The UNC System Board of Governors took the final step in implementing an official definition of academic freedom Thursday, voting unanimously in favor of the policy.
Despite the consensus of the board, the meeting was marked by protesters from across the system opposing the vote on the grounds that the definition is too vague and could actually result in restricted speech rather than protecting it.
[Subscribe for FREE to Carolina Public Press’ Daily, Weekend and Election 2026 newsletters.]
The board also approved tuition increases for the first time in nine years despite pushback from a prominent board member.
UNC System’s new academic freedom definition
Academic freedom is defined in the proposal, and now university system policy, 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.”
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 university 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.
The 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.
That definition was then circulated to other stakeholders like university chancellors and provosts for feedback. Finally, other campus and faculty groups and the free speech organization FIRE reviewed an updated version in December.
However, a week prior to the vote, the system distributed a version of the policy with an additional update that was made after a committee voted favorably on the policy in January.
General Counsel and Senior Vice President for Legal Affairs for the UNC System Andrew Tripp said the previous version of the policy, referred to as Attachment A, was voted out of governance Jan. 28 — the day the committee voted. It was then distributed to others for additional feedback, particularly those in the Faculty Assembly, which resulted in the changes seen in Attachment B, he said.
“The language changes are designed to accomplish two things,” Tripp said. “One, we changed tone a little bit on a provision that got some feedback. It’s a nonsubstantive change.
“We also tried to add a little more precision to some of the words used in the code. The goal here is to be as precise as possible about what academic freedom is and isn’t. So where we got feedback that words were less precise and could be made more specific, we took that feedback.”
Changes included a brief subsection which had originally stated, “Ensure that faculty activities support the university’s mission and meet accreditation standards.” The version the system voted to implement states, “Ensure that faculty activities align with the university’s mission as established under UNC policy and meet accreditation standards.”
As far as where the parameters of academic freedom do not extend, it had given the example, “Teaching content clearly unrelated to the course description or unrelated to the discipline or subject matter,” but now states, “Teaching content that lacks pedagogical connection to the course, discipline, or subject matter.”
It also rephrased an assertion of students’ rights in the classroom, which now says, “Students may exercise freedom of expression in the classroom. Students are responsible for learning assigned course content and are responsible for maintaining standards of academic performance defined by their faculty for each course in which they are enrolled. Students are free to take reasoned exception to concepts and theories presented in their classes.”
Pushback and protest
Faculty from across the system, many donning American Association of University Professors logos and merchandise, protested the academic freedom policy change at the meeting. Some cited last week’s changes specifically as cause for their concern, though the AAUP has largely rejected the UNC System’s attempts at “rewriting” academic freedom as it already recognizes a definition.
Abigail Hatcher was an assistant professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the Gillings School of Public Health, though she recently resigned and now serves in an adjunct role.
The idea that academics can research and teach without censorship is fundamental to democracy, she told Carolina Public Press. In her view, the vote on this policy was really about whether that is “still a tenet of the UNC System.”
The system’s definition has received mixed feedback, with the likes of the AAUP and the ACLU saying it is too vague and could actually lead to more restrictions on speech.
“The academic freedom policy here does not define ‘political activity’ or ‘pedagogical connection,’ rendering it likely unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. There are many ways a faculty member may find themselves teaching content beyond the course description that could involve the expression of a political viewpoint — during a robust discussion guided by students, for example,” a recent letter from ACLU of North Carolina reads.
“The policy seems to require faculty members to abruptly cut off genuine intellectual curiosity and academic discourse simply because it may touch on relevant subjects outside the course description. … Faculty and students alike must be free to express their views. We urge the Board of Governors to reaffirm the necessity of defending speech and academic freedom.”
The university system has championed the policy specifically because it creates clear guidelines on what behavior is and isn’t protected by academic freedom. Hatcher acknowledged this and other aspects of the policy might seem appropriate but that expertise and academic training should be what decides what is taught and researched, not policies such as this one.
“It should never actually be any administrator’s role to come in and say what can and cannot be taught,” Hatcher said. “So it kind of looks OK on paper, but the crux of it is that it’s paving the way for censorship in North Carolina that’s actually faster than Texas, Florida, Oklahoma.”
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs David English told reporters the policy was driven by faculty and staff and they were able to incorporate almost all of the Faculty Assembly’s feedback, but he knows in an organization as large as the UNC System, not everybody will agree. Despite concerns from protesters that the changes made between January and February’s meetings were done so outside of the typical order, he and Tripp said proper measures were taken.
“We’re thankful for those that came today to share their voice, to share their passion and that they engaged in a respectful way which demonstrates the type of discourse and debate that we’re looking to foster in the UNC System,” he said.
Landmark tuition increases
In addition to defining academic freedom, the university system voted to raise tuition for the first time since 2017. Most universities will raise undergraduate, in-state tuition by 3%. Exceptions include Appalachian State University and UNC-Asheville which will only be raised by 2.5% and 1.5%, respectively. Winston-Salem State University will also not raise undergraduate in-state tuition at all, and the universities in the NC Promise program will continue to see their tuition set by the legislature.
Chair of the Board Wendy Murphy, who wrote a column for the News & Observer this week on why increases were on the table, told reporters she is concerned the increases will be burdensome for North Carolinians, but the university system ultimately has to focus on affordability and sustainability. She emphasized it will not affect current students, who will continue to pay the price of tuition as it was upon their enrollment.
The motion passed with just one negative vote from prominent board member and former state representative Art Pope who has served in the role since 2020.
Pope specifically opposed the raising of undergraduate in-state tuition, citing current financial strain on North Carolinians and decreased income since stimulus payments from the pandemic ended in 2022. He voted against tuition increases but in favor of fee increases.
“Everybody understands the rising costs that we’ve all experienced even in our households,” Murphy said.
“But the board has done a lot of work with President Hans on cutting administrative jobs and we’ve looked at the way they’re doing things on campuses and we’ve created the best practices and efficiencies and we’ll continue to do that, but we’ve got to maintain what everyone expects from the university system.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. You may republish our stories for free, online or in print. Simply copy and paste the article contents from the box below. Note, some images and interactive features may not be included here.
