CUCFA has grave concerns about a proposal that seeks to update UC policy on Faculty Discipline and Dismissal Policies and Process in sections 15 and 16 of the Academic Personnel Manual (APM). This policy was created at the behest of the UC Regents earlier this year, with the participation of a joint Senate-administration working group consisting of ten faculty and ten administrators from the ten campuses, along with a representative from UC Legal.

A working group report to the UC Regents in May 2025 called for systemwide guidance to reflect cases of alleged misconduct involving expressive activities. It developed systemwide guidance to speed up the investigation and hearing of disciplinary cases; to set up a new systemwide P&T panel that can act instead of campus P&T committees; and to make explicit an intent to take on extramural speech as potentially subject to discipline. The working group sought to respond to the desire of some Regents and UCOP to strengthen faculty discipline that the latter perceive as moving slowly. UCOP initially wanted to have the new APM policy in place for the 2025-26 academic year but had to adopt it on an interim basis. UCOP now has an active request for consultation this Fall, and comments are requested by November 26 on formally adopting the policy. The UC Regents will consider the policy in January 2026. For a fuller analysis of these changes, click here.

CUCFA writes to express strong opposition to the revisions to APM 016 regarding expressive activities with the examples laid out in Attachments A and B.

Attachment A includes “not accepting responsibility for misconduct” as an aggravating factor that would impact the type of disciplinary sanctions for faculty respondents. We find this unacceptable—faculty under investigation have the right to counsel, silence, and due process without being punished for exercising those rights.  Faculty should not be pressured or procedurally coerced into “accepting responsibility” in order to mitigate potential sanctions. Related, a mitigating factor is “Accepting responsibility for misconduct without recurrent offense”. We call for deletion of this language altogether. Another aggravating factor is “Escalating misconduct in view of recent counseling or remedial intervention,” but this could reflect efforts to engage in protected expressive activities. We call for this language to be modified to acknowledge this.

Attachment B states on p. 4:  “Faculty members are entitled to the academic freedom protections described in APM – 010 as well as the constitutional right to free expression, which all University employees enjoy.”  CUCFA is happy to see UCOP emphasizing that APM-010 protects extramural speech as a matter of systemwide policy–we re-emphasize this point by noting that both APM – 010 and the U.S. and California constitutions provide protections for extramural speech – that is, speech that occurs beyond the scope of a faculty member’s employment.  However, the report’s subsequent analysis of faculty’s additional protections under the US and California constitutions is troubling.  Attachment B continues:  “However, this does not mean that expressive conduct by faculty can never be subject to discipline….Faculty, like all University employees, are also entitled to First Amendment protection for speech on matters of public concern, but only insofar as the employee’s expressive interests outweigh the University’s interests in fulfilling its public service mission.” The broad, vague and unspecified language of the University’s “interests and mission” here is deeply concerning.  In the current climate, the federal government is employing policies and executive orders entailing vague conceptions without clear operative definitions to suppress unwanted speech and behavior in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Attachment B’s appeal to the ambiguous concepts of the University’s “mission” and “interests” mirrors these maneuvers, potentially opening the door to wholly inappropriate criteria being allowed to dictate the bounds of faculty’s free speech. As written, Attachment B could include violations of faculty expression rights on thin grounds such as donor preferences, media engagement, going viral for critical-but-unpopular viewpoints, community complaints, and public outrage.

This same vagueness also applies to other language in the  proposed changes, which refer to “harms” that are open to subjective interpretation, and could easily be misapplied to punish expressive activity. Phrases such as “minor impact on community members” (Attachment A) could be interpreted to punish faculty for expressing or teaching any viewpoint that is unpopular. Meanwhile, verbiage such as “failing to comply with instructions of a UC or public official” and “disturbing the peace” (Attachment A) neglects the well-documented history of violent, abusive policing practices being used to suppress expressive rights, including by the current federal government.

We call for the deletion of all open-ended language referencing the University’s “mission and interests” as motivations for disciplining faculty. We also call for substantive revision and specification of all references to vague notions such as “disturbing the peace,” “failure to comply” and “minor harms.”  When rules are vaguely defined, there is no assurance that anyone can be safely outside the violation zone—vague laws invite arbitrary exercises of power.

Furthermore, the working group report explicitly recommended that “systemwide guidelines be developed in partnership with the UC Police Departments (UCPD) for the sharing of information in all misconduct cases.”  Previously, such cooperation guidelines only existed for sexual violence and sexual harassment (SVSH) cases. Any suggestion of cooperation and information sharing with UCPD would expand the remit of criminality  on all potential disciplinary cases, including those about expressive activity. We find this unacceptable, and state our strong opposition to the inclusion of any and all language that makes references to sharing information with UCPD.

Finally, the creation of a new Systemwide Network P&T Committee that would  be convened if a campus P&T committee does not set up a panel within 14 days of the issuance of disciplinary charges challenges the standard that disciplinary matters be resolved at the divisional level. Local context is essential—systemwide panels risk overlooking key factors unique to each campus.  Campus P&T committees are generally better able to assess cases in context, and can provide an independent check on administrative actions. This is particularly concerning given that disciplinary outcomes can have ramifications for faculty personnel cases and advancement actions, which are uniformly conducted at the campus level.  Nor do the proposed revisions offer any specific information about how a Systemwide P&T committee would be constituted, who would be appointed to it, and by whom.  Without full transparency around the design of such a panel, its proceedings risk being shrouded in secrecy.

Academic freedom is not a popularity contest. University faculty engage in scholarly critique and expression, and we believe that is essential for a university commons and a functioning democracy. Very often, this value centers on protecting the right to faculty research, teaching, and speech even when those expressions are perceived by others as controversial or unpopular. This value holds the University accountable for maintaining a commons where dissenting views can be heard.