UNC System defining academic freedom. Some faculty see ‘footholds for mischief’
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- UNC board will vote in February on a new academic freedom definition for the system.
- Draft limits freedom by excluding unrelated course content and political advocacy.
- Faculty and AAUP warn vague language risks legal exposure and institutional harm.
Academic freedom is “essential” to the mission of the UNC System, according to its code. But what does it actually protect? The UNC System Board of Governors is seeking to add a definition of academic freedom that places parameters around the concept.
Wade Maki, a professor at UNC Greensboro and chair of the system’s Faculty Assembly, led a 15-month initiative to produce the draft of the definition. He consulted chancellors, campus administrators, student governments, the assembly and other university stakeholders, according to UNC. Here’s what he came up with:
“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. 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.”
But “academic freedom is not absolute,” the proposal says. It does not include:
- “Teaching content clearly unrelated to the course description or unrelated to the discipline or subject matter.”
- “Using university resources for political or ideological advocacy in violation of university policy.”
- “Refusing to comply with institutional policies or accreditation standards to which the university is subject.”
The new definition also protects students from “improper evaluation” and preserves their right to disagree with concepts and theories they hear in class or from faculty outside of class.
The public discussion of the definition at Wednesday’s meeting was brief. Members shared just a few short remarks before unanimously approving the definition for a full vote at its February meeting, then heading into closed session.
“Academic freedom is critical to using our expertise to do the teaching and research that faculty are supposed to do,” Maki said. “We’re staking a flag in a bold direction with this.”
Other faculty agree the change is bold, but are less convinced of its merits.
The definition represents a “sea change” for faculty, Tori Ekstrand, a media law and free expression scholar at UNC-Chapel Hill, told The News & Observer. She called the definition “a solution in search of a problem.” She and her colleagues affiliated with the American Association of University Professors are concerned primarily with what they say is the vagueness of the parameters.
The AAUP’s attorneys delivered a letter to the Board of Governors Monday decrying the definition, warning that “vague and imprecise policy may unnecessarily expose the System to both legal and financial risks.”
“Irrespective of rationale, the impulse to fence in academic freedom should be disregarded and eschewed,” the letter reads. “The convenience of defining an academic freedom ‘box’ is antithetical to case law, our constitutions, and historical approaches. Like the Universe, the benefits to our state and beyond as a result of unrestricted academic freedom is ever expanding.”
Belle Boggs, an NC State University English professor and president of the North Carolina AAUP, said certain parameters — such as student protection from “improper evaluation” — appear to be a reaction to incidents like the kind that occurred at the University of Oklahoma in December. There, an instructor was fired after failing a student who cited the Bible to argue that “belief in multiple genders” was “demonic,” according to CNN.
“There is a moral panic going on, if not also obviously a political battle about the classroom,” Ekstrand said. “Most of the Board of Governors, and the people making these decisions, are not educators or professors.”
Boggs is also worried that outsiders won’t be able to evaluate if certain content is related to the course or not. There are just too many disciplines taught at NC State for someone to be an expert in all of them, she said.
“We are very concerned about how vague the language is and how far it goes to create what our attorneys call ‘footholds for mischief,’” Boggs said. “We are moving into an atmosphere of suspicion and distress which threatens the strength of the UNC System.”
Because the proposed definition is an amendment to system code, it will require a supermajority vote to pass in February.
