University of Minnesota must not muzzle its scholars

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesotans are rightly proud of their great university and the role it has played in public life for some 175 years. The University of Minnesota and its students, faculty and graduates have long been deeply engaged in research and innovation, as well as civic engagement. It was Hubert Humphrey, one of its most distinguished graduates, who famously urged the Democratic Party in 1948 to “get out of the shadows of states rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.” And his stance was warmly embraced by many faculty, who were themselves deeply engaged in the historic movement that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the decades that have followed, various university centers, departments and institutes have continued this tradition of public engagement, producing and widely sharing vital research on matters of public concern. The university’s Center for Diseases Research and Policy has urged the development of “broadly protective coronavirus vaccines.” The College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences has publicly emphasized the real and negative effects of climate change and its impact on food security, and the Humphrey School of Public Affairs issued widely cited research on workforce development and requirements around immigration to ensure adequate labor supply in Minnesota. Finally, the Law School centers and institutes have published and publicized briefs and reports on issues that include racial justice, the rights of immigrants and detainees, the use of biometric data to identify terrorist suspects, and the questions related to solitary confinement. Similar examples from other parts of the university are too numerous to mention here.

This is precisely what a public university and its constituent units must do — engage in the world, inform public debate and contribute to the common good.

Yet remarkably, all of these activities could soon be prohibited by the terms of a resolution being considered by the university’s Board of Regents, the university’s governing body elected by the Minnesota Legislature. The regents are slated to vote on a resolution that would prohibit institutes, centers and academic departments from making “statements addressing matters of public concern or public interest.”

This wildly sweeping measure would threaten the ability of these entities to publicly articulate their research-based conclusions on pressing issues — whether related to public health, the environment, economic policy, civil rights or any number of issues.

It is difficult to overstate the harm of this resolution.

Given the university’s long-standing role in shaping public policy and advancing knowledge, one must conclude that the regents who support this measure do not grasp its full consequences, and that their objectives were far more narrow. And indeed, the issues can be complex. For instance, what degree of support from within a department or other unit should be required for an authoritative statement, and how should the unit address the concerns of stakeholders who do not support a particular view? Also, what kinds of statements, if any, should be discouraged or even prohibited?

These complexities are exactly why the university’s then-interim president, Jeff Ettinger, then established a Presidential Task Force to consider the question of statements by units at the university. The carefully drafted report of the task force recognized and addressed these and other complexities, including the concerns of minority voices within a unit and the role of the central university officials as opposed to units. But instead of adopting, or at least carefully considering and working with the task force’s framework, the Board of Regents chose to reject it outright, opting instead for a blanket ban that by its terms, could silence work that has been so valuable to Minnesota.

This is not just a matter for university administrators and faculty — it is an issue that should concern the governor, members of the Legislature, our university president and all Minnesotans. At stake is nothing less than the U’s capacity to communicate research-based insights affecting public health, the economy, the environment and governance itself.

Universities do not exist in a vacuum. Their role is not merely to produce knowledge but to share it — to inform public debate, to provide expertise where it is needed, and to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are guided by facts and not misinformation. The University of Minnesota and its colleges, centers and institutes have upheld this mission for decades. The Board of Regents must not turn its back on that legacy. Minnesotans deserve much more.

Eric Schwartz, professor and chair of the Humphrey School’s Global Policy Area and a University of Minnesota faculty senator, formerly served as dean of the Humphrey School (2011-2017).