The second vote on a changed Bryn Mawr faculty statement regarding academic freedom passed in January, bringing about questions concerning its reach and implementation.
While it hasn’t been publicized, the academic freedom statement will likely align with that of other institutions. The University of Pennsylvania’s statement, for instance, describes instructors’ rights to freedom of internal speech and freedom within research and teachings. This statement ensures that faculty retain their right and responsibility to engage within institutional governance without penalty for speaking against the university. Additionally, they retain authority over academic decisions, such as what they teach.
Dr. Madhavi Kale served alongside Dr. Amanda Weidman and Dr. Marissa Golden on an ad-hoc academic freedom committee, which, according to Kale, “had the narrow task of drafting for faculty consideration a statement of principle on academic freedom.” Kale could not comment further on the matter due to restrictions about what can be shared from faculty meetings.
Dr. Lisa Traynor serves as the chair of the general faculty and oversees groups involved with academic affairs such as this one. “[We] have had a number of robust and thoughtful discussions about an Academic Freedom statement,” Traynor said. “It is a complicated issue, and we are still working on things!” Traynor also declined to comment further.
Complications emerged when the statement was drafted due to its relationship to legal matters within the college. Honor Board Head Katelyn Stealey ’25 — acting at the time in her role as Interim Representative to the Faculty — briefed the SGA General Assembly on a Faculty Meeting at which President Wendy Cadge’s concerns regarding the statement were discussed. President Cadge expressed concern particularly about possible inconsistencies between the faculty and general Bryn Mawr handbooks. This could potentially become problematic for the college because the statement addresses the faculty’s rights to speech and protest. If the new statement is considered a policy, faculty would consider the college legally responsible for the speech and protest guidelines within. Concern could arise if faculty principles deviate from those of the college as a whole.
It is currently unclear whether the new academic statement will be written into the faculty handbook and how it will affect the school’s legal responsibilities to the faculty. If an outsider potentially sues a faculty member for an institutional action that aligns with the faculty academic statement but not the handbook, the school does not want to be held legally responsible.
In the event of a lawsuit, professors can be sued as individuals, and Bryn Mawr does not have to financially compensate them for that. If the academic freedom statement is put in the handbook, it may appear to be a legal statement for both the faculty and the school. Therefore, professors could reasonably expect institutional protection if legal action was taken against them. Thus the administration has expressed ongoing concerns regarding clarity on whether the faculty academic statement is legally binding, especially considering some professors may view it as such.
A permanent faculty committee will be created to review and update the statement as it passes and goes into effect.
Correction: A previous version of this story neglected to include the information that Katelyn Stealey was acting in her role as Interim Faculty Representative while making her report regarding the Faculty Meeting. Further, the article previously stated that her report was made to the SGA Representative Council, when in fact it was made to the SGA General Assembly Meeting. The Bi-College News apologizes for this error.
