An Open Letter on Presidential Statements

To the Amherst College Community:

This summer, I have been reflecting on the challenging question of when it is appropriate for me, as president, to make statements on behalf of Amherst College in response to national and international events. This issue is closely tied to my understanding of the purpose of our college and our values. As I stated in my Commencement address last May, Amherst is a place which believes in the power of unfettered curiosity in the service of a better future. My responsibility as president is to create and sustain the conditions that enable that curiosity and inquiry to flourish in a community of learners and teachers.

Like many in higher education, I have witnessed and even participated in the proliferation of institutional statements, motivated by the best of intentions: a desire to recognize suffering that is affecting part or all of our community, and a reminder that our community must register and confront what transpires beyond our campus. Amherst is truly a global community, and whenever acts of violence or injustice transpire, there are likely to be some of our colleagues, friends, and students who feel these events deeply and profoundly.

However, there are few occasions where presidential statements regarding matters of national and international importance — whether political events, military conflicts, or natural disasters — advance our mission of curiosity and learning. These statements carry with them the presumption that they speak for the entire institution and, whether intentionally or not, significantly influence campus dialogue. They leave some members of our community feeling as though the college places greater value on some lives than on others — a concern that I have heard repeatedly from both students and alumni. And at a time when individuals and institutions are expected to register public sympathy, outrage, or another emotional response almost instantly, they often reflect incomplete or even inaccurate information, or express such general sentiments that they seem devoid of real content.

For all of these reasons, I believe that presidential statements responding to external events can detract from an Amherst where inquiry and dissent thrive, where our students, faculty, and staff not only speak to, but also listen to, one another. Moving forward, I will therefore make such statements extremely rarely, and focus on those matters that directly impact our ability to fulfill our mission of education and research, such as last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on race-conscious admission.

While some leaders have advocated for a position of “institutional neutrality,” I disagree with that language. Neutrality suggests that we are avoiding certain difficult subjects, when instead we are committing to engage on them with curiosity and openness, our campus discourse unconstrained by an institutional or presidential position.

I know that in the months to come there will be people who will understand that commitment differently and who will ask me to make statements responding to events they sincerely believe warrant an exception. While I am always open to dialogue on these questions, I will be guided by the principles I have laid out above.

As I have said before, I believe deeply that a liberal arts college is a special place — a place where we give free rein to curiosity, no matter what the subject is; a place where we must invite the criticism and challenge of every idea; a place where we remain true to our belief in the power of inquiry to transform our students and the world. I look forward to our continued work together toward that vision.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Elliott

President