NC public universities must remain ‘neutral’ on political issues, lawmakers say

North Carolina lawmakers in the state House unanimously approved a bill Wednesday that they say “strengthened” existing state law requiring public universities to remain neutral on political issues.

Senate Bill 195, an omnibus bill containing a handful of UNC System-wide and campus-level provisions, would make slight changes to state law regarding free speech on public university campuses in the state by adopting language consistent with the Kalven Report, a 1967 report by a University of Chicago committee promoting institutional neutrality.

Currently, state law says universities “may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students, faculty, or administrators to publicly express a given view of social policy.”

The new language in SB 195, added to the bill by an amendment in committee earlier Wednesday before the House floor vote, would continue to bar universities from requiring students, faculty or administrators to publicly ascribe to certain political views, but also makes clearer that universities “shall remain neutral, as an institution, on the political controversies of the day.”

Rep. Jon Hardister, a Whitsett Republican and House majority whip, told The News & Observer on Wednesday that the revised language “makes it clear that institutional neutrality, it needs to be adhered to ... as far as the institution itself taking a stance on a political issue.” Hardister said the current law would be “strengthened” under the new provision.

As is the case with current state law, the new language would not prevent students, faculty or other university employees from expressing their personal, individual views, but instead prevents universities or other official campus entities from taking stances on political issues.

The move comes nearly a year after the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees adopted a resolution last July affirming “its commitment to academic freedom as embodied in” the Kalven Report.

In a news release sent by Hardister on Wednesday, UNC trustee Marty Kotis said, in part, “I applaud the legislature’s effort to codify the commitment to free speech for all the institutions in the university system.”

‘Gray area’ of political issues

Hardister told The N&O that he thinks “the vast majority” of UNC System universities, and the campus-level schools and departments associated with them, are neutral and have not expressed political views as institutions.

“I don’t think this is a widespread problem,” Hardister said. “But there have been a few cases where it appeared to be that there was a breach of institutional neutrality.”

Hardister cited a “concrete example” of such a breach, saying he was aware of a now-deleted tweet posted to the official Twitter account of the UNC School of Medicine last summer that was “critical” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the court’s precedent on abortion rights under Roe v. Wade.

UNC Health spokesperson Alan Wolf told The N&O by email Thursday that the School of Medicine’s official Twitter account “never tweeted a comment on that issue.”

“There are numerous people who work at the School of Medicine with personal accounts and there are also individual departments within the SOM that have Twitter accounts,” Wolf said. “However, they do not represent the official SOM position.”

Though Hardister said an institution standing against the Dobbs decision would be classified “as a liberal opinion,” he said an institution coming out in support of that decision, a more politically conservative stance, would also be “inappropriate” and prohibited under the language in SB 195.

“The door could swing both ways,” he said.

The bill does not specify or define what would be considered “the political controversies of the day.” Hardister acknowledged that “there could be gray area there, there’s no question about it.”

“But I think we have to err on the side of neutrality,” Hardister said, adding that it wouldn’t be appropriate for a university to weigh in on issues like foreign policy or the Second Amendment.

Hardister said it would generally be acceptable for a university to publicly defend existing policies it has in place, such as race-conscious affirmative action, a hot-button topic that UNC-Chapel Hill has been in litigation over for nearly a decade and the U.S. Supreme Court will soon weigh in on. Colleges weighing in on issues that “could have a tangible impact on the university’s mission” — including faculty tenure, which a bill filed this legislative session proposed abolishing for future employees — would also be acceptable, Hardister said.

After passing the House Wednesday, the bill now heads back to the Senate, where legislators will vote on whether to concur with the neutrality language added to the bill by the House.

Sen. Amy Galey, a Burlington Republican, is the lead sponsor of SB 195 and “worked with Hardister in writing the amendment calling for institutional neutrality,” Hardister said in his news release Wednesday.