Around the world, scholars, researchers, and students are facing increasing risks to their rights to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Academic freedom is defined as the freedom to research, write, think, engage, and publish within or related to a specific field of study, both within or outside of an academic community. Academic freedom also protects the rights of higher education faculty members to speak freely as civic actors outside of their work.
Attacks on academic freedom have become particularly pervasive in regions with leaders who implement autocratic actions. In these regions, academic freedom may be seen as a form of dissent and in turn, a threat to autocratic unchecked power.
Academic freedom is fundamental to scientific progress and the pursuit of knowledge. The freedom to critically engage and discuss material is a necessary condition for the development of new ideas. In addition, the principles of academic freedom not only contribute to the production of knowledge and innovation, but they allow for the ability to question and test it.
Human Rights Framework
Academic freedom is protected under human rights law. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the rights to academic freedom and freedom of opinion and expression are outlined in Article 19.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Importantly, as a human right, academic freedom is not only protected for certain institutions, it is universal.
In 2020, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, published a report on academic freedom in relation to the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In this report, Kaye again affirmed that academic freedom is an essential component of the right to freedom of opinion and expression as a whole. Kaye noted that the principles of academic freedom apply both intramurally, within institutions and internal research, and extramurally, for commentary and engagement outside of the institution.
Following the 2020 report, a working group was formed to draft a set of principles for the implementation of academic freedom.
These principles are grounded in United Nations legal standards and regional human rights instruments.
Academic freedom can also be understood as a realization of the Right to Education, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Allowing students to examine, think about, and engage with topics, no matter their popularity, is critical to their development and understanding of academic material. And consequentially, critical to their right to a comprehensive education.
To protect academic freedom is to protect the freedom to think for all students, scholars, and faculty alike.
Where the United States Stands Today
Across the United States, universities and higher education institutions have become increasingly scrutinized in debates over freedom of speech and institutional neutrality. In the wake of the October 2023 attack carried out by Hamas on Israel and Israel’s subsequent military response, college students across the country participated in a series of protests and counterprotests, largely regarding U.S. backing of Israel. In December 2023, presidents of three major universities, Harvard, M.I.T, and Penn, were called before Congress for questioning regarding protest movements and growing Anti-Semitism on their college campuses. In the lead up to the 2024 presidential election, several Republican lawmakers threatened to pull federal funding from campuses that allowed pro-Palestinian protests.
Following the election of President Trump in November 2024, the first days of the administration featured several restrictions to U.S. colleges and universities, including restrictions on DEI initiatives, funding freezes to federal research grants, revocation of international student visas, and proposals to tie institutional federal funding to alignment with the administration's ideology.
Case Study: University of Minnesota, 2025
In March 2025, the University of Minnesota Board of Regents (BoR), passed a resolution regarding a report and recommendations published by the University President’s Task Force on Institutional Speech. The President’s task force was established in May 2024, in response to three University academic departments publishing statements in solidarity with Palestinians following Hamas’ October 2023 attack and Israel’s retaliation.
The faculty-led task force surveyed a variety of community members and stakeholders to create their recommendations. The initial recommendations were unanimously approved by the faculty senate Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) committee and passed through the entire faculty senate. In January 2025, the task force published a final report on institutional and departmental statements, concluding that public and positional statements must pass through a specific academic unit vetting. The final report was then passed through the University Senate
In their March 2025 meeting, in contrast to task-force recommendations, the BoR voted to prohibit University colleges, centers, institutes and "other academic or non-academic units” from making statements entirely on “matters of public concern or public interest.” At the time of the resolution, the BoR chair defined “matters of public concern” to include political elections, court verdicts, new legislation, armed conflicts, police action, and natural disaster response. The resolution states that all unit positional or public statements must be directly approved by the University president. It was not defined as to whether research findings or reports are to be included under this resolution. The passing of the resolution set aside the conclusions of shared governance done by the University and Faculty Senates, as well as the initial task force.
Prior to this ruling, the BoR had defined academic freedom as: “the freedom, without institutional discipline or restraint, to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression, and to speak or write on matters of public concern as well as on matters related to professional duties and the functioning of the University.” Previous policy and definitions did not specify the bounds of faculty or departments making statements.
Following the ruling, the Executive Vice President and Provost published an FAQ on Institutional Speech, linked here.
The ruling is inconsistent with the human right to academic freedom and the standards outlined in article 19. As the article states, individuals are free to hold opinions “without interference” and may “impart information and ideas…regardless of frontiers.” The BoR’s resolution requires centralized approval for statements of public interest that may include information and ideas, which is inherently an example of interference. Regardless if individual faculty members retain the right to speak personally, restrictions on unit-level or institutional prevents the University from engagement in matters of public concern.