The president of a college or university has unique power to embody the mission and values of their institution. When the president speaks, the campus listens. And so does the wider community and public.
The new Trump Administration’s flurry of executive orders and Dear Colleague letter compel a response, but college presidents fear putting their institution at risk if they do speak out.
Many presidents are hanging back from publicly commenting on the Administration’s actions. Some approve of this show of restraint, urging presidents to commit to institutional neutrality as best serving the academic mission and to push back on the public perception that higher education is a politicized and ideological project.
At this fraught moment for the country and the higher education sector, we at the Council of Independent Colleges have been hearing from presidents asking for guidance about how to use their institutional voice wisely. Here’s the counsel we’re offering—and examples of leadership we’re holding up as models:
Ground your institutional speech approach in your school’s mission
In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Era, and the Vietnam War, there was sharp disagreement about whether a college president should speak about value-laden issues. Theodore Hesburgh was president of the University of Notre Dame when he became an outspoken champion of civil rights and architect of the Civil Rights Act; he understood his speeches and political activity as aligned with the university’s Catholic mission. One hundred miles west, the University of Chicago adopted the Kalven Report committing its leaders to institutional neutrality as essential to its mission of the “discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.” Two very different approaches, both firmly rooted in mission.
More from UB: Adopting AI: Why we must develop frameworks—and how to get there
The College of the Holy Cross recently adopted a Statement on Statements grounded in mission: it cites the Kalven Report and echoes Hesburgh’s approach in Holy Cross’ commitment to restraint in using the president’s voice except for occasions when the institution’s “Jesuit, Catholic mission and identity call us to join other higher education institutions to help positively influence the matter.”
Use a framework for deciding about issuing a statement
Don’t wait until students or alumni donors are clamoring for a statement. Create a framework for institutional speech you and your cabinet can rely upon in a crisis. College leaders need to agree on what factors to weigh while deliberating whether to make a statement and how a statement would be communicated. DePauw University’s Presidential Messages Protocol is a model that includes these elements.
Consider academic alternatives to a statement
As the Council of Independent College’s Academic Leaders Task Force notes in its report, Campus Free Expression: A New Roadmap for Presidents: “University forums, speakers, panels, and campus events that bring multiple viewpoints on [social and political] issues demonstrate seriousness of purpose in the university’s civic mission and alertness to contemporary social and political concerns even without the university taking an official stance.”
If you do make a statement, make the connection to mission
There will be times when even presidents strongly committed to institutional neutrality as a general principle must speak on a mission-critical matter. The Public Statements at the University of Iowa guidelines enjoin leaders to make that connection explicit as part of any public statement with a call to “explain why the issue or event has direct implications for the mission or operations of the university, a college, or an academic or administrative unit.”
Institutional neutrality does not require silence when mission-critical issues are at stake
No collegiate leader was more associated with the principle of institutional neutrality than the late Robert Zimmer, but as president of the University of Chicago he sent an open letter to President Donald Trump about protections for DACA students and a statement criticizing President Donald Trump’s actions on free expression. Last year, University of Indiana President Pamela Whitten connected her statement criticizing Indiana Senate Bill 202 to her university’s teaching and research missions.
Whether or not you make a statement to others, your students need to be assured of your concern for them
Presidents have a first duty to the wellbeing of the students on campus. Ensuring that they are aware of any direct threats, are briefed on relevant institutional actions, and are ensured of ongoing access to their education must be a first aim of presidential communication. Do not muddy the power of the presidential voice with purely transactional or logistical missives. Others on campus can do that. The president’s communications should be reserved for issues that touch on the institution’s core mission and vision.
Get your act together now, before the next crisis
Five years ago, few presidents had sat down with their cabinets to craft an institutional speech policy. Presidents who haven’t done so yet should do so now. In the last few years, several higher education institutions have developed, adopted, and published institutional speech policies. As presidents tackle this with their cabinet, they should consider the many exemplars available, including those mentioned above and the University of Richmond’s Statement on Free Expression, Claremont McKenna College’s Statement in Support of Institutional Nonpartisanship, and University of California, Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman’s first-person On Statements.
Each president’s voice is a university asset that can help—or discredit—the university. More than ever, leaders need to adopt a consistent and deliberate approach to using their voice.
