Faculty raise concerns about limits to their freedom of speech

According to the UNC Policy Manual, the University affirms its commitment to free speech and expression for its students, faculty, staff and visitors under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 14 of the North Carolina Constitution.

Despite that, some faculty members have expressed concerns that actions taken by the University, including recent instances of surveillance and the cuts to diversity, equity and inclusion programming, have chilled their speech and limited their academic freedom. 

In 2017 the UNC System, endorsed by the UNC-Chapel Hill Faculty Council and Board of Trustees, adopted the Chicago Principles as guidelines for protecting free speech on campus. Five years later, the UNC Board of Trustees adopted the Kalven Report, which insists on institutional neutrality on political and social issues. 

Deb Aikat, associate professor in the Hussman School of Journalism and Media, said even though he agrees that the University should be able to follow the  Kalven Report, it should not be attacking diversity. 

“You can be silent. But does it have a right to silence others? That's what is happening because of your decisions, because you suddenly kick out diversity,” Aikat said.

“Uneven application” of policy 

In a statement to The Daily Tar Heel, Elyse Crystall, teaching professor in English and Comparative Literature and the faculty advisor for UNC-CH's Students for Justice in Palestine, said that this policy is utilized to stifle dissent, citing how speaking events on Palestine are monitored by layers of administration.

“Faculty feel less able to speak out because of uneven applications of ‘neutrality’ and ‘free speech’ policies that have been targeting pro-Palestinian faculty and staff, or just those with views that challenge the University,” Crystall wrote.

In 2022, the American Association of University Professors, a national faculty group, unanimously voted to condemn the UNC System for political interference, diminished academic freedom, chilled speech and perpetuated systemic racism. 

Following the vote, in June 2022 Mimi Chapman, former chair of the Faculty of Governance and distinguished professor for human service policy information in the School of Social Work, held a series of listening sessions with over 50 faculty members.

She shared the findings during one of the meetings. Faculty members had concerns regarding restrictions on academic freedom. One respondent, who is releasing a book, said they are uncertain if the University will still protect them if their book makes people angry. Another said they were recruited to create a specific curriculum that is now being slow-walked.

Aikat said that diversity is a humanistic way to address inequality and attacks on diversity chill free speech.

“If you stop respecting other people and their needs, especially taking care of the marginalized community, that chills free speech,” Aikat said.

He also said that even though he is a tenured faculty member, he is still concerned over chills to free speech because the University can still find strategies to be disrespectful.

Aikat said there is a general concern within faculty that powerful politicians are manipulating the daily working of the University. For example, he mentioned the recent DEI repeal and the way it limits his ability to teach and provide resources for his students. 

“We want to make the world a better place, right?” he said. “But if you tell me, ‘No, don't take care of this group,’ or, ‘Don't take care of that group,’ that's being very prescriptive.”

Impacts of surveillance

Last spring, UNC professor Larry Chavis was told his contract would not be renewed due to concerning class content found in recordings of his lectures taken without his knowledge or consent. Chavis had been teaching at the Kenan-Flagler Business School for 18 years. 

Crystall wrote that faculty are horrified and demoralized regarding the surveillance, the erosion of faculty of governance and restrictions on academic freedom. 

“The level of disrespect is astonishing, and students, especially students of color, tell us that they are also concerned about their speech being monitored in the classroom,” Crystall wrote. 

Julian Taylor, an executive member of the Affirmative Action Coalition at UNC-Chapel Hill and founding member of TransparUNCy, said the fact that Chavis was recorded without notice was really concerning and appeared to have broken the trust of many professors as well. 

“Administrators are not showing that they are capable of having dialogue that is productive,” said Taylor. “It's going to be hard for UNC to gain that trust back, and they have no interest in gaining that trust back because they enjoy having a censored faculty.” 

Crystall also wrote that faculty have been told to be less vocal on certain issues, like Palestine. She said some have even been summoned by department chairs and deans regarding public comments they made calling for a ceasefire and an end to the war crimes in Gaza.

Mark McNeilly, a professor at the Kenan-Flagler Business School, said the problem is self-censorship due to a fear that students might report faculty for saying something deemed offensive and the impact it could have on the professor's career. 

“It's not all students that would report a professor, but it only takes one,” said McNeilly. “And even if not a large percentage would, if you multiply that by the 40, 50, or 200 students in a class, then you run a big risk.”

McNeilly said that many faculty members avoid the “culture war” topics to avoid the chance of saying something controversial in class. 

“The things that make you uncomfortable talking about on Thanksgiving are probably the things you wouldn't want to talk about on campus,” said McNeilly. “I'd like to make sure that my students have an opportunity to talk about these important ideas, but there's a huge downside and very little upside for a professor to talk about it.”

On the other hand, Crystall said faculty are worried about the targeting of certain political viewpoints, pointing to the administration's failure to initially grant Nikole Hannah-Jones tenure because she “dared to write about racism and genocide as part of the DNA of our country.”

“The message the administration sends to all of us is that they will in fact definitely be using the several millions of dollars stripped from DEI to increase repression, surveillance and distrust at UNC,” Crystall wrote.

enterprise@dailytarheel.com