UNC System's new definition of academic freedom approved over faculty objections

Jane Winik Sartwell, The News & Observer on Feb 26, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The UNC Board of Governors authorized a new definition of academic freedom on Thursday, a move that enshrines an explanation of the concept into UNC System policy — but also places key limits on what kind of faculty activity it protects.

Academic freedom appeared in system policy before, and it was described as “full freedom, within the law.” The new definition drills down on what exactly it does and does not include.

For system President Peter Hans, the adoption of an expanded definition of academic freedom is an important step toward shared understanding and respect for the concept. The definition doesn’t alter the foundational value, he said in the meeting, but rather clarifies and strengthens it.

But some faculty across UNC System schools are deeply disturbed by the new definition, which they see as an attack on the crucial concept of unbridled academic freedom. That’s because of three main parameters the policy places around it.

The policy states that “academic freedom is not absolute.” It does not include:

• “Teaching content that lacks pedagogical connection to the course, discipline, or subject matter.”

• “Using university resources for political activity in violation of university policy.”

• “Refusing to comply with institutional policies to which the university is subject.”

Members of the American Association of University Professors gathered in the lobby of the UNC System’s downtown Raleigh office building on Monday morning to deliver an unsuccessful petition asking the board not to vote on the policy. Association leaders Abigail Hatcher and David Ambaras spoke to reporters before the meeting.

“People who come to this university to do research and teach do so with the expectation that they will be able to pursue the truth,” Ambaras said. “People who come to this university system to study do so with the expectation that they will get the quality education that the name UNC represents. A redefinition of the code to restrict academic freedom would damage that expectation. People would not be confident that they are coming here to learn freely. Parents would not be confident that they can send their children here to study freely, and faculty would not be confident that they could take jobs in the system in order to do their work freely.

“Academic freedom has a definition that’s been accepted by the courts and by higher education, the sector as a whole. This is the first example we’re seeing of a university system trying to revise it downward, and we can’t accept that.”

NC State University professor of natural resources Fred Cubbage said the requirement for expressions of academic freedom to comply with institutional policies gives universities a free pass to fire tenured faculty if they wish.

While the AAUP members said there was no faculty input into the new definition, that’s not exactly true.

Wade Maki, a professor at UNC Greensboro and chair of the system’s Faculty Assembly, led a 15-month initiative to produce the definition ultimately included in the new policy. He consulted chancellors, campus administrators, student governments, the assembly and other university stakeholders, according to UNC.

He then delivered the draft definition to the board, which presented a draft of the new policy at the January Board of Governors meeting. Seeing some points of concern, Maki asked for one more week to bring the definition back to Faculty Assembly and make changes to the wording of certain lines. The board granted him that extra week, and the revisions softened the language of the parameters in some places.

“A lot will depend on the implementation,” Maki said at the Thursday meeting. “Yet this has been a bold project, challenging and worthy, that places a clear stake in the ground nationally. It clarifies freedom and responsibilities for faculty, students and administrators. It will serve as a model for other states. And above all, I want to thank the board for giving us the time and opportunity to weigh in and have feedback considered even well beyond the normal feedback process.”

That revised version was officially voted into policy Thursday.