Yale leaders advised to refrain from statements on issues of public significance
A report from Yale’s Committee on Institutional Voice, adopted in full by University President Maurie McInnis, advises that Yale leaders, including heads of academic departments and programs, largely refrain from commenting on topics of public importance.
Tim Tai
University President Maurie McInnis accepted in full a report by the Committee on Institutional Voice recommending that Yale leaders broadly refrain from issuing statements on matters of public importance.
In the report, the committee of seven faculty members states that University leaders should use their personal judgment when making decisions about when to speak, but should generally avoid issuing statements unless they directly relate to Yale’s mission. They noted that in rare cases of crises in the world, leaders may deem that it is of “transcendent importance to the community” to speak publicly, but that in these cases they should write to express empathy instead of articulating an opinion.
The report extends these guidelines to “leaders at all levels,” including the heads of academic departments and programs in addition to deans and central administrators such as the President.
“I have accepted the committee’s report because I believe its recommendations will strengthen Yale’s ability to uphold and defend academic freedom and the academic enterprise,” McInnis wrote in a Wednesday email to the Yale community. “I will encourage our students to look to Yale as a place where they will learn to speak for themselves, to probe assumptions and ask questions, and to listen with openness when confronted with disagreement.”
As the committee members have crafted their recommendations, they have been careful to use the terminology of the institution’s “voice” as opposed to “neutrality,” explaining that it is a contested topic whether institutions of higher education, which make investments and note humanitarian values in their mission statements, can ever be neutral.
“Leaders may choose not to speak on a given matter without professing neutrality,” the report states.
The committee wrote that they believe that issuing statements can jeopardize the “free exchange of ideas” at Yale because there is not always consensus within the community, and statements made by university leaders “may be especially likely to marginalize those who disagree.”
The committee — chaired by Sterling Professor of Philosophy Michael Della Rocca and law professor Cristina Rodríguez — also writes that issuing statements on some topics and not others could send the message that those left unaddressed are unimportant. And “pressures imposed by artificial timelines dictated by social media or news outlets” could influence university leaders to issue statements without the long-term interests of the university in mind.
When controversial issues arise, instead of issuing statements, the committee believes university leaders should host forums for discussions and encourage dialogue. In the face of national or global events, leaders should provide resources and staff attention to affected students, while refraining from taking a stance themselves on the issue at hand.
They issued the specific guidance that when leaders do decide that it is imperative for them to speak, they should explicitly state why the topic is connected to Yale’s mission, note that there may be disagreement within the university on the topic and never employ anonymity.
They acknowledged that often, university leaders may wish to speak on topics of public significance from their positions as academic experts. They recommended that this should be permissible, but that these leaders should state that they are not speaking in their administrative capacities.
To justify extending their decision to leaders of academic departments and programs, the committee members explained that statements made at the level of schools and departments, which are smaller and more personal, could have an even greater chilling effect on speech than those made at the university level.
The co-committee chairs sent an opinion piece to the News explaining the reasoning behind their decision. In the opinion piece, the co-chairs explained that their decision to recommend that leaders occasionally issue statements of empathy drew from feedback they heard at 10 listening sessions they held with faculty, staff and students.
“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,” they wrote. In certain cases, “good judgment may require university leaders to speak out.”
Throughout the listening sessions, most student attendees criticized the idea of adopting institutional neutrality, while faculty and staff attendees were more divided.
One common comment the committee co-chairs heard from participants at the listening sessions was that silence is taking a position.
In the report, the committee noted that “if leaders adhere to a presumption against statements, then the choice by leaders not to speak on a given topic need not be understood as a substantive position on that topic.”
McInnis first announced the Committee on Institutional Voice on Sept. 10.