U of M sits tight on institutional speech code, though regents weighing faculty input

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 guidelines 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 region and compliance with free speech rights There was no response even to our assessment let alone a serious engagement announced William Jones president of the university s chapter of the American Association of University Professors AAUP Passed by regents on a - 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 populace concern or society interest are not permitted at the university unless the president determines that the subject has an actual or probable 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 approach also required President Rebecca Cunningham to submit a review of the impacts of the code for discussion at the regents October meeting though no discussion occurred publicly The regents announced they will be addressing written questions submitted by regent Tadd Johnson but did not specify a timeline for review A bit Orwellian University group members had the opportunity to submit comments on the speech plan 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 explained Is this doublespeak Are we officially living in One comment expressed strong encouragement 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 plan 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 revealed Michael Gallope a professor and chair of the Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature at the university The procedures allows individuals to make statements that do not speak for the university but multiple say this still creates confusion about what speech is deemed acceptable For plenty of faculty this ultimately leads to self-censorship The language is so broad and vague it invites abuse Gallope mentioned And it results in chilled speech and it has no due process associated with it A September review 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 mentioned He added I think we revealed clearly that it s having a negative impact on teaching and research and academic speech and candidate learning History professor William Jones gathers with his graduate seminar in American history at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus on Tuesday Oct in Minneapolis Minn Jones is also the chapter president of the American Association of University Professors which supports free speech on college campuses Credit Ellen Schmidt MinnPost CatchLight Local Review for America Task force proposal A university task force on institutional speech previously recommended that unit statements on matters of constituents concern by academic departments and centers should not be prohibited but rather systematically considered and that other avenues that better encourage academic freedom and debate should be used when achievable An October assessment by the university Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure commented adopting the task force s approach 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 Schooling 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 general concern take necessary action to prevent criticism of conservative ideas and prohibit sponsorship of groups the federal governing body has designated as terrorist organizations The compact also includes requirements such as limiting diversity equity and inclusion initiatives and international scholar enrollment The administration reportedly extended the offer to all U S colleges shortly after the Massachusetts Institute of Tool 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 revealed the university s status as a inhabitants 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 mentioned 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 countless cases this threat has become a reality The University of Minnesota lost roughly million in grant funding from research awards terminated this spring DEI initiatives were among the preponderance common causes for termination according to the university But funding cuts are not the only jeopardy 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 noted The post U of M sits tight on institutional speech code though regents weighing faculty input appeared first on MinnPost