How Shall Academic Freedom Be Defined?

Martin Center: You have noted that the current UNC System policy manual affirms that academic freedom is essential but does not offer a precise definition. And obviously this has been the case for a while. What was the impetus for the UNC Faculty Assembly to begin drafting a formal definition now?

Wade Maki: Well, it actually started just over a year ago in a hallway conversation I had with the UNC System general counsel, and basically he was [saying], you know, we don’t really have a consensus document to point to when issues come up around academic freedom, and it might be helpful to have one in the belief that all stakeholders are best served when we know what academic freedom is and isn’t before a controversial case appears. The suggestion that advice from us [would] be welcomed was the starting point. Add to that what we were already noticing [in] the last few years, the shifting and uncertain regulatory environment in higher ed. There’s been a lot of fear and self-censorship that’s all real, including cases of research and scholarship where people have pulled back from publications out of concern, and that just has a negative impact for our economy and student learning. So, given the opportunity, we decided to lean in, and we spent the better part of a year trying to find a way to improve clarity.

“There’s been a lot of fear and self-censorship that’s all real, including cases of research and scholarship pulled back from publications.” Martin Center: What do you see as the most significant threats to academic freedom in North Carolina or nationally, and how does the proposed definition help address those threats?

Wade Maki: So, the big worries are sort of twofold. It’s about outside interventions into the classroom regarding improved instructional methods or course content or outside interventions into research that’s legitimate scholarship or creative activity. And what our proposed definition tries to do is to reinforce these protections in part by providing four guardrails [for] teaching and research. The built-in guardrails are professional standards and areas of expertise, alongside compliance with law and policy. If faculty cross one of those four lines, then an intervention is legitimate. But if we do not, an intervention is not. And we thought that that clarity was really essential in advance of any issues coming up to help protect what people are doing in the classroom with students and what they’re doing in research and creative activity.

“We thought that clarity was really essential in advance of any issues coming up.” Martin Center: That leads into my next question, which is about state law. Your definition describes academic freedom as protection from “undue influence.” How did the committee think about what counts as undue influence, particularly when balancing faculty independence with institutional policies and state law, since you’re in a public university system?

Wade Maki: That’s a great question, because it was a challenge, because we wanted to protect something that also has to have limits. So, the common words people use, like “reasonable,” are just too mushy, right? But “undue” assumes there are some due influences, which we would define as law, policy, professional standards, and areas of expertise, without opening the door too widely. The added bonus was that we found that the UNC System Code is already using the term “undue” so [we are] on good ground, and we’re sort of taking what’s already there and using it rather than trying to import something new.

Martin Center: The document grounds the definition that it’s using in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, the court case, and also in Justice Frankfurter’s four essential freedoms: who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. How directly did those principles shape the final language of the UNC definition?

Wade Maki: One of the things we struggled with was not writing a dissertation. We wanted to have something short, but we also wanted to acknowledge the legal and historical history here. So our focus was on the classroom and research. And so from Sweezy, our definition leans into what may be taught and how it shall be taught. And we didn’t really go into who may teach or who may be admitted, because those two things are not prime concerns right now, and, of course, they’re also things that board members and administrators have a lot more to do with. So we focused on just those two.

Martin Center: So, again, in that historical-review section, you talk about the AAUP’s traditional protection of extramural speech, but your new definition explicitly ties protections to faculty members’ areas of expertise. What was the reasoning behind that limitation, and how should faculty understand those boundaries of their protected speech when engaging the public, for example? In other words, why isn’t extramural speech included in the definition?

Wade Maki: So, this is a great question, and the first thing I want to say is [that] academic speech tied to your area of expertise, whether on campus, in the media, [or] in public, is protected in our definition, right? But we wanted to stay focused on closing the gap in UNC System policy in terms of the responsibility of faculty in the classroom and research. We already have protections for extramural speech in the System: policies on free speech and political activities. As you know, there are requirements of faculty and other members even around institutional neutrality. So there’s a lot of free-speech policy that’s already in place. Because our project operates within the UNC System Code, we felt we could separate academic freedom and teaching and research from free speech and shared governance, both of which are covered separately in the UNC System Code. While all three are important to us, by not conflating them together, we could better achieve our immediate goal of clarity around teaching and research.

“We already have protections for extramural speech in the System: policies on free speech and political activities.” Martin Center: Would this new definition draw any distinctions between tenure-track faculty and non-tenure-track faculty?

Wade Maki: “No” is the short answer. You know, all faculty engaging in teaching, research, creative activities, and/or service need the freedom to innovate in that work. It is the academic work tied to expertise we are protecting, not rank or title.

“The question isn’t ‘Will faculty self-censor?’ but ‘How much and about what?’” Martin Center: That’s good to hear. So, some critics warn, and I noticed this in The Assembly’s article that came out recently, that formalizing a definition might lead faculty to self-censor out of fear of acting outside of the defined boundary. Did the Faculty Assembly consider this risk? How did you attempt to calibrate the definition in order to protect freedom without inducing self-censorship, which we know is already a significant problem for students, and, obviously, we don’t want to encourage it in faculty, as well.

Wade Maki: Yes, there are those who prefer the vague references we have now with words like “responsible” and “reasonable,” because no firm line could be drawn. However, faculty are already self-censoring. So the question isn’t “Will faculty self-censor?” but “How much and about what?” I’ve described our definition as having four walls that shape academic freedom: law, policy, professional standards, and expertise. So, is self-censorship [allowing a faculty member] to stay within law, policy, professional standards, or expertise a problem or a feature? But faculty also know, so long as we stay within those guardrails, faculty and students have no need to self-censor.

Martin Center: Good to hear. So, your definition, or your document, also cites both the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as influences. Where do you think the proposed UNC definition aligns with those national models, and where do you think it intentionally diverges?

Wade Maki: Regarding the freedom to teach and research, all three are pretty well aligned. If anything, our definition provides additional details that the others don’t. Where we diverged was really from the AAUP definition by intentionally not conflating academic freedom with free speech and shared governance, as the UNC System covers those latter two separately.

Martin Center: I think that’s really important. I see a lot of conflation between academic freedom and shared governance, and it’s good, especially if this is going to develop into policy, that those are very clear.

Wade Maki: This is part of the problem with extramural speech. It often confuses faculty’s non-academic free speech on social media and academic freedom. And those are two different things. They’re both important, but they belong in separate policies.

Martin Center: Absolutely. So, turning back to the AAUP, when they created Committee A in 1915—this is going way back, more than 100 years—they created Committee A to define the rights of faculty, and the AAUP originally envisioned a parallel Committee B to articulate the responsibilities of faculty. But that companion committee never happened. The companion statement was never completed, and many critics, including the Martin Center, argue that today’s erosion of public trust stems from a perception that faculty are not adequately fulfilling their professional responsibilities. Does this new definition of academic freedom attempt to address that imbalance? And, if so, how?

“Regarding academic freedom, discussions of faculty responsibilities were always part of our process.” Wade Maki: Let me start by accepting the premise of the question; the responsibilities piece is important for the public, and we need to do more there. And that’s why, before we even talk about academic freedom, the Faculty Assembly has been working with the UNC System for the better part of four years on this very issue. In 2023, we started work with the System on a robust faculty-workload policy that requires documented annual work plans for all faculty. We also updated the post-tenure-review policy with increased accountability, and we’re really proud of this work where administration and faculty have successfully addressed issues of interest to the public and legislature. That doesn’t seem to be happening in a lot of other states.

“A final policy needs to reflect the interests of students, provosts, and other stakeholders.” Now, regarding academic freedom, discussions of faculty responsibilities were always part of our process. The final document refers to faculty responsibilities around teaching, research, service, and scholarship rather than rights. We also included limitations from professional standards and that [speech] has to be tied to our areas of expertise as another way of leaning into our responsibilities. Now, given our prior policy work, we didn’t feel the need to replicate those responsibilities here, but it’s important to remember that what we provided was a recommendation to the System for how they could use academic freedom in a more robust policy. A final policy, which we did not provide, needs to reflect the interests of students, provosts, and other stakeholders, and I expect that they will further clarify responsibilities.

Martin Center: That makes sense. So, if this definition is fully adopted and integrated into the UNC System policy manual, with the input from other stakeholders—provosts, trustees, and everyone who’s part of the UNC System—what would success look like five years from now, in terms of classroom culture, self-censorship, freedom of expression, and campus debate? What do you hope to see?

Wade Maki: So, you say “in five years.” Excellent question. In five years, I hope to see five signs of success. First, clarity for faculty that, so long as they stay within law, policy, professional standards, and their areas of expertise, they are free to innovate to the benefit of students. This will contrast with the widespread fear and uncertainty of today’s regulatory environment. Second, increased confidence by students that their academic freedom is also upheld and their grades are determined by the quality of their work, rather than perceived biases against their viewpoints. We know that that shows up in surveys of students. Three, less friction between faculty and administration on what is and is not permitted so that administration can do their job and ensure that law, policy, and standards are upheld. Fourth, we would then be able to include training on academic freedom within the UNC System for all faculty, administrators, and board members during the onboarding process. Getting clarity in advance will reduce friction when controversial cases come up. And finally, fifth, once we clarify academic freedom, then the public and the legislators will have a better sense of what it is, why it’s beneficial, and feel confident that we are operating responsibly. And if we can’t define it ourselves clearly, we can’t expect them to, either.

Martin Center: It sounds like you have a good plan going forward, and I look forward to seeing what the next steps are for this proposed policy. Thank you again, so much, for talking with me today, and have a great day.

Wade Maki: Thank you for your interest in the topic.

Jenna A. Robinson is president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.