Not doing advocacy. Not speaking truth to power. Also, it's not about making sure every viewpoint is heard. This is where Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff get it wrong. Encouraging dissent is essential, but that's different than trying to air every viewpoint. I call that the Wisconsin Public Radio Approach. WPR hosts will say something to the effect of "All viewpoints are welcome here" and then they implement it. What results are moonbats on both sides of the political spectrum weighing in on COVID being a hoax or, in past years, 9/11 being an inside job, created by Bush and Cheney. I don't think views like those add at all to the pursuit of truth. An obvious problem today in academia is that many academics themselves subscribe to moonbat hypotheses and conclusions: gender insanity, "systemic __________," green doomsday prophecies, racial essentialism, et cetera.