Protocol 1: Institutional self-awareness

and Psychological Responsibility

Organizations hosting artists and writers at risk must operate with a clear and sustained institutional self-awareness. Such organizations should not act outside the logic of their stated mission, nor lose sight of the ethical nature of their role.

To host artists at risk is to recognize that many of them arrive in conditions of psychological vulnerability. Vulnerability, however, must never be equated with weakness, intellectual inferiority, or lack of agency. On the contrary, artists at risk are often highly educated, intellectually sharp, and deeply experienced individuals whose vulnerability results from prolonged exposure to repression, displacement, silencing, or violence.

Hosting organizations must understand that they are neither refugee camps, nor hotels, nor ordinary residential environments. They are institutions engaged in a specific form of humanitarian and cultural work that involves a soft power embodied by artists and writers. This role requires respect, restraint, and ethical clarity.

It must be anticipated that some hosted artists may present psychological distress or neurodivergent traits resulting from years of persecution or instability. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, or other forms of psychological strain. The absence of visible symptoms must not be assumed, nor should the presence of such conditions ever be used as a basis for moral judgment, stigmatization, or professional disqualification.

Organizations must therefore commit to:

• Respecting the privacy of hosted artists
• Avoiding humiliating moral judgments
• Refraining from intrusive scrutiny of personal life, environment, or bodily conditions
• Recognizing that issues such as temporary disorganization, withdrawal, or changes in personal habits may be expressions of distress rather than misconduct

At all times, organizations must remember that their primary ethical obligation is the protection of the artist at risk, not the preservation of institutional comfort, reputation, or self-defense. When organizational survival or image becomes the dominant concern, the foundational purpose of artist protection is compromised.

This principle constitutes a non-negotiable ethical clause. Any organization that departs from it risks reproducing harm under the guise of protection.

Brief Guidelines

• Mandatory staff training on psychological vulnerability and trauma-informed hosting
• Clear internal guidelines distinguishing ethical concern from moral judgment
• Confidential handling of mental health–related observations
• Explicit prohibition of using personal vulnerability as a disciplinary or reputational tool
• Regular institutional self-assessment focused on mission drift and power imbalance