April 2022: The Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee voted unanimously to endorse this statement.
The Bylaws of the University of Pittsburgh state that “[a]utonomy and freedom of inquiry are required for the University to carry out its mission” (Ch. 2, Art. 2.1), which is the advancement of learning and inquiry. The University supports academic freedom and endorses the American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom. Just as the AAUP periodically revisits its Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom, it is appropriate for the University of Pittsburgh to regularly reassert its commitment to academic freedom as fundamental to the University purpose of seeking and disseminating knowledge. This communication serves to highlight previous University statements and to reaffirm the University’s commitment to academic freedom as fundamental to the University’s mission.
In 2002, in a letter to the University community, Provost James V. Maher wrote extensively about the history of academic freedom, stating that “[a] free society cannot tolerate the repression of new information, new ideas, and new ways of understanding, however unpopular or controversial they may seem. The purpose of academic freedom has always been to protect and preserve the pursuit of truth and its dissemination. But academic freedom does not benefit only teachers and students. Everyone benefits from academic freedom ….” Provost Maher also summarized the three basic principles set out in the AAUP statement, and limits on those principles, as follows:
- [Faculty] are entitled to full freedom in research and in publication of the results, subject to adequate performance of their other duties and an understanding with university authorities regarding research for "pecuniary return."
- [Faculty] are entitled to freedom in the classroom to discuss their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce controversial material that has no relation to that subject.
- [Faculty] are entitled to speak and write as private citizens, free from institutional censorship or discipline, but as scholars and [educators] they should at all times be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, show respect for the opinions of others, and make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the university.
Application of these principles requires interpretation and judgment, which may be challenging in certain situations. But discussion of these principles will serve to further the community’s understanding, which is fundamental to the educational process. Academic freedom does not mean freedom from debate.
In 2003, a provost-charged Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom affirmed that at its most fundamental, the academic freedom of all members of the University centers on the right of individual scholars to use their professional expertise to select and pursue lines of enquiry, to come to conclusions and to formulate scholarly opinions on the questions that they study, and to translate their knowledge and understanding into effective instruction appropriately grounded in principles and practices of disciplines and professions. It is the responsibility of the University to support individuals in the exercise of these rights within the bounds of available resources, the conflicting demands put on those resources, and the constraints of shared governance.
In 2014, the Tenure and Academic Freedom Committee of the University Senate formed a subcommittee to examine academic freedom at Pitt. That subcommittee came to “unanimous agreement that the existing policies on academic freedom are strong and do not need to be revised.” However, it recommended creation of a best practices document relating to social media, which it developed, as well as reassurances from the administration that university policies extend to electronic speech, which were provided, and which are now confirmed.
I reiterate Provost Maher’s message that faculty members are entitled to full freedom in research and publication of results; see, e.g., AO 45, Gift Acceptance and Naming Policy, Appendix A. In the classroom, as well, faculty members are free to discuss their subject; however, as the AAUP has stressed, “students are entitled to an atmosphere conducive to learning and to evenhanded treatment in all aspects of the teacher-student relationship.” Faculty members may need to consider how best to create such an atmosphere, which might include refraining from certain actions (e.g., imposing their views on students). Finally, faculty members are free to communicate as private citizens but are cautioned to indicate they are not representing the University. In particular with respect to electronic speech, the line between speaking as a scholar and researcher and as a private citizen may be hard to discern.
The University of Pittsburgh stands by and is fully committed to protecting our faculty’s freedom of inquiry and of instruction.
—Ann E. Cudd, Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor
* Not applicable to bargaining unit members.