At Tuesday’s faculty meeting, faculty members raised concerns about the draft of Brown’s institutional values, which was released on March 18. Multiple speakers criticized the timing of the draft process, as well as the draft’s distinction between the community and institution and policy surrounding University stances on issues that do not align with its mission.
The draft statement proposes Brown’s core values as the “pursuit of knowledge and understanding,” “academic freedom and freedom of expression,” a “commitment to openness and diversity” and “respect for others and the University mission,” The Herald previously reported.
Multiple faculty members expressed that the amount of time allocated to complete the draft statement was insufficient and called for more open discussion about the proposed values.
Carlos Aizenman, professor of neuroscience and brain science, said in the meeting that the process seems “a little bit rushed.” He recommended that more time be allocated to the process to allow for faculty and student forums, in which community members could engage in direct conversation with the Ad Hoc Committee on University Values and Voice, which drafted the statement.
According to the March 18 announcement, community members can provide feedback on the draft statement through virtual town halls, an online feedback form and an email that connects directly to committee members.
Govind Menon PhD’01, professor of applied mathematics, voiced concern that there has been “relatively little” input from the faculty, citing current data that shows feedback was received from only seven faculty members.
“I do recognize fully the urgency of engaging with this, but I do feel a need for caution,” Menon said, emphasizing the need to examine how the draft statement interacts with the University’s current policies and to receive additional “scholarly appraisal” on the proposed values.
In the meeting, President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 disagreed with establishing an extended timeline. She argued that the core institutional values should be outlined soon, so they can be referenced in future discussions on academic freedom and diversity and inclusion.
“It would be, I think, in this moment, actually tremendously helpful for me to say the Brown community has endorsed these as core institutional values,” she said.
The draft statement’s proposal that the University “shall not, through public statements or business practices, express positions on issues unrelated to its mission” was also a point of contention for many faculty members.
Brian Lander, associate professor of history and environment and society, argued that “the economics of the institution always express values and will always, therefore, be the locations of disagreement.”
Faculty members argued that the subject of the University’s public statements should be approached separately from its institutional values.
Aizenman said the University has previously used its institutional voice in a way that is not in alignment with the guidelines in the draft statement. He argued that the University’s separate divestments from South Africa and tobacco products did not advance its mission — something that would be required under the new guidelines.
“A lot of the things that we all agree with as a community will go against the core mission, and that’s just not a tenable situation,” Aizenman said.
James Kellner, chair of the values and voice committee, emphasized that the proposed limitation on University statements is not meant to be interpreted as institutional neutrality. Kellner is also a professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology and environment and society.
The committee believes “the University needs to be able to take extraordinarily non-neutral positions on things, even on really controversial things,” Kellner said.
Paxson added that the draft statement should be thought of as “defining guideposts that help lead us in the right direction.”
“We’re still going to have a lot of things to muddle through,” she said.
Multiple professors also raised concerns about the draft statement differentiating between community values and University values. The committee was seeking to define the core values of the University, not of the community, Kellner previously told The Herald.
Aizenman noted that the separation of community values from the core values of the University seemed “artificial,” particularly because Brown’s mission statement references “a partnership of students and teachers in a unified community.”
“The institution is the community,” Aizenman said. “And so to say that their core values are separate from the community values is going against Brown’s mission, the way it is stated.”
Nadje Al-Ali, professor of international studies, anthropology and Middle East studies, added that she found the draft values to be too general.
“I feel like the values could be applied to higher education (and) academia, in general,” she said. “I don’t see Brown reflected in it.”
Menon added that a “statement of values is meaningful only if we have kind of a clear set of processes which tell us what to do when people violate values.”
Kellner emphasized that the draft statement should not be read as written policy. Policy changes and implementations, if they occur, will be the work of future committees, he said.
Samah Hamid is a senior staff writer at the Herald. She is from Sharon, Massachusetts and plans to concentrate in Biology. In her free time, you can find her taking a nap, reading, or baking a sweet treat.
