I. Policy Statement

Princeton University has traditionally taken an approach of “institutional restraint” with regard to the issuance of public statements about social, moral, and political issues and events. Underlying our approach is the premise that individual or collective speech is preferable to institutional speech. As President Eisgruber has said, when “consider[ing] whether to speak on an issue, [we must] begin from the recognition that [our] principal responsibility . . . is to ensure that the University remains an impartial forum for vigorous, high-quality discussion, debate, scholarship, and teaching,” and operate with “a presumption against commenting on social, moral, or political topics.”¹ This policy provides guidance concerning the issuance of institutional statements, including expressions of care, as defined below.    

II. Who is Affected By This Policy

This policy applies to administrative units, including non-academic campus centers, offices, and programs.  

III. Definitions

“Statements” are defined as written communications that can reasonably be interpreted as taking a position on a policy, political issue, or other matter of public or campus concern or debate. “Statements” do not include information or materials prepared by a unit that set forth, explain, or clarify the unit’s rules, policies, and expectations (e.g., handbooks, manuals, operating procedures, etc.). Taking a stand on an issue is distinct from expressing care/support for those impacted by an issue, but expressions of care (defined below) are also covered by this policy to the extent such communications are issued in the name of or on behalf of a unit.  

For purposes of this policy, an “expression of care” is a written communication that is publicly posted or widely disseminated by the author(s), which conveys concern or support for those who are directly or indirectly impacted by an event, policy, or issue.  

“Communication” is widely conceived, including not just written statements but visual representations and other expressive forms that convey a message or meaning. Such communications are intended or likely to be made public: shared on websites or social media, sent via electronic mailing lists, or otherwise broadly distributed via any other medium.  

IV. Policy  

Administrative unit heads or leaders should operate under the default assumption that their expressions, when conveyed through unit websites, newsletters, and unit or University sponsored events, are likely to be interpreted as official communications. If holders of such institutional positions wish to speak as individuals, they must make it clear they are doing so by accompanying their statement or expression of care with the following disclaimer or something substantially similar, as appropriate for the context: “This represents the personal position of [insert individual’s name here] and does not represent the position of [insert unit name] or that of Princeton University.” Even when accompanied by such a disclaimer, however, Unit leaders must (i) not use University resources to convey partisan political positions; and (ii) take care not to use or be perceived as using their positions to coerce their subordinates to support a particular position on matters of public concern.    

IV.a Prerequisites for Issuing Institutional Statements

In light of Princeton’s commitment to institutional restraint, all administrative units should proceed with great caution before issuing any statement that might be construed as taking a social, moral, and political position on behalf of the unit. It is entirely permissible, and may be wise, for units to avoid issuing such statements entirely. If, however, a unit feels that it must consider issuing a departmental statement or expression of care, two fundamental questions should be asked:  

• Is it critical to the functioning of the unit for the unit itself to issue the statement or expression of care?  
• Is silence on behalf of the unit untenable?  

If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” the issuance of a departmental statement or expression of care would be inconsistent with the University’s historic practice of institutional restraint, and should be avoided.

If the answer to both questions is “yes” and an administrative unit feels compelled to issue an expression of care or a statement, the head of the administrative unit must first consult with the cabinet-level officer to whom the unit reports. The administrative unit must receive written approval on the final statement or expression of care before it is published.

IV.b Questions Units Should Consider When Proposing Institutional Statements

Elements that a unit head should consider and discuss with the cabinet-level officer include:

• How will issuing a statement help achieve a goal or outcome of critical importance to the unit? Why is silence untenable? A unit should be able to generate clear and specific answers to these questions, keeping in mind that the unit members’ desire to speak is not enough to justify an institutional statement.  
• Is the unit taking any action beyond issuing a statement? If not, why not? Could or should action be taken instead of making a statement?
• Will the statement reasonably alienate a constituency of the Princeton community that the unit could potentially serve? Could the statement reasonably be perceived as discriminating against a group within our community?
• Does the unit have responsibility to serve a particular population that is deeply and uniquely affected by the matter at hand such that the unit’s silence would risk significant harm to that population or reasonably be seen as significantly disingenuous to its purpose of serving that population?  
  • Even if a unit’s role involves supporting a particular population, the unit must not express its position in a manner that could reasonably be construed as discriminatory against another constituency of the Princeton University community.
• How does the matter at hand compare to other matters in which the unit has not issued statements? Does issuing a statement create hierarchies of value/worth? Are those hierarchies justifiable?  
  • For example, if a unit chooses to issue a statement about harms experienced by Group A but not Group B, might this convey that Group A is somehow more worthy of our concern than Group B? Would this create a hierarchy of human value?  
• Does the statement target a particular individual within our community?  
  • Statements must engage a position, not a person.
• Does the statement raise any other issues that would benefit from prior consultation with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) or Office of Government Affairs?²  

V. Procedures

In addition to discussions with the cabinet-level officer and, where appropriate, OGC, unit heads are encouraged to consult with the Office of Communications in the exploration and/or development of an expression of care or a statement.

If a unit issues a statement, it must be accompanied by the following disclaimer or something substantially similar, appropriate for the context:

“This statement has been issued by [NAME OF UNIT] and should not be assumed to represent the position of Princeton University.”

This policy is not intended to prohibit or restrict administrative units from re-publishing, re-posting, or otherwise re-distributing institutional-level statements, e.g., statements issued by the President of the University. Indeed, administrative units are encouraged to amplify where appropriate statements issued by the President’s office.  

VI. Related Policies & Guidance

Unit Sponsorships of Events Featuring External Speakers

Sponsorships by non-academic units of events featuring external speakers may be interpreted as a kind of institutional or official communication, even though the University’s provision of resources for organizing programs does not constitute an institutional endorsement of the specific speakers or views expressed. Indeed, University entities are given wide latitude to organize programs, invite external speakers, request or allocate funding, and reserve space on campus in accordance with their missions and with the University’s commitment to “free and open inquiry in all matters.” (RRR 1.1.3) 

Because a sponsorship may be interpreted as institutional speech, non-academic units are encouraged to take steps to affirmatively clarify that sponsorship of an event does not constitute institutional endorsement of external speakers or views presented. Such clarification can be achieved through disclaimers in posters, advertisements, and social media posts that feature a sponsorship message, such as a logo.

OGC Guidance for Faculty-Staff on Political and Public Advocacy Activities.

All conduct, statements, and expressions of care must comply with applicable University policies, including the Acceptable Use Policy and Rights, Rules, Responsibilities. Such policies address issues including harassment, discrimination, privacy and confidentiality, partisan political activity and lobbying, copyright, and commercial activity. The University may remove, take down, or retract any unit statement or expression of care that violates the law or University policy, or that was issued without the cabinet-level review and approval required by this policy. 

1 https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-president-christopher-eisgruber-tradition-institutional-restraint 

2 For example, could the statement be construed as partisan, defamatory, or legislative advocacy? Defamatory speech is not protected by the University’s Statement on Freedom of Expression. The University, including its respective units, may not endorse, support, or oppose candidates for public office or partisan political organizations. The University’s legal ability to lobby is limited, and all legislative advocacy activities must be coordinated by the Office of Government Affairs. Individuals and groups must take special care to make it clear that when expressing political views of that sort, they are speaking only for themselves and not for the University or their unit. Unit statements must not convey support for, or opposition to, political campaigns or candidates or specific legislation. Questions on this issue should be directed to OGC.