Communication Breakdown: The Strain of Responding to Crises Like the Israeli-Hamas Conflict

Despite being thousands of miles away, a handful of U.S.-based higher education institutions have found themselves, perhaps inevitably, drawn into the discourse surrounding the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict  following the Oct. 7 attack on Israel orchestrated by the terrorist organization. 

Much of the strife involving institutions, including Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania, centers on disagreements between student groups and donors, leaving institutional leaders caught in the middle. 

The uproar at Harvard started when a coalition of student organizations signed an Oct. 7 statement authored by the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee placing the blame for the violence on Israel, according to The Harvard Crimson. 

Two days later, Harvard President Claudia Gay released a statement in which she said the university leadership was “heartbroken by the death and destruction unleashed by the attack by Hamas.” The statement also noted that “the violence hits all too close to home for many at Harvard” and that it is inflicting an emotional toll on students, faculty and staff.

The PR Fallout at Harvard

The fallout from high-profile individuals connected with the institution was swift. Former Harvard President Lawrence Summers wrote on X on Oct. 10, “The silence from Harvard’s leadership, so far, coupled with a vocal and widely reported student groups’ statement blaming Israel solely, has allowed Harvard to appear at best neutral towards acts of terror against the Jewish state of Israel.” 

U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, an alumna, also faulted the university leadership for its delayed response in an Oct. 13 statement. 

Separately, at the University of Pennsylvania, tensions flared over The Palestine Writes Literature Festival, a multi-day event that took place on the campus in September. The event was first organized in 2020 and has been held yearly since. 

Although not organized by the university, members of the campus community and alumni voiced concerns over what President Liz Magill described in a Sept. 12 statement as “several speakers who have a documented and troubling history of engaging in antisemitism by speaking and acting in ways that denigrate Jewish people.” The Oct. 7 attacks seemingly poured fuel on the fire. 

In response to the attacks, Magill released two statements, one on Oct. 10 and another on Oct. 15, with the latter statement noting that it condemned “Hamas’s terrorist assault on Israel and their violent atrocities against civilians.”

Despite those statements, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who is an alum and former trustee of Penn, informed university leadership that donations from his family foundation would be halted in response to what he perceived as its silence on the attacks and “moral relativism,” as reported by The Daily Pennsylvanian. 

Other campuses throughout the United States, including Boston University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Indiana University, have experienced tensions as the humanitarian crisis continues to spark controversy. Columbia University closed the campus to the public Thursday, Oct. 12, after a student was assaulted while hanging fliers.

Guidance for Issuing Statements 

Events like the ones faced by Harvard and Penn have left many in higher ed questioning how institutions can effectively respond when faced with similarly charged situations.

Generally speaking, campus leaders have a spare, preset menu of ways to respond to an unfolding crisis: issuing a statement, or not. 

Christie Parell, a professor who teaches crisis communications classes and associate division director for public communication at American University, encourages institutions to develop a decision tree that can be used to guide their thinking on strategic communications questions. 

“Preplanning is super important,” she said, as doing so can help ensure the timeliness of responses. “There’s no reason why a university should not prepare for this type of world event to occur and then consider what the community looks like. How are folks going to react based on demographics? Statements can be prewritten to some degree and tested to see how well they resonate or how they might cause a backlash among their community members.”

Deciding when and how to make a statement like the ones Gay and Magill released can be difficult for institutions to navigate given the associated perils. 

When crafting a statement, institutions should consider the views of key stakeholders on a particular issue and how it impacts each of the groups, said Parell. From there, they should ask where the calls to engage are coming from. Some of the ways institutions can get a pulse on the situation, she said, is to monitor social media channels and student publications and keep an eye out for on-campus demonstrations or events. 

“They use that information to craft strong, thoughtful statements that hopefully will appeal to the majority of the audience,” she said.

Kara Schmiemann, strategic communications director for consulting firm Red Banyan, stressed that, even if the stakeholders have differing viewpoints, motivations and demands, effective communication and connection can happen with the right tone and transparency. 

Parell acknowledged that the current geopolitical issues institutions are being asked to weigh in on are complex and can be difficult for leaders to wrap their heads around fully. For that reason, she advises institutional leaders to ask themselves if they can credibly weigh in on an issue.

A good rule of thumb, Parell offered, is to consider whether the potential statement will stand the test of time and come down on the right side of history. 

It’s also helpful to consider past precedents. For example, whether the institution has spoken out on a particular issue in the past. 

“Is there an expectation that we’ll make a public statement about this issue?” asked Parell. 

No matter what, it’s difficult to thread the needle perfectly in situations like this, Schmiemann added. For that reason, she encourages institutions to call or preemptively retain PR firms with a robust crisis practice to help guide them through crafting their statements. 

“Make the call before you send out a statement that doesn’t land because you can’t put the genie back in the bottle — and do it quickly — as time is of the essence,” she said. 

The Consequences of Speaking Out

Dr. Drumm McNaughton, a former administrator and current higher ed consultant with expertise in leadership, explained that making a statement about a controversial issue isn’t going to immediately solve an institution’s problems. 

“Given the politics, you’re never going to make everyone happy, especially now,” he said. “You’re going to always have criticism.” 

Schmiemann agrees with McNaughton, noting that institutions can be criticized no matter what they say or don’t say when wading into the public discourse surrounding politics and civil liberties given the unpredictability of their audiences. 

If he was still chancellor and was compelled to make a statement, Kirwan anticipates he would keep the focus on the pain and suffering and loss of life that is being experienced. 

“Keep the remarks not about who’s right, the Palestinians or Israel, but about the loss of human life and the importance of respecting human life and dignity,” he said. 

“Many institutions are also dealing with conflicting viewpoints and demands,” she said. “Speaking without education and historical context, not having the right people in the room when you are crafting your statement, opting not to engage at all and missing the mark on tone are all common risks and pitfalls we see with regard to public relations risks facing institutions choosing to speak or remain silent on the situation right now.”

The potential consequences associated with speaking out, including the content of the statement and the decision to speak out, should be top of mind when making statements, Parell stressed. 

“Could the consequences include issues on campus, discontent, a protest or calls from unhappy board members or donors? Perhaps even financial impact from problems with student recruitment or retention…of course fundraising and grants,” she said. “How are they going to navigate those consequences if they occur?”

Dr. William Kirwan, chancellor emeritus of the University System of Maryland, is skeptical of university presidents speaking out on such issues. 

“I think it’s a very, very slippery slope and can get presidents in a lot of difficulty,” he said. “If you speak on some issues and don’t speak on others, that’s speaking also.”

Additionally, as most leaders come to their positions because they’re subject matter experts in a particular field, he cautions them against speaking out on issues with which they aren’t as familiar. 

“What does it mean for them to speak out on issues where they don’t have deep knowledge and expertise? It doesn’t have any impact on anything,” Kirwan said. 

If presidents decide to speak, he noted, they should make sure they have all the facts to prevent a loss of credibility. He pointed to the suspension and eventual firing of former Northwestern University football coach Pat Fitzgerald as being mishandled by the president, characterizing it as “not a show of strength.”

Historical Guidance: The Kalven Report

Kirwan pointed to the University of Chicago’s “Kalven Report” as an example of what institutions should consider adopting. The report was produced during the turbulence of the 1960s when protestors asked the university to assume positions on various social and political issues. 

The report found that “the university was a community comprised of [sic] individuals with multiple and competing points of view, and that freedom of expression was essential to preserving this diversity of perspectives. For the university to attempt to declare a collective position on any issue would automatically censure those members of its community who disagree with that position.” 

The university adopted the Kalven Report in 1967 and has since used it to guide the institution’s approach to such issues. In 2016, the university reaffirmed its commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom. 

“Don’t set the expectation that the institution will speak out,” Kirwan said of the University of Chicago approach. “I think institutions would be well served if their boards would establish such a policy. That would give the president a lot of cover and avoid situations we’ve been facing.” 

Parell disagrees. Organizations want to be known for their values, she said. There’s also increasing pressure for institutions to lend their voices to advocate on certain political, social and global issues. For that reason, she questions the effectiveness of the University of Chicago approach. 

“I think that time has passed,” she said. “There’s just too much pressure on organizations to weigh in on these issues, especially at a university. The demand is there from key stakeholders.” 

Keeping Stakeholders Close

As noted by Parell, regardless of whether an institution makes a statement, Kirwan said it’s important for leaders to engage institutional stakeholders on difficult issues, such as the Israeli-Hamas conflict. 

“Communication here to the various interests at a university is very important. Engage the various viewpoints on a controversial issue. The presidents caught in this bind are going to have to spend an inordinate amount of their time over the next weeks having these kinds of conversations,” he said. “Explain what the institution is doing. Express personal grief and remorse over what’s happening.”

During his career, Kirwan met with many student groups on hot-button issues. Being a good listener during such conversations is vital, he said. Despite not being comfortable conversations, he said they ended up being cathartic. 

“I can say from personal experience, that approach has calmed some very difficult times and issues,” he said. 

Kirwan encourages leaders to engage with donors the same way they do with students. 

“Listening to people and letting them get their feelings out goes a long, long way to building some mutual understanding and resolution to the issues,” he said. “You may lose a donor or two because they feel so strongly, but I’ve always found that memories are short and feelings are forgiven. Time will pass, and there are ways of making amends.”

When engaging stakeholders, Parell said, institutions should keep in mind that they’re experiencing trauma, which can hinder their ability to think clearly and rationally. 

“Their emotional reactions may be amplified,” she said. “They’re looking for somewhere to place blame, which is a natural human instinct when a crisis has occurred, but sometimes an organization is on the receiving end of that misplaced emotion, which puts them in a very challenging position.” 

Managing Student Protests

If students decide to protest, which McNaughton said they certainly have the right to do peacefully, he advises institutions to issue general guidelines. 

“Keep it civil, keep it peaceful, listen to other people’s perspectives,” he said. “You do not have the right to shut other people up. You do not have the right to be violent.”

Leaders should also remind their campuses that, as institutions of higher ed, they are meant to bring people from different backgrounds and perspectives together, Kirwan added. 

“That’s what universities are supposed to be, to bring together smart people that have different viewpoints. That’s how knowledge gets advanced,” he said. “That’s got to be front and center in the expression of the institution’s values on an ongoing, continuous basis, not just when a crisis arises.” 

Parell agrees with Kirwan, noting that debate and demonstrations are part of the ethos of free thought and expression that higher ed has historically valued. 

The Oct. 9 Harvard statement seemingly did as Kirwan urged when it stated, “Especially at such a time, we want to emphasize our commitment to fostering an environment of dialogue and empathy, appealing to one another’s thoughtfulness and goodwill in a time of unimaginable loss and sorrow.” However, as previously noted, the approach did not satisfy everyone. 

Damage to Reputation 

In putting the ongoing strife on campuses into perspective, Kirwan said 99% of issues like this pass in time without seriously damaging an institution’s long-term reputation. Pennsylvania State University emerged on the other side of the Sandusky controversy in a strong position, he said. 

In 2022, it announced that it had raised more than $2.2 billion during a multi-year fundraising campaign. The university characterized the achievement as setting “a new Penn State fundraising campaign record.” Immediately following the scandal, Penn State had lost approximately “a half dozen” large donors, who had previously donated more than $1 million each.

McNaughton agrees, noting that some people nowadays aren’t even aware of what happened at Penn State. For that reason, he said, “For an institution like Harvard, it will blow over in time. It’s not going to affect their business model because they are who they are.” 

However, if something similar were to happen at a smaller institution, he added, they would have a more difficult time bouncing back. 

Parell believes the institutional impact is largely contingent on how their actions are received by internal and external stakeholders. 

“If they’ve made major missteps, it could potentially have [a] long-lasting impact on their fundraising efforts or student retention efforts,” she said. 

Despite all of this, she said, sometimes leaders simply need to take the punches, brace for impact and wait for better days. If the institution has built up enough credibility over time, it will come out relatively unscathed. 

“I think strong universities will weather this storm just fine,” she said.