Facilitate conversations within your communications, security, information technology, and public relations teams (and others as needed) to plan for incidents of targeted harassment. Consider creating an overall process for addressing such incidents, customizing strategic approaches based on the target, tactics, mode of delivery, and other characteristics. In some cases, responding within a few hours of an attack with a statement of support and a provision of facts is critical to stave off the spread of non-credible information. In other instances, waiting a day to respond and using strategic silence may allow time for the campaign to fizzle out on its own. A key component of your communications plan should include actions to be taken, people to be involved, and processes/decision flows to follow. 

To reemphasize: much of the work to make a response efficacious should be done ahead of time to ensure the right stakeholders are educated on best practices for supporting the targeted person(s) and on policies and protocols relevant to initiating strategic communications. Do not take for granted that people on your team understand the nuances of the threat landscape, nor the best approaches to supporting people who are experiencing potentially traumatic events. 

Once you have identified both the best processes and strategic approaches for your institution you may also consider developing messages in advance. It is helpful to think about these things outside of a crisis context, and it is useful to ensure this language is approved by relevant stakeholders, such as your legal team, in advance so that you can act nimbly during moments of crisis. A public or institution-wide statement may reaffirm the researcher’s expertise, promote your institution’s values and commitment to upholding research standards and/or academic freedom, and issue a unilateral condemnation of harassment and intimidation. Avoid using technical or abstract language or repeating damaging content. If a correction is needed, do so in a “truth sandwich” by presenting a true statement first, then addressing non-credible information, and ending with another truth. 

When an incident arises that requires a response, share the message via formal channels such as your institution’s platforms rather than in response to an inquiry or comment. Once a response is issued, refrain from engaging further. Concurrently, connect your communications or public relations lead with the targeted person(s) and their supervisor(s). Discuss the proposed response strategy with the researcher, making sure to build moments of acknowledgment and affirmative consent into the process. This means supporting the targeted person both in words and action, reiterating that what they’re experiencing is not fair and that you are here to support them and relieve some of the administrative burden of responding. This also means that the response strategy should be done in partnership with the targeted person; they should have several opportunities to affirm they are on board with proposed strategies. Such inclusion is important not just because non-consensual communication can further harm the targeted person, but also because the abuse is more likely to be mitigated when you work together to maintain a united front. Whenever appropriate, include the researcher in the decision-making process.

If your institution decides to engage with a broader audience, such as news media, policy makers, patient groups, or the general public, focus on connecting with those who are likely to be open to your point of view or who have not yet formed an opinion about the issue. Avoid engaging with those who advocate for extreme views. If your institution or the targeted individual is considering engagement with the media, be sure to conduct due diligence on the relevant outlet(s) and journalist(s). In cases where the targeted person has decided to provide comment or participate in an interview, you may want to consider sharing best practices for how to successfully navigate media inquiries (e.g., discuss concepts like “off the record”). 

You may wish to proactively expand the information available on your website to increase transparency, share relevant data and information, and provide context for the research. These pages can be referred to when engaging with broader audiences or responding to sincere interest. You may consider search engine optimization (SEO) strategies so that all relevant sites merge when a person searches for information on a particular topic. In cases where you are helping potentially vulnerable researchers promote their work, it may be useful to create materials at the outset that could be used in the event that they become targets for harassment. Above all, affirm the researcher and their work; remember that this type of abuse can cause extreme distress, with negative effects on mental and physical health. 

When crafting language to share on institutional platforms, consider these statements used by other institutions:

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

“The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is committed to academic freedom. [SCHOLAR NAME] is an established and admired scholar in [DISCIPLINARY AREA] and a valued member of our university. As with all of our scholars at the University of Illinois, [SCHOLAR NAME] has the right of academic freedom necessary to pursue scholarship and research on important subjects and to reach conclusions even if some might disagree with those conclusions. Exploring challenging and important questions is exactly what scholars in a world-class university should be doing.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst 

“Faculty members at the University of Massachusetts Amherst share their expertise on a broad spectrum of disciplines that enrich the educational experience of students, who benefit from discussion and debate of divergent views and are encouraged to develop their own ideas and beliefs. [TARGETED INDIVIDUAL] is an established and respected scholar in their discipline and a valued member of our university. As with all our scholars at the University of Massachusetts, [TARGETED INDIVIDUAL] has the right of academic freedom necessary to pursue scholarship, research and teaching on important subjects. Healthy debate and disagreement are a celebrated cornerstone of academic freedom. Bullying and harassment of faculty members who exercise their academic freedom, however is not, and we condemn it in the strongest of terms.”

Knight First Amendment Institute

From the executive director: “It’s remarkable and very troubling that a congressional panel that purports to be investigating censorship is engaged in the intimidation of researchers. There’s nothing at all nefarious about researchers studying online speech and sharing their conclusions with social media platforms—and this activity is indisputably protected by the First Amendment. The panel should withdraw its sweeping demands, which undermine the very freedoms it says it is trying to protect.” 

From the litigation director: “Independent research relating to online speech is immensely important right now because new communications platforms have transformed the digital public sphere in ways the public urgently needs to understand. Given the stakes, it’s vital that public and legislative debate be informed by actual facts and a genuine understanding of how these platforms are shaping society. Rather than intimidate and punish the researchers engaged in this work, Congress should establish new legal protections to ensure that researchers can do their important work without interference.”