Sidwell Friends School Board of Trustees
Policy on Institutional Statements

Introduction

The Board and senior administration have invested significant time discussing how the School should respond to the kind of tragic and disturbing events—e.g., the murder of George Floyd, the expression of Asian hate, the Israel-Hamas War—we have witnessed over the past several years. We are among many institutions and organizations that have considered this matter in depth. With the 2024 presidential election upon us and divisive geopolitical matters proliferating, the Board has worked collaboratively with School leadership to create a policy that will guide practice on making institutional statements.

The School’s Philosophy, Statement on Diversity, Non-Discrimination Statement, Honor Code, and harassment and disciplinary policies articulate the fundamental principles that guide operation of the School. In pursuit of its mission, Sidwell Friends is called to enable students in grades prekindergarten through 12 to develop the knowledge and skills to think creatively and critically. In the Quaker context, we seek to empower our students to discover what George Fox called “the teacher within.” Friends schools pursue this goal “not by requiring [students] to live certain truths, but by enabling them to live their lives to reveal Truth to themselves and through themselves to others.”¹ Quaker education is therefore an invitation not an indoctrination; queries as opposed to dogma provide the bedrock of our pedagogy. How can we encourage students to develop their own voice and conscience? What role should the formal institutional voice play in pursuing this work?

Rationale for the Policy

First, a school is not a government, think tank, or advocacy organization.² In the case of Sidwell Friends, neither is it a Quaker meeting that, working within a singular religious framework, might reach unity on pressing spiritual questions and encourage members to participate in political activism.³ Given the broad diversity of the Sidwell Friends community, it is unreasonable and impractical to assume that we might reach a sense of unity in the same manner as a Quaker meeting or advocacy group. Our community is strengthened by our diversity and difference, which promotes critical thinking, deep learning, and introspection. We should strive to be a community that supports healthy, respectful, and engaged disagreement within the context of our shared values.

Second, regardless of how well institutional statements are crafted, they invariably privilege certain events and perspectives over others, thereby suggesting that some policy issues deserve priority. The statements can therefore be perceived as exclusionary. As such, they may have a deleterious impact on community members who do not share an expressed School point of view or who care deeply about an issue that the School has chosen not to engage with a public statement. No school, especially one as diverse as Sidwell Friends, can adequately address the full range of student, faculty, parent, and alumni concerns and opinions, and the School must therefore be mindful about the unintended consequences of issuing any statement.⁴ The School cannot and should not attempt to articulate a policy position that speaks for the community. 

Third, it is neither practical nor effective to affirm institutional values with the sudden and unpredictable onset of complex, dynamic, and emotionally charged events. Good schools articulate core values in their philosophies and animate them in their students over time; an institution should not be expected to recommit to its mission each time the world goes awry. When a school is called upon to issue statements, especially under intense time pressure, and to respond to subsequent commentary and criticism written in response to such statements, attention is diverted away from the core responsibility of educating its students. Moreover, issuing political statements under pressure and rushing to post content on social media does not model the thoughtful reflection and perspective-taking that Sidwell Friends seeks to develop in its students.

Board Policy

Sidwell Friends School abides by Internal Revenue Service regulations, which prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations from “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” The School will consequently neither endorse nor criticize any candidates, nor will it comment on their platforms, statements, or policies.⁵

Except for political matters that directly affect the operations of Sidwell Friends as an independent, religious educational institution, the School will not issue statements that offer suggestions for or endorse positions on public policy.

The School will refrain from issuing statements about world events. The School administration may continue to communicate how the School is addressing such matters with its students.

When constituents within Sidwell Friends or other communities ask the institution to address external matters, the School administration should refer them to this policy.⁶

We must remember that our core mission calls us not to opine on public policy or current events, but to develop, in the Quaker tradition, the intellect and moral conscience of our students. This includes allowing faculty and students to engage in discussion of difficult political, moral, and ethical matters. To help students listen to one another and find their own voices, we adults must sometimes quiet our own. We must remember the enduring query that we ask our students: How will you let your life speak? 

---

¹ Douglas Heath, The Peculiar Nature of a Quaker School (Pendle Hill, PA: 1982), p. 6
²  For additional treatment of this issue, see the University of Chicago’s “Kalven Committee: Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.”
³ For an example of how a Quaker institution addressed political pressures with regard to the Israel-Hamas War, see complementary statements authored by Earlham College President Anne M. Houtmann and board of trustees.
⁴ See Thriving in a World of Pluralistic Contention: A Framework for Schools. This document argues that “silence . . . on issues of public controversy or current events should not be taken as acquiescence or approval of a position”; nor should it be seen as insensitive “to the suffering of others.” Rather, the practice of “disciplined nonpartisanship” enables the school  to hold space for conversation and disagreement, so long as the discourse is bound by civility and respect. A school can and should affirm its core values—for example, it can maintain a commitment to peace or justice—“without endorsing a particular political program” or supporting one cause or side over another. Harvard’s “Report on Institutional Voice in the University” takes this argument a step further, arguing that because statements may inflict harm on some members of the community, “the most compassionate course of action is therefore not to issue official statements of empathy.
⁵ See IRS website.
⁶ Harvard’s “Report on Institutional Voice in the University” offers this same advice.