Nova: Welcome back to Aibrary, where we crack open the guides, manuals, and handbooks that quietly shape how institutions actually work. Today, we're looking at something that sounds, I'll admit, about as thrilling as watching paint dry — the Policy Writing Guidance from Boise State University. But stick with me, because inside this unassuming document is a masterclass in clarity, accessibility, and the surprisingly high-stakes art of telling people what they can and cannot do.

Nova: Here's what grabbed me: Boise State has essentially declared war on a single word — "shall." The guidance flat-out says, and I'm quoting here, "The use of 'shall' is imprecise and can indicate either an obligation or prediction." They've banned it in favor of four crystal-clear words: must, must not, may, and should.

Nova: Exactly. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This document, maintained by Boise State's Policy Office, is part of a much larger ecosystem. It sits alongside Policy 1000, the Policy Development Authority policy, which has been on the books since July 1978 and was most recently revised in March 2024. Together, they govern how every single university policy gets written, reviewed, and approved — from academic grievances to conflict of interest rules to the student code of conduct.

Nova: That's exactly right. And what makes it fascinating is the philosophy underneath it all. Boise State explicitly says policies should be written in "plain language — not legalese." The audience is "the entire university community," not lawyers or subject matter experts. They're basically saying: if a student, a faculty member, or a groundskeeper can't understand your policy on first reading, you've failed.

Nova: It is. And we're going to unpack exactly how they pull it off.

Nova: Let's start with the foundational philosophy of Boise State's Policy Writing Guidance. The opening section lays out seven general writing principles, and the very first one is "Keep it simple." Not keep it formal. Not keep it authoritative. Keep it simple.

Nova: The guidance gets remarkably specific. First, it tells you to use active voice — always. The department or individual acting must be the subject of the sentence. So instead of writing "it is the ultimate responsibility of the Associate Vice President to approve budgets," you write "the Associate Vice President must approve budgets."

Nova: That's the whole point. The guidance says passive voice "obscures who is responsible for what." And when you're writing a policy that could have real consequences — disciplinary action, funding decisions, compliance requirements — obscuring responsibility is dangerous.

Nova: They tell you to avoid jargon and qualifiers like "totally," "completely," and "definitely." They say to minimize abbreviations because they "interrupt the reading process" and force people to flip back to a definitions section. They tell you to avoid sentences with multiple clauses. And then there's this line I love: "Omit excess words." That's it. Three words telling you to use fewer words.

Nova: Yes. The "Write for Your Audience" section is crystal clear: "Assume readers have basic knowledge of the campus and university community but no knowledge of specific policies or procedures." In other words, write for intelligent newcomers, not for the ten people in your department who already know the acronyms.

Nova: Absolutely. And that leads to what the guidance calls "Terms of Art" — specialized terminology that must be defined in a Definitions section. But the real discipline is using those terms consistently throughout the document. The guidance explicitly says: don't use "institution" and "university" interchangeably. Pick one and stick with it.

Nova: Exactly. And Boise State extends this to its broader style guide. They don't capitalize "university" except as part of an official name. They don't capitalize job titles like "president" or "provost" except when used as a formal title before a name. It's Boise State on second reference, never BSU. And "website" is one word. These might seem minor, but multiply them across hundreds of policies and you're either creating clarity or chaos.

Nova: The guidance has an entire section on gender-inclusive language. It says: don't use masculine or feminine pronouns as the default — use "they" or "the individual." Avoid gendered nouns like "chairman" — use "chair" or "department head." And they point policy writers to resources from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Writing Center for deeper guidance. This isn't optional language. The guidance says policies "must" be written using gender-neutral and gender-sensitive language.

Nova: Okay, let's go deep on the "shall" thing, because I think it's the most instructive part of this entire document.

Nova: And that's the trap. Boise State's guidance points out that "shall" can mean either an obligation — "you shall do this" — or a prediction — "this shall happen." When you're writing a policy that could be used in a grievance hearing or a compliance audit, that ambiguity is toxic.

Nova: Four words, each with a precise meaning. "Must" for an obligation. "Must not" for a prohibition. "May" for a discretionary action. And "should" for a recommendation. The distinction between "must" and "should" is especially important. The guidance says "should" implies a suggestion rather than a requirement, and university policies are "generally enforcing requirements, not communicating permissive guidelines."

Nova: Precisely. And this matters enormously in practice. If a student files a complaint and the relevant policy uses "should" instead of "must," the university may have no enforceable obligation. The guidance is essentially saying: be honest about what you actually intend to enforce. And if you don't intend to enforce it, don't write the policy at all.

Nova: Yes. The guidance explicitly states: "A policy written without intention to enforce it, or written committing to obligations without ensuring proper resources, should not be written." That's remarkably honest. It's a recognition that hollow policies damage institutional credibility.

Nova: The guidance actually carves out one: "In limited instances, passive voice is appropriate when one action follows another as a matter of law, and there is no actor other than the law itself." So if a federal regulation automatically triggers something, you can use passive construction. But otherwise, active voice, always.

Nova: Yes, and that external influence is interesting. I found that the document is referenced by places like the University of Southern Indiana, Texas Wesleyan University, and even the Oregon Department of Human Services. It's become a quietly influential standard in policy-writing circles.

Nova: So once you've absorbed the writing philosophy, you need to actually build a policy. And Boise State has a very specific template for that.

Nova: I'd say helpful, because it's designed around accessibility and consistency. The template mandates Arial font for headers and Garamond 12-point for paragraph text. Not because they're pretty — because they're readable and compatible with screen readers and other assistive technologies.

Nova: Right. And it tells you something about priorities. The template's structure is: Effective Date, Last Revision Date, Responsible Party with phone number, Scope and Audience — then the numbered sections: Policy Purpose, Policy Statement, Definitions, Responsibilities and Procedures, Forms, and Frequently Asked Questions.

Nova: The template includes them all, but the guidance also says "Less is more. A policy need not be lengthy. In many instances, shorter is better." So you use the sections you need. The key insight is that the template separates the policy itself from procedures, FAQs, and forms. The policy states the rules. Everything else lives alongside it as supporting material.

Nova: It's crucial. The guidance says policies should be "written broadly but with enough clarity to apply to varying circumstances." They can't contemplate every possible situation. Detailed guidance belongs in FAQs or process documents. This prevents policies from becoming bloated and unreadable.

Nova: The guidance actually discourages them. It says tables and graphics "can pose accessibility issues for persons with disabilities" and "should not be the primary means of communicating information or policy requirements." Complex tables are explicitly discouraged. If you use them, they must be made accessible. This is a genuine accessibility-first approach.

Nova: Exactly. And that principle extends to things like deleting "http://" from web addresses except when needed for a direct link. Every decision is filtered through the lens of — will this be clear and usable for everyone?

Nova: If you look at their actual policies, the definitions are remarkably detailed. For example, Policy 1065 on sexual harassment and misconduct defines terms like "Incapacitation" with multiple paragraphs of specificity — when alcohol is involved, incapacitation is "a state beyond drunkenness or intoxication." These definitions carry enormous weight. A single poorly written definition can determine the outcome of an investigation. The guidance ensures those definitions are precise, accessible, and consistent across the entire policy manual.

Nova: So a policy gets written — then what? Boise State has a full lifecycle management process, and it's fascinating.

Nova: Boise State explicitly guards against that. Every university policy and all associated documents — procedures, FAQs, forms, appendices — must be reviewed at least once every four years, or sooner if required by changes in law or Idaho State Board of Education policies.

Nova: It might not, but the review process is genuinely rigorous. The responsible party must use a Policy Review Checklist and consult with stakeholders and subject matter experts. And here's the key — an acceptable outcome is that the policy remains unchanged. The review is documented either way. You can't just ignore it and hope nobody notices.

Nova: That's where Policy 1000 kicks in, and it's built around shared governance. The policy originator has to work with their unit administrator, and then the draft goes to campus associations and groups for review. Depending on the subject matter, that could include the Faculty Senate, the Association of Classified Employees, the Professional Staff Association, Deans' Council, and even the Associated Students of Boise State University.

Nova: Yes. And faculty have an especially strong role. Policy matters that are "academic in nature or that govern faculty appointment, tenure, and promotion" must be reviewed by the Faculty Senate. That's a hard requirement, not a suggestion.

Nova: The guidance addresses this head-on. Suggestions and concerns that aren't incorporated into the final policy must be recorded on the cover sheet along with an explanation of why they weren't included. There's a paper trail of disagreement and resolution. After that, the draft goes to the Policy Office for format review, then to the appropriate vice president, and finally to the Policy Group.

Nova: Senior leadership: the Chief Financial and Operating Officer, the Provost, Vice Presidents for Student Affairs, Research, and University Advancement, and the Chief of Staff. They're the gatekeepers. The President has ultimate approval authority and reserves the right to adopt, amend, or suspend a policy without prior notice in urgent situations.

Nova: It is. And there's also a mechanism for interim policies — urgent adoptions mandated by audits or external agencies that can't wait for full review. Those are capped at six months, renewable once for a total maximum of twelve months of interim status. After that, they must go through the full process or expire. The guidance explicitly states interim status "cannot be used to circumvent the full policy process."

Nova: Exactly. And for minor amendments — clerical changes, grammatical fixes, updating hyperlinks — those can bypass the full review process and go straight to a vice president for approval. The Policy Office handles posting them. It's a practical acknowledgment that not every change needs a committee.

Nova: That's the mark of a mature policy infrastructure. The guidance itself has evolved — Policy 1000 has been revised multiple times since 1978, with the most recent revision in March 2024. They're applying their own principles to their own process.

Nova: So what have we learned from Boise State University's Policy Writing Guidance? I think there are three big takeaways.

Nova: First, clarity is not a luxury — it's a functional requirement. When policies use ambiguous language, they become unenforceable. The war on "shall" isn't pedantry. It's about making sure that when someone reads a policy, they know exactly what they must do, what they must not do, what they may do, and what's merely recommended.

Nova: Exactly. Second, accessibility isn't an afterthought. From font choices to avoiding complex tables to using gender-inclusive language, the guidance bakes accessibility into every layer of the document. Policies that can't be read by screen readers or understood by non-experts aren't just inconvenient — they're exclusionary.

Nova: Third, good policy writing requires good policy governance. The four-year review cycle, the shared governance process, the interim policy time limits, the paper trail for disagreements — these aren't writing tips. They're institutional design. They create accountability and prevent policies from becoming dead documents in a forgotten folder.

Nova: Replace every "shall" with either "must," "must not," "may," or "should." It forces you to decide what you actually mean. Are you requiring something? Prohibiting it? Permitting it? Recommending it? That single practice clarifies everything.

Nova: It's publicly available at boisestate. edu/policy/policy-writing-guidance. The University Policy Template, the Policy Cover Sheet, the Glossary of Terms — it's all open access. Boise State built this as a public resource, and other institutions are clearly taking notes.

Nova: That's the magic of a good guide — it makes you rethink something you thought you already understood. This is Aibrary. Congratulations on your growth!