The UNC System Board of Governors on Thursday approved a policy that defines and sets limits for “academic freedom,” a first for the state’s public universities.
And the system might not be done defining hot-button terms: One faculty leader called for the group to explain how it views shared governance.
The vote to define academic freedom came a month after a board committee advanced the proposal, which built upon an explanation that the system’s Faculty Assembly drafted over the last year.
The effort drew pushback from some faculty across the 17-member system, though, when staff added a list of “parameters” of academic freedom for faculty and “protections” it provides students, such as the freedom to challenge ideas presented in their classes.
“Academic freedom is the foundational principle that protects the rights of all faculty to engage in teaching, research/creative activities, service, and scholarly inquiry without undue influence,” the approved policy reads. “It ensures that faculty can freely pursue knowledge; express, discuss and debate ideas; and contribute to knowledge and understanding related to their areas of expertise.”
The policy approved Thursday included slight revisions from the version approved in committee. The edits were based on faculty feedback, said Wade Maki, chair of the Faculty Assembly.
For instance, the new policy still includes a section that states students are allowed to take “reasoned exception” to the concepts and theories presented in their courses. But it no longer says students can “disagree with opinions they hear from their faculty.” Maki said faculty thought the original wording implied they only taught opinions.
The policy also says academic freedom does not allow professors to teach content that “lacks pedagogical connection to the course, discipline, or subject matter,” as opposed to the previous version, which said faculty could not teach content “clearly unrelated” to the course or discipline. And the new version of the policy says that faculty cannot use university resources for “political activity,” versus “ideological advocacy” in the original version. Faculty thought that term wasn’t clearly defined, Maki said.
Despite the changes, some faculty remained concerned about the policy.
A handful of members of the state chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) held a press conference ahead of Thursday’s vote, calling for the Board of Governors to delay its vote. Lawyers for the group had previously written to system officials to argue the policy would “effectively weaken the definition and historical scope of academic freedom.”
Abigail Hatcher, a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill who delivered a petition against the policy to board Chair Wendy Murphy before the meeting started, said there was “no need” to rewrite the definition of a term that has long been defined by AAUP and other groups.
“It would be the first rewrite that we’re aware of in the United States,” Hatcher said. “We do not want the UNC System to have this inauspicious title.”
Maki, meanwhile, told the board that the policy would “serve as a model for other states.”
AAUP members also shared concerns about how the policy was drafted, saying that much of it—particularly the additions that went beyond the definition crafted by the Faculty Assembly—was done without meaningful involvement of professors. During the press conference, one AAUP member held a sign that read: “This is not shared governance,” referring to the decision-making process in higher education that gives administrators, faculty, and governing boards a say.
Maki acknowledged there is room for more clarity on what “shared governance” means. He noted the UNC System policy manual does not explain the term, though it does say that campus chancellors should seek advice from faculty “with respect to questions of academic
policy and institutional governance,” including curriculum and degree requirements.
“There’s almost nothing there,” Maki said. “And as a result, there’s a lot of disagreement over what that means.”
Maki’s term as chair of the Faculty Assembly ends this spring. But he told the board he would like his successor, UNC Asheville professor Toby King, to take up the project.
“We can and should do better,” he said.