Concerns regarding unit statement policy proposals, Jan 3 2024
The following is an email sent to Provost Croson from the executive committee on January 3, 2024 expressing concerns regarding recent unit statement policy proposals made by the Provost.
Dear Provost Croson,
We are writing to express concerns about the process being followed by the administration to develop a new policy governing unit statements. Our concerns fall into three broad categories. First, all of the proposed policies violate principles of academic freedom. Second, the hasty and top-down process through which the administration has developed these proposals suggests that it is responding to external pressures, and that in order to pacify these parties it intends to steamroll the new policy through shared governance institutions. Third, we are also concerned that this policy will stifle the expression of a wide range of views on controversial issues in our diverse university community. For these reasons, which we develop in more detail below, we ask that you withdraw these proposals. If indeed there is a need for a new policy—and we are not convinced that one is needed—it should be done through a deliberative process led by the Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) Committee.
Academic freedom concerns
It is clear from the preamble to the policy proposals presented to the AF&T Committee that you understand that a policy on unit statements may infringe on or even violate academic freedom. The preamble recognizes, for example, that the current University of Minnesota Board of Regents policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibility allows faculty “to speak or write on matters of public concern” provided that they “make it clear that when one is speaking on matters of public interest, one is not speaking for the institution.” However, we are concerned that the proposals underemphasize a critical element of the policy, that academic freedom should not be limited by institutional discipline or restraint. We view all of the proposals as administrative restraint on academic freedom.
We are troubled by your claim that a new policy is needed because some people may confuse unit statements as speaking on behalf of the University as a whole. Aside from the obvious point that unit leaders could simply be reminded to include the usual caveat that they are not speaking for the institution as a whole, this administrative policing of speech on matters of public interest raises some thorny issues. We do not share your optimism that it will be straightforward to distinguish between statements that pertain to matters of public interest and those that pertain strictly to research, instruction, and creative endeavors. One can imagine a litany of charged subjects—e.g., climate change, masking policies, and racial justice—that are matters of both public interest and scholarly endeavors. No sensible policy can or should try to make a distinction between these categories in deciding whether or not unit statements are acceptable, and any attempt to do so would constitute a flagrant infringement on academic freedom.
Concerns about process and external influence
The current fervor for a policy concerning unit statements has arisen in the context of efforts nationwide to curb speech concerning Israel and Gaza. The haste with which your office has formulated this policy appears to be a capitulation to pressure from parties such as Richard Painter and Michael Hsu, who have filed a Title VI complaint and publicly maligned University faculty members. Caving to such pressure would be detrimental to academic freedom, have long-lasting effects on our University culture, and tarnish our University’s reputation as a national leader on academic freedom.
Given that unit statements concern academic freedom, should any new policies or guidelines pertaining to them be necessary, they should be determined by a deliberative faculty-led process (see, for example, the process followed at UIUC and the University of California system). Presenting a menu of proposals drawn up by your office to governance committees and inviting them to express an opinion—presumably before the administration makes a binding decision—sets a dangerous precedent. This process undercuts shared governance institutions and is especially troubling since it bears on a core value: academic freedom. The appropriate venue for developing proposals at our institution is the AF&T committee, which could study the issue in more depth and consult widely with the faculty before bringing any recommendations to the Faculty Senate.
Who speaks for the University?
By exempting the Office of the President from being governed by the current proposal, it puts statements by the President on a pedestal in comparison with unit statements. We appreciate that resolutions or letters issued by University Governance are exempted from the policy, but this exemption highlights a deeper underlying problem of this policy. We are a large and diverse university in which there are conflicting views on matters of public concern. It is antithetical to the purpose of a university to try to shut down collective expressions on matters of public interest. If it is legitimate for an institution to have an official position on a matter of public concern, then it must also be legitimate for any part of it to also have a position, even a contradictory one. In other words, this push to establish a new policy is an effort to control speech, which conflicts with academic freedom. We are especially appalled by the invocation of “university branding” to further curb departmental statements. It should go without saying that branding concerns are not pertinent to matters of academic freedom, and we are alarmed and disappointed that the top academic administrator of our University would introduce them into this discussion.
Sincerely,
Sumanth Gopinath, President, AAUP-UMTC
Heather Holcombe, Vice President, AAUP-UMTC
Teri Caraway, Treasurer, AAUP-UMTC
Gopalan Nadathur, Secretary, AAUP-UMTC
Nathaniel Mills, Member-at-Large, AAUP-UMTC
Ruth Shaw, Member-at-Large, AAUP-UMTC
Dear Provost Croson,
We are writing to express concerns about the process being followed by the administration to develop a new policy governing unit statements. Our concerns fall into three broad categories. First, all of the proposed policies violate principles of academic freedom. Second, the hasty and top-down process through which the administration has developed these proposals suggests that it is responding to external pressures, and that in order to pacify these parties it intends to steamroll the new policy through shared governance institutions. Third, we are also concerned that this policy will stifle the expression of a wide range of views on controversial issues in our diverse university community. For these reasons, which we develop in more detail below, we ask that you withdraw these proposals. If indeed there is a need for a new policy—and we are not convinced that one is needed—it should be done through a deliberative process led by the Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) Committee.
Academic freedom concerns
It is clear from the preamble to the policy proposals presented to the AF&T Committee that you understand that a policy on unit statements may infringe on or even violate academic freedom. The preamble recognizes, for example, that the current University of Minnesota Board of Regents policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibility allows faculty “to speak or write on matters of public concern” provided that they “make it clear that when one is speaking on matters of public interest, one is not speaking for the institution.” However, we are concerned that the proposals underemphasize a critical element of the policy, that academic freedom should not be limited by institutional discipline or restraint. We view all of the proposals as administrative restraint on academic freedom.
We are troubled by your claim that a new policy is needed because some people may confuse unit statements as speaking on behalf of the University as a whole. Aside from the obvious point that unit leaders could simply be reminded to include the usual caveat that they are not speaking for the institution as a whole, this administrative policing of speech on matters of public interest raises some thorny issues. We do not share your optimism that it will be straightforward to distinguish between statements that pertain to matters of public interest and those that pertain strictly to research, instruction, and creative endeavors. One can imagine a litany of charged subjects—e.g., climate change, masking policies, and racial justice—that are matters of both public interest and scholarly endeavors. No sensible policy can or should try to make a distinction between these categories in deciding whether or not unit statements are acceptable, and any attempt to do so would constitute a flagrant infringement on academic freedom.
Concerns about process and external influence
The current fervor for a policy concerning unit statements has arisen in the context of efforts nationwide to curb speech concerning Israel and Gaza. The haste with which your office has formulated this policy appears to be a capitulation to pressure from parties such as Richard Painter and Michael Hsu, who have filed a Title VI complaint and publicly maligned University faculty members. Caving to such pressure would be detrimental to academic freedom, have long-lasting effects on our University culture, and tarnish our University’s reputation as a national leader on academic freedom.
Given that unit statements concern academic freedom, should any new policies or guidelines pertaining to them be necessary, they should be determined by a deliberative faculty-led process (see, for example, the process followed at UIUC and the University of California system). Presenting a menu of proposals drawn up by your office to governance committees and inviting them to express an opinion—presumably before the administration makes a binding decision—sets a dangerous precedent. This process undercuts shared governance institutions and is especially troubling since it bears on a core value: academic freedom. The appropriate venue for developing proposals at our institution is the AF&T committee, which could study the issue in more depth and consult widely with the faculty before bringing any recommendations to the Faculty Senate.
Who speaks for the University?
By exempting the Office of the President from being governed by the current proposal, it puts statements by the President on a pedestal in comparison with unit statements. We appreciate that resolutions or letters issued by University Governance are exempted from the policy, but this exemption highlights a deeper underlying problem of this policy. We are a large and diverse university in which there are conflicting views on matters of public concern. It is antithetical to the purpose of a university to try to shut down collective expressions on matters of public interest. If it is legitimate for an institution to have an official position on a matter of public concern, then it must also be legitimate for any part of it to also have a position, even a contradictory one. In other words, this push to establish a new policy is an effort to control speech, which conflicts with academic freedom. We are especially appalled by the invocation of “university branding” to further curb departmental statements. It should go without saying that branding concerns are not pertinent to matters of academic freedom, and we are alarmed and disappointed that the top academic administrator of our University would introduce them into this discussion.
Sincerely,
Sumanth Gopinath, President, AAUP-UMTC
Heather Holcombe, Vice President, AAUP-UMTC
Teri Caraway, Treasurer, AAUP-UMTC
Gopalan Nadathur, Secretary, AAUP-UMTC
Nathaniel Mills, Member-at-Large, AAUP-UMTC
Ruth Shaw, Member-at-Large, AAUP-UMTC