. A rushed statement can create a precedent that is difficult to maintain, because every later silence may need explanation. Over time, trust depends on a consistent threshold for speaking. People do not have to agree with every decision, but they should be able to understand why the university used its voice in one case and not another, without guessing at hidden politics.