Earlier this fall, President McInnis established a committee on institutional voice to consider whether and when leaders of the University should issue statements on matters of public, social or political significance.  This committee, made up of representatives from across the University, issues its report today. As co-chairs, we encourage you to read it carefully — don’t worry, it’s short.  

The report resulted from extensive deliberation by the committee, informed by wide-ranging exchanges with and contributions from faculty, staff, students and alumni. Our recommendations are guided by the imperative to protect and advance the University’s mission and values, which include supporting the free exchange of ideas, enabling and promoting the development, preservation and dissemination of knowledge, and equipping new generations of citizens and leaders with an excellent and well-rounded education, as well as the ability to think critically and rigorously.

Why this committee and why now? There is and has been disagreement within the Yale community about whether, when and how leaders should speak — on behalf of the University or units within the University, on issues of public significance — particularly when strong differences of opinion on an issue exist. Across the country, universities and colleges have been engaged in this same debate.  By establishing this committee upon assuming her new role, the President has exercised leadership in moving the University toward a considered assessment of institutional voice — an assessment especially important in an age as polarized as ours.

In the committee report, we do not recommend that University leaders adopt a position of neutrality. We recommend instead that they use their best judgment when determining whether, when and how to speak, guided by three presumptions or default principles:

Presumption 1: university leaders should refrain from issuing statements concerning matters of public, social or political significance, except in rare cases.

Presumption 2: when such events directly implicate the University’s core mission, values, functions or interests, it may be appropriate for University leaders to speak on these issues.

Presumption 3: it may be appropriate for University leaders to make statements of empathy or concern in response to events outside the University, but leaders should issue such statements infrequently and only on matters that they judge to be of transcendent importance to the community. This presumption should not be understood to limit the allocation of University resources or supportive outreach by student-facing administrators.

The committee also recommends that these presumptions apply to University leaders at all levels, insofar as they are acting in their official capacities. 

We offer this set of presumptions to guide leaders, but also acknowledge that the decision whether to issue statements should remain a matter of judgment. In the report, we therefore articulate the reasons behind the presumptions, along with a set of considerations leaders should have in mind when exercising their judgment. 

With regard to Presumption 1: time and again in our listening sessions and other meetings, we heard that when University leaders speak on one issue but not others, some members of the community feel marginalized because of the differential and seemingly arbitrary treatment of their concerns. Such marginalization can deter contrary speech and undermine the University’s commitment to promoting belonging — an essential element of fostering the free exchange of ideas.

With regard to Presumption 2: the committee recognizes that external events may implicate the University’s mission and values. In these circumstances, good judgment may require University leaders to speak out. The committee further recognizes that some units of the University may have particular missions, in light of which a unit or its leaders may deem it important to speak out on a matter of public interest. Even in such cases, though, a unit or its leaders should exercise judgment informed by presumption 1 and the reasons supporting it. Because community members are more likely to be affected by actions taken and statements made at the level of their schools, departments, programs, or similar academic units than by statements from the central administration, this requirement of good judgment is especially relevant to leaders of those units.

With regard to Presumption 3: in our listening sessions, we heard frequently that events and crises outside the University can affect the academic performance and well-being of students, staff, and faculty, and that members of the community value official recognition of those effects. Our report emphasizes the importance of allocating resources and staff attention to those so affected. We also acknowledge that official and express statements of concern that do not take substantive positions on the crises precipitating the concern may be appropriate. But we recommend that such statements be made only on matters of transcendent importance to the community, for the same reasons that support presumption 1.

The committee’s report is not likely to settle campus debates about institutional voice, but it can change them. We hope that it will prompt reflection on just what purposes institutional statements, as well as silence, serve. Will a statement have any effect on the resolution of the underlying conflict it addresses? What might be the unintended consequences of a well-meaning statement? Will silence by University leaders come at a cost to the University’s values and goals? Answering these questions requires that leaders exercise practical judgment. By specifying that such statements should be rare and focused on the University’s mission and values, we hope the report will shift expectations. Rather than expecting leaders to respond regularly and rapidly to events through statements, we should appreciate the fact that the University itself provides the myriad fora for learning, debate and articulation of points of view on matters of the day — fora that leaders can help support and even create when the times call for them.

Throughout our exchanges with students, faculty and staff across the community, we also encountered broad consensus on certain crucial matters, even among people seemingly on opposing sides of the issue of institutional voice. There was broad consensus that University leaders should speak in defense of the University’s mission and values. We found broad agreement that, in times of transcendent importance to our community, statements of empathy can be valuable and even vital to maintaining community.  We also found broad agreement on the necessity of vigorous protection of freedom of expression by faculty members and students—protections enshrined in the Woodward Report that continues to guide Yale.

We do not believe a magic formula exists that University leaders can apply when deciding whether and when to employ institutional voice. Instead, they must exercise good judgment in the form of practical intelligence, wisdom, or discernment — concepts perhaps best captured by the term “phronesis” from ancient Greek philosophy.  We have offered some presumptions and guidelines, grounded in core University values, to which leaders should refer when exercising this judgment. As a University community, we must expect and rely on their practical wisdom during periods of robust disagreement and debate to enable the university and its many component parts to flourish.

MICHAEL DELLA ROCCA is Sterling Professor of Philosophy. CRISTINA RODRÍGUEZ is the Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law.