Academic Freedom: A Road Map for Chairs

Abstract

In early 2025, the chair of the history department at the US Naval Academy resigned in the face of the academy superintendent's demand that he revoke the acceptance of a paper to be presented at a symposium on naval history (Quinn 2025). The superintendent's demand was widely seen as bending to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's priorities; the department chair refused to comply. The chair's principled stand made national headlines.

In 2022, the chair of the art department at Hamline University initially supported an instructor's academic freedom to set curriculum after a student complained about an art instructor's display of a painting of the prophet Mohammed, although she did suggest the instructor apologize for the unintended offense (American Association of University Professors 2023). Under pressure from upper administrators to resolve the complaint, the department chair revoked her stated intention to renew the instructor's contract. That move was widely interpreted as a punishment of the instructor, and it sparked national controversy that ended with the resignation of the school's president and damage to the school's reputation.

As these two stories illustrate, department chairs can make pivotal decisions during academic freedom controversies. Whether it is a student reporting a professor for what the student perceives as harmful classroom speech, a faculty member's inflammatory social media post drawing the attention of state legislators, or a directive from upper administrators that violates academic freedom principles, it is at the department chair level where many policies are implemented and conflicts are first adjudicated. A chair's actions can resolve an academic freedom controversy or set it spinning out of control.

As someone who leads a program on campus free expression and academic freedom, I've followed academic freedom controversies and spoken with those involved. I've seen up close that department chairs are often in a tough spot when it comes to academic freedom. As a chair, you must uphold institutional policies you did not craft in situations without clear-cut answers. If you challenge senior administrators, you risk your department losing out on resources controlled by those administrators. You are also responsible for sustaining a departmental culture of free inquiry and discourse. New chairs rarely receive training on or support in managing these responsibilities.

To help fill the gap, here's a playbook for your next academic freedom controversy. Although these controversies can play out in as little as a few days or over many months, they have three key phases: your reception of the initial complaint or query; laying the groundwork for your response; and the resolution of the complaint, whether that is at the department level or higher up.

Your initial response to these challenges should be calm and confident. Keep your reply to these two messages: You're taking the person and their concerns seriously and you cannot, on the spot, commit to any particular resolution. “Tell me more,” or “This sounds important, so I'm going to take notes” convey that you are giving the person and their concerns your serious attention. “I'll need to hear from everyone,” and “I'll ask the others how they saw it” keep you from committing yourself before you hear other sides of the story. If the initial complaint arrives over email, resist the urge to respond at length and instead invite them to a conversation with you, by phone or in person.

At the end of the conversation, signal again that you're taking the matter seriously by indicating when the complainant can expect next to hear from you: “I should be able to talk to others soon; by Thursday, I'll let you know what I see as a next step or at least give you an updated time frame.” The person on the other end of the conversation may pressure you to commit to a course of action, so be ready to resist: “This is important, so I'll need time to consult everyone and ensure that we've considered every aspect.”

Once you've heard the complainant out, take a step back and ask three questions.

What principles are involved? Chairs don't need to be experts on academic freedom principles, but some background reading now can provide a deeper understanding of recent debates. Stanley Fish's Versions of Academic Freedom (2014) is a short primer on these topics; Keith Whittington's You Can't Teach That! (2024) discusses faculty academic freedom in public university classrooms. Hank Reichman's newly updated Understanding Academic Freedom (2025) explores challenges to academic freedom in multiple contexts.

What institutional policies and laws govern this situation? Chairs are officers of the university who must be mindful of the law and university policies that protect academic freedom. It's not only that chairs should avoid running afoul of law and policy but also that policies can help ensure that policy, not the chair's caprice, is behind a decision. Set aside an hour or two to locate and read your school's policies: not only the faculty handbook academic freedom policy but also policies about major events, social media usage, demonstrations, and distinguishing personal from university communications. If you're at a public university, Andrew Morse's The First Amendment and the Inclusive Campus (2018) provides practical guidance.

Who must be involved in resolving this situation? Make a list of people directly involved in the conflict and others able to contextualize it as well as those who, according to policy, must be notified or otherwise involved. Even if it isn't required, consider including your dean; they may have good advice and will appreciate getting a heads-up about a situation.

After you've discerned what principles, policies, law, and people have a part in the academic freedom issue before you, you'll sense what additional information you need and what next steps to take. Here are some other points to keep in mind.

The next step might be to do nothing. For example, you might receive a complaint about a professor's post on a private social media account. The post is almost certainly protected speech; the follow-up may be only reminding others—whether the complainant or other administrators who want to open an investigation—that academic freedom principles protect objectionable speech.

Be kind, fair, transparent, and expeditious. As you've heard only one side, ask questions that convey receptiveness to hearing other accounts. Show consideration for someone who is likely angry and anxious about being questioned. When a student brings a concern about a professor, the student should be encouraged to meet with the professor to see if the concern can be resolved in a conversation. This both empowers the student and avoids making a faculty member feel that they are under suspicion. If an investigation is warranted, assure all parties that, as much as is in your power, investigations will be expeditious and transparent.

Badly handled investigations undermine teaching. The texts and topics that are most likely to generate student complaints are those about race, sex, and gender—the very topics that may be most important for students to study. I've heard from faculty who, upon being, in their view, unfairly investigated, responded by dropping challenging texts and topics from their syllabi. This is a tragic outcome. If colleges are to educate students about our country's most vexed and contentious issues, we must distinguish student discomfort from student safety.

Be transparent but wary. When I've spoken to those involved in headline-generating campus controversies, not one of them thought at first that they were dealing with anything other than a local kerfuffle. To reduce misunderstandings, have meetings in person, and avoid email communications that could be weaponized if leaked to parties or news venues determined to (mis)use your words to make a particular point. If you use email, treat it as a communication that could be read by anyone on campus, The Chronicle of Higher Education subscribers, and the state legislature's education committees.

Foster a departmental culture that supports academic freedom and open inquiry. In 2013, a Florida Atlantic University professor asked students to “stomp” on a paper with “Jesus” written on it (Jaschik 2013). Were this professor's classroom choices protected by academic freedom? Yes. Wise pedagogy? No. You can foster a departmental culture that emphasizes robust classroom discussions of contentious topics and honors academic freedom norms by organizing workshops drawing on center for teaching and learning resources and tabletop exercises from the Council of Independent Colleges' report Campus Free Expression: A New Roadmap for Faculty (Academic Leaders Task Force on Campus Free Expression 2024). Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman's Free Speech on Campus (2017) offers additional practical suggestions for fostering an inclusive culture of open inquiry.

Because department chairs serve as intermediaries between faculty and more senior administrators, between faculty peers, and between students and their professors, they are often the first responders to an academic freedom controversy. Most academic freedom questions don't make national headlines, and very often that is because a chair makes the right call. Sticking to a playbook can help you navigate academic freedom issues and controversies.

This article is based on a workshop at the 81st annual meeting of the American Conference of Academic Deans, February 19–21, 2025, Phoenix, Arizona.

Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill is senior director of the Civic Learning and Free Expression Projects at the Council of Independent Colleges. Email: [email protected]