Émile Zola’s J’Accuse…! – published in 1898 at the height of the Dreyfus Affair – remains one of the most consequential pieces of journalistic writing in modern history. It did more than express outrage; it documented injustice. Zola named individuals, identified institutional failures, and advanced claims grounded in evidence assembled over sustained investigation. His intervention came as a last resort, when existing systems had failed and injustice had hardened into public fact. The force of J’Accuse rests on its discipline: accusation tied to intellectual accuracy.

In recent issues, the Faculty Newsletter has published several articles that operate in this accusatory register, but that could be faulted for failing to reach Zola’s standard of argumentation. Without revisiting those pieces individually, their appearance in close succession points to a structural issue rather than an isolated editorial decision. The Newsletter has long approached accusatory writing with caution, given the potential for reputational harm and the broader impact on trust and collegial relations within our academic community. The fact that apparently problematic articles have nonetheless appeared reflects the Newsletter’s historical practice of accepting all submissions, but conversely suggests a gap in our procedures that now requires attention.

We aim to address this gap while preserving the possibility of a contemporary on-campus J’Accuse. There are moments when faculty may feel compelled to speak in this mode – when silence becomes untenable and critique extends to conduct, responsibility, or institutional failure. In such cases, the standards governing publication must be especially clear and scrupulously applied.

From our recent review, five principles emerge as essential:

• Claim validity: If an article leads readers toward a negative judgment about identifiable individuals or groups on campus, that claim should be supported with evidence or reasoning explicitly presented to the reader; allegations that are undisclosed, insufficiently supported, or presented as established fact without clear qualification are not suitable for publication.
• Proportionality: The strength and certainty of any accusation should reflect the strength, relevance, and reliability of the supporting argument. Rhetoric should remain polite and professional at all times.
• Clarity: Authors must clearly identify the subject and basis of their criticism and distinguish between critique of ideas and claims about conduct; they are responsible for eliminating ambiguity that could reasonably be read as a personal accusation.
• Fairness to both sides: When reputational claims are made, those affected should be given a timely and meaningful opportunity to respond, ideally in the same issue in which the article appears.
• Consistency: The same evidentiary and editorial standards should be applied to all submissions, regardless of author or viewpoint.

These principles are familiar within scholarly practice. What has been missing is a transparent mechanism for applying them in editorial decisions within the Faculty Newsletter.

To give these principles more practical force in the future, the Editorial Board is developing a new review process that will provide broader oversight of potentially controversial content, closer scrutiny of the relationships between claims and evidence, clearer communication with authors where concerns arise, and a consistent effort to ensure procedural fairness both to authors and to those who face criticism. Publication in the Faculty Newsletter does not constitute endorsement by the Editorial Board; yet the Board remains responsible, as custodian of the publication, for how such material appears. Where concerns remain unresolved, the Board will apply decision mechanisms that include the possibility of forgoing publication altogether. No single framework can anticipate every case; judgment, exercised with care and consistency, remains essential.

The Faculty Newsletter serves as a platform from faculty for faculty. It reflects the norms of an academic community grounded in argument, evidence, and critical exchange. Accusation does not define those relationships and should remain an infrequent mode of engagement.

There may, however, be moments when a faculty member concludes that a J’Accuse is warranted. If such a moment arises, we ask authors to engage these shared standards. The goal is to sustain trust in the publication and fairness among colleagues while allowing serious claims to be articulated with rigor.

The responsibility is shared. Authors bring forward arguments and evidence; the Editorial Board ensures that those contributions meet the standards required for publication. Within that shared framework, discourse can remain candid and just

Members of the Editorial Board of The MIT Faculty Newsletter

Back to top