Institutional Voice
Context
In April, Harvard President Alan Garber formed the Institutional Voice Working Group to consider whether and when Harvard and its leaders should issue official statements on publicly salient issues. The Working Group included faculty members from across the University, reflecting an array of backgrounds and expertise. They conducted extensive outreach, gathering input from every school and more than 1,000 faculty members, students, staff, and alumni. They also researched existing University and School-based practices relating to Harvard’s institutional voice and considered approaches at other universities.
These efforts culminated in the Working Group’s report, containing a set of principles and recommendations that ground the use of institutional voice in the University’s mission of “seeking truth through open inquiry, debate, and weighing... evidence.”
The report concludes that the University and its leaders should not issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect its core function as an academic institution.
The University’s Core Function
The core function of the University is research, teaching, and learning. That endeavor requires a commitment to the values of free inquiry, intellectual expertise, and productive argument among divergent points of view.
The University and its leaders have a responsibility to speak out to protect and promote this core function. They also must speak out on issues directly relevant to the University’s operation.
Institutional Voice Protects Our Integrity
By issuing statements pertaining to things outside of its core function, the institution risks compromising the integrity and credibility of its academic mission. Further, it may undermine open inquiry and academic freedom by making it more difficult for some members of the community to express their views when they differ from the University’s official position.
Individuals May Speak Out
Faculty members have expertise in their respective domains of knowledge, and they often speak about what they know. In so doing, however, they do not speak for the University, but rather for themselves as subject-matter experts.
The University’s leaders are selected for their skill in leading an institution of higher education, not their expertise in public affairs. When speaking in their official roles, they should restrict themselves to matters within their area of expertise and responsibility.
Humanity and Compassion are Paramount
Institutional Voice, as prescribed by the Working Group, does not equate to neutrality. The University is obliged to speak out against those who threaten its core function. At the same time, it is committed to creating an environment where all members of the community can achieve their greatest potential. When things happen that affect members of the community, the University must respond with compassion and support. It can better do so by extending pastoral arms to affected groups, rather than issuing broad official statements.
Examples
If the University were told by an outside entity who it was allowed to admit to its academic programs, the leaders could speak out on behalf of the institution to defend its right to admit who it deems best qualified.
Or...
If a third party publicly challenged the veracity or integrity of research published by a University center or institute, the leaders of that center could publicly defend the research.
On the other hand...
Following natural disasters, acts of mass violence, or other events capturing significant public attention, the University and its leaders would not issue an official statement. The Working Group recommends instead that entities within the University extend “pastoral arms” to groups within the community who may be affected by the incident and offer them support and compassion.