Handling Public Allegations Regarding Invited Guests or Researchers
Adopted by the Institute for Social Sciences & Humanities (Iran Academia) Date: 21-04-2025
1. Introduction
We recognize that, in an ideal society, the authority to judge and condemn individuals would rest solely with the law and judicial authorities. At the same time, we acknowledge that judicial systems around the world are often influenced by structural bias and political, economic, cultural, or social pressures. For this reason, we do not view legal systems as sacred or infallible.
We are also aware that proving allegations, especially those related to sexual misconduct, is often extremely difficult, even within just and fair judicial systems, and even more so in countries with weak democratic institutions. At the same time, we recognize that neither strict adherence to the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” nor unconditional acceptance of all public allegations, can be considered entirely neutral or fair when taken to their extremes.
In this complex context, we understand that no institutional decision in response to such situations can be completely neutral. Any action, or inaction, will inevitably affect one side of a contested narrative.
As an educational institution, ISSH does not have the mandate, capacity, or competence to bear the burden of legal or moral judgment. Our role is to operate within a focused academic framework, where researchers and speakers are invited to contribute to specific scholarly discussions. The presence of an individual in our programs must not be interpreted as:
1. An endorsement of their views on the topic at hand;
2. An endorsement of their views on other topics; or
3. A moral or ethical validation of the individual by the institute.
2. Purpose of This Policy
This policy provides a clear and responsible framework for how the institute addresses situations public allegations are made against invited researchers, guests, or speakers. Our aim is to act responsibly, fairly, and in alignment with legal standards, institutional values, and the trust placed in us by our community.
3. Core Principles
We are guided by the following key principles:
- Freedom of Expression: We uphold the right to lawful expression, including the right to host controversial or debated figures, unless specific legal or safety concerns arise.
- Respect for Community Voices: We value and carefully consider concerns raised by our audiences and stakeholders.
- Presumption of Innocence and Due Process: We refrain from prejudging individuals based on unverified claims, particularly those without legal proceedings or formal complaints.
- We Are Not a Judicial Body: We do not have the legal authority or institutional role to determine the truth of allegations. Our responsibility is limited to evaluating risk and institutional impact, not to adjudicate.
- Proportionality and Professionalism: We strive to assess and manage risks fairly, transparently, and proportionally.
4. Step-by-Step Institutional Response Framework
Step 1: Reception and Acknowledgment of Concerns
- Concerns raised by identifiable individuals or credible institutions are received respectfully and confidentially.
- Anonymous or unverified allegations are acknowledged but, on their own, do not justify institutional action without further context or risk assessment.
Step 2: Preliminary Review
- A designated panel or senior team member evaluates:
- The nature and specificity of the claim
- Its source and credibility
- Potential risks to participants, staff, or institutional integrity
- Whether the matter is subject to legal or formal complaint
Step 3: Consultation with Legal Counsel
- Where needed, the institute will seek legal guidance to determine:
- Possible legal liabilities or reputational risks
- Compliance with defamation, data protection, and other relevant laws
Step 4: Risk Mitigation and Communication
The institute may:
- Issue a neutral disclaimer clarifying that the invitation does not imply endorsement of the individual’s conduct
- Add event safeguards, such as codes of conduct, or moderated discussions
Step 5: Final Decision and Documentation
- A decision is made by institutional leadership and recorded with clear rationale.
- The decision process will aim to reflect the values, legal obligations, and educational mission of the institution.
5. Application and Scope
- This policy applies to all external speakers, researchers, and guests invited to participate in ISSH programs, events, or collaborations.
- All decisions must follow consistent institutional procedures and align with this policy and relevant legal or educational frameworks (e.g., External speakers in higher education institutions Guidance – UK).
6. Review and Updates
This policy will be reviewed annually, or as needed, to reflect legal developments, evolving community standards, and institutional learning.
