Academic Freedom 101

According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), “academic freedom is the freedom of a teacher or researcher in higher education to investigate and discuss the issues in his or her academic field, and to teach or publish findings without interference from political figures, boards of trustees, donors or other entities. Academic freedom also protects the right of a faculty member to speak freely when participating in institutional governance, as well as to speak freely as a citizen.”

FAQ on Academic Freedom | AAUP

Academic freedom is defined and assessed, though, through many different sources, including (but not limited to) such academic professional standards, university policy, institutional contracting/collective bargaining and law. Many of these sources continue to develop and evolve, particularly the law on academic freedom. Issues pertaining to academic freedom can be very complex and complicated. As such, this site is intended only to provide general information about academic freedom and is not meant to serve as legal advice or binding authority on any particular situation.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure sets forth three guiding principles of academic freedom for professionals:

Research

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary [i.e., financial] return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

Teaching

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

Public Expressions

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public might judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

Many colleges and universities have adopted versions of these principles through policy and/or agreements with academic employees of the institution. Yet academic freedom is not just the concern of academic professionals, but of all members of the academic community, as recognized by the United States Supreme Court:

Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall or orthodoxy over the classroom.

The courts have recognized academic freedom for teachers; for school authorities; for (to an extent) students; as well as for colleges and universities in the management of an academic community and evaluation of teaching and scholarship free from interference by other units of government, including the courts.

Under general principles of academic freedom, then:

• Faculty, instructors and other academic professionals should be free from outside and internal interference or pressures to teach, subject to the subject matters they teach and the academic judgment of their peers.
• Researchers should be free from outside and internal interference or pressures to conduct and publish scholarly research, subject to the academic judgment of their peers.
• Students should be free to express their academic ideas and opinions, subject to the constraints of classroom management and the conduct rules of being a student in an academic community.
• Institutions of higher education should be free in the efficient operation and management of an academic community from outside and internal interference or pressures, in order to establish an environment that contributes to the public good.

Because academic freedom is recognized by the courts as a “special concern of the First Amendment,” academic freedom is also subject to the same limitations and regulations applicable to all forms of free speech and expression under the law. For example:

• Academic freedom is not a justification or excuse to unreasonably impede or disrupt the learning environment, or the normal business and operations, of the institution.
• Academic freedom does not override the law. For example, academic freedom is not a justification or excuse to conduct illegal discrimination or retaliation. 
• Academic freedom and freedom of speech/expression are not excuses or justifications to commit violence against another.
• Academic freedom does not usually apply outside of the educational contexts of teaching, learning and/or research.
• Members of the academic community have the right to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, free from the regulation or censorship of the government, but subject to the limitations that law places on free speech through content regulations and conduct regulations. See Freedom of Expression 101. When expressing personal views in public, then, community members should be careful to make clear that they are speaking for themselves and not speaking for the institutions.

Unprotected speech under the law includes, but is not limited to:

• Obscenity
• Incitement
• Fighting words
• True threat
• Defamation
• Illegal harassment

Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions can be placed on all forms of speech or expression. This generally means that when, where and how speech or expression is conducted can be regulated in a reasonable way that is applied consistently, and which is “content-neutral” and “viewpoint-neutral.” This means that the restrictions should not be based on the speaker’s content or viewpoint, unless such speech or expression is not protected under the law.