Proposed text for faculty resolution on freedom of expression (tabled in April 2017, brought up for final vote February 2021)
The faculty affirms that as an institution of higher education, the University should be committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, guaranteeing all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. The University should fully respect and support the freedom of all members of the University community to discuss any problem that presents itself. Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it should not be the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University should greatly value civility, and although all members of the University community should share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect should not be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community. In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment should be to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It should be for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner should be an essential part of the University’s educational mission. The faculty affirm that, as a corollary to what should be the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community should also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community should be free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they should not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the faculty affirms that the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.
Motion for review of existing freedom of expression policies (this was a companion motion also tabled in 2017)
The faculty asks FAPC and CAFT and Faculty Council to review current language in the Faculty Handbook regarding academic freedom, in consultation with the President and Counsel, and report back to the faculty at our November meeting on the following three questions (in bold below):
1. In Section III k of the Faculty Handbook, the justification for protected freedom of expression (in relation to tenure and employment) seems to be based on scholarly research and artistic performance. Is freedom of political or identity expression, when not related directly to a scholarly or artistic field of expertise, protected under current Handbook language?
2. The faculty handbook urges faculty to support academic freedom for students and colleagues, but colleagues may or may not be paid Bucknell staff. Would the Handbook provide clearer protection for freedom of political or identity expression if paid staff explicitly were included in its language?
3. The Handbook in Section III p and Appendix A limit political expression to the extent it might threaten the University’s 501(c)(3) status. Our understanding of nonprofit law is that nonprofits are not allowed to engage in program activities that support partisan election activities of a candidate or specific legislation being considered by lawmaking bodies of government. Is the Handbook language and the university policy in Appendix A unnecessarily restrictive or ambiguous with regard to political expression (and potentially identity expression), in relation to the university’s tax status?
Other supplemental questions follow from this last question, which we also encourage the above-mentioned bodies to consider in their review:
–Is the current language clear in allowing members of the Bucknell community to foster political expression for educational or research purposes, as well as to express their identity and further university goals such as diversity?
–If fostering such expression does not count as the kinds of political activities forbidden under restrictions that apply to 501(c)(3) charities, is it clearly allowed and protected under our current Handbook and university policy language?
–What counts as political activity and what specific types of activities are forbidden?
–What type of sponsor for a program or activity at the university would be considered an official program of the university from the standpoint of our IRS tax exemption–does a departmental or student program represent an action by Bucknell as a corporation?
–Are expressions of political opinion or personal identity (racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, etc.) that might be considered in some way political, by a person who includes their official university role (as one might do in an op ed article in a newspaper), considered political by Bucknell with respect to limitations of the 501(c)(3) regulations?
–Does current Handbook language prohibiting university support for political activity extend to use of university resources such as email, phones, copy machines, library resources, campus space, as well as staff and faculty work time?
–Do such restrictions work against protection of political speech and freedom of expression of identity, especially for non-hourly salaried university employees?
–Is the language’s citing of 501(c)(3) status reflective of current best practice and understanding of such tax status at American liberal arts colleges and universities?