Verified by 
Key points
- Institutions, like universities, face when and how to engage in public debates on significant issues.
- There are four criteria for institutions to consider before taking a public stance.
- Even when taking a position, institutions should respect dissenting voices within their community.
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.
This post 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 toward 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 apply to any institution as it grapples with how to engage when much is at stake, and the prospects of speaking out and not speaking out on issues of consequence can feel equally fraught.
In academic and public health, we have a responsibility to apply our knowledge and practice toward 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. Therefore, the question arises at a simple operational level: Should we, as an academic community, endorse a particular position, or should we lend our collective name to a particular approach? If so, what criteria would support us doing so on a given issue? In answering these questions, 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 of genuine ambiguity, we should not hesitate to engage in the debate and work to clarify 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 the 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.
Schools and universities are indeed part of society and, as such, have a role in advancing values that make society better and 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: It is possible for a community to feel strongly about an issue that is nevertheless irrelevant 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 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 risk undercutting our capacity to make an impact. Sometimes, having an impact may mean joining our voices with other institutions; 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 our position. 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. 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 that 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 entirely up to having these conversations, 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 on Substack and as a Dean’s Note to the Boston University School of Public Health.
