As a leading Ivy League institution, Yale is a shining example of academic freedom, and as a Yalie, I am proud that Yale renewed its commitment to that principle based on the recent report from the Committee on Institutional Voice. Penn, a fellow Ivy League school and my alma mater where I earned my bachelor’s and master’s degrees, took a similar position seven weeks ago with its policy on Upholding Academic Independence. Both new policies have restricted their respective university’s leaders from issuing public statements on behalf of the university concerning “local and world events” of “public, social, or political significance.” Through quieting institutional voices, these policies create space for the university communities to “promote the free exchange of ideas.” These new commitments will now allow members of the university communities like me to voice my heterodox views without the fear that an institutional position will marginalize and isolate me. And when it comes to heterodox views, these two legendary universities that I am proud to call alma mater have given our world two great gifts: Donald Trump and JD Vance.

Trump, like me, is a proud Penn alumnus, and he is the second U.S. president to graduate from Penn. Now, he is again the president-elect. Trump’s political career has been transformative for the free exchange of ideas. Political opinions that not long ago were unthinkable to voice aloud are now vigorously debated in the public discourse. Yale’s and Penn’s new positions will leave room for these opinions to be voiced all over both campuses without institutional voices overshadowing them.

Some of Trump’s opinions are good, and they have been unfairly censored by the risk of institutions taking public stances against them. For example, Trump recently suggested he might use the military against U.S. citizens that voted against him, and many powerful public voices attacked that suggestion without fully considering the benefits of such a policy. We have an increasingly polarized and divided country, and that marks election season with uncertainty and stress. If Trump wins the election and uses the military against his detractors, we could see political polarization significantly reduced through reducing the population of those who would vote against Trump. Then, the next election season could come and go with less anxiety and more predictability, reducing the stress that distracts many brilliant Ivy League students from their important studies.

Vance earned his law degree from Yale, and he will be the fourth Yale graduate to become vice president. His innovative viewpoints have also entered the free marketplace of ideas. He recently decried the “childless cat ladies” running our great country, and in the past he has suggested that parents should get more votes than people without children because they have a greater stake in the nation’s future. Here at his alma mater, I can take Vance’s ideas a step further and seriously discuss repealing the 19th amendment — a historical mistake that made this stressful election too close for comfort — without fear that Yale will make me feel marginalized with an institutional statement in support of women’s suffrage.

Many will say it is not realistic to expect Trump to use the military against political opponents or Vance to roll back women’s rights. But what if they do? How will institutions like Yale and Penn respond if, come their inauguration, they do what they have suggested and more? Penn’s new commitment to academic independence dictates that it will make no statement at all. In contrast, Yale is infrequently allowed to “make statements of empathy or concern” without “expressing partisan political opinions.” No more are the days when institutions of higher learning parrot woke, leftist opinions like “the military should not be used to exterminate Democrats” and “women should have the right to vote, even if they do not have children.” At most, we can expect Yale to express empathy to the students whose family members were killed by the military for voting against Trump, which I agree is appropriate if Yale does not stifle debate by taking a side on Trump’s decision to do that.

With these new policies, universities return to their original purpose: “fostering the free exchange of ideas.” We can debate positions, promote understanding and even compromise. For instance, I could be swayed toward more modest views, like only using the military to eliminate Democrats in swing states or allowing a woman to vote with her husband’s approval. I am proud to be an alumnus of two institutions who are committed to unbridled academic freedom. With the institution stepping back, we are finally free to debate the flawed principles that privilege liberal democracy over autocracy without the fear that our institutions will countervail our voices with partisan stances — no matter how extreme the parties become.

WILL JOHNSON is a PhD candidate in Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science. He can be reached at will.johnson@yale.edu.