Academic freedom is the bedrock of higher education in the United States. It means that both students and professors have the freedom to pursue research, explore topics in the classroom, and state their views extramurally without fear of retribution—even if those are controversial.
Perhaps no organization has done more to protect academic freedom than the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The AAUP is a national organization that has more than 450 local chapters, including one at the University, which exists to promote academic freedom and shared governance for faculty on campuses.
The AAUP’s 1915 Declaration has long been considered the gold standard on academic freedom. In fact, the University cites the AAUP’s 1940 Statement of Principles in its faculty handbook! Many would say they could be considered the most distinguished organization when it comes to historically protecting academic freedom.
But recently, questions have emerged about if the AAUP still stands for academic freedom, as they have embraced academic boycotts and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements in the hiring process. Carry Nelson, the organization’s president from 2006 to 2012, has accused the organization of “abandon[ing] academic freedom.”
So what is it? Is the AAUP still the standard bearer for academic freedom? Or has their support for the cause gone the way of the Dodo? To investigate, I spoke with the University’s AAUP chapter and other members of the University community.
Academic Boycotts
Originally, the AAUP took a position in opposition to organizational boycotts of any academic institution in any country.
“We reject proposals that curtail the freedom of teachers and researchers to engage in work with academic colleagues,” their 2005 statement on the subject read.
So, while academics could individually boycott a country if they pleased, the AAUP said that systematic boycotts at the academic level were not acceptable. Then, in August 2024, they reversed that position. Given the timing, this was widely seen as the AAUP giving the green light to boycott Israel—although the policy would apply to other countries.
In an email conversation, Wesleyan AAUP co-president and Assistant Professor of History Jeffers Lennox, speaking on behalf of the University chapter, said they also support academic boycotts. He did note that the chapter’s members have a variety of views on academic boycotts.
“As an organization, however, we support the national position because, above all else, we aim to protect academic freedom and the mission of higher education,” the University chapter of the AAUP wrote in an email to The Argus. “When states act in ways that prevent academic freedom (by censoring academic speech or destroying systems of higher education), we support calls to boycott those states.”
While the University AAUP chapter argues that academic boycotts actually protect academic freedom, others disagree. Special Counsel for Campus Advocacy Robert Shibley, who works at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-profit that self-describes itself as an organization “to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought,” referred to academic boycotts as “fundamentally incompatible with academic freedom.” After the AAUP revised its stance on academic boycotts, Shibley defended individuals’ personal rights to engage in boycotts but condemned systematic boycotts.
“The academic boycotts of primary concern arise when individual academic institutions, their subdivisions, or professional organizations enact systematic boycotts to which their members are expected or required to adhere, or that impede individual scholars from engaging with boycotted counterparts,” Shibley wrote. “Indeed, these systematic boycotts themselves interfere with the individual rights of faculty to decide which peers to engage or avoid.”
Alternatively, the University’s AAUP does not believe a systematic boycott would interfere with academic freedom.
“We are not concerned at Wesleyan that a boycott would prevent educational programs because individual students or faculty could decide not to participate,” the University AAUP wrote. “As noted in the AAUP’s statement, individual faculty or students should not face discipline ‘for participating in academic boycotts, for declining to do so, or for criticizing and debating the choices of those with whom they disagree.’”
However, some in academia have voiced fear that a systematic boycott would have a chilling effect on students and professors who may want to engage with those countries.
“In the past, the AAUP worried (rightly) that academic boycotts are a tool that muzzles dissenters,” President of the National Association of Scholars Peter W. Wood wrote in an article about the AUUP’s new stance on academic boycotts. “Those who disagree with the tactic are, if not silenced, at least put under considerable pressure to shut up and conform to the views of the dominant group.”
Similarly, former president of the AAUP Carry Nelson and Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota Ronald Krebs raised unease that some academics could “use their position and prestige to prevent others from securing needed grants and publishing contracts” unless they support certain academic boycotts.
“Boycotts do not target individuals doing academic—no single scholar or student would be boycotted simply because they work in or on a state that is subject to a boycott,” the Wesleyan AAUP stated. “Only institutions and individuals representing such a state would be included in a boycott.”
Mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Statements in Faculty Hiring and Evaluation
In recent years, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements have become a growing part of the hiring, retention, and tenure process for university faculty members. These statements usually ask applicants how they will advance the school’s DEI initiatives in the classroom and on campus and any previous experiences where they have fought bigotry.
“How does your research engage with and advance the well-being of socially marginalized communities?” Harvard DEI statements read. “Do you know how the following operate in the academy: implicit bias, different forms of privilege, (settler-)colonialism, systemic and interpersonal racism, homophobia, heteropatriarchy, and ableism? How do you design course assessments with EDBI [equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging] in mind?”
The University uses a variation of a DEI statement in its hiring and tenure processes.
“As part of the application process, we ask applicants to describe how they will embrace the college’s commitment to fostering an inclusive community,” a representative for the University said.
Supporters of DEI statements believe they ensure that faculty members will create a safe and inclusive learning environment for students and advance the values of DEI on campus from their positions.
“The Wesleyan AAUP supports the use of DEI statements in hiring to help ensure that our faculty not only reflects the diversity of our society but that it is committed to the University’s efforts to address systemic inequities for all members of the Wesleyan community,” the AAUP wrote.
Harvard Law Professor Randall L. Kennedy, who described himself as being on the “left” and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, disagrees. Kennedy has said these statements strongarm prospective candidates into “play[ing] ball—or else.”
“Playing ball entails affirming that the DEI bureaucracy is a good thing and asking no questions that challenge it, all the while making sure to use in one’s attestations the easy-to-parody DEI lingo,” Kennedy said in April. “It does not take much discernment to see, moreover, that the diversity statement regime leans heavily and tendentiously towards varieties of academic leftism and implicitly discourages candidates who harbor ideologically conservative dispositions.”
Others agree with Kennedy.
“Promoting respect and inclusion at universities is important, but DEI statements can create an institutional culture in which students and professors are encouraged to conform to a certain set of ideological principles,” free speech advocate and leader of an open expression club at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Meryn Dziemian said. “There are other ways to foster diversity besides implementing ideological litmus tests and compelling speech from university actors.”
The Wesleyan AAUP does not believe DEI statements compel specific speech.
“Asking candidates to provide documented evidence of their contributions to equitable and inclusive education is not incompatible with the principle of academic freedom,” they wrote.
However, a 2022 survey by FIRE found that 50% of professors–including 90% of professors identifying as conservative–believe that DEI statements are ideological litmus tests. At least, in some cases, they are right. One faculty search at the University of California-Berkeley rejected 75% of applicants based on their DEI statements and irrespective of their teaching or research abilities. Professor of History at UC Berkeley Daniel Sargant has said these statements have resulted in “institutionalizing a performative dishonesty” where applicants are more focused on using the politically correct verbiage rather than stating how they might academically contribute to their institutions.
I spoke to Justo A. Triana, a Cuban-American author and advocate for the First Amendment.
“DEI statements are one of those well-intentioned ideas that not only fail to achieve their goals but actively harm the very people they are supposed to help,” Triana said. “Requiring them encourages the hiring of individuals from only one side of the political spectrum—or even worse, those willing to lie to secure a job. In any case, the result is a faculty that is either politically homogeneous or dishonest, and no student—regardless of skin color—would benefit from that.”
In a recent editorial in Inside Higher Ed, former chair of the AAUP committee on academic freedom and tenure Joan Scott wrote that DEI statements advance “diversity and equality [which] ought to be at the center of university policy” and argued opposition to these statements are “in the name of absolutist individualism that is ideological.”
Scott contended that the AAUP’s recent stances, including on DEI statements, are necessary in part because of the election of Donald Trump as president and, while referencing a recent article by President Michael Roth ’78, said that “the mission of the university is [now] under threat.”
But a student at George Washington University, Aadithya Gulyani, argued that he just wants to hear different perspectives from his professors and DEI statements often prevent that.
“I came to university to encounter new ideas, not just ones I was already familiar with, or only [those] that other students [are] ‘comfortable’ hearing,” Gulyani said. “There is already so much ideological conformity and self-censorship in the student body; the only chance to hear new ideas would be to hear from professors at the top of their fields. However, DEI statements in faculty hiring gatekeep students from [hearing] different perspectives as they are used as a litmus test to see if faculty subscribe to a particular set of hotly contested views.”
The Wesleyan AAUP seemed to allude that DEI statements could be misused, which is why they support implementing them only with faculty input.
“Broader institutional DEI statements, when crafted with the input of faculty, help ensure that universities reflect the society from which they draw students and colleagues,” the Wesleyan AAUP chapter wrote. “DEI statements must be the product of strong co-governance, which goes hand-in-hand with protecting academic freedom.”
Vice President of Campus Advocacy at FIRE Alex Morey disagrees with their logic.
“The AAUP [suggested] faculty rights be subject to popular vote,” Morey said. “Colleges can prioritize diversity, but not by letting a majority of faculty pick the approved view.”
Perhaps academia is shifting against the perspective of DEI statements in hiring. Just yesterday, the University of Michigan banned DEI statements in hiring; most of the 2,000 faculty members surveyed said it forced them “to express specific positions on moral, political or social issues.” This year, both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University’s School of Arts and Sciences also decided to end this process.
Triana argued that meritocracy, not DEI statements, should be the future standard for hiring faculty.
“If you want to ensure your faculty reflects the diversity of our society (not just the surface-level diversity of skin color, but the meaningful diversity of thought), a good first step would be…[to] prioritize merit as the central criterion for hiring,” Triana said. “Meritocracy—the system historically championed by minorities and opposed by racists—is the only standard that does not discriminate on the basis of race or ideas. It’s time for our institutions to realize this.”
Blake Fox is a member of the class of 2026 and can be reached at bfox@wesleyan.edu.