Information about the removal of University of Minnesota departmental statements this week was intentionally kept out of email communications, faculty said. 

Department chairs were invited to a Zoom meeting at 5 p.m. on Saturday by College of Liberal Arts Dean GerShun Avilez regarding “updates on institutional statements based on information (Avilez had) just received from the Provost,” according to an email obtained by the Minnesota Daily.

Avilez told the chairs that any statement on behalf of a department relating to the Israel-Palestine War would be vetoed immediately by University President Rebecca Cunningham, according to Michael Gallope, the chair of the University’s Cultural Studies and Literature Department and co-chair of the CLA Assembly.

The University also removed statements on the Russia-Ukraine War. 

Gallope was one of five department chairs who attended the meeting and said he was told by Avilez that all department statements would be taken down effectively immediately.

Gallope said this action is deeply concerning for both faculty and students across the University’s campus.

He and the other department chairs in Saturday’s meeting were told the administration did not want an email record of the statements’ removal, Gallope said.

This meeting comes after the Board of Regents’ March 14 decision restricting institutional speech, a decision some faculty say is a threat to academic freedom. The resolution states all statements relating to issues of public concern made by a department or groups of faculty governance must be approved by Cunningham. 

The Regents’ resolution does not mention retroactively removing past statements.

A University brief on March 18 said the resolution on institutional speech was based on input from the University community, shared governance and the final report of the President’s Task Force on Institutional speech.

But the Board’s decision was not in line with recommendations from the task force and shared governance, Eric Van Wyk said, speaking for himself and not as chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure committee. The task force’s final report suggested a policy that would encourage faculty to “explore alternative ways of advancing their unit’s mission” but not prohibit unit statements.

“This feels like gaslighting,” Van Wyk said. 

If University leadership had openly communicated about removing departmental statements, Van Wyk said there would be disagreement and opposition from faculty but they may ultimately be forcedto accept it.

“Instead, we get this cloak and dagger, Saturday night nonsense,” Van Wyk said.

Gallope said he requested a meeting with Cunningham after receiving the news from Avilez but was told the provost was responsible for the decision. Gallope then met with Provost Rachel Croson, Van Wyk and Deputy General Counsel Brian Slovut, which he said was a “very frustrating” conversation.

“I was parenting my four-year-old on Saturday afternoon,” Gallope said. “A Zoom meeting at the whims of the president and provost is not how I would choose to spend a weekend.”

Gallope said he was told in the provost meeting that any content on a University website can be considered institutional speech.

If the University follows this philosophy, Gallope said it could use arbitrary decision-making to censor any material deemed controversial on a University website. He added it is a concerning pattern of a loss of academic freedom among experts.

“It’s horrifying,” Gallope said. “The worst part about this is that there is no written policy as of yet. We’re a public university, and at a public university we create policies so that there’s transparency for all of us.”

Gallope said this lack of transparency and the timing of the announcement deeply concerns him.

“They do not want to put anything in email, and they chose to do this on a Saturday afternoon when the entire community is reeling from the detention of an international graduate student,” Gallope said. “When I asked the Provost why they were doing it on a Saturday afternoon, while everyone was responding to this horrific detention of a student, she said, ‘I can’t answer that.’”

“What makes this so dangerous is there’s no process or policy in place,” Gallope said. “The administration is operating without a policy at the whims of the President and Provost.”

The Regents’ resolution defines institutional speech as “communications issued by and in the name of the University of Minnesota or its academic and non-academic units… and that are disseminated through official University channels.”

“My colleague, who is on the task force, says that much of their advice has been completely disregarded, and that there were recommendations against doing things like this,” Gallope said.

One of the removed statements, from the Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies department, ends with “this statement reflects our individual views and we do not purport to speak for the University.”

“These statements have been up for 16 months. The sudden relocation of these statements is concerning and surprising,” Nathaniel Mills, a faculty Senator and member of the University’s American Association of University Professors chapter, said.

Some statements removed on the war in Ukraine from administration and departments were published around three years ago.

“The University does not currently have a position on the conflict in the Middle East, or the war in Ukraine,” Croson said in an email to faculty on Tuesday.

However, in a February 2022 email, former University President Joan Gabel wrote, “We stand with the people of Ukraine and all those who so bravely insist upon peace.”

The University divested from Russia a month later. A statement from University administration at the time states the action was to demonstrate support for Ukraine.

The statement also details that University leadership reached out to students and employees from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus to offer support and assistance. 

“We expect that the outreach and dissemination of our research and scholarship will be unaffected by this resolution,” Croson said in the email. “We continue to strongly encourage our community members to teach, conduct, and disseminate scholarship reflecting differing views on the Middle East or Ukraine.”

Cunningham said in a September systemwide email she would “refrain from commenting publicly on the vast majority of global issues, unless they are directly tied to the University of Minnesota’s mission, its work, and its identity.”

Croson determined the statements on Ukraine constituted institutional speech on a global issue with feedback from the advisory group, University spokesperson Jake Ricker said in an email to the Daily. Ricker denied that the Provost’s decision to remove statements was not in line with advice from the advisory group.

In an email to CLA faculty on Wednesday, Avilez said members of a department are not permitted to issue a statement in support of a particular topic but those “engaged in scholarly work on a similar topic are strongly encouraged to teach, conduct, and disseminate scholarship reflecting differing views.”

The Regents’ resolution directs the University president to implement its guiding principles, and “nowhere does it say that an administrative policy will be created or that actions should be delayed until the creation of such a policy,” Ricker wrote in his email.

Ricker did not address whether information about the statements’ removal was intentionally not being communicated via email or why the meeting between Avilez and several CLA department chairs occurred on a Saturday. 

“Both past and future institutional statements are being considered as part of the implementation (of the Board of Regents resolution),” a University statement reads. “The research and dissemination of scholarly work remains unaffected by this resolution or implementation.”

For some, the statements’ removal comes disappointingly late.

Law professor Richard Painter said the statements should have been removed from University websites immediately following the Board of Regents’ decision to restrict institutional speech.

The removal of these statements on the Israel-Palestine war happened over two weeks after the Board adopted the policy.

Professors should not take sides on conflicts in the Middle East “in an institutional capacity,” Painter said, but should rather express their views by writing op-eds or giving speeches.

“Institutional neutrality is absolutely critical,” Painter said. 

The University’s decision to wait on taking down the statements has put the institution in “quite a bit of jeopardy,” former Regent Michael Hsu said.

Painter and Hsu requested that the U.S. Department of Education investigate the University for Title VI violations of antisemitism in December 2023. The department announced earlier this year the University is one of 45 schools under investigation.

Removing the statements can only help the University’s case with the Title VI investigation, Hsu said.

List of removed statements

A Statement Regarding the Invasion of Ukraine, published by the Austrian Studies department in March 2022.

Statement on the invasion of Ukraine, published by the Human Rights Program in March 2022.

The war in Ukraine, published by the School of Public Health in March 2022.

Statement on the War in Ukraine, published by the German, Nordic, Slavic and Dutch department in May 2022.

CSCL Tenure-line Faculty Statement on Palestine, published by the Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature department in October 2023.

GWSS Faculty Statement on Palestine, published by the Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies department in October 2023.

Statement from CHGS Regarding the Violence in Israel, published by the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies in October 2023.

Statement on Palestine, Genocide, and Repression, published by the American Indian Studies department in December 2023.

AAS Statement on Palestine/Gaza and Israel, published by the Asian American Studies department in April 2024.

Statement on Student Protest, published by the Center for Race, Indigeneity, Disability, Gender and Sexuality Studies in April 2024.

AAUP-Twin Cities Chapter Statement Regarding American Studies Student and Academic Freedom, published by the American Studies department in December 2024.

This story has been updated for clarity.