The New York Civil Liberties Union has issued a letter to Barnard President Laura Rosenbury, alleging that College policies prohibiting political expression on departmental websites and requiring websites to be approved by the Office of the Provost violate academic freedom. 

On December 19, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) addressed a letter to Barnard President Laura Rosenbury in support of faculty members of the Barnard Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department (WGSS). The NYCLU claimed a new Barnard policy, which requires Barnard academic department websites to be pre-approved by the Office of the Provost, violates “fundamental free speech principles” and restrains academic freedom. 

This letter comes in response to an October 20 statement issued by the WGSS Department in solidarity with Palestine. Shortly after this statement and a list of educational resources were published on the WGSS Department website, they were removed by the Office of the Provost. In an email on October 22, Barnard Provost Linda Bell said the statement was removed because it violated the College’s Acceptable Use Policy, which states, “Users may not use College resources to solicit, proselytize, or conduct political activity.” Further, Bell stated that the WGSS Department statement violated the College’s Social Media Guidelines, which prohibit College employees from representing themselves as a spokesperson for the College. In response, a member of the WGSS faculty asked for clarification of the violation, claiming the College “raised no concerns” with the website’s statement in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. 

On October 27, Barnard enacted changes to its Website Governance and Political Activity policies. Changes to the former involved limiting the number of members who could publish to all sections of Barnard’s website. In a November 3 email, as described by the NYCLU, the College stated departments would now have to submit their websites to the Office of the Provost for review and approval, stating this would ensure “more effective communication.” An open letter published by University community members on October 30 addressed the change, claiming the College had “curtail[ed] departmental faculty autonomy over their own communications.” On November 15, various University faculty members gathered on Low Steps to protest in support of academic freedom. 

In the December 19 letter, the NYCLU provided a few reasons for its conclusion that Barnard had violated academic freedom. The letter stated, “The central tenet of academic freedom holds that donors, politicians and administrators… must not dictate the content of academic speech.” As a result, the NYCLU argued scholars should be protected from punishment based on personal and political opinions. The letter further stated that vague language about permitted contents of departmental websites are additional “intrusions into academic freedom.” Academic freedom, the organization attested, maintains “independent intellectual inquiry and discourse.” The letter stated that this freedom extends to all “pedagogical functions” beyond the classroom. 

The letter also highlighted the unique platform of departmental websites. In addition to providing information about academic departments, “they also serve important scholarly and pedagogical functions,” the NYCLU maintained. The letter cited the WGSS website’s inclusion of educational resources as furthering this pedagogical function, “only to have Barnard administrators insist that the posting must be withdrawn, presumably because it criticized policies and practices of the Israeli government,” the NYCLU continued. 

With regard to the website policy changes, the NYCLU claimed that although “the logistical reasons for the policy may have some merit, it is clear that the new policy enables the college to control and censor the academic content of these sites.” This, the NYCLU contended, could lead other colleges to “curtail robust academic discourse.” 

The NYCLU also raised questions about how the word “political” can be defined, if departmental websites are prohibited from including political rhetoric. They attest prohibiting partisan electoral politics to be “reasonable,” but see limitations of ideological statements to be “excessive,” stating that political ideology is a part of academic discourse.

The NYCLU proposed that the College “allow academic departments to curate their websites as they see fit.” They recommended that partisan views be accompanied by a statement of authorship and disclaimer that the views of faculty and students are separate from those of the College. “Some may find the statement that WGSS issued on its website last month to be objectionable,” the NYCLU stated. “But, if so, the critics should express the basis for the objection rather than resort to censorship.” 

Barnard College via Bwog Archives