Seven months after it was approved by the Board of Regents, a University of Minnesota directive on institutional speech that was implemented amid campus turmoil over the war in Gaza continues to draw fire from the faculty.
Regents were slated to discuss the policy at their October meeting but opted not to do so, despite having received several reports from academic groups concerned about its impact on the university community and compliance with free speech rights.
“There was no response even to our report, let alone a serious engagement,” said William Jones, president of the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
Passed by regents on a 9-3 vote in March and crafted in the wake of campus protests over the war in Gaza, the measure states that “institutional statements addressing matters of public concern or public interest are not permitted at the university” unless the president determines that the subject has “an actual or potential impact on the mission and operations of the university.”
The Board of Regents did not respond to a request for comment.
The debate over the code comes as universities across the country are grappling with whether to sign a Trump administration compact detailing numerous demands universities must meet or “forego federal benefits.” Among other things, the compact asks schools to change oversight or close departments that “punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
The University of Minnesota is not among the schools that have been offered the compact.
The resolution passed by the regents that created the policy also required President Rebecca Cunningham to submit a report of the impacts of the code for discussion at the regents’ October meeting, though no discussion occurred publicly. The regents said they will be addressing written questions submitted by regent Tadd Johnson, but did not specify a timeline for review.
A bit Orwellian?
University community members had the opportunity to submit comments on the speech policy during a two-week period in September.
“I don’t understand how ‘limiting’ any form of speech ‘provides the widest latitude for individuals across the University to debate or dissent,’” one comment said. “Is this doublespeak? Are we officially living in 1984?”
One comment expressed strong support for the code and another countered that while institutes and centers should have the freedom to make statements on controversial issues, schools and departments should remain neutral. The remaining comments shared the sentiment that the policy is harmful for free speech and academic freedom in an era when universities are coming under increased scrutiny.
Related: As other schools band together against Trump threats, the University of Minnesota keeps a low profile
“I think how things go down at the University of Minnesota is widely seen by others, and for that reason, we are going to hold all of our leaders accountable for maintaining the institution’s autonomy,” said Michael Gallope, a professor and chair of the Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature at the university.
The policy allows individuals to make statements that do not speak for the university, but many say this still creates confusion about what speech is deemed acceptable. For many faculty, this ultimately leads to self-censorship.
“The language is so broad and vague, it invites abuse,” Gallope said. “And it results in chilled speech, and it has no due process associated with it.”
A September report by the university’s chapter of the AAUP detailed several statements that were removed from university websites this spring for violating the institutional speech code, all of which commented on the conflicts between either Israel and Hamas or Russia and Ukraine.
“It essentially gives the administration carte blanche to say, you know, ‘We like this one, we don’t like that one,’ and not even have to provide any explanation as to the difference,” Jones said.
He added: “I think we found clearly that it’s having a negative impact on teaching and research and academic speech and student learning.”
Task force proposal
A university task force on institutional speech previously recommended that unit statements on matters of public concern by academic departments and centers should not be prohibited, but rather carefully considered, and that other avenues that better encourage academic freedom and debate should be used when possible.
An October report by the university Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure said adopting the task force’s policy recommendation would have allowed measures to be put in place that address concerns about institutional statements without prohibiting them altogether.
The university’s speech code is not unique. The Trump administration’s “Compact For Academic Excellence In Higher Education,” originally sent to nine colleges earlier this month, includes a similar section on institutional speech, among numerous other demands.
For universities to be in compliance with the compact, all academic units must remain neutral on topics of public concern, take necessary action to prevent criticism of conservative ideas and prohibit support of groups the federal government has designated as terrorist organizations. The compact also includes requirements such as limiting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and international student enrollment.
The administration reportedly extended the offer to all U.S. colleges shortly after the Massachusetts Institute of Technology rejected the compact, according to Bloomberg. Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California have also rejected the compact.
Jane Kirtley, a media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota, said the university’s status as a public institution sets the bar high for limiting speech without violating the First Amendment. “It makes little sense to try to appease somebody who is trying to impose autocratic restraints on a state university,” Kirtley said.
Related: Fateh slams Walz for picking ‘wealthy’ and ‘politically connected’ University of Minnesota regents
The legality of the speech code would not be an issue for private universities, which can ban institutional speech without violating the First Amendment, she added.
Schools squeezed
The compact uses the same strategy Trump has used against universities since he began his second term in January: threatening to cut funding. In many cases, this threat has become a reality.
The University of Minnesota lost roughly $22 million in grant funding from 72 research awards terminated this spring. DEI initiatives were among the most common causes for termination, according to the university.
But funding cuts are not the only risk universities face.
Professors across the country have been threatened and fired for comments relating to the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and other statements that drew the attention of activists.
“At a point when faculty are being fired, when faculty are losing their funding, when universities are under attack, the last thing we should be saying is, ‘Just shut your mouth, and it’s all going to go away,’” Jones said.
The post U of M sits tight on institutional speech code, though regents weighing faculty input appeared first on MinnPost.
Want more insights? Join Working Title - our career elevating newsletter and get the future of work delivered weekly.
