The University of Rochester maintains a deep commitment to the ideals of academic freedom and freedom of expression, which extend to all members of the University community. Fostering a campus environment in which critical discourse and deliberation occur in an effective, responsible and respectful manner is an essential part of the University’s mission to learn, discover, heal, and create to make the world ever better.
Academic freedom allows for the pursuit of knowledge and inquiry by faculty, students, and researchers, according to standards of academic excellence and free of political or other interference. Freedom of expression or speech ensures that all members of the University community can openly share their diverse perspectives—including points of view that may be deeply controversial—enriching discourse and reinforcing our commitment to inclusivity, openness, and the pursuit of knowledge. With freedom of expression comes the responsibility to listen with openness, empathy, and respect, creating the potential for genuine learning from diverse perspectives as well as from ideas that may be unpopular or uncomfortable. Commitment to free expression, therefore, entails commitment to the values and norms of civil discourse that protect and affirm our shared identity as members of the University of Rochester community.
At the University of Rochester, we embrace the spirit of Meliora—the pursuit of being ever better—as we seek to pursue knowledge without limitation, foster intellectual curiosity, and engage in meaningful conversations that challenge different perspectives while respecting the diverse experiences of every individual. The Principles of Freedom of Expression are pivotal to our mission as a research university and to our role in society, however they are not static and must be reaffirmed, examined, and adapted in response to the evolving landscape of higher education and the broader social environment.
The social goals of free expression—expanding knowledge, deepening and broadening understanding, and fostering innovative and creative thought—can be achieved only when participants are committed to fair and empathetic consideration of diverse perspectives in a context of mutual respect. This involves listening in order to understand and not merely to rebut, with a recognition that there are valuable things to be learned even from perspectives with which one sharply disagrees. Passionate commitment to a certain position on an issue can coexist with an appreciation of the fact that any one set of beliefs about a complex matter will inevitably contain gaps, limitations, or distortions that might be remedied through good faith discourse with those holding different positions. Even while talking across great differences, people can be united in a shared commitment to improving inquiry and understanding through a rigorous and critical exchange of diverse ideas.
In order for such exchange to be productive, it is important for all parties (i) to be mindful in considering how others may interpret their speech, and (ii) to promote clear and productive communication to avoid misunderstanding and gratuitous or careless offense. This respectful sensitivity is part of the responsibility that comes with freedom of expression in the context of a university. Such freedom is not license to ignore the impact and potential costs that expression might have for others. Cooperative dialogue is enhanced by a willingness to be charitable in interpreting others’ speech, forgiving of honest mistakes, and ready to admit one’s own mistakes in a spirit or respectful and productive communication.
The values and norms of civil discourse apply equally to communications that take place on social media. Responsible online engagement, therefore, requires mindfulness of how posts may be perceived or shared, exercising care not only to avoid violations of policy or law (as through harassment or defamation) but also to maintain the same standards of respectful communication we all expect in person.
It is also important to emphasize that while these general values and norms apply to all of us, there are also specific professional norms governing the activities of some University staff, such as healthcare providers, that impose distinct role-based duties and expectations, some of which place certain constraints on free expression that do not apply to faculty and students as such.
Students, faculty, and staff must have equal opportunities to receive, seek, and share information without discrimination. The University is committed to a campus culture in which everyone can participate fully in the intellectual and social life of the community.
While freedom of expression is vital to the University’s mission and to democratic functioning and progress more broadly, there are some limits to what is protected. Most obviously, forms of expression that involve or incite illegal activity, or threaten physical violence, or violate protected forms of confidentiality or privacy, or target individuals or groups of individuals with intimidation or defamation (Policy 100*), harassment, or discrimination (Policy 106) are not acceptable or protected. Both the law and University policies and codes of conduct prohibit such behavior and allow for disciplinary action in response to it. Without such limits the very goals and values that support protecting freedom of expression would be undermined.
It is also reasonable, given the various aspects of its mission, for the University to enforce viewpoint-neutral rules concerning time, manner and place (DVPP Policy) for certain expressive activities, and to limit the content of speech made on its behalf or in certain University-created forums. Such rules are needed to ensure the integrity of the institution and the rights of members of the community to pursue their learning, teaching, research, and other activities without disruption of University operations. But, as described below, it is vital to ensure that such rules do not stifle robust expression of controversial ideas, or undermine the conditions necessary for demonstrations, vigils, and protests to be meaningful (e.g., by sidelining them so that exposure to their message is so minimized as to defeat their purpose).
To value freedom of expression is to accept protections even for controversial speech, recognizing the vital roles played throughout the history of social progress by expressions of certain views that were initially unpopular. The values underlying the University’s mission may be served by responding to controversial or distasteful forms of expression with more expression, as through rigorous critique and counter-argument, relying on the skills at the heart of the academic enterprise itself. This includes institutional expressions of commitment to these foundational values and norms at fraught moments, and the provision of support structures to facilitate and strengthen civil discourse on campus and to help address acute conflict when it arises.
Freedom of expression creates an opportunity to engage in respectful and rigorous debate through critical engagement, education, programming or counter-programming, and demonstrations or protests conducted in accordance with University policy. There is typically much more to be learned from critical engagement with controversial ideas than from calls for cancellation of events, and it is important to understand that the University’s allowing controversial ideas to be expressed does not amount to an implicit endorsement of them: it is instead simply part of protecting the values and goals emphasized in these principles.
At the same time, it would go too far to adopt a simple First Amendment model for protected expression on campus. Though that model may work for most purposes, there are certain forms of expression that would be protected from government censorship in the public sphere but should not be protected on campus given the nature of the University’s mission. These would be forms of expression that are not merely distasteful or offensive but are instead so egregious as to be reasonably construed as constituting violations of University policies or codes of conduct, as discussed in the previous section. There is no place on our campus for suggestions that individuals or groups are to be harmed or should be excluded from the University community because of who they are or the views they have voiced within the parameters of protected expression.
Teaching and learning are core aspects of the University’s mission that take place in a variety of settings across the institution and its affiliates. As noted earlier, the basic values and norms articulated in this statement of principles apply to all these contexts, even if some of the details of their application vary according to specific professional norms and roles. But it is worth highlighting some distinct challenges that arise, particularly in connection with the academic classroom.
Effective teaching and learning in the classroom requires a context of open inquiry and constructive dialogue, which in turn depends on a classroom environment in which all participants are free to explore ideas and arguments without fear of repercussions over their contributions. As with other spheres of free expression, this requires embracing the values and norms of free and civil discourse. The integrity of educational interactions involving frank and critical discussions—both between teachers and students, and between students themselves—requires that contributions be made and received in a context of mutual respect, and not used to intimidate or shame, or made the basis of intimidation or shaming or personal attacks by others.
Equally crucial is the protection of relevant forms of confidentiality in the classroom. The threat of having one’s words or expressed views shared outside of the classroom for malicious purposes, particularly through the use of recording technology and social media, is a powerful inhibiting force that chills free expression and the open exploration of ideas, undermining teaching and learning in the classroom. (The dangers posed by misuse of recording technology and social media should likewise be considered in other relevant contexts, such as meetings.) While instructors have discretion in setting expectations for their classrooms (within the parameters set by University policies), there also needs to be a common culture of respect concerning classroom behavior. This includes the recognition that unauthorized sharing of the contents of classroom interactions (particularly involving recording and posting), in ways that could lead to the shaming or harassment of participants, whether students or instructors, is unacceptable.
The confidentiality advocated here is not to be understood as protecting expression that violates professional standards or University policies (for example, against discrimination and harassment), which would be reportable in accordance with those policies.
The University’s commitment to free and civil discourse includes a recognition of the important roles played, both historically and in ongoing democratic life, by protests and demonstrations in advancing the values at the heart of its mission (Meliora Values). Such activities are an integral part of teaching and learning and an important dimension of free expression on campus. It is therefore vital to protect the place and role of peaceful protests and demonstrations as a part of campus life. This goes hand in hand, however, with a recognition that the University’s responsibilities to all of its stakeholders also justify viewpoint-neutral and consistently enforced time, place, and manner parameters for protests and demonstrations (DVPP Policy).
Protection of the right to protest and demonstrate does not extend to acts that violate law or policy, such as acts that count as “disorderly conduct” according to the Student Code of Conduct. Threatening or destructive behavior is inimical to the very values that support free expression, and normalizing such behavior in the name of free expression would be self-defeating. Protests and demonstrations must not interfere with the rights of others, including a right to a clear sense of safety, which is undermined by suggestions, for example, that individuals or groups are to be harmed or do not belong because of who they are or what they believe. Such forms of expression have no place on our campus.