The social-media policy created by the Kansas Board of Regents stands out because relatively few universities have put such policies in place yet. It’s also a case study in sometimes-conflicting priorities, illustrating how faculty members, administrators, and trustees worry about different things when it comes to social-media use.
The policy, adopted last year, gives chief administrators the power to suspend or dismiss any employee who makes improper use of social media. It was approved after David W. Guth, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, posted a controversial tweet about the National Rifle Association on the day of a mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard in September 2013. The tweet said: “The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”
The resulting storm included state legislators, who control the university system’s budget. Mr. Guth was placed on paid leave less than a week later. He returned to administrative duties later that fall and resumed teaching in the fall of 2014.
The policy is an attempt to protect the university from the consequences of employees’ controversial behavior online. But such attempts can have unintended consequences. For instance, professors might decide not to venture onto Twitter, or they might become reluctant to publicly associate themselves with their university.
Ben Chappell, an associate professor of American studies at Kansas, says he uses Facebook to engage in political discussion with people from across the ideological spectrum. After the regents’ policy went into effect, he removed his university affiliation from his Facebook page. “The idea that we need to put some public space between ourselves and our institution, that’s an established idea,” he says. “The regents’ policy has made a lot of us feel that the stakes are higher.”
Jeffrey S. Vitter, provost and executive vice chancellor at Kansas, is well aware of such concerns. He also understands the rationale behind the board’s action. “The regents undertook this policy as a way to show the state Legislature that we in the university system are responsible,” he says. “They had the best intentions of protecting the university from perhaps emotional responses to the tweet regarding the NRA.”
Whatever the intent, many faculty members were alarmed by the original policy, which was released in December 2013. “The issue of academic freedom and First Amendment rights is a nuanced issue, and it’s not something that you can put down on paper and have it crystal clear to people,” Mr. Vitter says. “I think faculty rightfully got concerned because the language, frankly by necessity, had to reflect that gray area.”
Mr. Vitter took those concerns to the regents and encouraged them to rework the policy with faculty input. Charles R. Epp, a professor in the School of Public Affairs and Administration, co-chaired the working group that proposed changes. In May 2014, the regents revised the policy using some of his group’s recommendations, including language that endorses academic freedom and free speech, but left the most problematic elements in place, he says.
With advice from legal experts, the working group concluded that rules of conduct already in place covered the possible abuse of social media. “We made precisely that point—that any conceivable offensive expression that a university might be able, under the First Amendment, to restrict is already addressed by existing policies,” Mr. Epp says. “Expression sometimes is controversial, and it’s the duty of universities to protect that expression, because we learn through debate. That’s the core of a university.”
Like others interviewed for this article, Mr. Epp believes that the policy has had a dampening effect on his colleagues at Kansas. “What they think is what matters, because their perceptions will shape what they do and what they’re willing to say.”
Faculty critics of the policy say its language remains problematic and unclear. For instance, social-media use that “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers” can be considered improper. The policy notes that U.S. Supreme Court has held that public employers can penalize employees for such behavior.
“If that language doesn’t sit well, the concern should really be with the Supreme Court language, not the board policy,” says Breeze Richardson, a spokeswoman for the Board of Regents.
Critics have overlooked how the policy tries to spell out what’s protected under existing laws, she argues. It’s an important conversation to be having, she says. “I would love for our strategic plan to be getting this kind of attention.”
Some guarantee of due process for alleged violations might ease scholars’ fears. A faculty working group chaired by Jonathan Mayhew, a professor of Spanish and president of the University Senate at Kansas, has proposed such a procedure, which he anticipates will be approved by the faculty soon.
But having an adjudication process in place doesn’t do away with the underlying concern, he wrote in an email: “The faculty as a group remains opposed to the new board policy, with virtual unanimity, with concerns over recruitment of faculty, the chilling effect of the policy, and doubts about its constitutionality.”
Correction (3/9/2015, 11:40 a.m.): This article originally referred to the University of Kansas’ Board of Regents. In fact, it is the Kansas Board of Regents, which governs the state’s entire system of public higher education. The article has been corrected to reflect this change.
