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

Discussing When a University Should Speak Publicly

영어 말하기 시나리오

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

대화

When should a university speak publicly about a social issue?

대학은 언제 사회 문제에 대해 공개적으로 입장을 밝혀야 할까요?

좋은 답변:

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.

대학은 사회적 이슈가 자기 공동체, 교육적 사명, 또는 탐구의 기본 조건에 분명히 영향을 줄 때 공개적으로 입장을 밝혀야 해요. 예를 들어 어떤 이슈가 학생 안전, 학문의 자유, 또는 배움에 대한 평등한 접근을 위협한다면, 침묵은 중립이라기보다 회피처럼 보일 수 있어요. 하지만 그 이슈가 온라인에서 크게 주목받는다는 이유만으로, 또는 다른 기관들이 이미 성명을 냈다는 이유만으로 대학이 의견을 내서는 안 돼요. 대학은 모든 도덕적 이슈를 대신 말해 주는 기관이 아니에요. 대학의 공개적인 목소리는 책임, 전문성, 또는 기관 차원의 행동과 연결될 때 의미가 있어요. 그 연결이 약하다면, 말을 하는 것은 당장의 압박은 덜어 줄 수 있어도 나중의 발언 신뢰도는 떨어뜨릴 수 있어요. 기준은 요구의 크기가 아니라 관련성이어야 하고, 그 기준은 일관되게 설명되어야 해요.

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

좋은 답변:

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?

좋은 답변:

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?

좋은 답변:

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.