On statements on external matters by departments, centers, and institutes

Dear Colleagues:

In August 2024, we shared our decision, endorsed by the deans, to adopt a posture of restraint for public statements made on behalf of the institution in response to global, national, or local events. As you will recall, we and the deans committed to limiting our statements to issues clearly implicating a “direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the university.” 

We write today to share how this approach will apply to departments, centers, and institutes of the university—a decision that is animated by, and leaves untouched, the foundational academic freedom of individual faculty members and students. 

In considering this issue, we sought the advice of the deans and faculty members of the Johns Hopkins University Council (JHUC) on how our posture of institutional restraint ought to apply, if at all, to other academic units of the university that seek to express a collective view on some matter. JHUC in turn charged an ad hoc committee with considering these questions, and this past spring that committee solicited broad input from the university, including from every divisional faculty senate or equivalent. 

Critically, the JHUC ad hoc committee concluded that a posture of institutional restraint is appropriate for units of the university. However, while there was unanimity as to the desirability of some level of institutional restraint for departments, centers, and institutes, there was a diversity of views on precisely how this principle might be implemented. A majority of committee members advised that the principle should take the form of guidance only. A minority of committee members advised that the principle should be binding on departments but optional for centers and institutes, or, alternatively, that it should be binding on all departments (including School of Medicine divisions), centers, and institutes.

The ad hoc committee’s recommendations were discussed among the full membership of JHUC this summer. JHUC noted the convergence of views on the ad hoc committee regarding several key issues, including the importance of units of the university making only statements informed by the unit’s expertise, the avoidance of statements of sympathy or condemnation, and the need for ensuring that the views of all unit members are considered before a statement is made, with protections afforded to dissenting members. 

As you might expect, the subject of where to draw the line in determining which academic units should and should not make statements on behalf of their members elicited considerable discussion within the full membership of JHUC. But a substantial consensus emerged in JHUC for the position that university departments should refrain from issuing statements on matters of public debate and controversy except when those statements are clearly related to a direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the department. This approach aligns with the stance to which we and the deans committed ourselves in our August 2024 message.

We endorse this view. We are moved by the fact that departments are organized around scholarly disciplines that are based on defined norms and methodologies, not on the basis of shared commitments to a particular belief on matters of interest or controversy. A faculty member whose appointment resides in a department should not feel that their teaching or research activities are in any way shaped or restricted by departmental or divisional statements in response to external matters or regarding issues of public controversy or debate. A departmental or divisional statement risks chilling the individual research or education activities that might be construed as contradicting the statement, thus causing tension with ideas of academic freedom, as expressed in the university’s Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom. 

In contrast, given that a faculty member is not bound to continue affiliation with a center or institute in the same way that they are with a department—and, in fact, faculty may opt to associate with a center or institute precisely because of their stance on a policy or scientific matter—we are inclined to a less directive approach with respect to these units. 

Accordingly, the university moving forward will be adopting the following framework for statements on external matters by the university’s departments, centers, and institutes, or by the leaders of those academic components acting in their official capacity on behalf of the components they lead:

• University departments (including SOM divisions) will be governed by the same policy of restraint that applies to us and the deans as described in our August 2024 message. These units should issue statements on external matters only where the topic is clearly related to a direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the department. 

• The posture of restraint for centers and institutes will take the form of guidance rather than policy. As discussed in the ad hoc committee’s report, these units are encouraged to: (i) issue only statements that are informed by the academic expertise of the unit and are about topics within the specific mission, interests, or functions of the unit; (ii) refrain from issuing statements of sympathy or condemnation; (iii) when issuing a statement, include a disclaimer that makes clear the unit is speaking on its own behalf and only on its own behalf, and (iv) adopt procedures to protect dissenting views in the unit.

A critical point—and one underscored by JHUC—is that this approach is animated by a steadfast and enduring commitment of the university to the academic freedom of the professoriate. A posture of restraint for units of the university leaves untouched the freedom of individual faculty or students, acting either on their own or assembling voluntarily, to comment on matters of interest or controversy. Indeed, one of the core rationales for such a posture is to afford faculty and students the greatest freedom to develop their own perspectives without fear of running counter to an institutional stance—a core tenet underlying our university’s truth-seeking function. 

For these same reasons, the leaders of university departments may write or speak as they see fit on external matters in their personal or scholarly capacities. However, when they identify by their leadership title in a statement on such matters, they should make clear they are speaking in their individual capacity and not on behalf of their department—unless, as explained above, the issue is clearly related to an interest or function of the department. 

The full posture of institutional restraint for the university and its academic units can be found at this link. Questions about the scope and application of these rules should be directed to your dean’s office. We also will provide answers to frequently asked questions concerning the scope and application of these rules as needed.

We want to thank JHUC, and in particular the members of the ad hoc committee, for the care and consideration that they brought to these questions. Their efforts are a testament to the virtues of collaboration and deliberation that are embodied in JHUC—and indeed, that define the extraordinary work of our university.

Sincerely,

Ron Daniels
President

Ray Jayawardhana
Provost
Professor of Physics and Astronomy