Harvard has announced it won’t comply with demands from the Trump administration that dictate what it can teach and whom it can admit. Georgetown University Law Center has also put out position statements in response to the government pressure. Yale’s leadership, on the other hand, has remained largely silent on pressing social and political issues that matter to the community. Only taking a real stand when financial funding is threatened highlights a tendency to prioritize economic concern over genuine social responsibility. If the past is prologue, we should not expect more from President Maurie McInnis and the Yale administration. 

Of course, some in leadership may actively be choosing silence. But a good leader is one who would choose to speak out when their voice could make a difference, even if silence is the easier option. Yale’s higher-level leadership should set the example of exercising free speech, rather than continuing to regurgitate hollow words that do not align with their actions or waiting till there’s no risk to speak out.

Ironically, Yale recently marked the 50th anniversary of the famous Woodward Report, which examined “the condition of free expression, peaceful dissent, mutual respect and tolerance at Yale.” The report maintained that Yale’s primary pillar is “to discover and disseminate knowledge.” Its recommendations ultimately provided the standard policy adopted to align with the University’s motto, “lux et veritas,” or, “light and truth,” a policy that Yale’s leadership has loudly re-asserted in recent months. 

Yet beyond prepared public speeches, freedom of speech at Yale is not truly free. Constraints and conditions seemingly apply to different ranks within the University.

In October, for example, the school’s Committee on Institutional Voice issued recommendations that are anathema to free speech. These recommendations call on leadership — including heads of academic departments and programs — to “refrain from issuing statements concerning matters of public, social, or political significance.” The committee denied it was recommending “a position of institutional neutrality,” but the message was clear: If you want to rise to a leadership position, you should not take a stance on issues that might ruffle feathers. 

This doublespeak is not new. It’s a byproduct of a pervasive, longstanding institutional climate and corporate attitude, an attitude that ignores the will of the students and campus community. 

For example, while Yale President Peter Salovey is often credited for Yale’s divestment from fossil fuels, this only happened after over six years of community pressure and a referendum passing in 2013 at the beginning of his term. Yet many will also remember him now for his refusal to share and disseminate the truth behind University’s investments in weapons manufacturers — an industry which, incidentally, has also been a great contributor to climate change. With a new referendum for disclosure passing at the beginning of McInnis’ term, will it also take six years or even more to disseminate that knowledge?

This trend seems to be getting worse. In January, McInnis admitted that she is “not always certain that a lot of public pronouncements make a difference.” This support for nonengagement comes at a time when pressure is mounting for Yale leadership to speak up. Yale’s recently revived American Association of University Professors chapter has published several statements with hundreds of signatories calling for increased transparency and urging McInnis and the administration to be more vocal in protecting international students. McInnis also drew major criticism from students on her public silence towards student initiatives and a lackluster vision towards the future. 

Rather than speak out and make clear position statements, McInnis has decided to form yet another committee to understand the “declining trust in higher education.” Meanwhile, a contested definition of antisemitism was silently added to the school’s discrimination policy. Taking such actions in the shadows, rather than shedding ‘lux’ on the matter, indicates a lack of transparency and discourages public trust.  

The ‘veritas’ of the matter is clear. The president and higher leadership at Yale employ a double standard when it comes to living up to their purported motto. They are more interested in protecting the financial interests of Yale as a corporation with a valuable endowment. This is made evident by the fact that one of the few statements McInnis made was to urge the Yale community to act regarding a proposed tax hike to the investment income and recently joining a coalition of 18 universities to stop research funding freezes. Yet no position statements are made regarding the wellbeing of the community when it comes to immigration, diversity, or demands of transparency.

Where is the light and truth now? The University selectively celebrates the Latin motto and makes much of the Woodward Report’s 50th anniversary but chooses an approach to our current political moment that is marked by opaqueness and temporizing. Recent recommendations on institutional leadership signal a retreat to the ivory tower, calling on leaders to exercise “phronesis,” an ancient term for pragmatic judgements. Ironically, even Salovey — now speaking as a faculty member — has called on University leaders to speak out.

McInnis’ inaugural commencement speech called on the 2025 graduates to be “bearers of our banner — one of knowledge and understanding, leadership and service, light and truth.” When will McInnis raise the banner of light and truth herself?

AZMI AHMAD is a postdoctoral scholar at Yale School of Medicine and a Public Voices fellow of the OpEd Project. He can be reached at azmi.ahmad@yale.edu.