Regents approve guiding principles limiting official institutional statements on matters of public concern

The University of Minnesota Board of Regents voted 9-3 on March 14, 2025, to adopt a revised resolution that sets guiding principles restricting when leaders or units may issue institutional statements on matters of public concern and directs the president to implement the rules and report back to the board in October 2025.

The resolution was presented as clarification of “institutional speech” and was described by an author of the measure as intended to keep official university communications focused on matters that have actual or potential direct impacts on the university’s mission and operations. Chair Mayeron, speaking as one of the authors, said, “My view is that the university is not and should not be in the business of taking positions on these critical and controversial matters of public concern.”

Board leaders and the task force on institutional speech defined “matters of public concern” in the resolution as events or issues of broad public interest — ranging from elections and court decisions to armed conflicts and natural disasters — that are often reported in the news. The task force language adopted in the resolution said that position statements on such matters can risk chilling open debate, undermining academic freedom, and harming relationships with internal and external stakeholders.

Regents who opposed the measure said it centralizes too much authority and could chill faculty and unit-based expression. “Giving our president the authority to sign off on public statements is making the entire university liable for any position taken by any group at the university,” said Regent Cully during debate, arguing that the change could be used to restrict speech despite the resolution’s stated protections for academic freedom.

Regent Turner, participating by Zoom, said she could not support the resolution, calling the moment a threat to “all of our freedoms” and saying she has spent her career advocating for having a voice in public life. Several other regents warned that the language might be used in ways not intended by its authors and urged careful implementation and oversight.

Supporters said the revisions and new language added after feedback from the University Senate, the task force and the university community struck a balance between protecting individual academic freedom and preventing units’ statements from being perceived as university-wide positions that could harm the institution’s mission. Regent Davenport, who voted in favor, said the resolution “provides a consistent implementation of a process for determination” and reiterated that nothing in the guiding principles is intended to curtail individual expression.

Because the board received further feedback after the docket posted, the version the regents approved included new “whereas” clauses acknowledging the University Senate’s work and a provision requiring the president to report to the board in October 2025 on how the guiding principles were implemented, the impact on the community, and examples of institutional statements the president approved or rejected for dissemination on official channels. The revised language also requires the president to solicit comments from units across the university and to attach those comments to the October report.

Regent Kenyanya and others emphasized that the resolution does not prohibit individual faculty, staff or students from writing, speaking or publishing. The text says that academic units may continue to disseminate research and scholarship through official channels, but the resolution’s authors said that dissemination should be focused on the university’s mission and operations — not on taking position statements on public controversies unless those positions have direct institutional impact.

During debate a separate motion to table (postpone) the resolution and hold additional special meetings for fuller discussion was offered and seconded. That motion failed on a voice vote and the board proceeded to a roll-call vote on the main motion.

Executive Director Steeves conducted a roll-call vote. The tally reported by the board: Regents Davenport, Farnsworth, Huebsch, Ruth Johnson, Tad Johnson, Kenyanya, Verhalen, Wheeler and Chair Mayeron voted yes. Regents Gully, Tayu Rabe and Turner voted no. The board announced the result as nine in favor and three opposed; the resolution passed.

Board leadership and several regents said they expect the president and the provost to work on implementation in collaboration with faculty governance, while critics said they remain concerned about the concentration of decision-making authority. The president said she would work with the provost to implement the board’s distinction between institutional and individual speech and to remain guided by the core mission of academic freedom.

The resolution does not create a new statute or change tenure rules; it creates board-level guiding principles to be implemented administratively by the president and staff. The president’s October 2025 implementation report will be the next formal checkpoint for the board to evaluate the effects of the policy.

Votes at a glance

Motion: Adopt the revised resolution defining institutional speech and directing the president to implement guiding principles and report back to the board in October 2025. Mover and seconder: motion and second were recorded on the transcript but not attributed to a named regent.

Outcome: Approved (9–3). Roll-call votes as recorded by executive director: Davenport — yes; Farnsworth — yes; Gully — no; Huebsch — yes; Ruth Johnson — yes; Tad Johnson — yes; Kenyanya — yes; Tayu Rabe — no; Turner — no; Verhalen — yes; Wheeler — yes; Chair Mayeron — yes.

What’s next

The president must report at the October 2025 board meeting on how the guiding principles were implemented, the impacts observed, and sample institutional statements approved or rejected for official channels. Regents who opposed the resolution said they will watch implementation and seek further shared-governance processes if the policy concentrates authority in an unintended way.