In 2024, the chair of the statewide University of North Carolina Faculty Assembly and the UNC state system embarked on a fraught mission at a fraught time: writing “a consensus definition” of academic freedom for the entire university system.
Academic freedom scholars have themselves long disagreed over what academic freedom does and doesn’t protect. And UNC’s mission came at a time of increased attacks on the concept from the federal and state governments as well as institutions. (The UNC system itself has been accused of infringing academic freedom.)
Now, late next month—more than a year after the effort began—the UNC Board of Governors is set to vote on a lengthy definition. It promises many of the protections contained in other descriptions of academic freedom, but it’s drawn opposition from the state’s American Association of University Professors arm over both the express limits it places on that freedom and what the AAUP calls vague language that could be used to further restrict classroom teaching.
“Academic freedom is not absolute,” the proposed new definition says.
“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 definition says. It goes on to say academic freedom includes the right to teach and research “controversial or unpopular ideas related to the discipline or subject matter.” It also includes parameters saying what academic freedom isn’t.
On Wednesday, a board committee forwarded this definition to the full board. It’s an extensive expansion of the system’s currently two-paragraph “Academic Freedom and Responsibility of Faculty” policy. The committee discussion lasted about five minutes, with no dissent or questions from committee members.
Andrew Tripp, the system’s senior vice president for legal affairs and general counsel, told committee members Wednesday that the system had commissioned Wade Maki, the Faculty Assembly chair, “and others” to develop “what we hoped would be a consensus definition of academic freedom.”
Tripp added that “we’ve had one of the more collaborative and lengthy processes in developing code that I’ve seen in my tenure here.”
Maki, for his part, told committee members, “All stakeholders have been involved. It is a great example of what we often refer to as shared governance.”
But there isn’t full consensus. The state chapter of the national AAUP, which wrote the landmark 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, is objecting.
And while Maki’s Faculty Assembly approved sending a definition to the system in October, the UNC system—before presenting the proposal to the board—added extensive language, including the “academic freedom is not absolute” line and definitions of what academic freedom isn’t. The system also added a section on academic freedom for students.
In an email to Inside Higher Ed, a system spokesperson wrote that “the draft from the Assembly” was “shared with System staff, with provosts from across the System, with chancellors, and with student groups to gather additional feedback. The added language reflects input from those stakeholders and speaks to the fact that academic freedom is a shared responsibility.”
The North Carolina Conference of the AAUP took issue with these additions, saying they add vague language that could harm academic freedom. The disagreement represents yet another argument across the nation about what this crucial phrase means at a time when it’s under threat.
“The impulse to fence in academic freedom should be disregarded and eschewed,” lawyers for the AAUP wrote this week to system officials. “The convenience of defining an academic freedom ‘box’ is antithetical to case law, our constitutions, and historical approaches.”
Outside the ‘Parameters’
Under the proposed definition, the “parameters of academic freedom” won’t include teaching “clearly unrelated to the course description,” “using university resources for political or ideological advocacy in violation of university policy,” or “refusing to comply with institutional policies or accreditation standards.”
It also stresses the areas where administrators share with faculty a “right and responsibility to implement the University’s mission,” including the responsibility to “ensure that faculty activities support the university’s mission 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 institution’s educational objectives.”
Further, it says, “Management is responsible for resource allocation and program viability,” including approving and eliminating programs and setting “broad curricular frameworks.” And the section on student academic freedom says, among other things, “Students are free to take reasoned exception to concepts and theories presented in their classes … even as they continue to be responsible for learning assigned course content.”
The AAUP’s lawyers noted the proposed definition doesn’t define institutional mission or policies referenced, or what a hostile environment is. They wrote that such language “does little to clarify key terms, leaving open the possibility for certain actors to retaliate against instructors with whom an institution, an administrator, or an outside party disagrees, thereby increasing the threat of self-censorship.”
The attorneys also raised concern about the definition’s requirement for teaching to be “related” to the subject matter or discipline for it to be protected by academic freedom.
“Part of higher education is connecting ideas learned in the classroom to other disciplines and current events,” they wrote. “An ethnomusicology instructor exploring the musical traditions of the Middle East may deepen their students’ knowledge and understanding by exploring how political conflicts in the region affect the culture of the people who live there.”
And as for the student academic freedom protections, the AAUP said it’s concerned the language “could be weaponized against faculty members with whom a student or an outside actor disagrees,” noting particularly that there’s no definition of what a student taking “reasoned exception” means.
Abbey Hatcher, who resigned from her associate professor position at UNC Chapel Hill on Dec. 31 but who remains an AAUP member, took issue with both the policy-development process and its result.
Hatcher noted that the Faculty Assembly never voted on the added parameters around academic freedom, which she said essentially require pledging “fealty to the institutional mission.” She said, “All the parameters are basically threats to what faculty should or should not do.”
“They’re trying to be as imprecise as they can about what might be disfavored one day because it gives them leeway to retaliate in different ways,” she said, adding that “there was no additional value of the academic freedom ‘consensus definition,’ and there’s a clear downside in that it was co-opted to add additional language around parameters.”
But Laura Beltz, policy reform director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which gave input on the definition, said it’s generally “in good shape.” She said that “with any policy, there’s going to be risk of application issues,” but specifics help administrators apply policies.
In an email, a UNC system spokesperson said, “Free inquiry is and will remain a core value for the University of North Carolina. It was the elected Faculty Assembly’s initiative to consider a more detailed definition to help guide faculty, administrators, and students in understanding both the privileges and the obligations of academic freedom.”
Maki, the Faculty Assembly chair, told Inside Higher Ed after Wednesday’s meeting that his body will provide further input on the definition before the Board of Governors vote. He acknowledged that not all faculty agree with it.
“There are faculty who believe that academic freedom essentially is not something that has any limits … There are faculty who do not believe that academic freedom is subject to law and policy,” he said. “But, as a practical matter, we cannot expect a state university system to endorse a policy that says no other policy can bump into this.”
Maki said defining academic freedom in policy will protect faculty from legislators or board members, who when confronted with a university controversy might otherwise simply say, “We now determine whether it’s OK or not, we’re in the power position, and there’s no code that limits that decision.”
“Vagueness empowers the powerful,” Maki said. “And, right now, that’s not us.”