UNC-Chapel Hill Preps Policy on Recording Professors

UNC-Chapel Hill is putting finishing touches on a university-wide policy governing recording of classes that would allow administrators to secretly record faculty in some cases.

Interim Provost Jim Dean told the faculty executive committee on Monday that he sent a draft policy to “a number of people” for final comments and plans for it to go into effect next Monday, pending that feedback. He did not specify who he asked to review it.

Discussion of the need for such a policy began nearly two years ago, after the business school recorded professor Larry Chavis without his knowledge in order to review his “class content and conduct.” Chavis, an outspoken critic of the school’s leaders, was let go afterward. He sued UNC-CH for retaliation; the case is still working its way through the court system.

Since that controversy, concerns over surveillance have grown across higher education. One conservative group secretly recorded staff at six UNC System schools, and another group launched an effort to review course syllabi across the system. A student at Texas A&M University launched a national controversy last summer when she secretly recorded a discussion during class, which ultimately led to the professor being fired.

All of those issues are informing faculty thinking about UNC-CH’s new policy, said Beth Moracco, a public health professor and chair of the faculty council.

“It’s all intertwined,” she told The Assembly before the meeting. “Originally, it was about the university and leadership recording classrooms or lectures without the instructor’s knowledge. Because of all these other events, it has become much larger.”

Former Provost Chris Clemens originally spearheaded the effort to craft a policy for all departments at UNC-CH, and the provost’s office, faculty council, university lawyers, and university-wide policy review committee have all weighed in on the policy over the past year and a half—a span of time that saw turnover not just of the provost, but also general counsel and head of human resources.

The university did not provide The Assembly with the most recent draft of the policy. An earlier version The Assembly obtained via a public records request, which doesn’t include a date, would prohibit incidents like the one at Texas A&M. Students would not be allowed to record classes, including online lectures, without permission from the instructor. Faculty could record their own lectures but “should describe any intentions to record their classes in their syllabus,” the draft states. There are provisions allowing both groups to record for pedagogical reasons, such as accessibility issues or for personal use in studying.

Whether university administrators should be allowed to record classes was a thornier question. 

The undated draft states that administrators can record classes for instructor evaluations so long as they provide the instructor with seven days’ notice and “collaborate with” them to pick a representative class session. Everyone in the class must also be notified ahead of time. 

But there are two cases in which the policy draft says the university does not need the instructor’s consent or knowledge to record: to “gather evidence in connection with an investigation into alleged violations of university policy,” if agreed to in writing by the provost and chief human resources officer; and for “any other lawful purpose” if authorized by the provost and the Office of University Counsel.

It’s unclear exactly how much changed in the final form of the policy that Dean has circulated. A university spokesperson did not provide it or respond to questions about the policy status before publication. 

But one thing that did change in response to faculty feedback is giving the faculty council a greater role. 

Dean told the faculty executive committee that the version of the policy that is nearing approval leaves the decision to secretly record faculty with the provost and general counsel but requires them to make it “in consultation with the chair of the faculty council” in each case. It also requires administrators to report on the number of secret recording requests they receive and approve, Dean said, though he didn’t specify who would receive the reports.

“My preference would be that it was a bit more specific,” Moracco said before the meeting, referring to the role the faculty chair has in the process. “I’m glad that faculty governance is included, but my guess would be that we don’t have the final authority on the decision. But I have seen, even in some of these really contentious issues lately, that providing our perspective as faculty has been helpful. It has had an impact.”

Still, leaving the power to secretly record faculty in the hands of a few administrators puts other faculty on edge.

“I don’t know of any faculty member at UNC that has any faith that the provost, human resources officer, or especially the university lawyers have the faculty interests anywhere in mind when they’re making these decisions,” said Michael Palm, a communications professor and chair of the university chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “My perspective is: Those three offices, and the people who hold them, are now the enemy, in terms of trying to do my job and protect my rights as a faculty member.”

Ongoing discussions about how academic freedom intersects with new state and federal regulations opposing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts have amplified that concern. Chavis was particularly vocal in his support for racial diversity initiatives, the Texas A&M incident began when the student objected to a lesson about gender identity, and N.C. State University fired a staff member last week following comments about DEI in one of the videos secretly recorded by conservative group Accuracy in Media. 

UNC-CH Trustee Marty Kotis has floated the idea of using artificial intelligence to root out “required” diversity, equity, and inclusion perspectives in course reading lists. Statewide, the UNC System Board of Governors is considering a policy that expressly states academic freedom doesn’t protect professors who speak on issues “clearly unrelated” to their course descriptions or advocate for political or ideological causes.

Faculty worry the threat of secret recordings could dampen classroom discussion, making lectures less engaging and effective.

“The chilling effect is undeniable,” Palm said, adding that any policy allowing for secret recording is “a big fat red line that is utterly unacceptable, probably illegal, and certainly unethical.”

Dean told the faculty executive committee that he was not planning to announce the new policy publicly, though said he would tell Moracco when it goes into effect. “I’m certainly fine with you sharing it,” he added.

That lack of central communication, especially given all of the other ongoing academic freedom issues and the drawn-out process of crafting the policy, may add to the chilling effect, committee member Andrea Bohlman said at the meeting.

“There is an effect of the long wait on this recording policy,” Bohlman said. “It’s one year since the feedback, but it’s two years since really high-profile incidents happened at the university.”