PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Upon the recommendation of the Brown faculty, the Corporation of Brown University approved a formal Statement of University Values and Voice during its annual May meeting.

The statement outlines four core institutional values for Brown that will guide the University in the fulfillment of its mission for generations to come:

• the pursuit of knowledge and understanding;
• academic freedom and freedom of expression;
• a commitment to openness and diversity of ideas, perspectives, and experiences; and
• responsibility for a thriving academic community.

Further contextual language accompanying each articulated value is included in the approved Statement of University Values and Voice, which is now a formal policy of the institution. While Brown’s charter and mission statement have given the institution clear purpose across generations, the University had never before defined its core institutional values, Brown President Christina H. Paxson wrote in a May 28 message to the Brown community. Nor had Brown clearly set forth when the University should, or should not, use its voice as a public statement or action that intentionally expresses a position on an issue. 

“It is important that Brown now has a Statement of University Values and Voice, developed through an inclusive community process, that can stand the test of time,” Paxson wrote. 

The charge of the faculty-led Ad Hoc Committee on University Values and Voice, which developed the statement over the course of several months, was to articulate in plain, uncomplicated terms a core set of principles that guide how the University goes about advancing its mission. 

The approved statement reflects the thoughtful input of thousands of members of the Brown community, Paxson noted. When the committee’s draft statement was shared in March, nearly 800 students, faculty, staff and alumni submitted written feedback, and thousands of Brown community members attended town halls and campus meetings hosted to provide opportunities for feedback and discussion. The committee carefully considered all input and revised the draft statement to reduce ambiguity and address topics raised by members of the Brown community.

Before the statement was submitted to the Brown Corporation, it was first approved by a vote of the full faculty. Of the Brown faculty who voted on the proposed statement, 72% were in favor, 22% opposed and 6% abstained.

“From the outset, it was important that the Statement of University Values and Voice not be conceived as a response to any particular political moment, movement or controversy, but rather have durability as a lasting framework for University decisions and actions now and into the future,” Paxson wrote. “I feel that our community can be proud of producing a statement of institutional values and a policy for Brown's institutional voice that meets these goals.”

The Statement of University Values and Voice defines University “voice” — a public statement or action that intentionally expresses a position on an issue — and clarifies the purpose of University voice and why it is used.

“Being necessary to advance and defend the mission and core values of the institution, use of University voice should concern only those issues that directly influence the University mission,” the statement reads. “The University has discretion in the use of its voice on such issues, informed by the principles of shared governance. The University must refrain from expressing positions on topics unrelated to its mission, because doing so risks undermining the public trust, damaging the conditions necessary for academic freedom, and preventing fulfillment of the University mission.”

In an explanatory report that reflects the deliberations of the committee and input of the Brown community, the committee noted that it sees a distinction between the Brown statement and the way “institutional neutrality” has come to be commonly defined nationally.

“The committee recognizes that the University will sometimes be compelled to ‘take collective action’ through the use of its voice to establish a position on an issue to advance or defend its mission,” the report states. “The fact that an issue is politically partisan, socially contested or morally ambiguous does not mean that the University cannot address it through the use of its voice. The question is whether the use of University voice is aligned with the mission and core institutional values of the institution or not.”

Professor of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology James R. Kellner chaired the Ad Hoc Committee on University Values and Voice, which included faculty, students and senior administrators. Paxson noted that the committee recommended the convening of a successor group composed of students, faculty and staff to help establish how the Statement of University Values and Voice will be implemented on campus.

“This working group, which I will work jointly with the Faculty Executive Committee to form in the next academic year, will have a charge that includes considering and making recommendations regarding how ‘principles of shared governance can most effectively support the administration and the University in the discretion in the use of its voice on issues that directly influence the University mission,’ as called for in the Statement of University Values and Voice,” she wrote.

The working group will also review alignment between current University policies, committee charges and related governance structures to ensure consistency with the Statement of University Values and Voice. For example, the University has faculty rules, codes of conduct and policies that connect closely to some aspects of the Statement of University Values and Voice, including a Public Statements Policy established in 2022. The work of an ad hoc group will assess these and additional existing policies and governance more broadly.