Last fall, Harvard University’s leadership found itself at the center of a highly public, highly charged fight about taking an official institutional position in connection with the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the war in Gaza.

First, critics denounced the school for being too slow to issue a statement on the matter. Then, after a statement was released by Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, and 17 other senior Harvard officials, some critics attacked it for being insufficiently forceful in condemning the Hamas attack, while others criticized it for being insufficiently forceful in condemning Israel’s retaliation.

One of the many sources of confusion at the time was that Harvard, like many other universities, did not have a formal policy on when and whether to issue official statements. In the absence of a policy, Harvard not only had to figure out what to say or not say; it also had to deal with the perception that not issuing a statement, or not issuing one fast enough, would in effect be a statement, too.

Fortunately, Harvard now does have official guidance for a policy on university statements, in the form of a report issued on Tuesday by a faculty working group on which we served together as chairs, and endorsed by the president, provost and deans. The report recommends a policy based on both principle and pragmatism, one that we hope can enable Harvard — and any other school that might consider adopting a similar policy — to flourish in our highly polarized political era.

In brief, the report says that university leaders can and should speak out publicly to promote and protect the core function of the university, which is to create an environment suitable for pursuing truth through research, scholarship and teaching. If, for example, Donald Trump presses forward with his announced plan to take “billions and billions of dollars” from large university endowments to create an “American Academy” — a free, online school that would provide an “alternative” to current institutions — Harvard’s leadership can and should express its objections to this terrible idea.

It makes sense for university leaders to speak out on matters concerning the core function of the institution: That is their area of expertise as presidents, provosts and deans. But they should not, the report says, take official stands on other matters. They should not, for instance, issue statements of solidarity with Ukraine after Russia’s invasion, no matter how morally attractive or even correct that sentiment might be.

In addition, the report says, university leaders should make it clear to the public that when students and faculty members exercise their academic freedom to speak, they aren’t speaking on behalf of the university as a whole. The president doesn’t have to repeat this point with regard to every utterance made by the thousands of members of the university. But the university should clarify repeatedly, for as long as it takes to establish the point, that only its leadership can speak officially on its behalf.

This policy might remind some readers of the Kalven Report, a prominent statement of the value of academic “institutional neutrality” issued in 1967 by a University of Chicago committee chaired by the First Amendment scholar Harry Kalven Jr. But while our policy has some important things in common with the Kalven Report, which insisted that the university remain silently neutral on political and social issues, ours rests on different principles and has some different implications.

The principle behind our policy isn’t neutrality. Rather, our policy commits the university to an important set of values that drive the intellectual pursuit of truth: open inquiry, reasoned debate, divergent viewpoints and expertise. An institution committed to these values isn’t neutral, and shouldn’t be. It has to fight for its values, particularly when they are under attack, as they are now. Speaking publicly is one of the tools a university can use in that fight.

Take the use of affirmative action to achieve diversity in higher education admissions. Harvard argued in defense of this idea in the Supreme Court on several occasions — starting in 1978, when the court’s controlling opinion allowing diversity in admissions relied extensively on a brief that Harvard filed, through 2023, when the court rejected the use of race in diversity-based admissions. Harvard’s advocacy all along was far from neutral and would arguably have violated the Kalven principles. On our principles, however, Harvard was justified in speaking out forcefully in support of the method it long used to admit students, because admissions is a core function of the university.

We recognize that some observers, on both the left and the right, may interpret the timing of our report as an attempt to support some point of view they don’t like. That said, our recommended policy is designed not as a response to immediate events but as a response to the changed reality in which the university operates: a world of social media and polarized politics. Both put intense pressure on universities. Both cry out for a policy where before, none was demanded.

On social media, it can sometimes appear that anyone with a claim to Harvard affiliation speaks for the institution, even as we in the university know otherwise. We’re not naïve enough to think that just announcing a policy will change what the internet thinks. It will take repetition, emphasis and consistency to make the policy widely understood.

In an age of polarized politics, we also need a policy that will spare university leaders from having to spend all their time deciding which global and national events deserve statements and which statements from the university community merit official repudiation. On many, maybe most, important issues, no official statement made by the university could satisfy the many different constituencies on campus.

In formulating its recommendation, our faculty working group struggled with some challenges that don’t have great solutions. For example, we didn’t address, much less solve, the hard problem of when the university should or shouldn’t divest its endowment funds from a given portfolio. The Kalven Report claimed that a decision to divest is a statement in itself and so the university shouldn’t do it. In contrast, we saw divestment as an action rather than a statement the university makes. We therefore treated it as outside our mandate, even though symbolic meaning can be attached to it, just as it can to other actions (including investing in the first place). Our report encourages the university to explain its actions and decisions on investment and divestment — much as Harvard’s President Larry Bacow did in 2021 when the university decided to reduce its investments in fossil fuels, and much as President Derek Bok did when the university didn’t divest from South Africa in the 1980s — but that’s all.