Academic Freedom Amid Curricular Regulation and Research Restrictions

Summary

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10948, which aimed to revoke international student visas from Harvard’s students as a result of the University’s noncompliance with directives such as those contained within the Dear Colleague Letter, threatening to cut federal funding to universities that continued to use policies promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the current climate of curricular regulation, the history of Supreme Court rulings protecting academic freedom is important to revisit. 

Policies restricting the academic freedom of faculty and staff were first written during the era of McCarthyism at the beginning of the Cold War. In response to a New York law from this period that limited the employment of "subversive persons," the Supreme Court decided in Keyishan v. Board of Regents (1967) that limitations to First Amendment rights must be narrow and that professors must have some freedom over the information they choose to teach. The decision in the Supreme Court case Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) considered how much freedom of speech public employees were entitled to. The Court determined that as private citizens, the First Amendment cannot be infringed, but when speaking as part of their role as a public employee, the First Amendment does not apply. So, professors are granted academic freedom, but public employees do not have freedom of speech during the course of their job.  

The idea of academic freedom is not about the ability of a professor to say whatever they want in a lecture, but rather for academics to reevaluate what they view as knowledge and what should be taught within their academic standards. Academic freedom relies on peer review and disciplinary expertise so that professors can teach information that is up-to-date with current research.  

The Dear Colleague Letter, while vague, attempted to open the door to future restrictions in academic freedom. One of its most short-term effects is the restriction of affirmative action policies in universities. The 2023 Supreme Court decision of Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard has already ruled against the use of race in college admissions processes which has essentially eliminated affirmative action policies within universities. In Nebraska, affirmative action was eliminated from all state institutions in 2008 with the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative.