Nova: Imagine you are a department head at a major university who needs to write a new policy about data security. You sit down at your keyboard and suddenly realize you have absolutely no idea where to start. What problem are you solving? Who does what? What words should you use? This paralyzing moment is surprisingly common across higher education, and it is exactly why Oregon State University created something remarkable: the Guidance for Writing Policy.

Nova: I hear you, and honestly I thought the same thing at first. But here is what drew me in: hidden in this seemingly dry administrative document is a masterclass in clear communication. The principles inside apply not just to university policies but to nearly everything we write — from emails to project proposals to company handbooks. And the stakes are higher than you might think.

Nova: Consider this — according to United Educators, a major insurer for colleges, poor policy writing leads directly to lawsuits. They have documented cases where convoluted accommodation policies led to disability discrimination claims, where conflicting departmental policies caused van accidents, and where outdated hazing policies created liability during high-risk periods. All of these started with badly written words on a page.

Nova: Exactly. And what makes the OSU Guidance for Writing Policy fascinating is that it takes a profoundly practical approach to preventing those disasters. Seven core principles. A structured template. A collaborative review process. No fluff, no academic posturing — just clear, actionable advice for writing rules that people can actually understand and follow.

Nova: Let us begin with the big question: what even is a university policy? The OSU guidance defines it very specifically. A university policy is a governing statement that enhances the university's mission, promotes operational efficiency, manages institutional risk, and helps ensure compliance with laws and regulations. It is enforceable against employees, students, contractors, volunteers — basically everyone who interacts with the university.

Nova: Right. And that is what makes the writing so critical. OSU's framework starts with the most fundamental question most people skip: identify the problem the policy will solve. Before you write a single sentence, you have to ask yourself — why is this policy needed? What is it intended to accomplish? If you cannot answer that clearly, you should not be writing anything yet.

Nova: Precisely. And OSU actually operationalizes this. Policy stewards — that is what they call the people responsible for drafting policies — have to fill out a Qualtrics intake form before they even start writing. The University Policy Program reviews that form and uses it to shape the initial draft. It forces reflection before action.

Nova: They do. And there is a brilliance to it. The form forces you to articulate the scope and audience, identify the responsible executive, think through stakeholder impacts, and define the core problem. By the time you sit down with the template, you already know exactly what you are trying to do. It eliminates the blank-page paralysis entirely.

Nova: Now let us dig into the heart of the guidance: the seven drafting principles. These are where the document transforms from a bureaucratic checklist into something approaching wisdom.

Nova: Principle one we have covered — identify the problem. Principle two is identify who does what. This sounds simple but it is where many policies collapse. The OSU guidance says you should clearly articulate roles and responsibilities, describe who is authorized to make decisions, specify when and to whom authority is delegated. And here is the clever part: describe one individual's responsibilities in a single location rather than scattering them across different sections.

Nova: Exactly. It sounds minor, but imagine trying to figure out your obligations as a department chair by hunting through twelve pages of policy. Grouping responsibilities by role is a gift to the reader.

Nova: Define your terms. And here is where OSU offers a practical shortcut: start with the Policy Glossary. The university maintains a central glossary of defined terms, so before you invent a new definition for "faculty" or "student" or "responsible executive," check what already exists. This single practice prevents the nightmare scenario where the same word means different things in different policies.

Nova: Exactly. United Educators documented a case where an athletics department had its own driving policy that did not require motor vehicle record checks, while the university-wide policy did. The cross-country coach with a history of moving violations crashed a team van, and the lawsuit alleged negligence. The root cause was undefined and uncoordinated terminology.

Nova: Use plain language. This one is huge. OSU says be direct, be specific, avoid jargon, avoid passive voice, avoid shorthand. The goal is that a reader should understand the policy the first time they read it. Not the third time. Not after consulting a lawyer. The first time.

Nova: This is the trap. Research shows that when people encounter jargon-filled or convoluted language, they stop engaging. There is an entire global movement around this. The Plain Writing Act passed in the US in 2010. New Zealand passed its own plain language law in 2022. Australia, Canada, the UK, South Africa, Brazil, Finland — they all have plain language initiatives. The European Commission published "How to Write Clearly" in 24 languages. And here is a striking statistic: 80% of people prefer content written in plain language, and 73% would take action after reading plain language materials versus only 44% for non-plain language.

Nova: And in the university context, the stakes are arguably higher. A disability accommodations policy written in legalese can literally cost someone their education. Two scholars writing in Inside Higher Ed pointed out that hundreds of thousands of Americans have medication complications each year because they cannot understand prescription labels. Some health literacy experts believe clearer language could have reduced COVID-19 deaths during the early months of the pandemic.

Nova: That is exactly right. And it connects directly to DEI goals. Students from marginalized backgrounds often feel alienated by dense institutional prose. Plain language is an equity practice.

Nova: The remaining principles are shorter but no less powerful. Principle five: use action words, and use the right ones. This is deceptively important.

Nova: OSU draws a bright line between words like must, will, and shall — which create requirements — and words like may and should — which imply choice. If you write "employees should record dates of travel," some will and some will not, and you have created inconsistent outcomes. But if you write "employees must record dates of travel," there is no ambiguity.

Nova: Correct. And this connects to principle six: keep it at a high level. The guidance emphasizes that policies should focus on general responsibilities, not specific procedures. Operating procedures, unit rules, and office-specific policies can be developed separately and updated more frequently. The policy itself should be the stable framework.

Nova: Right. And principle seven ties it all together: less is more. A policy does not need to be lengthy. In fact, OSU explicitly says shorter is often better. Longer policies are harder to understand, interpret, and apply. If you can put additional context into separate documents like FAQs, do it. The ultimate goal is to clearly convey important information, not to produce a comprehensive manual.

Nova: It absolutely is. And yet it is one of the most powerful insights in the entire document. The restraint to say only what is essential — that is a discipline most writers never develop.

Nova: That is precisely the philosophy. And it is worth noting that OSU did not originate these ideas in a vacuum. They align closely with the Federal Plain Language Guidelines, with recommendations from the Plain Language Action and Information Network, and with emerging best practices in technical and professional communication. But what OSU did was distill them into a coherent, institution-specific framework that anyone on campus can apply.

Nova: Beyond the writing principles themselves, the OSU guidance embeds policy creation within a broader governance ecosystem. And understanding this ecosystem changes how you think about writing entirely.

Nova: It starts with clear roles. There are Responsible Executives — the president, provost, vice presidents, vice provosts — who are ultimately accountable for policies in their areas. There are Responsible Offices with subject-matter experts who do the actual drafting. There is the University Policy and Standards Specialist who coordinates the entire amendment process. And there is the Executive Policy and Standards Committee, or EPSC, which advises the President.

Nova: And the process moves through eight distinct steps. Step one: a stakeholder identifies a need and consults with University Policy and Standards. Step two: drafting and preliminary review, including an initial legal review by the Office of General Counsel. Step three: stakeholder review by the Policy Advisory Group, which represents broad cross-sections of the university community. Step four: finalization by the Responsible Executive. Step five: final legal review. Step six: EPSC endorsement. Step seven: public notice for university standards, with a three-week public comment period. And step eight: approval by the President.

Nova: It does take time, but there are safeguards. The guidance also includes provisions for emergency or temporary amendments, with the Provost authorized to expedite processes and issue interim policies. Those interim policies must be reported to the EPSC and acted on within one year.

Nova: Sharp observation. Policies are enforceable through university disciplinary procedures — they guide behavior but do not have the force of law. Standards, on the other hand, have the force of law under Oregon statute and can be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction. Standards also require that three-week public comment period, which policies do not necessarily require.

Nova: And that is why the intake form and the consultation with the University Policy Program are so essential. They help the writer navigate these distinctions before the drafting even begins.

Nova: Let us talk about what happens when policy writing goes wrong, because understanding the failures makes the OSU guidance even more instructive.

Nova: United Educators identified four major pitfalls. First, people never learn relevant policies. This happens when onboarding does not include policy training, when there is no central policy repository, when policies lack consistent naming or are password-protected, or when outdated versions remain easy to find.

Nova: Exactly. The OSU response is embedded in their structure: a central UPSM — University Policy and Standards Manual — with consistent formatting via the mandatory template, and a Policy Program responsible for communication and dissemination.

Nova: Policies are hard to understand. This is the jargon problem we discussed. UE documents a case where a student alleged disability discrimination because Disability Services misunderstood a convoluted accommodation policy and mistakenly thought it granted unlimited time to complete coursework.

Nova: Yes. And OSU's plain language mandate directly addresses this. They say write toward readers who may not share your subject-matter expertise. Define terms. Avoid passive voice. Be direct.

Nova: Policies contradict each other. Departments draft their own policies without realizing they conflict with institution-level policies. Or institution-level policies drafted by different departments overlap and clash. OSU solves this with the central Policy Glossary, the expert review by the Policy Program, and the collaborative stakeholder review process that brings cross-functional eyes to every draft.

Nova: Operations change faster than policies. UE gives the example of a hazing prevention policy that required training during orientation. Student Affairs moved the training to the second month, but the policy was not updated. For the entire first month — a high-risk period — the institution was technically violating its own policy.

Nova: And OSU addresses this in two ways. First, by advising writers to keep policies at a high level rather than specifying granular procedures that will likely change. Second, by requiring Responsible Executives to conduct periodic reviews of policies under their purview. The system anticipates drift.

Nova: That is beautifully put. And it is the unifying insight behind the entire OSU guidance. Every principle, every process step, every structural element is designed to keep the writer focused on the ultimate user of the policy.

Nova: Here is what I find most compelling about this document: you can strip away the university context entirely and the lessons still hold.

Nova: Think about any company writing an employee handbook. The OSU principles translate directly. Start by identifying the problem. Define who does what. Create a shared glossary. Use plain language. Choose must over should. Keep it high-level. Less is more. These are not university-specific insights — they are communication insights.

Nova: Absolutely. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 applies to federal agencies, not universities, but the underlying philosophy is identical: government communication should be clear enough that the public can understand and use it. What OSU did was voluntarily adopt that standard for itself.

Nova: Many are catching up. Boise State has policy writing guidance. Ohio State has tips for writing university policy. The University of Colorado has a user guide. But OSU's document stands out for its integration — it is not just writing tips in isolation. It is a complete system: intake, template, guidelines, governance, enforcement. The writing guidance is embedded within a coherent policy lifecycle.

Nova: That is a perfect metaphor. The Guidance for Writing Policy is not just a recipe card. It is the whole kitchen — the workflow, the tools, the quality control, the feedback loops. And because everything is designed to work together, the output is more consistent and more usable.

Nova: Yes. The Inside Higher Ed piece by Shawna Shapiro and Laura Aull makes this point forcefully. They argue that plain language is a DEI practice because inaccessible writing disproportionately harms people from marginalized backgrounds — non-native English speakers, first-generation students, people with learning disabilities, anyone who did not grow up fluent in bureaucratese. When policies are written in impenetrable prose, the institution is effectively gatekeeping its own rules.

Nova: Exactly. And OSU, perhaps without explicitly framing it this way, has built a policy writing system that is fundamentally more democratic.

Nova: So let us bring this home. The Guidance for Writing Policy from Oregon State University might look like a modest administrative resource — a webpage with some tips and a downloadable template. But what we have uncovered is something much richer: a philosophy of institutional communication built on respect, clarity, and accountability.

Nova: And behind those principles sits an entire governance architecture — intake forms that force reflection, templates that enforce consistency, review processes that catch contradictions, enforcement mechanisms that give the words weight. It is a system designed to produce policies that people can actually find, understand, and follow.

Nova: The next time you have to write anything that other people are expected to follow — a team guideline, a project charter, a company policy, even a family rule — ask yourself the OSU questions before you write a word. What problem am I solving? Who does what? What do my terms mean? And above all: can the person reading this understand it the first time? If the answer is no, you have more work to do.

Nova: Beautifully said. This is Aibrary. Congratulations on your growth!