Institutional Speech FAQ

The concept of institutional neutrality was first specified in 1967 by the Kalven Committee of the University of Chicago in their “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action.” The report underscored that great universities are dedicated to the discovery and dissemination of knowledge, and that this mission is best served through the creation of an environment that not only permits the articulation and consideration of different viewpoints, but one that actively encourages disagreement, dissent, and critical questioning of commonly accepted social truths. It is through the process of dissent, disagreement, and questioning that knowledge advances. By creating a culture that develops the capacity of teachers and students alike to think independently, universities not only support scientific discovery, they also develop the skills and orientations that community members need to engage civically. 

In the words of the resolution: “Institutional statements are communications issued by and in the name of the University of Minnesota or its academic or non-academic units, including but not limited to campuses, colleges, schools, departments, centers, and institutes, and that are disseminated through official University channels, including the University’s institutional and unit websites, social media accounts, and letterhead, or using the the official University marks.” In other words, they are messages that may appear to speak in the name of the University or one of its sub-units. 

When an institution speaks (through its leaders) it tends to diminish the consideration of different viewpoints on a topic. If the “answer” to a key social debate has already been given by an authority such as a dean or a president, why then think through the issue more fully? In order to protect individual speech, academic freedom, and the right of students and faculty to question and consider different viewpoints on topics of public concern, academic institutions should restrain the use of institutional speech on questions of public concern².

²Academic freedom (a concept originally articulated by the AAUP in the early twentieth century) generally applies only to academics and is intended to protect a faculty member’s rights as a teacher and researcher to explore questions and topics within their area of expertise without interference from authorities within or outside of the university. Free expression is much broader – this fundamental right is protected for everyone under the US Constitution and is considered a cornerstone of engaged and informed citizenship.
 

We live in a moment when the broader public, both within the state of Minnesota and nationally, is sharply divided on many key questions of public concern that do not immediately impact the mission or operations of the university. In order to protect individual speech, academic freedom, and the right of students and faculty to question and consider different viewpoints on topics of public concern, the Board of Regents affirmed the importance of restraining institutional speech while affirming the rights of individuals within the university to voice their viewpoints, consider alternative perspectives, and ask difficult questions. As noted in the Resolution, “Nothing in these guiding principles is intended to curtail the free expression of individuals within the University community, including faculty exercising academic freedom or other individuals expressing their views on matters of public concern or public interest, as outlined by Board of Regents policy and guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”

Under the guiding principle of institutional neutrality or restraint, it is appropriate for the university to use its institutional voice (through the office of the president) only on matters of immediate actual or potential impact on the university’s mission or operations. 

The university expects all units to align their communications with the Board of Regents resolution. The provost’s office will conduct a preliminary review of a statement only if it receives a complaint that suggests that a statement by a unit may violate the Board’s institutional statements resolution.

There are two main criteria that are considered in making a determination regarding whether a statement constitutes a form of institutional speech:

1. Is the statement issued by and/or in the name of an institutional unit (academic or nonacademic), such as a college, campus, department, center or institute? (This may include the publication and endorsement of a third party statement.)
2. Is the statement issued through University channels, such as unit websites or university-controlled social media accounts?

If a statement is determined not to be a form of institutional speech, then no further action will be taken.

In its preliminary review, the provost’s office will first consider whether a statement is fundamentally an instance of academic speech that summarizes research findings that may have bearing on a matter of public concern. That question cannot be answered with a simplistic checklist, but requires consideration of multiple factors, including whether a statement:

• Is being published by an established academic administrative unit (such as a center or institute) devoted to a specific area of research and study, drawing upon the collective work and expertise of that unit.
• Draws upon the specific and established academic expertise of the individuals who have authored or endorsed the statement.
• Directly and primarily draws from published research or scholarship that has been vetted through academic standards and processes that are typical within a given discipline (e.g., peer reviewed journals).
• Provides citations (including authorship) or links to this research directly within the statement. 
• Does not extend beyond what has been academically established through the research findings in speaking to matters of public concern. 
• Is nonpartisan in nature, avoiding criticism or support for particular parties, elected officials, or candidates based on their political affiliation.

Academic speech is not in violation of the Board of Regents Resolution. 

For speech that is affirmed to be an institutional statement  then the review of the statement will consider whether the statement does either of the following:

• Speaks on a matter of public concern where the University has taken a recent public position in a way that directly conflicts with or undermines that public position.
• Speaks on a matter of public concern that has not been found to have immediate actual or potential impact on the mission or operations of the university (as determined by the president under guidance by the Board of Regents).

If a preliminary determination is made that the statement in question is a form of institutional speech that violates the Regents resolution, then the provost’s office will endeavor to resolve the matter informally in conversation with unit leadership and/or the relevant dean or other university leaders who oversee the unit. Generally those leaders would, in turn, consult faculty or staff involved in issuing the statement.

If informal resolution is not possible or fails, the provost may determine that the statement needs to be removed from the university website or social media account where it is being disseminated.  In such circumstances, the provost may consult the newly proposed Provost’s Advisory Committee on Institutional Speech (PACIS) to further consider the matter and offer the provost confidential advice on how to proceed³.

PACIS will be selected by the provost in consultation with shared governance leaders, the president, and other system chancellors. The proposed membership includes:

• the chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure committee of the university senate
• the chair of the Senate Research Committee
• the dean of the UMN School of Law
• the director of the Hubbard School of Journalism
• the vice provost for faculty affairs (ex officio)
• faculty representatives from each university campus

It is expected that the provost will give careful consideration to the input that he or she receives from PACIS before making a final determination about whether a statement violates the principles behind the Regents’ Resolution and needs to be removed from official university channels.

³The Office of the Provost will consult with shared governance on constituting this committee.
 

The University of Minnesota is fortunate to have many excellent, nationally recognized centers and institutes that contribute greatly to the university’s fulfillment of its land grant mission. In their work to conduct research and education around particular topics, such centers and institutes not only conduct research themselves, they also often engage policy makers, community or business leaders, and the public on topics that fall within their domain of academic expertise. This work of translating research and academic expertise into publicly accessible briefings, reports, and presentations is a normal and respected part of the work of these centers and institutes. In order to ensure that these translational works are presented in ways that align with the Board of Regents guidance on the use of institutional voice, we recommend the following:

• That translational works should be clearly and explicitly tied to evidence-based research and academic expertise.
• That these translational works include necessary disclaimers indicating that they do not represent the institutional position of the University of Minnesota.
• While such works may include research-informed implications and recommendations for policy makers, they should always be offered in nonpartisan terms that avoid criticism or championing for particular political organizations or affiliations.
• In general, preference should be given for the public distribution of translational works through venues external to the university (e.g., academic journals, op-eds, legal briefs, legislative testimony, letters to the editor, interviews with journalists, etc.) rather than be published, in full, on a unit’s website or social media account. (Centers and institutes are also permitted to use their websites to promote the published work of UMN scholars with links to those works.)
   

The Board of Regents resolution clearly states that supporting academic freedom and freedom of discussion is central to the mission of the university. The resolution goes on to “affirm and defend the rights of individuals to research, publish, teach, speak or write on matters of public concern or public interest, and to otherwise disseminate their research, scholarship, and creative expression.” In line with this affirmation, academic leaders at all levels are called upon to regularly explain the principles of academic freedom and free expression to various stakeholder communities and elucidate the central role that the free exchange of diverse ideas plays in knowledge creation, discovery, and the development of critical thinking. Furthermore, information and exercises aimed at developing a deeper understanding of academic freedom and free expression should be offered as part of new faculty and new student orientations across all of the university’s campuses and programs. This expectation will be enacted on the Twin Cities campus in the fall of 2026.