Several University of Minnesota faculty members say they feel muzzled by a new Board of Regents resolution that they say could limit academic freedom and speech.
A petition signed by more than 400 U academics asked the board to retract the resolution, which could be approved as early as Friday. Introduced in mid-February, it concerns who is allowed to officially speak for the U and what kinds of issues they can address. The University Senate, a governing body at the U made up of faculty, staff and students, also has passed a resolution asking the Board of Regents to rescind the resolution.
Universities across the country have been debating issues related to academic freedom over the past several years, some brought to the forefront after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and the resulting protests and public outcry.
Inside Higher Ed, a news outlet following higher education issues, estimated that more than 140 universities had implemented institutional neutrality policies since the conflict in the Middle East began compared to fewer than 10 that had policies before then.
In Minnesota, some U faculty members said they believed the Regents were effectively prohibiting “units,” such as departments, schools, institutes or centers, from making any statements “addressing matters of public concern or public interest,” something they say is part of their job as professors and subject-matter experts.
The resolution said units aren’t allowed to make such statements on official U letterhead, websites or social media. It also said the U’s president is the only one who can make institutional statements or permit others to make them.
The Board of Regents has updated its resolution since February. The new one allows units to make institutional statements with the president’s permission and to address public matters only if the president determines those matters have an “actual or potential” impact on the U.
While many faculty, staff and students saw the first resolution as a “blanket ban” on statements about public matters, the new version sets up the U’s president “in a position of censor-in-chief” with the power to decide which group can say what and when, said Karen Ho, an anthropology professor.