Of course I can imagine that, say, constitutional law might currently be a bit more difficult to teach. But I still do not see what concretely the Yale administration is called upon to stop doing.
That how to compute the determinant of a matrix is not only worth knowing, but worth prioritising over other things. It's an eminently reasonable position, but there's an opportunity cost to learning about determinants.
You mean the wedge product? ;)
This is a really good example of assuming that topics as things in themselves have the essential characteristic of neutrality. Which is itself a position. The opposite of which is that things don't have an essential characteristic of neutrality.[1]
Sorry, but there's no escape hatch in the hard sciences; there's only one level of indirection.
For any topic, I can generate a frame[2] in which it takes a non-neutral position. That's why neutrality doesn't exist.
1. teach the controversy, both sides! (in jest)
2. See Frame Analysis, Erving Goffman