The University of Minnesota Board of Regents discussed institutional speech and expansions to academic health at the Feb. 14 meeting.
University President Rebecca Cunningham and Essentia Healthcare CEO David Herman presented new plans for healthcare after it was announced Jan. 24 that the University would be working with Essentia Health.
The Board introduced a resolution on institutional speech stating the president is the primary spokesperson for the University, and statements addressing matters of public concern or interest are no longer permitted.
Protesters gathered in the boardroom vocalizing their discomfort with the resolution.
Institutional Speech
Students for Democratic Society (SDS) interrupted the Board meeting over concerns of academic freedom regarding the proposed resolution for institutional speech.
The resolution defines institutional statements as communications issued in the name of the University and its departments and units.
This policy is connected to a national trend of institutional neutrality which has become increasingly popular as students and universities have become less favorable toward political statements.
Schools like Yale, Northwestern and John Hopkins University have adopted policies of institutional neutrality.
The Board of Regents policy would require individuals to make it clear that they are not speaking for the University when discussing matters of public concern.
Regent Douglas Huebsch said institutional neutrality is necessary for our University because the University is not a political source, and its goal is to remain neutral.
Regent Robyn Gulley was concerned the resolution was too vague. She said it does not differentiate between units, departments and centers while trying to address a specific issue.
“We could use a scalpel, but we use a bulldozer,” Gulley said.
Regent Mike Kenyanya said he was grateful for the feedback, but they did not have enough time to process every comment.
When the board ended its discussion, protesters began to chant statements supporting academic freedom and institutional speech in the boardroom. They shouted “Defend academic freedom” and “Stop the attacks on free speech.”
SDS released a statement explaining the protest on Instagram.
“It is clear that this new proposal is an attempt to control messaging coming out of the University,” SDS wrote. “It should not have to be said that no University president has the expertise to decide what statements should or should not be released.”
The resolution will be voted on at a later meeting.
Academic Health
Cunningham and Herman presented their plan of “a bold new vision for healthcare” at the meeting.
The plan is an integrated strategy the University is beginning with Essentia that focuses on increasing care across the state and addressing “urgent healthcare needs,” particularly in rural communities.
“We are talking about a newly proposed vision that would fundamentally enhance the structure of healthcare,” Cunningham said.
Herman said Essentia values the connection a healthcare provider has with their patients and wants to implement that level of care across the system.
Regent Ruth Johnson spoke in support of the plan, saying it brings a clear solution for practitioners in the state.
“The people of Minnesota and the legislatures in Minnesota care about their communities. Communities increasingly have a presence there and provide services,” Johnson said. “I believe that the legislators and the citizens of those areas will support the university and a greater level of discussion.”
Regent Penny Wheeler said there is hope that future conversations with Fairview will take place.
Fairview’s role in the new plan has not been made clear yet, after the Star Tribune reported that Fairview has said it does not want to work with Essentia.
KG
Feb 19, 2025 at 11:28 am
Dennis Hejhal: I respectfully disagree with your proposition that “Academic units here have every right to express collective viewpoints on matters ‘within their area of expertise’ and such may be affected by current events.” Unfortunately, UMN academic units have been overtaken by an extremist pro-Palestinian groupthink that does not hold up to serious academic scrutiny.
Take the 2023 resolutions on Gaza from CSCL, GWSS, and IAS as examples. These statements applied the settler-colonialist narrative to Israel-Palestine, but this framework is historically and academically inaccurate. Jews have maintained a continuous presence in the land of Israel, even following their exile by the Romans. A wealth of historical and archaeological evidence supports this, including Benjamin of Tudela’s 12th-century travelogue, which documented dozens of Jewish communities in the region. Also, in 1937, the British Peel Commission estimated there were 15,000 Jews living in Israel-Palestine in 1850. Recently, the discovery of a 14th-century synagogue further underscores this deep historical connection.
Extremist UMN professors are behaving as partisan political activists in both the public sphere and the classroom. This misuse of their academic positions must stop, and they must cease leveraging UMN’s name for propagandistic purposes.
Let’s consider a current example: Nick Estes of IAS, a member of UMN Faculty for Justice in Palestine, is serving as a Theme Editor for an upcoming special issue of the Journal of Architectural Education (JAE 79:2, expected publication Fall 2025). This issue is intended to glorify Hamas’s massacre and genocide against Israelis as “resistance.” First, Nick has no expertise in architecture. Second, he has adopted the false settler-colonialist narrative regarding Israel-Palestine, but he lacks credibility as an “expert.” His use of UMN’s name in this context tarnishes the university’s reputation and undermines its academic integrity.
So, Dennis, what is IAS, CLA, or the UMN Senate going to do about Nick Estes? What would your response be if a faculty member without expertise was promoting a deeply flawed mathematical theory under UMN’s name?
I would like to believe that you still care about UMN’s reputation. If academic units and the University Senate cannot exercise discipline and maintain intellectual standards, then the Regents and the President will need to step in. UMN is a great university—let’s work to keep it that way.
Dennis Hejhal
Feb 18, 2025 at 2:21 pm
This MnDaily article on the BoR academic freedom matter had a way of chiefly highlighting some rather well-behaved protesters. (Watch the video recording! It is available at the Regents’ website for anyone to see
& scroll through. Academic freedom discussion begins around marker 17.00; for about 40 minutes.)
Sometimes, at this university, diverse groups of people actually have shared concerns about what is right. Gaza & Divestment stuff are not the only issues here. Hello!
The University Senate voted 122-8 on Dec 5th to approve a draft UM policy concerning Position Statements to be presented to the Regents. It was a product of long work by the Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee. About 1 week prior to the Feb 14 regents meeting, the proposed *Regents’* Resolution on Institutional Speech basically undercutting that 122-8 vote was abruptly sent to the Senate with, what I understand, was no explanation. There is a question of propriety here. This is why, within a matter of like 2 days prior to Feb 14, a petition to the Regents signed by over 400 university members [prior to cut-off time] — including many tenured faculty and multiple department heads (and at least one former dean) — got sent to the BoR prior to their Friday meeting.
Regent Gulley is correct. Use of a bulldozer was proposed. The Board of Regents rightly decided to have further discussion & deliberation on this. They invite input from the U community. Regent Chair Mayeron stressed this.
To me, it was obvious that the proposed regents’ resolution was not
ready for prime-time. (This university deserves more than a bulldozer.)
Academic units here have every right to express collective viewpoints on matters *within their area of expertise* and such may be affected by current events. (Hint: the date is now *after* Jan 20.)
Susan Spiegel Pastin
Feb 18, 2025 at 12:33 pm
I understand the difference between speaking for the university as a whole, and speaking for a department or an individual. The latter should absolutely be protected – In the name of both academic freedom and free speech. I think Regent Robyn Guller has a point about using a scalpel, not a bulldozer.
I am Jewish, and I absolutely support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland. But I also support the right of Palestinians to protest in support of their own homeland.
To me, Hamas, Netanyahu, and Trump are thuggish, authoritarian brothers under the skin. If you fight for free speech, remember that free speech applies to all sides, not just your side.
strategy
Feb 18, 2025 at 12:01 pm
Protesters: please consider that when you disrupt BoR meetings, the live-stream is paused and the transcript is suspended. This causes accessibility issues for everyone who is not physically in the meeting. Try to understand that there are always people watching, many more than show up to the physical meeting.
Protesting like SDS does is also a great way to get yourself arrested. No matter what you think or support, your protest should not cause harm to others or yourself.
KG
Feb 18, 2025 at 9:41 am
The protesters who disrupted the Board of Regents meeting were not advocating for academic freedom. A quick look at the accompanying photo shows they were extremist pro-Palestinian supporters enabling terrorism. Wearing masks and keffiyehs, they blatantly signaled their support for the Hamas terrorist massacre in Israel on October 7, 2023—just as they did during their previous pro-terrorist disruptions on campus.
These enablers of violence are now worried that UMN Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) will face limitations in spreading their extremist propaganda on campus. Remember the false and distorted faculty statements from CSCL, GWSS, and IAS on Gaza in 2023? Those weren’t academic discourse—they were crude, pro-Hamas propaganda that denied and erased the Jewish people’s historical and ancestral connection to Israel.
Recall the encampments and occupation of Morrill Hall, or the disruption of last year’s commencement ceremony. This is their version of “academic freedom”—a guise for antisemitism, intimidation, and threats against Jewish and pro-Israel students. Remember the incident in June, when Hillel’s windows were shot out? Their actions and rhetoric continually disrupt and endanger campus life for everyone else.
Would these individuals be rallying for “academic freedom” if the white supremacist KKK were involved? Of course not.
We reject their version of “academic freedom.” Let Cunningham speak for UMN. Everyone else—sit down and let the university focus on what matters. The vast majority of us at UMN want to teach, study, and conduct meaningful research without the chaos and extremism these protesters bring.
Not on University's dime
Feb 18, 2025 at 9:06 am
A relatively small group holding radical or controversial ideologies cannot be allowed to speak for the University. There are plenty of ways to let others know what you are thinking. You do not get to use the official channels of the University as your soapbox.