At a contentious meeting March 14, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents approved a resolution that forbids University academic and non-academic units from issuing statements “addressing matters of public concern or public interest unless determined by the President to have an actual or potential impact on the mission and operations of the University.” Several dozen faculty and students present vehemently protested the resolution which passed by a roll call vote 9 to 3. 

The issue—“Who speaks for the University?”—has a long history at Minnesota and most major universities. The current resolution arose after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israeli civilians, and Israel’s military response in Gaza. Statements soon appeared on some U of M websites, raising the hackles of some Minnesota legislators and others. 

University administration responded in May 2024, commissioning a President’s Task Force on Institutional Speech to review, consult, and recommend policy changes. The Task Force presented its proposed policy to the University Senate at its October meeting. It recommended that “units” be allowed to make statements on issues of public concern but with “defined restrictions, requirements, and responsibility.” The final report arrived on President Cunningham’s desk in January. 

Critical and controversial matters

Regent Janie Mayeron, board chair, said in supporting the resolution, “My view is that the University should not be in the business of taking positions on critical and controversial matters of public concern.” Drawing from the Task Force report, she expressed concern that in taking specific positions the University risks suppressing those with opposing views, impeding rather than encouraging discussion. Instead, she said, the University should act as a forum for debate and learning on issues of public concern, central to its academic mission. She and other regents supporting the resolution were emphatic that it does not impair academic freedom or the free speech rights of individuals.

In opposing the resolution, Regent Mary Turner expressed concern that it may unintentionally suppress the “collective voice.”  She said, “The power of the collective voice is now more important than ever.” Regent Robyn Gulley, also opposing the resolution, expressed concern that the president’s full control of the process could incur substantial liability. Regent Bo Thao-Urabe added, “It could open the door to preferential decision-making.”

The resolution now requires President Cunningham to create a process for implementing the policy across the University system and to report to the Board of Regents at its October meeting.

—John Finnegan, UMRA liaison to the Board of Regents