UNC System Board Weighs Defining, Setting ‘Parameters’ for Academic Freedom

Update: A UNC System Board of Governors committee advanced the academic freedom policy on January 28. The full board will consider it in February.

For the first time, the UNC System could soon define “academic freedom” across North Carolina’s public universities.

Documents released Friday ahead of Board of Governors meetings next week show that a committee will consider adding an explanation of the concept to the system’s policy manual on Wednesday. If the committee approves the measure, it would be considered by the full board at a meeting next month.

The move comes as professors and administrators around the country warn that Trump administration policies are threatening their rights. Recent high-profile controversies over course content and grading standards have resulted in some universities in other states firing instructors.

Some UNC System instructors, including members of the system-wide Faculty Assembly, wanted leaders to explain how they interpreted academic freedom so professors and others would know what’s protected. But some faculty said they worried a new policy could be used to limit their speech.

The proposed policy being considered for the UNC System includes the definition that the Faculty Assembly approved in October. The system added sections that set the “parameters” of academic freedom for faculty and its “protections” for students, such as the freedom to “take reasoned exception” to ideas presented in their classes.

“Academic freedom is the foundational principle that protects the rights of faculty to engage in teaching, research/creative activities, service, and scholarly inquiry without undue influence,” the proposal reads. “It ensures that faculty can freely pursue knowledge; express, discuss and debate ideas; and contribute to the advancement of knowledge and understanding related to their areas of expertise.”

“Academic freedom is not absolute,” the system policy adds. “Faculty have the responsibility to exercise academic freedom within the parameters established by academic disciplines, professions, and in compliance with institutional policies, regulations, and rules.”

The policy states that academic freedom would protect professors’ ability to teach and research “controversial and unpopular ideas” within their disciplines and subjects; express “scholarly opinions” and present “diverse perspectives” in their fields; assess students based on “academic criteria”; and engage in shared governance on matters like curriculum. 

But academic freedom, as outlined in the policy, would not protect faculty teaching content that is “clearly unrelated” to their course descriptions or the disciplines or subject matters of the class; using “university resources for political or ideological advocacy”; or refusing to comply with university policies and accreditation standards.

Some of the restrictions echo recent controversies in higher education nationally.

A Texas A&M University professor was fired last fall after a video went viral in which a student objected to the professor using materials in class that referred to more than two genders. Attorneys for the professor told The Texas Tribune in September that the stated reason for the termination was that the professor’s course content did not align with the description in the university’s catalog, something the professor and her attorneys disputed. 

At the University of Oklahoma, an instructor was removed from her teaching duties after she gave a student a failing grade on an assignment in which the student cited the Bible to support her view that “belief in multiple genders” is “demonic,” the Associated Press reported. The student accused the instructor of religious discrimination, and the university said the instructor had been “arbitrary” in her grading. (The professor wrote in her comments on the student’s assignment that she was “not deducting points because you have certain beliefs.”)

Republican state officials and conservative commentators brought significant attention to both episodes, highlighting the influence that powerful onlookers can wield against faculty. Faculty Assembly Chair Wade Maki previously told The Assembly he worries about such incidents unfolding in the UNC System, particularly given some employees in the system lost their jobs last year after implying their universities were skirting policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion in undercover videos filmed by a conservative group. 

He said he hoped that clearly defining academic freedom in a system policy would add protections for faculty should they be targeted in similar pressure campaigns.

“We think that by doing this now, we can be in front of anything before there’s organizations surreptitiously recording faculty in the classroom, before there’s a public outcry,” he said in October.

The system’s proposed policy keeps a protection for faculty that already exists in university rules, which states that professors will not be penalized or disciplined for exercising their academic freedom.

The policy would also prescribe the rights that academic freedom gives students, including the protection of their freedom of expression in the classroom, and that they are allowed to disagree with their professors. The policy says that students would be protected from “improper academic evaluation” and that professors may not assess students based on their beliefs, nor share those views with others.

“No constituent institution shall abridge either the freedom of students engaged in the responsible pursuit of knowledge or their right to fair and impartial evaluation of their academic performance,” the policy reads.

In a statement to The Assembly, Maki said he was proud of the contributions faculty made to the policy.

“This is a great example of shared governance in the UNC System. Every constituency was provided the opportunity to contribute and provide feedback,” Maki said. “As is the nature of shared governance, no group got everything they wanted, but our feedback was strongly considered alongside provosts, general counsels, system office, student government, and others.”

The proposed policy on academic freedom is the second major rule change the system has considered in recent weeks. Last month, system President Peter Hans handed down a rule requiring that all syllabi in the system be made available publicly, which took effect January 15.