The UNC program’s Board of Governors has now defined academic freedom in its policies.
Ryan Herron/iStock/Getty Images
The University of North Carolina Board of Governors voted Thursday to approve a lengthy definition of what academic freedom does and does not protect across the state’s university system. It says academic freedom includes the right to teach and research “controversial or unpopular ideas related to a discipline or topic,” but it also says “academic freedom is not absolute.”
The move came despite opposition from the American Association of University Professors, which, along with the American Association of Colleges and Universities, wrote a definition of the concept in 1940. In a statement, the AAUP said UNC’s definition “would stifle speech on campus and lead to more retaliation for faculty teaching or discussing controversial political topics. The precise language in this policy would open the UNC system to cases where faculty retaliate or are fired.”
The mood of the entire district, the UNC Faculty Assembly looks very complicated. The chairman of the Council, Wade Maki, and the UNC program, started a campaign to write an explanation. His body approved submitting a definition to the plan in October, but the plan added extensive language to it, including that “academic freedom is not absolute” and definitions of what academic freedom is not.
After the board released its latest statement for public comment last month, it heard mixed and mixed responses. In response, the plan included additional planning that “was largely proposed by the Faculty Council’s leadership,” said Andrew Tripp, the system’s senior vice president of legal affairs and general counsel. Among the changes was editing the line that said teaching that is “obviously unrelated to the course description” would not be protected to say that teaching that “lacks a connection between the course and the subject, discipline, or topic” would not be protected.
Maki told the board on Thursday that, “while there was intellectual consensus in our work defining what academic freedom is, there is no faculty consensus on an addendum that defines academic freedom does not exist.” But, he says, “This has been a bold, challenging and worthwhile project.”
“It will serve as an example for other states,” said Maki.
The board approved the definition by voice vote, with no objections heard.
Peter Hans, president of the program, said it is the first time the UNC System has embraced “the true meaning of academic freedom.” The program had a two-pronged policy of “Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility”, a new definition that greatly expanded.
Hans said having a definition “as opposed to just stating a vague idea” will help guide the program, which includes 16 public universities.
“Holding definitions help us all share the same truth,” he added. “By strengthening the UNC System Code to include more information about the purpose and limits of academic freedom, we hope to make it easier for everyone to appreciate the rights and responsibilities that come with working for our public universities.”
UNC’s new policy promises many of the same protections found in other definitions of academic freedom, in addition to a caveat about how “academic freedom is not absolute.” It lists three aspects that academic freedom does not include:
- “Teaching content that lacks an instructional connection to the subject, discipline, or topic.”
- “Using university resources to conduct political activities in violation of university policy.”
- “Refusal to comply with institutional policies.”
The policy also emphasizes that administrators also participate in implementing the university’s mission, including, at times, faculty control. It states that administrators are responsible for ensuring that “faculty activities are consistent with the mission of the university as established under UNC policy and meet accreditation standards” and “to intervene when faculty conduct violates professional norms, creates a hostile learning environment as defined by policy and law, or undermines the educational goals of the institution.”
In addition, it says, “Administrators are responsible for resource allocation and program performance,” which includes approving and completing programs and setting “broader curriculum frameworks.” It also contains a section on students’ academic freedom, which states that “students are responsible for learning the assigned course content” but are also “free to choose the concepts and ideas presented in their classes.”
Maki, who is about to leave his position as chairman of the Faculty Assembly after four years, defended his tenure in his presentation to the board, which was complete with references to Niccolò Machiavelli. The Princehis Havanese dogs and musician Prince. (Other teachers criticized Maki as being too disrespectful of authority.)
“On behalf of the faculty, there is a temptation to go in and tell the system board and chancellors how it should be or what you should do,” said Maki. That would be a huge mistake. The point is that too many of us are so focused on the idea of what should be done that we ignore the realities of how things actually work and what is possible.”
“Although some teachers may prefer to fight rather than win one, I believe that we have shown how we can win without fighting,” he said.
And he wasn’t done suggesting that the UNC board define the long-controversial topics related to intelligence in its code. He suggested that they begin a new quest: to define shared governance.
“If we don’t define shared governance well,” he said, “outsiders will.”
