A new UNC System definition of “academic freedom” received unanimous approval from the system’s Board of Governors university governance committee on Wednesday, impacting the state’s 17 public institutions if approved by the full board.
Amid growing concerns over faculty free speech and academic freedom across the country, the committee’s action is the next step in a grassroots effort to implement an official definition. The affirmative vote puts the amendment in a favorable position as it heads for the final hurdle. The Board of Governors will consider the amendment at its February meeting, and a two-thirds majority vote is required to pass.
General Counsel and Senior Vice President for Legal Affairs for the UNC System Andrew Tripp said the definition was a highly collaborative project that has spanned years. The policy update has been a work in progress since 2024 when the Faculty Assembly, a body of delegates made up of representatives from each of the UNC institutions, first produced a consensus definition for consideration.
[Subscribe for FREE to Carolina Public Press’ Daily, Weekend and Election 2026 newsletters.]
That definition was then circulated to other stakeholders like university chancellors and provosts for feedback, Tripp said. Finally, other campus and faculty groups and the free speech organization FIRE reviewed an updated version in December.
Chair of the assembly and UNC-Greensboro professor Wade Maki said the development and potential implementation of the definition is an example of shared governance, the joint responsibility of faculty and administration in decision-making. Some faculty have felt that shared governance has become challenged and politicized recently as tensions have risen in higher education, Carolina Public Press previously reported.
“A lot of work has gone into this, and we are very pleased the Faculty Assembly had the opportunities to give you what we have before us today,” Maki said in the meeting.
“It’s a good balance of what the responsibilities that we have are and what the opportunities we have are, because academic freedom is critical to us using our expertise to do the teaching and research that faculty are supposed to do. … We are staking a flag in a bold direction with this.”
The proposal acknowledges the existing policy’s several references to academic freedom but its lack of a formal definition. Some organizations like the American Association of University Professors have issued guidance on what academic freedom means and how it should be protected, but the UNC System doesn’t currently recognize that or others.
"... the foundational principle that protects the rights of all faculty to engage in teaching, research/creative activities, service, and scholarly inquiry without undue influence. It ensures that faculty can freely pursue knowledge; express, discuss and debate ideas; and contribute to knowledge and understanding related to their areas of expertise."
from UNC system proposed definition of academic freedom
Academic freedom is defined in the proposal as “the foundational principle that protects the rights of all faculty to engage in teaching, research/creative activities, service, and scholarly inquiry without undue influence. It ensures that faculty can freely pursue knowledge; express, discuss and debate ideas; and contribute to knowledge and understanding related to their areas of expertise.”
Maki told CPP in December he’s excited by the prospect of the policy update because it demonstrates collaboration between faculty and administrators and opens the door for further teamwork.
“That a faculty project can actually get into system code — especially about something as dear to everyone’s heart and controversial as academic freedom — if we are successful, we once again show how functional our relationships are, lay the groundwork for future good works, while also providing more clarity for our faculty than they're getting in other states,” Maki said.
The policy goes beyond the definition to provide instances in which academic freedom does and doesn’t apply, making for a comprehensive understanding of where the System stands. The proposal outlines the rights and responsibilities of faculty regarding teaching and research and repeatedly establishes the exercise of these rights must be in line with professional standards, institutional policies and relevant to the subject matter.
“It also talks about what academic freedom is with concrete examples and where it applies most pointedly to protect the classroom, course development, research and scholarly inquiry,” Tripp said.
“But it also talks about what academic freedom isn’t, which is an important concept for us all to acknowledge and work forward on.”
- “Classroom Practice: To determine pedagogical strategies, instructional materials, evaluation methods, and classroom discourse that support student learning, provided these methods align with professional standards.”
- “Course Development: To design, revise, and implement curricular content and learning outcomes within their academic expertise, subject to departmental and institutional review processes.”
- “Research: To pursue, design, conduct, disseminate, and publish research/creative activities consistent with professional standards and in compliance with institutional policies, regulations, and rules.”
- “Scholarly Inquiry: To teach and research ideas relevant to the subject matter or student skill development; to express scholarly opinions; and to present perspectives relevant to the subject matter that may be controversial or unpopular.”
These specifications echo debates happening in higher ed as professors across the country have been placed on leave and fired for lessons given in class that touch on controversial subject matter, though related to the field of study and scope of the course, as well as directives like the one from Duke University, which say faculty should only discuss matters of their scholarly expertise with media and refrain from commenting on internal university matters.
The policy goes on to say academic freedom is “not absolute” and again states faculty are responsible for exercising academic freedom “within the parameters established by academic disciplines, professions, and in compliance with institutional policies, regulations and rules.”
According to the policy, parameters of academic freedom do include “teaching and researching controversial or unpopular ideas related to the discipline or subject matter; expressing scholarly opinions and presenting diverse perspectives related to the discipline or subject matter; assessing student performance based on academic criteria; and engaging in shared governance related to such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.”
Alternatively, academic freedom does not apply in instances of “teaching content clearly unrelated to the course description or unrelated to the discipline or subject matter; using university resources for political or ideological advocacy in violation of university policy; and refusing to comply with institutional policies or accreditation standards to which the university is subject.”
If passed in February, the UNC System will join fellow North Carolina institutions Wake Forest University, which adopted a statement on freedom of expression and academic freedom in April of 2025, and Duke University in having formal guidelines. A Duke committee conducted a review of its academic freedom policy in 2025, which was last updated in 1976, and recommended no changes.
This article first appeared on Carolina Public Press and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.