When should institutions take sides?

On determining when institutions should formally address contemporary issues.

In recent weeks, there has been much conversation about the role of institutions like universities and corporations in the public debate about issues of consequence. Questions have emerged about when institutions should take a public position on issues, or, indeed, whether they should be taking positions at all. Today’s essay is a synthesis of prior writing I have done on the subject, engaging with the role of institutions in a time of political disruption, global unrest, and social change, towards doing right by our mission in pursuit of health.

As Dean of a school of public health, I come to this from a particular perspective, informed by my work in an academic setting. However, the following thoughts could well apply to any institution as it grapples with how to engage with this moment when much is at stake and the prospects of both speaking out and not speaking out on issues of consequence can feel equally fraught.

In academic public health, we have a responsibility to apply our knowledge and practice towards the goal of better health for all. This means sometimes using our collective voice to support measures that will get us closer to this goal and speaking against policies that may harm health. At a simple operational level, the question therefore arises: should we as an academic community endorse a particular position, should we lend our collective name to a particular approach? If so, what are the criteria that would support us doing so on a given issue? To answer these questions, it is worth considering a moment when many in academia decided that declining to take a position was not a morally acceptable option in the face of injustice.

This was the case in recent decades when academia took steps to pressure the South African government to end its policy of apartheid. This action took two principal forms—divestment and an academic boycott. Divestment was largely a result of students arguing that schools should stop investing in companies that did business in South Africa. By the end of the 1980s, about 150 educational institutions chose to do so. The academic boycott consisted of institutions and individual scholars refusing to collaborate with South African universities in a range of areas, such as hosting visiting scholars or students, evaluating theses, sharing research, and publishing articles. While the effectiveness of divestment and the boycott remain subject to debate, they nevertheless were part of a broader international stand against apartheid that ultimately yielded results. They were the product of a moral imperative to protest the country’s racist political system. Racial discrimination is inimical to the mission of schools and universities to foster an inclusive, respectful learning environment. Taking an anti-apartheid position was therefore not just a defense of oppressed black South Africans, but of the most cherished values of higher education.

It is important to note that anti-apartheid efforts in the 1980s, were, in many ways, exceptions to a general rule of institutional neutrality in academia. It is only infrequently that we, as schools—as opposed to individual staff, students, faculty, alums—take a particular position. I think this rule is broadly correct. For academia to credibly remain a place where a range of ideas and perspectives can be expressed and debated, it makes sense that we should think very carefully before endorsing positions, erring as much as possible on the side of institutional neutrality. Having said this, there are also times when we should speak out; while these times may be rare, they do occur, and we should be able to recognize them when they arise.  

How, then, do we decide which issues rise to the level of urging our endorsement? In answering that question, four criteria come to mind.

First, we only endorse a position when it is in the clear interest of health. In some, perhaps many, cases, there is room for reasonable debate on whether a given position best serves these interests. In cases where there is genuine ambiguity, we should not hesitate to engage with the debate and work to provide clarity about the best steps to take. In endorsing a position, we should stand where we have committed to always stand, unambiguously on the side of health. We should not endorse any positions which would place us anywhere else.

Second, we only take a position when it aligns with our fundamental values. I lean on our values mindful that there is room for interpretation of what these values are and how they should be applied. But, at core, they are a central focus on improving the health of populations with special concern for those who suffer the burden of health inequities. Everything we say and do is, fundamentally, an extension of this. In emphasizing values, I am in agreement with former Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, who wrote in 2017:

“[I]t is critically important that [we] not take stands on ideological or political issues. Yet it is also true that the University, as an institution in the society, must step forward to object when policies and state action conflict with its fundamental values, and especially when they bespeak purposes and a mentality that are at odds with our basic mission.”

Schools and universities are indeed part of society and, as such, have a role to play in advancing values that make society better, healthier, even as we preserve our nonideological priors. This means being willing to speak out on issues when doing so reflects our core values and when not doing so could help support a status quo that is antithetical to our mission.

Third, we are sensitive to positions that reflect the overwhelming sentiment of our community. Academic public health institutions are communities of ideas, united in a common goal of shaping a healthier world. While we all wish to get to such a world, we sometimes (maybe often) disagree on the best routes to take, or on what constitutes the most significant obstacles in our path. A school should only take a formal position when it can be reasonably sure that the position reflects the general feeling of the community. Endorsements should reflect a consensus on the part of the community. I note an important caveat here: it is possible for a community to feel strongly about an issue that is nevertheless not relevant to its core values, making an endorsement inappropriate.

Finally, it is important for us to consider, when thinking about taking a position, the extent to which our endorsement will influence a given issue for the better. When we do speak, our words should have the potential to make a difference on issues of consequence. On the other hand, if we endorse positions more frequently, regularly speaking collectively on many issues, we run the risk of undercutting our capacity to make an impact. Sometimes having an impact may mean joining our voices with other institutions and sometimes it may mean speaking out alone. What is most important is that we weigh our ability to support a positive outcome in considering whether to make an endorsement, saving our collective voice for when it can truly make a difference.

Even if these four criteria are met, and we choose to speak out as an institution, it is important to recognize and make space for voices within our community that may not agree with the position we have taken. Just because a position is supported by most of us does not mean it is supported by all of us and those who find themselves in the minority should not fear to speak their mind. This means that we need to take care that, in endorsing a position as a community, we do not shut off avenues for disagreement about the course we have taken. Some may disagree with the positions we take or disagree on principle with institutions endorsing any position at all. And this is OK. For a school to remain a place of free speech and open debate, it must remain a place where those who wish to raise such points feel able to do so. We should take care that in speaking together we do not drown out the voices of those who do not share the view of the majority, mindful that the presence of these voices in our community is vital to keeping our school a space where all can think and speak freely.

This can be difficult. But we can engage with difficulty. Being able to do so is the mark of a mature, confident institution, one which knows where it stands in relation to its mission and values without fearing dissent or the conversations that might cause us to reevaluate what we believe. We are fully up to having these conversations, to balancing moral clarity with the airing of different views, towards the goal of keeping our institutions places where ideas can be freely shared.

A version of this essay appeared as a Dean’s Note to the Boston University School of Public Health.

__ __ __

Also this week.

A Q&A with Barron’s on the thoughts and ideas in Within Reason.