UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMIC SENATEBERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCOJames Steintrager
Telephone:(510) 987-9983
Email: james.steintrager@ucop.edu

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

Chair of the Assembly of the Academic Senate
Faculty Representative to the Regents
University of California
1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, California 94607-5200

March 15, 2024
RICHARD LEIB, CHAIR
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF REGENTS
Re: Proposed Board of Regents Policy on Use of University Administrative WebsitesDear Chair Leib:As requested, I distributed for systemwide Academic Senate review the proposed Regents Policy
on Use of University Administrative Websites. All ten Academic Senate divisions and foursystemwide Senate committees (Academic Freedom, Graduate Affairs, Academic Computing
and Communications, and Faculty Welfare) submitted comments. These were discussed at a
special meeting of the Academic Council on March 12. A summary is below but we also
encourage you to review the full set of comments through this link.
Each of the campus divisions and the four systemwide committees expressed serious reservationsabout various aspects of the policy. We summarize as the main concerns:•••••

The ambiguity of the draft policy in terms of intent and content, including the meaning ofkey terms.
The overly broad and simplistic approach to a complex set of issues underlying thepolicy.
The lack of clear implementation and enforcement mechanisms.
The potential of the policy to limit free speech and to impinge on academic freedom.
The potential of the policy to allow external actors to harass faculty and the University
with claims of violations.

Based on the comments that we received, the Academic Council voted unanimously (19-0)
against endorsement of the policy. We ask the Regents to reject the policy outright, or at least
delay consideration to provide time for clarification and for analysis of consequences andimplementation challenges. Further, we encourage the Regents to instead consider endorsing theSenate recommendations for department political statements 1 released in June 2022. These
recommendations align with the spirit of the University of California’s understanding of1

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/rh-senate-divs-recs-for-dept-statements.pdf

1

academic freedom and provide a more thorough and considered approach to the issues at hand.
Below we elaborate the principal concerns noted above and also express our concerns aboutprocess.
The version of the policy reviewed by the Senate would restrict department members fromexpressing “the personal or collective opinions of Unit members” on the main landing pages ofadministrative websites. It would mandate that any opinions expressed on other parts ofadministrative websites include a disclaimer clarifying that these opinions do not represent theofficial views of the University or the Unit.
Many reviewers noted the ambiguity of the proposed policy, which provides no clear definitions
for terms such as “unit,” “main landing page,” and, most importantly, “official business,” raisingquestions about what constitutes permissible content and what content might be deemed as
violating the policy. It is also unclear how those in charge of implementing the policy would
define what qualifies as an “opinion,” either personal or collective, or ensure that communication
on website landing pages addresses only the “official business of that Unit.”
Department websites often serve as platforms for scholarly communications, applying academic
expertise to ongoing economic, social, and political issues. Imposing blanket restrictions on
personal or collective opinions could hinder scholarly discourse and limit academic freedom.
While these negative impacts are likely to be felt more acutely in disciplines that address societal
and public policy issues, there is no reason to think that they will be exclusive to these areas(consider, for example, statements on climate change or vaccine efficacy). While academic
freedom as defined by the University of California (see Academic Personnel Manual [APM] 010 2) holds faculty accountable on the grounds of scholarly competence, which need not be
viewpoint neutral, members of the public may consider research-based statements as either facts
or opinions, depending on their own personal beliefs and political affiliations. Those who
disagree with particular statements may find the policy convenient to allege violation as the basis
for harassing actions against faculty, students, and other UC community members.
These ambiguities and the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms will make implementation
challenging at best. Delegating the adjudication of these ambiguities to staff website or faculty
administrators will unfairly burden them with an impossible task and will likely create confusionand division within campuses and across the University. There has also been no discussion about
the campus resources that will be required to implement the policy, monitor compliance, andenforce any consequences of non-compliance (which consequences are also not addressed).
As the policy text itself asserts, freedom of speech and of inquiry are cornerstone values of theUniversity of California. Faculty members should have the right to express their opinions,
whether as employees or subject matter experts, even if their views differ from those of peers
and senior leaders. The policy’s exemption of certain University officers from its provisions
raises questions about equity in freedom of discourse.
Lastly, a word on process: while the Senate appreciates the opportunity to review this policy for
the March 19-21 Regents meeting, the hurried crafting of the policy and compressed review
schedule (shorter than our normal expedited review) has caused the campuses to highlight theimportance of adhering to the principles and normal processes of shared governance. Further, the2https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-010.pdf

2

Senate notes that APM 010 in its discussion of academic freedom delegates to the faculty thesole right to determine the substance and nature of the standards of scholarly and pedagogicalcriteria. It defines the process by which concerns about academic freedom can be maintained andstrengthened by shared governance.
The Senate acknowledges the policy’s principal goal, which is to ensure that individual andcollective viewpoints are not misconstrued as official University positions. The Senate also
recognizes that departmental statements have various downsides, including the potential toinfringe on academic freedom. Again, the Senate believes that the Regents’ principal goal, as
stated in the draft policy, as well as related issues will be most effectively addressed by Regental
endorsement of the Senate’s recommendations on departmental statements. These
recommendations were based on comprehensive consultation with faculty on the ten campuses,as well as with UC Legal consultants. They are intended to guide departments whose members
opt to post statements to do so in ways that minimize downsides and that do not infringe on
academic freedom. These recommendations advise departments to use their right to issue
political statements responsibly and judiciously, include disclaimers with statements that makeclear that the department does not speak for the University as a whole, define the unit voting on
the statement, and solicit minority or opposition statements.
In summary, the proposed policy raises numerous content and implementation issues, and isvague, impractical, possibly unenforceable, likely counterproductive, and appears inconsistent
with the University’s adherence to principles of free expression and academic freedom. If theRegents are unable to resolve the questions and address the complexities identified, the Board
should not move forward with a systemwide policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to opine. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you haveadditional questions.
Sincerely,

James Steintrager, Chair
Academic Council
Cc:

Steven W. Cheung
Vice Chair, Academic Council

Academic Council
Vice Chair Elliott
Regent Park
Regent Sures
President Drake
Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Newman
General Counsel and Senior Vice President Robinson
Secretary and Chief of Staff to Regents Lyall
Senate Division Executive Directors
Senate Executive Director Lin3