At the core of Yale’s mission is open and free academic exploration and the pursuit of knowledge. Here we encourage a multiplicity of voices to come forward and be heard, allowing us to test ideas and positions through dialogue and debate. Since the day I began my service as president, many of you have written to me about our commitment to intellectual inquiry and engagement, and a number of you have expressed a range of opinions about how and when the university should issue institutional statements.
Earlier this semester, I announced the formation of the Committee on Institutional Voice to address the question of whether and how Yale, as an institution, should comment on issues of the day. The committee has spent the past seven weeks formulating its recommendations, listening to and benefiting from the thoughtful comments that hundreds of you have provided over the course of ten listening sessions and via the online form. I am grateful for the commitment demonstrated by all who participated. Today, I write to share that the committee’s members have concluded their work, and I have accepted their report and their unanimous recommendations, which can be read in full here.
To safeguard Yale’s primary purpose as an institution dedicated to education, discovery, and the creation of knowledge, the committee recommends a set of guidelines regarding university leaders’ decisions about whether to issue official statements or comment on current events and matters of public interest. The committee members noted that the guidance cannot be captured in “precise formulas” but should be grounded in three presumptions. First, the prevailing presumption is that university “leaders should refrain from issuing statements concerning matters of public, social, or political significance, except in rare cases.” Yet, they note that, second, it may be appropriate and, in some cases, necessary, for leaders to speak when matters “directly implicate the university’s core mission, values, functions, or interests.” And third, it may be appropriate to express empathy on external matters of “transcendent importance to the community.”
These presumptions “apply not only to university leadership (the President, Provost, other central administrators, and deans), but also to leaders speaking on behalf of other units of the university, including academic departments and programs.” They do not apply to individual students and faculty members, who have “broad freedom to speak, including to take positions on issues of the day”—a freedom articulated in the Woodward Report, which continues to guide Yale. In addition, the committee notes there may be times when leaders have expertise on topics that are of public interest “and therefore may be well positioned to express opinions on such matters. When they speak, they should note that the expressed opinion is based on their expertise and that they are not speaking in their official capacity.”
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. As explained in the report, the committee concluded “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. Rather, the decision not to speak can be understood as adhering to the university’s mission of promoting the free exchange of ideas and fostering research and education within the community.” I am committed to upholding a culture of teaching and learning at our university. 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.
We have a responsibility to grapple with a breadth of perspectives and ideas, some of which may make us uncomfortable. There will not always be consensus, nor should there be. Dialogue and robust inquiry are at the heart of what we do; engaging with perspectives different from our own is critical to the pursuit of knowledge, and it is a value embodied in Yale’s motto, Lux et Veritas. I know that the committee lived those values over the past seven weeks, and I thank them for their wisdom and service.
Sincerely,
Maurie McInnis
President
Professor of the History of Art
Report of the Committee on Institutional Voice
Dear Members of the Yale Community,
At the core of Yale’s mission is open and free academic exploration and the pursuit of knowledge. Here we encourage a multiplicity of voices to come forward and be heard, allowing us to test ideas and positions through dialogue and debate. Since the day I began my service as president, many of you have written to me about our commitment to intellectual inquiry and engagement, and a number of you have expressed a range of opinions about how and when the university should issue institutional statements.
Earlier this semester, I announced the formation of the Committee on Institutional Voice to address the question of whether and how Yale, as an institution, should comment on issues of the day. The committee has spent the past seven weeks formulating its recommendations, listening to and benefiting from the thoughtful comments that hundreds of you have provided over the course of ten listening sessions and via the online form. I am grateful for the commitment demonstrated by all who participated. Today, I write to share that the committee’s members have concluded their work, and I have accepted their report and their unanimous recommendations, which can be read in full here.
To safeguard Yale’s primary purpose as an institution dedicated to education, discovery, and the creation of knowledge, the committee recommends a set of guidelines regarding university leaders’ decisions about whether to issue official statements or comment on current events and matters of public interest. The committee members noted that the guidance cannot be captured in “precise formulas” but should be grounded in three presumptions. First, the prevailing presumption is that university “leaders should refrain from issuing statements concerning matters of public, social, or political significance, except in rare cases.” Yet, they note that, second, it may be appropriate and, in some cases, necessary, for leaders to speak when matters “directly implicate the university’s core mission, values, functions, or interests.” And third, it may be appropriate to express empathy on external matters of “transcendent importance to the community.”
These presumptions “apply not only to university leadership (the President, Provost, other central administrators, and deans), but also to leaders speaking on behalf of other units of the university, including academic departments and programs.” They do not apply to individual students and faculty members, who have “broad freedom to speak, including to take positions on issues of the day”—a freedom articulated in the Woodward Report, which continues to guide Yale. In addition, the committee notes there may be times when leaders have expertise on topics that are of public interest “and therefore may be well positioned to express opinions on such matters. When they speak, they should note that the expressed opinion is based on their expertise and that they are not speaking in their official capacity.”
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. As explained in the report, the committee concluded “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. Rather, the decision not to speak can be understood as adhering to the university’s mission of promoting the free exchange of ideas and fostering research and education within the community.” I am committed to upholding a culture of teaching and learning at our university. 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.
We have a responsibility to grapple with a breadth of perspectives and ideas, some of which may make us uncomfortable. There will not always be consensus, nor should there be. Dialogue and robust inquiry are at the heart of what we do; engaging with perspectives different from our own is critical to the pursuit of knowledge, and it is a value embodied in Yale’s motto, Lux et Veritas. I know that the committee lived those values over the past seven weeks, and I thank them for their wisdom and service.
Sincerely,
Maurie McInnis
President
Professor of the History of Art