Below is the letter the Council of University of California Faculty Associations sent on February 12 to the UC Regents objecting to their proposed new website policy.
Dear UC Regents,
At its meeting on January 24, the Regents proposed a new policy on the use of university administrative websites. The central aim of this Action Item J3 was to prevent schools, departments, centers and other academic units from using their websites to publicly express “the personal or collective opinions” of the faculty in case that is mistaken to represent the University’s official position. We applaud the Regents for deferring further discussion of this proposal to their next meeting, as this will enable them to consult with faculty leaders and experts in the field who consider it both an unnecessary and dangerous measure.
As documented in a report from the systemwide Senate Academic Council and its Committee on Academic Freedom, University policy “permits departments to make statements on University-owned websites, as long as those statements do not take stands on electoral politics.” UCAF explains that while the University is prohibited from taking positions on the outcomes of elections, it is not prohibited from making other political statements (and indeed often does so). The Senate Academic Council has “endorse[d] the overriding principle…that departments should not be precluded from issuing or endorsing statements in the name of the department,” noting that “freedom of expression and academic freedom are core tenets of the UC educational mission, and individual faculty members and groups of faculty have a right to speak publicly about political or controversial issues.”
CUCFA agrees with UCAF and the Academic Council that existing policy already protects the University from any legal liability and that this additional restriction is both unnecessary and dangerous. At a time when free speech and academic freedom are under threat on many campuses, the proposed policy is recklessly ambiguous. The Regents are still debating whether the new policy will apply to all websites or solely to the landing pages of department websites, and that is a huge policy difference. In failing to adequately define what constitutes a political statement, it runs the risk of serious overreach and abuse. This is all the more alarming as the policy does not specify who is responsible for its enforcement: which university office or position will be responsible for policing the policy? At their next meeting, we urge the Regents to reject this dangerously ambiguous policy as it threatens to violate the principles of faculty governance and academic freedom central to the University of California.
Sincerely,
Constance Penley, CUCFA President and Professor of Film and Media Studies, UC Santa Barbara
Wendy Matsumura, CUCFA Vice President and Associate Professor of History, UC San Diego
On behalf of the Council of UC Faculty Associations
Do not fiddle with existing policy and leave additional restriction to the courts.
The first problem I have with political postings on academic websites is that the views of the majority may be presented without acknowledgement of the views of the minority. The second problem I have is that academic departments have been known to make political pronouncements on subjects with which they have little familiarity and no scholarly expertise. The Regents have it about right in this case.
Considered opinions should always be free to share without bureaucratic interference. One would never consider policing our classrooms for “stray opinions” that run counter to the hegemonic narrative (I hope). This is a misguided direction to take on censorship and the Regents should not proceed.
Colleagues in corresponding government agencies simply have a blanket acknowledgement of not conflating individual opinions with that of the establishment, which should work fine in this case too.
Restriction is not, in general, an inclusive habit.