University of Minnesota's Board of Regents approves controversial policy on faculty speech

The University of Minnesota’s Board of Regents passed a controversial resolution Friday that some faculty say curtails their academic freedom and freedom of speech.

More than 100 faculty members and staff packed the Board of Regents meeting in opposition to the resolution, carrying signs while chanting and at times interrupting board members' speech.

The board went into recess twice because of the disruptions; some protesters left after receiving a second warning to disperse. One person was arrested by police for trespassing, a university spokesperson said.

The Regents' resolution, which passed 9-3, was first introduced in mid-February and addresses who can officially speak for the U and what kinds of issues they can talk about. It’s part of a broader trend of universities nationwide debating issues related to academic freedom, especially since the 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which resulted in campus protests and public outcry.

In Minnesota, the resolution comes after some state lawmakers requested U groups remove statements they posted — many of which supported Palestine — in 2023 from departments' websites.

Regents Robyn Gulley, Bo Thao-Urabe and Mary Turner voted against the measure.

“It is our work to ensure our experts can speak about what they know,” Gulley said. “Going after universities is right out of the playbook of authoritarian regimes.”

Turner said she’s advocated for nurses to have a seat at the table making healthcare decisions her entire life.

“As I see it now, our collective voice and democracy is at stake,” she said. “I cannot go against the beliefs I’ve held my whole life.”

Before the vote, President Rebecca Cunningham said she would respect and implement what the board decided.

Faculty opposing the resolution, which has been updated twice, say they believe it effectively prohibits “units,” such as departments, schools, institutes or centers, from making statements “addressing matters of public concern or public interest” on official university websites, letterhead, social media or anywhere with the U’s mark.

The resolution allows for institutional speech by units only with the president’s permission and if the president determines the topic has an actual or potential impact on the U.

Units are allowed to share research and scholarship by individual faculty members through official university channels, according to a bullet point in the resolution updated Friday.

Janie Mayeron, Board of Regents chair, said allowing public statements by groups puts the U at risk.

“We cannot ignore the reality that the public, whether it is the federal government, our state legislature or donors, is holding the university accountable for the statements and positions by units within the university and is then taking actions against the university that jeopardize its mission and operations,” Mayeron said.

Universities across the country have already lost funding as the Trump administration has axed — or threatened to ax — millions of dollars in grants from the National Institutes of Health or possibly related to DEI.

Regent Mary Davenport, who voted to approve the resolution, said it doesn’t infringe on the rights of individuals to say, teach or publish what they want. The president should be the only one to officially speak on behalf of the U, she added.

Regent James Farnsworth, who also voted for it, said a new paragraph added Friday made him more comfortable with it. The new text says the president will update the board in October on how the resolution has been implemented and include examples of statements she has approved and rejected. Faculty and staff will be invited to comment.

“(I) trust that the president and her team will keep us informed on how this plays out,” he said.

Universities across the country have been debating issues related to academic freedom over the past several years, many surfacing after the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas.

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, 26 legislators sent a letter to then-Interim President Jeff Ettinger requesting that groups of academics remove statements they posted on their departments’ websites after the 2023 attack. They were not taken down, according to a U report.

After that, the U assigned a task force to address questions around institutional speech. In January, that group issued a final report and recommendations, which were approved by the University Senate in 2024.

Faculty members said that report allowed units — and groups of people within units — to make statements about public matters, something that’s often part of their job.

A petition signed by more than 400 U academics asked the board to retract the resolution and the University Senate, a governing body made up of faculty, staff and students, also passed a resolution asking the board to rescind it.

On Friday, several faculty members shared their frustrations with the board’s decision outside the McNamara Alumni Center.

William Jones, a professor and associate chair of the U’s history department, said he was disappointed.

“It was clear in the meeting that many of (the Regents) didn’t have an idea of the issues involved,” said Jones, who is also president of the U’s American Association of University Professors chapter.

Teri Caraway, a political science professor, said the U was “paying Cunningham $1 million a year to be the censor-in-chief.”

It’s going to put the U in legal jeopardy, she said, because “she’s going to be discriminating.”

Kathy Quick, an associate professor at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, said the resolution wasn’t good for Cunningham’s relationships with faculty, students and employees.

“I’m particularly concerned that (the Regents) have really misunderstood the mission, scholarship and function of centers and institutes ... and why it’s critically important to their mission to be able to make statements as a group,” she said.

_____