Verified by 
The forces that have shaped the controversies about academic leaders weighing in on contemporary issues in the current moment are now well documented. While they came to the fore in the past few months, they reflect social forces that have shaped the academy over the past decade, or so. Given the rancor of the moment, it can seem easier to say, “We should not speak at all.” It is also true that events and issues are fluid, and constantly evolving. A statement that is up-to-date one moment may need to be modified the next, making any person or institution who speaks out to some extent a hostage to fortune.
Should the challenges facing academic leaders’ speaking push us into an academic retreat, into silence on issues of contemporary consequence? I am not so sure. It may be more helpful, rather than to opt out of these conversations, to reflect and ask: What should academic leaders speak about, when should they speak, and how can they speak in ways that best serve the moment? When should academic leaders not speak? In answering these questions, I suggest the following criteria, offered here in a spirit of reflection on how academic voices can best serve the public good.
What should academic leaders speak about?
Perhaps academic leaders should speak most readily about issues that directly pertain to the work of their community, and about which they have thought carefully. I note that this is level with some definitions of academic neutrality that suggest that leaders only speak on issues that “directly affect the core mission and functioning of the university.” Of course, the challenge is in the interpretation. I suggest that academic leaders bring to bear a depth of knowledge and expertise to a range of issues—otherwise, why were they appointed to leadership positions in academia, to begin with? The public conversation would lose this insight if academic leaders chose to stop speaking up.
At the same time, a depth of knowledge in one or two areas is not the same as a depth of knowledge in all areas, and academic leaders should have the humility and self-reflection to keep this in mind. For a university leader, this may mean speaking principally about the role of universities in society. For a school-level leader, this may mean speaking about issues that intersect with the subject-matter focus of that school. This is not to say we should not engage with subjects on the outer edges of our expertise, just that we should do so sparingly, proceeding with humility and without laying claim to an authority we may not possess.
When should academic leaders speak?
First, we can, and probably should, speak when our voices can help bring clarity to issues of contemporary importance. It is unhelpful to speak and add heat to an issue already aflame in the public conversation. It is much more important to bring light. If academics are paid by society to think, surely thinking about issues germane to one’s scope can lead to ideas that may provide clarity and a useful perspective. And if that is not the case, perhaps one should refrain from speaking in that instance.
Second, academic leaders should speak when doing so is helpful to their community. Academic leaders, at all levels, have communities they are responsible for, and there is often a pastoral need for academic leaders to speak. Academic communities are brought and held together, in part, by the words of leaders. When we speak, it is not just to articulate a position but to engage with the needs of a community, to make space for members of our community to speak and be heard. For academic leaders to do less would be abrogating a core leadership responsibility, to the detriment of our communities.
How should academic leaders speak?
In the public discussion about whether academic leaders should engage with or stay silent on issues, we have lost an important nuance. It is not only just what one speaks about, but also how one speaks. There are ways of speaking that close conversation and ways of speaking that open conversation. Ways of speaking that bring solace, ways of speaking that inflame. Given the role of the academy in society—to bring ideas to the world so that we may advance our thinking—there is a clear role for academic leaders to communicate in a way that embraces all, that advances their ideas, yes, but also makes space for other ideas. That means that we should speak in ways that are as inclusive as possible, making ample room for disagreeing voices. We should accept differences and understand other points of view while being clear about our position and where our values lie.
Academic leaders should speak in the spirit of dialogue, with the understanding that what we say is just one part of a broader conversation. We should be sensitive to the imperatives of prudence, moderation, and the feelings of others but never choose to speak or stay silent out of fear. And we should be mindful of the medium we choose to express our thoughts. Some platforms support a free and fair exchange of ideas more than others, and we must be aware of this context, opting to speak only in spaces where speech is truly free.
Finally, when should academic leaders not speak?
I would say we should not speak on most if not all occasions that do not meet the criteria I have suggested. We have the responsibility to modulate the frequency with which we weigh in on public issues, only speaking when we can make a positive difference for our community and a constructive contribution to the public debate. We speak to bring clarity, to serve in a pastoral role, to ensure the community feels heard, and to apply our expertise to the public conversation. We aim to speak in ways and places that bring people together and allow room for disagreement. To speak everywhere all the time, commenting on each emerging issue, is to risk diluting our influence, undermining our capacity to support our communities and do good in the world.
A version of this piece appears on Substack.
