Harvard University Adopts New Policy to Limit Official Statements on External Matters

Cambridge, Massachusetts United States of America
Harvard leaders formed a working group to debate when the university should speak out, concluding that it should not issue official statements about public matters outside its institutional area of expertise.
Harvard University has adopted a new policy to avoid taking public positions on issues that do not directly impact its core function.
The decision was prompted by criticism for the university's handling of various matters and concerns over compromising its integrity and credibility when speaking officially on external matters.
The integrity and credibility of the institution are compromised when speaking officially on matters outside its area of expertise. Harvard students and individuals are free to make public statements but must clarify they do not speak for the university as a whole.
The new policy follows controversy surrounding Claudine Gay's handling of the October 7 terror attack in Israel and her testimony before lawmakers regarding campus antisemitism.
Harvard University Adopts New Policy to Limit Official Statements on External Matters

Harvard University, one of the world's most prestigious institutions of higher learning, has announced a new policy to avoid taking public positions on issues that do not directly impact its core function. This decision comes after criticism for the university's handling of various matters and concerns over compromising its integrity and credibility when speaking officially on external matters. The policy change was prompted by a faculty report that concluded Harvard has a responsibility to protect and promote its core function, including defending academic freedom and autonomy when threatened. However, it should not issue official statements about public matters outside of its institutional area of expertise.

The new policy follows a historic period of turmoil at the Ivy League school. In January 2024, Claudine Gay stepped down as president amid controversy and plagiarism allegations. She faced intense pressure following her initial public statements on the October 7 terror attack in Israel and her testimony before lawmakers regarding campus antisemitism.

Harvard leaders formed a working group in April to debate when the university should speak out. The group concluded that Harvard has a responsibility to protect and promote its core function, including defending its autonomy and academic freedom when threatened. However, it should not issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university's core function.

The integrity and credibility of the institution are compromised when the university speaks officially on matters outside its institutional area of expertise. The move comes as Harvard faces criticism for its handling of various issues, including political statements and empathy declarations. Some argue that these statements could alienate members of the community by expressing implicit solidarity with certain groups or viewpoints.

Harvard is not obligated to have a foreign or domestic policy as it is not a government entity. The university's Institutional Voice Working Group, made up of eight faculty members, issued the report and recommendations that were accepted by the administration and governing board. The process of implementing these principles will require time and experience.

Harvard students and individuals are free to make public statements on issues but must clarify that they do not speak for the university as a whole.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

90%

Doubts
  • It is unclear if there have been any other instances of controversy surrounding Harvard's public statements prior to those mentioned.
  • The faculty report's conclusions were not explicitly stated in the article.

Sources

100%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Harvard, criticized for war response, to avoid stances on public issues

The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Niha Masih Wednesday, 29 May 2024 08:46
  • Unique Points
    • Harvard University announced on Tuesday that it will avoid taking public positions on issues unrelated to its academic function.
    • A faculty report found that speaking officially on external matters could compromise the university’s integrity and credibility.
  • Accuracy
    • Harvard announced on Tuesday that it will no longer issue ‘official statements of empathy’ on matters not relevant to the university.
    • Harvard is likely to follow a report from an ‘Institutional Voice’ faculty task force that advises not to issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

98%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Harvard Says It Will No Longer Take Positions on Matters Outside of the University

The New York Times Vimal Patel, Tuesday, 28 May 2024 19:31
  • Unique Points
    • Harvard announced on Tuesday that it will no longer issue ‘official statements of empathy’ on matters not relevant to the university.
    • The policy change comes after criticism for Harvard’s handling of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and its statement of empathy for victims.
    • Harvard is not obligated to have a foreign or domestic policy as it is not a government entity.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when Harvard officials are quoted as stating that 'Harvard shouldn't have a foreign policy or a domestic policy.' This statement is not logically valid and does not prove that avoiding official statements of empathy will solve the issue of appearing to care more about some places and events than others. The article also contains an example of dichotomous depiction when it states 'If put into practice, Harvard would no longer issue official statements of empathy.' This statement implies that either Harvard issues official statements of empathy or it does not take positions on matters outside the university, which is a false dilemma.
    • ]Harvard isn't a government,
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

97%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Harvard announces new restrictions on statements about 'controversial public policy issues'

Fox News Channel Lindsay Kornick Wednesday, 29 May 2024 11:19
  • Unique Points
    • Harvard is likely to follow a report from an ‘Institutional Voice’ faculty task force that advises not to issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.
    • The new guidelines would probably apply to administrators, deans, board members, and faculty councils.
    • Harvard students and individuals are free to make public statements on issues but the school must clarify that they do not speak for the university as a whole.
    • The ‘Institution Voice’ group was formed in April following controversies over Harvard’s response to the Israel-Hamas war.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states 'Institution Voice co-chair Noah Feldman said to the Harvard Crimson. This report says the University should not be neutral in that important matter of the future of universities.' This statement implies that because Feldman is a co-chair of Institution Voice, his opinion on the university's stance on neutrality is authoritative and correct. However, this does not necessarily mean that Harvard should not be neutral or that Feldman's opinion represents the consensus view within the university.
    • Institution Voice co-chair Noah Feldman said to the Harvard Crimson. This report says the University should not be neutral in that important matter of the future of universities.
  • Bias (95%)
    The author expresses a clear bias against Harvard University's decision to neutralize its stance on political issues. The author quotes Noah Feldman, a co-chair of the Institution Voice faculty task force, who is critical of the university's decision and advocates for taking positions on issues that directly involve the university. The author also mentions previous controversies involving Harvard's response to the Israel-Hamas war and condemns Harvard for its initial statement offering condolences for both sides. This bias is evident in the author's language, which depicts Harvard as being under attack and needing to take a stand.
    • But we don’t think that our recommendations on institutional voice dictate an answer.
      • Gay infamously resigned after her own controversy including several plagiarism allegations and saying whether calls for the genocide of Jews violated campus rules depends on the ‘context.’
        • Harvard was then forced to release an additional statement after over two dozen student groups signed a joint statement condemning Israel as ‘entirely responsible’ for the attacks.
          • Let me also state, on this matter as on others, that while our students have the right to speak for themselves, no student group – not even 30 student groups – speaks for Harvard University or its leadership.
            • The group emphasized, however, that students and individuals are free to make public statements on issues...
              • These guidelines would likely apply to administrators, deans, board members and faculty councils.
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication

              95%

              The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
              (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

              A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

              When should Harvard speak out?

              Harvard Gazette Jessica McCann Tuesday, 28 May 2024 16:00
              • Unique Points
                • Harvard interim President Alan M. Garber and interim Provost John F. Manning announced two University-wide initiatives.
                • The Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue Working Group is examining how to nurture engagement across differing viewpoints on campus.
                • The Institutional Voice Working Group is addressing the question of when Harvard as a University should speak on matters of social and political significance and who should be authorized to do so.
                • The group conducted a broad review of public statements made by Harvard and peer institutions, invited community feedback, and held over 30 virtual and in-person listening sessions.
              • Accuracy
                • ]Harvard interim President Alan M. Garber and interim Provost John F. Manning announced two University-wide initiatives[.
                • Harvard is likely to follow a report from an 'Institutional Voice' faculty task force that advises not to issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university's core function.
              • Deception (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Fallacies (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Bias (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication

              99%

              The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
              (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

              A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

              Harvard to stay silent on issues that don’t impact university’s ‘core function’

              CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Matt Egan Tuesday, 28 May 2024 18:28
              • Unique Points
                • Harvard University announced a new policy that they will no longer issue official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function.
                • The working group concluded that Harvard has a responsibility to speak out to protect and promote its core function, including defending the university’s autonomy and academic freedom when threatened.
                • Harvard leaders formed a working group in April to debate when the university should speak out.
                • The integrity and credibility of the institution are compromised when the university speaks officially on matters outside its institutional area of expertise.
              • Accuracy
                No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
              • Deception (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Fallacies (95%)
                The author reports on Harvard's new policy of not issuing official statements on matters outside its institutional area of expertise without explicitly stating it as a fallacy. This is an example of an Appeal to Silence fallacy, where the absence of a statement or opinion is taken as evidence in itself. However, since the author does not directly state that Harvard's silence implies guilt or wrongdoing, and instead reports on the university's rationale for the policy change, this fallacy is not egregious enough to lower the score significantly.
                • The integrity and credibility of the institution are compromised when the university speaks officially on matters outside its institutional area of expertise.
              • Bias (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication