Adopting a faculty task force’s guidance, Cornell leadership will apply principles of institutional restraint to decisions about when and how the university should weigh in publicly on matters of social and political significance.

Official statements or other communications on the university’s behalf, the Task Force on Institutional Voice concluded, may be appropriate concerning issues that relate directly to Cornell’s core mission, values or functions, or to the mission of higher education broadly. Beyond that scope, the task force said, the individual voices of faculty, staff, students, alumni and families should “rise to the surface as they appropriately exercise their freedom to speak where they deem it necessary and appropriate.”

“It is not the place of the university or its leaders to speak about matters not germane to Cornell’s mission,” the task force wrote in its final report. “It is the responsibility of university leadership to act with prudence and restraint in navigating the link between institutional voice and university mission.”

President Michael I. Kotlikoff, Provost Kavita Bala and Provost for Medical Affairs Robert A. Harrington, together with the Cornell Board of Trustees, plan to implement the task force’s recommended best practices. The 10-member task force, established in March 2025, was led by Jens David Ohlin, the Allan R. Tessler Dean of Cornell Law School, and Deputy Provost Avery August, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor and professor of immunology in the College of Veterinary Medicine.

“I’m grateful to the task force for its thorough and thoughtful examination of this complex and sometimes controversial topic,” Kotlikoff said. “These guiding principles clarify when Cornell should speak collectively to protect our teaching, research and engagement mission, while also promoting free expression and diverse viewpoints.”

“In developing these best practices, the task force carefully considered input not only from subject matter experts but stakeholders across campus,” Bala said. “I’m confident that this inclusive process has produced recommendations that will serve the entire Cornell community.”

Added Harrington: “We are fortunate to be a trusted voice on issues that improve patient care, advance life-saving research and further medical education. Weill Cornell Medicine’s input on the committee was an important component in emphasizing the need to stay focused on our mission when we use that voice.”

The task force said its deliberations were rooted in the university’s core values and policy statement on academic freedom and freedom of speech and expression. They were further informed by listening sessions with faculty, students, staff and shared governance groups; an anonymous survey and emailed input; meetings with faculty groups, including college and school deans, department and unit heads, center directors and legal experts; consultation with two external scholars; and review of policies and statements from peer institutions and other organizations.

Institutional restraint, the task force said, is distinct from the concept of institutional neutrality. Both approaches aim to avoid institutional speech that could unnecessarily entangle universities in political, ideological or current-affairs controversies, the authors said. But whereas neutrality suggests a state of mind, the task force said, restraint provides a framework for practical recommendations and best practices.

“Institutional restraint captures the essential characteristics of neutrality but renders it as an effective guide for action and packages it in an intellectually faithful concept consistent with Cornell’s ethos,” Ohlin said.

Exercising restraint does not mean the university must remain silent if its ability to execute its mission is compromised, the task force said.

“The university is entitled to protect its interests,” the task force wrote. “What is required by a principle of institutional restraint is a thoughtful and nuanced appreciation of Cornell’s mission, a need to carefully tailor its voice to that mission, and reasonable circumspection and prudence in exercising that voice.”

To achieve that balance, the task force advised that decisions to speak institutionally should meet one of two main criteria:

• “The issue directly affects the university’s core mission, values, or functions in ways that are easily communicated to the university community;
• “The issue directly affects the background conditions that make possible the academic enterprise at Cornell or in higher education generally, for example, our nation’s democratic system, the rule of law, freedom of speech, or freedom of thought, and thereby impacts the university’s ability to make its contributions to the common good through its research, teaching, clinical care or engagement.”

When those criteria are met, the task force said, speech is permitted but not necessarily required, at university leadership’s discretion.

The task force provided guidelines intended to prevent confusion within the campus community, public or press about who speaks for the university. That role is reserved for senior leadership including the president, provost and board of trustees – unless specifically delegated to others, such as vice provosts, deans and department or unit heads. Individuals or groups of community members may choose to speak collectively, but should be clear they are not speaking on the university’s behalf. When using an institutional voice, leaders should articulate their rationale to impacted constituencies, the task force said.

“When organized groups within the institution does use their collective voice, they should be careful that they aren’t intolerant of other perspectives, or crowd out voices that may disagree or have a different viewpoint,” August said. “The guide recommends that there be a process established for any deliberation and decision-making, that is designed to encourage open and honest dialogue, lessen power imbalances, and ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard, and that no one is silenced or marginalized.”

Prior to the task force’s recommendations, Cornell leadership had no formal guidelines regarding when members of the community spoke for the university or themselves.

In addition to August and Ohlin, members of the Task Force on Institutional Voice included:

• Milton Curry, professor of architecture and senior associate dean for strategic initiatives and engagement in the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning;
• Kate Griffith, the Jean McKelvey-Alice Grant Professor of Labor-Management Relations and senior associate dean for academic affairs, diversity, and faculty development in the ILR School;
• Lee Humphreys, professor and chair, Department of Communication, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences;
• Lori Khatchadourian, associate professor, Department of Near Eastern Studies, College of Arts and Sciences;
• Sarah Kreps, the John L. Wetherill Professor in the Department of Government, adjunct professor of law, and director of the Cornell Brooks School Tech Policy Institute;
• Taha Merghoub, the Margaret and Herman Sokol Professor of Oncology Research and deputy director of the Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine;
• Mert Sabuncu, professor, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell Duffield College of Engineering, and professor, Cornell Tech and Weill Cornell Medicine;
• Victoria White, project manager, Office of the President and Provost