Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
News

Colleges Are Divided on Need for New Speech Policies

By Peter Schmidt March 10, 2014

Many colleges have been slow to develop policies governing professors’ online speech. But institutions’ hesitancy to adopt new rules for new forms of communication might be wise, a number of faculty leaders and legal experts say.

Among the more than 70 four-year colleges whose faculty leaders recently provided details about their policies to The Chronicle, nearly half said their institutions had no policies specifically regulating online speech. Relatively few had rules governing faculty members’ work-related websites or speech on popular social-media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Many colleges have been slow to develop policies governing professors’ online speech. But institutions’ hesitancy to adopt new rules for new forms of communication might be wise, a number of faculty leaders and legal experts say.

Among the more than 70 four-year colleges whose faculty leaders recently provided details about their policies to The Chronicle, nearly half said their institutions had no policies specifically regulating online speech. Relatively few had rules governing faculty members’ work-related websites or speech on popular social-media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

“We have a lot of work to do!” said one of the faculty leaders. Others who responded to the online survey, sent to current and recent faculty-senate presidents and other top faculty representatives, similarly complained that their colleges are behind the times.

The American Association of University Professors, for its part, has urged college administrators to work with their faculties to develop policies governing the use of social media and other forms of online communication.

Its committee on academic freedom said in a draft report issued last fall that advances in online communication have broadened the definition of a classroom, blurred distinctions between personal and work-related communication, and created new threats to faculty privacy. The committee argued that electronic communications “are too important for the maintenance and protection of academic freedom” for their regulation to be left up to colleges’ technology officers.

Other experts on the law and academic freedom argue, however, that rather than crafting new policies on online speech, colleges should govern it with well-established rules predating the Internet and simply advise faculty members to be wary of how far their remarks can travel.

“My general pitch is that computer-use policies ought to look a lot like your typewriter-use policy,” said Steven J. McDonald, general counsel for the Rhode Island School of Design.

The question of how to ensure that college policies account for online communications has gained prominence as a result of several recent controversies stemming from the wide distribution of provocative statements by faculty members.

In many cases, administrators or governing boards responded in ways that led them to be accused of trampling academic freedom.

Such was the case after David W. Guth, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Kansas, responded to the shootings at the Washington Navy Yard with a tweet wishing harm on the children of leaders of the National Rifle Association. The university placed Mr. Guth on administrative leave and reassigned him to nonteaching duties.

ADVERTISEMENT

Then the Kansas Board of Regents went on to adopt a sweeping social-media policy widely denounced as threatening academic freedom and shared governance. It includes provisions potentially subjecting public colleges’ faculty members and other employees to discipline for any communication that impairs “harmony among co-workers” or hurts “close working relationships” requiring “personal loyalty and confidence.”

The Kansas board’s leadership has responded to criticism of the policy by asking a committee of faculty and staff members from each campus in the university system to review the policy and suggest changes. The committee has drafted new language, to be taken up by the board in April, which emphasizes traditional protections of academic freedom and free speech.

Fears of regulatory overreach may be one reason why many faculty leaders say they are fine with having their colleges lack policies tailored to online communication. A substantial share of the professors who told The Chronicle they were happy with their institutions’ approach to online speech came from colleges without policies specifically governing it.

On the whole, most of the faculty members characterized their colleges’ policies on different forms of online communication as appropriate. Email stood out as the only online medium that they were more likely to see as regulated too much rather than too little. Substantial majorities of those who expressed dissatisfaction with their colleges’ policies governing work-related websites, Twitter, and Facebook said those areas were not being regulated enough.

ADVERTISEMENT

Well over half of the faculty leaders who responded said that, contrary to the AAUP’s recommendations, professors play no role in shaping their institutions’ approach to online speech. A majority said their institutions also lack an AAUP-recommended policy requiring administrators to obtain a faculty member’s consent before examining or disclosing that instructor’s private online communications.

Even though many faculty leaders say they are satisfied without online speech policies at their colleges, some experts say professors have a lot to lose by not having such policies on the books.

Colleges without carefully thought-out policies “are just waiting for trouble,” said Henry F. Reichman, a professor emeritus of history at California State University-East Bay and chairman of the AAUP’s committee on academic freedom. The lack of a policy, he said, “is an open invitation to an administration to make it up on the fly under pressure.” Policies drafted under such circumstances, he said, are likely to be too heavy-handed.

Joseph C. Storch, associate counsel for the State University of New York system, said he comes down on the side of applying well-established policies focused on what is said and not how people say it. The old rules concerning libel, plagiarism, student privacy, or the protection of free speech in public forums apply no matter what the medium.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We don’t want to regulate the social-media technology, we want to regulate behavior,” he said.

Among those opposed to any policies specifically governing online speech is Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech advocacy group. He said he distrusts such policies because they “empower administrators to limit what people can talk about,” and often end up being enforced “on a viewpoint basis,” with statements administrators endorse enjoying more protection than statements they oppose.

One way to prevent controversies over faculty members’ speech is to limit its audience.

The distribution of surreptitiously videotaped classroom discussions has become such a common source of public outrage that officials at the University of Colorado at Boulder cited fears of such videotaping to justify their decision in December to discipline a sociology professor over a classroom skit on prostitution.

ADVERTISEMENT

Of the faculty members who answered The Chronicle’s questions about their colleges’ policies, about 20 said their institutions let faculty members prohibit the unauthorized recording and redistribution of classroom speech.

Tracy Mitrano, a former director of information technology at Cornell University who now consults for colleges, said students have every right to complain about a faculty member to a dean or department chair. But, she said, airing such a complaint by posting a secretly recorded videotape online is immediately “going from 0 to 60.”

If students object to a professor’s ban, she said, her advice is, “Don’t take the class.”

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Peter Schmidt
Peter Schmidt was a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. He covered affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

One Email, Much Outrage
Professors Encounter Digital-Age Dangers

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin