Report of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on

Academic Freedom

Raymond Issa, Chair (Distinguished Professor, School of Construction Management)

Michael Bernhard (Raymond and Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair, Dept of Political
Science, CLAS)
Robert J. Cousins (Boston Family Professor and Eminent Scholar, Food Science & Human
Nutrition Department, IFAS)
Angela Kohnen (Associate Professor, School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education)
Sarah Lynne (Associate Professor, Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences,
IFAS)
Danaya Wright (T. Terrell Sessums & Gerald Sohn Professor of Constitutional Law, College of
Law and former faculty senate chair)
Executive Summary
The charge of this ad hoc committee was to gather information and report back to the
Faculty Senate on UF practices that reportedly have restricted the ability of UF faculty to engage
in outside activities that are normally accepted as appropriate scholarly activities of university
faculty. During the three week period of time that this ad hoc committee completed its fact-
finding mission, information was gathered on the Conflict of Interest (COI) office’s denial of
approval to three professors to provide expert testimony in lawsuits challenging the
constitutionality of Senate Bill 90, three more professors joined the lawsuit alleging different
restraints imposed by the University, a grievance was filed by a College of Education professor,
and reports were collected from faculty members throughout the University of examples of
incursions on academic freedom. The most significant issues reported to this committee involve
 barriers to faculty research and publication,
 restrictions related to participating in outside activities that allegedly challenge the
political priorities of the executive branch of the State, and
 pressure to alter syllabi and course content to avoid viewpoints unpopular among current
elected state leaders.
There were specific challenges reported that were related to research on Covid-19, a topic of
study across a wide-range of academic units at the University of Florida. Some examples of
challenges reported to the ad hoc committee include external pressure to destroy deidentified
data, barriers to accessing and analyzing deidentified data in a timely manner, and barriers to
publication of scientific research which, taken together, inhibited the ability of faculty to
contribute scientific findings during a world-wide pandemic. These reports are summarized in
Section 2.0.
More problematic than the individual examples of pressure to stifle unpopular viewpoints
or restrict research was the palpable reticence and even fear on the part of faculty to speak up on
these issues. There was grave concern about retaliation and a sense that anyone who objected to
the state of affairs might lose his or her job or be punished in some way. To a certain extent,
faculty often engaged in self-censorship and chose not to “rock the boat” for fear of retaliation.1
To protect those faculty who have spoken out, this committee has tried to maintain
confidentiality as best we could.
Section 1 reviews regulations and laws on conflicts, summarizes policies from peer
institutions, and summarizes ongoing legal complaints. Section 2 describes incidents reported
during the period of fact-finding. Section 3 reviews news coverage in the academic and regular
press. Section 4 summarizes outside investigations on the issue of academic freedom. Section 5
notes recent response to the publicity by Board of Trustees Chair, Mori Hosseini. Appendices
for each section provide more complete documentation.

1
This fear of retribution was documented more fully in a report on Race Scholarship at UF that interviewed dozens
of race scholars about institutional support for minority faculty. See Katheryn Russell-Brown and Ryan Morini, A
Way Forward: UF Race Scholars on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement, especially pp.
13, 19, 20, 26.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 1

Charge
“The charge of this special ad hoc committee is to gather information and report back to
the Faculty Senate on UF practices that reportedly have restricted the ability of UF faculty to
engage in outside activities that are normally accepted as appropriate scholarly activities of
university faculty. This includes, but is not limited to, expert witness engagement, writing of op
ed pieces, and consulting. I [Faculty Chair David Bloom] would like our committee to consider
outside activities of faculty in a broader context to reflect the range of concerns I am hearing
from faculty across the campus. The overall goal would be to collect data on the scope of the
problem and to establish a view of any problems or inconsistencies that exist.”

1.1 Rules Governing Conflicts of Interest

The subject of Conflicts of Interests is complicated, murky, and often difficult to
articulate. The subject also overlaps with important federal and state laws, like First Amendment
speech protections and government employee ethics rules. Although University of Florida
faculty are considered state employees in certain contexts, they are technically the employees of
the University of Florida Board of Trustees.2 They are not considered by state law to be public
officials subject to Fl. St. §112.311 et. seq., although the University Trustees, Chancellors,
Presidents, Vice Presidents, provosts, and deans are such public employees.3 UF Faculty are
subject to the Conflicts of Commitment and Interest policy promulgated by the Board of Trustees
and, according to that policy, are subject to the Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers and
Employees.4 Unlike private institutions, UF is a state institution that may not violate free speech
rights of employees protected by the federal and state constitutions.5
The University recognizes and protects academic freedom and its corresponding
responsibilities, as set forth in UF Regulation 7.018 - Academic Affairs; Academic Freedom and
Responsibility. That regulation states, in relevant part:

The University believes that academic freedom and responsibility are essential to
the full development of a true university and apply to teaching, research, and creativity.
In the development of knowledge, research endeavors, and creative activities, the faculty
and student body must be free to cultivate a spirit of inquiry and scholarly criticism and
2
BOG Regulation 1.001, section (5) Personnel, provides that:
(a)Each board of trustees shall provide for the establishment of the personnel program for all the employees of the
university, including the president, which may include but is not limited to: compensation and other conditions of
employment, recruitment and selection, nonreappointment, standards for performance and conduct, evaluation,
benefits and hours of work, leave policies, recognition and awards, inventions and works, travel, learning
opportunities, exchange programs, academic freedom and responsibility, promotion, assignment, demotion, transfer,
tenure, and permanent status, ethical obligations and conflicts of interest, restrictive covenants, disciplinary actions,
complaints, appeals and grievance procedures, and separation and termination from employment. To the extent
allowed by law, university employees shall continue to be able to participate in the state group insurance programs
and the state retirement systems.
(b)Each board of trustees shall act as the sole public employer with regard to all public employees of its university
for the purposes of collective bargaining, and shall serve as the legislative body for the resolution of impasses with
regard to collective bargaining matters. See https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/1_001-PowersandDuties.pdf
3
Fl. St. § 112.313(9)(a)(2)(a)(V)
4
Fl. St. § 112.311 et. seq. See UF Regulation 1.011(2).
5
Rachel Levinson, Academic Freedom and the First Amendment, AAUP Summer Institute, July 2007, available at
https://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/57BFFE5E-900F-4A2A-B399-
033ECE9ECB34/0/AcademicfreedomandFirstAmenoutline0907doc.pdf.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 2

 to examine ideas in an atmosphere of freedom and confidence. The faculty must be free
to engage in scholarly and creative activity and publish the results in a manner consistent
with professional obligations. . . . The established policy of the University continues to be
that the faculty member must fulfill his/her responsibility to society and to his/her
profession by manifesting academic competence, scholarly discretion, and good
citizenship. . . .
(2) Academic freedom is accompanied by the corresponding responsibility to:
a. Be forthright and honest in the pursuit and communication of scientific and
scholarly knowledge;
...
d. Indicate when appropriate that one is not an institutional representative unless
specifically authorized as such; . . .6

The University’s Regulation on Disclosure and Regulation of Outside Activities and

Financial Interests affirms the rights of faculty to academic freedom and to participate in outside
activities so long as doing so does not hamper the faculty member’s duties to UF:

(1) The University of Florida encourages its Faculty and Staff to engage in
activities supporting their professional growth, creating new knowledge and ideas, and
furthering the University’s mission of excellence in education, research, and service.
University employees, however, have an obligation to commit their primary professional
time and intellectual energy to the University and maintain the highest ethical and
professional standards. Further, personal gain from Outside Activities or Financial
Interests, as defined in the University of Florida Policy on Conflicts of Commitment and
Interest, must not influence—or create the appearance of influencing—the decisions or
actions of the University.
(2) Accordingly, all Faculty and Staff shall adhere to the University of Florida Policy
on Conflicts of Commitment and Interest (the “Policy on Conflicts”) and the Code of
Ethics for Public Officers and Employees (Chapter 112, Part III, Fla. Stat.)1.
(3) The Policy on Conflicts sets forth the Faculty and Staff members’ obligations to
disclose certain Financial Interests, potential Conflicts of Commitment or Interest and the
potential consequences for violating the Policy on Conflicts.
(4) The University may take administrative or disciplinary action concerning
violations of this Regulation up to and including termination of employment.7

In 2020, the Florida Legislature passed Fl. St. § 1012.977 that requires the disclosure of
contracts that affect the integrity of state universities and establishes penalties for failure to
disclose.8 That statute provides the state universities must establish policies that require
“employees engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of research to disclose and receive a
determination that the outside activity or financial interest does not affect the integrity of the
state university or entity.” The statute also declares that any employee of a state university

6
See UF Regulation 7.018
7
UF Reg. 1.011 available at https://regulations.ufl.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/1011DisclosureandRegulationofOutsideActivitiesandFinancialInterests.pdf
8
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=1000-
1099/1012/Sections/1012.977.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 3

“consents to the policies of the university, … the regulations of the Board of Governors, and the
laws of this state.” While declarations of this sort may provide a chilling effect on employees
who disagree with educational and state policies, they cannot supersede or nullify the federal or
state constitutional rights of employees. It is unclear what is meant by “affect[ing] the integrity
of the state university.”
Pursuant to these laws and regulations, UF established the following Conflicts of
Commitment and Conflicts of Interest Policy, available at: https://policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-
of-commitment-and-conflicts-of-interest/, which states, in relevant part, that:

Employees must avoid situations which interfere with—or reasonably appear to interfere
with—their professional obligations to the University. Such situations might create an
appearance of impropriety and, therefore, must be disclosed. As discussed below,
Employees will use the UFOLIO system to disclose Outside Activities in which they
wish to engage. When the University determines a Conflict of Interest may exist with an
Employee, the University may, in its sole discretion, prohibit the individual from
engaging in the activity presenting a potential conflict; take actions to limit the
individual’s activity; or implement other measures the University deems reasonably
necessary to eliminate the potential conflict.

This policy became effective on July 1, 2020, and was revised on November 10, 2020.
University faculty are well situated to help guide public discourse in all matters of
interest. And they are encouraged to do so by the University, professional organizations, and
state law. Laws, regulations, and policies exist in a hierarchy, under which certain rules prevail
over others. In regard to this issue, that hierarchy begins with the U.S. Constitution, particularly
the first amendment, which provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom
of speech.”9 Federal speech protections have been applied to prevent state entities from
abridging free speech as well.10 The Florida Constitution also contains free speech protections.11
Federal and State laws that are passed pursuant to and consistent with the respective constitutions
also operate, including the Florida Ethics Code (Fl. St. § 112.311 et seq). Pursuant to state law,
the Florida Board of Governors and the University of Florida Board of Trustees have been given
the authority to make rules and regulations governing institutions of higher learning in the state.
Pursuant to that authority, the University Board of Trustees has promulgated regulations, such as
the regulation on academic freedom (6C1-7.018) and the regulation of disclosure of outside
activities (6C1-1.011) cited above. Pursuant to BOT regulations, the University of Florida has
promulgated policies which may not violate any law or regulation that is further up the hierarchy.
Thus, the Conflicts of Commitment and Interest Policy may not violate any BOT regulation,
BOG regulation, state law, federal law, or state or federal constitutional provision.
Furthermore, enforcement of a policy, or the procedures for carrying it out, may not
violate laws or regulations further up the hierarchy. In particular, a perfectly legal and

9
U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
10
Gitlow v. N.Y., 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
11
Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that
right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions
and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and
was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated. Fl. Const. Art. I, §4.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 4

appropriate policy may not be enforced in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner without running
afoul of a variety of state and federal laws.
It is clear that these regulations and policies overlap and cover a wide array of activities
normally undertaken by UF faculty and staff in their professional and personal lives. Academic
freedom is the bedrock principle of institutes of higher education, and is the norm under which
university employees do their jobs. Academic freedom may be infringed in certain limited
circumstances, where a true conflict of interest or conflict of commitment threatens to undermine
the employee’s duty of loyalty to the university. The following schematic may assist with
understanding the complex relations between these duties.

This ad hoc committee has been asked to “gather information and report back to the
Faculty Senate on UF practices that reportedly have restricted the ability of UF faculty to engage
in outside activities that are normally accepted as appropriate scholarly activities of university
faculty. This includes, but is not limited to, expert witness engagement, writing of op ed pieces,
and consulting.” Because of the narrow scope of the charge, this report will focus on the narrow
topic of non-financial conflicts of interest that may interfere with the employee’s duties to the
university. We are not directly considering issues of academic freedom within the university,
such as restrictions on teaching certain subjects, on website information, on syllabi, research
interests, and the like. Although we have collected information from faculty concerning such
restrictions, and a grievance has been filed regarding a doctoral concentration on critical race
studies in the College of Education, they are outside the scope of our charge. Consequently, we
have listed those concerns in Section 2.1 below, and have included corresponding material in

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 5

Appendix 2.1. We leave it to the UF Faculty Senate leadership, or the UF Faculty Senate itself,
to decide how to proceed with that information.
We were not charged specifically with considering financial conflicts of interest, such as
royalty rights, intellectual property, business interests, and the payment for outside activities.
Certainly there are instances where outside activities may be compensated, thus raising both
financial and non-financial conflicts issues. But in the charge given, our focus is on substantive
and viewpoint restrictions on the activities themselves, and not on the issue of compensation.
Although compensation at one time was offered as an excuse for a denial of permission to
engage in outside testimony, the University has retreated from that position. Nonetheless, we are
concerned at any attempts to muddy the issues by focusing on compensation rather than
viewpoint discrimination and leave it to the UF Faculty Senate leadership, or the UF Faculty
Senate itself, to decide how to proceed with questions involving financial conflicts. Information
we gathered involving financial conflicts is available in Appendix 2.1 and 2.2.
We were not charged specifically with questions of conflicts of commitment, which
generally concern cases in which a UF employee devotes too much time or energy to an outside
activity to the extent that it interferes with that employee’s duties to UF. There seems to be
fairly little controversy around conflicts of commitment policies. Our UF policy defines conflict
of commitment generally to occur “when an employee’s professional time or energy is devoted
to outside activities adversely affecting their capacity to satisfy their obligations to the University
of Florida.” The UFOLIO process, and most university policies, permit outside activities to
occupy up to 8 hours per week of the employee’s time, on average. Since this rule does not
appear to be at issue, this committee will take no further notice of conflicts of commitment.
Our sole focus in this report, therefore, will be on outside activities that are non-financial
and do not raise issues of time conflicts. Furthermore, we will not opine on the legality of the
University’s outside activities policy, such as whether it generally, or as it was applied in recent
situations, violates the free speech rights of any employees. The AAUP has promulgated a
report on the interplay of academic freedom and freedom of speech that may offer some
guidance for those interested in pursuing that issue.12 Instead, we will turn to the sole question
of outside activities, both as to substance and process.

What is a Conflict of Interest?

The UF policy defines a conflict of interest as a situation in which an employee’s outside
activities interfere with, or reasonably appear to interfere with, their professional obligations to
the University. This policy has two parts: 1) identifying the employee’s professional obligation
to the University, and then 2) identifying if the outside activity interferes with that obligation.
To begin with the first task, we can turn to University Regulation 7.003 which defines academic
personnel as persons holding positions “having the principal responsibility of teaching and/or
research, extension and/or providing administrative functions directly related to the academic
mission and accomplishment of the University goals.”13 Additional personnel, such as curators,
librarians, scientists, lecturers, extension agents, P.K. Yonge faculty, postdoctoral associates,
fellows, clinical faculty, medical residents, graduate researchers and teaching assistants, among
others, also have specific duties to the institution that are defined in the regulation. Faculty

12
AAUP Report on Academic Freedom of Individual Professors and Higher Education Institutions:
https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/Academic%20Freedom%20-
%20Whose%20Right%20(WEBSITE%20COPY)_6-26-02.pdf
13
7.003 (1)(b)

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 6

members are evaluated annually with regard to fulfilling their assigned duties and responsibilities
in the “functions of teaching, including extension work, research, service, and any other duties
that may be assigned with the resulting enhancement of learning, cultural advancement, and
production of new knowledge.”14
University faculty have a responsibility to fully and competently perform all duties
pertinent to their employment with the University. For simplicity’s sake, we shall refer to these
duties as teaching, research, extension, and service (including clinical and professional service).
The University acknowledges that its policies “shall not violate the faculty member’s academic
freedom or constitutional rights, nor shall a faculty member be punished for exercising such
freedom or rights, either in the performance of University duties or duties outside the
University.”15 University Regulation 7.010(1)(d) defines a faculty member’s code of
professional ethics, and it is provided in full in Appendix 1.1. In simple terms, the University’s
statement on professional ethics imposes on faculty a duty and responsibility to seek to advance
knowledge, to state the truth as he or she sees it, to develop scholarly competence, and to refrain
from hampering anyone else’s freedom of inquiry. First and foremost, a professor seeks to be an
effective teacher and scholar. The critical issue involving outside activities is that “the professor
determines the amount and character of the work he or she does outside the University with due
regard to his or her paramount responsibilities within it, provided such amount and character of
outside employment is in compliance with State law and University and State University
System’s policies on outside employment.”16
It seems beyond cavil that the conflict of interest policy clearly identifies conflicts in
outside activities as those in which a professor’s outside activities conflict with the professor’s
duties to the University, duties defined as teaching, research, service, and extension. The
conflict of interest policy does not expressly prohibit a professor from engaging in activities that
conflict with the interests of the University, the State, the legislature or executive branch, or
other individuals or businesses. In other words, the conflict of interest analysis requires a
consideration of whether a professor’s outside activities will conflict, either in time or substance
or financial interest, with the professor’s own duties to the institution. An outside activity that
interferes with a professor’s ability to meet his or her classes, that interrupts a professor’s time
and commitment to research, that may induce a professor to alter his or her research, or that
pressures a professor to give up the search for truth and instead pursue a position that benefits an
outside employer would be examples of such a conflict.
The fact that a professor’s research differs from or is opposed to a policy position taken
by the State or the University is not directly relevant to the conflict of interest analysis as
reflected in university regulations and state law. The only relevant question, as far as the ad hoc
committee on academic freedom can determine it, is whether the professor’s outside activity
conflicts with the professor’s own duty to the institution. And since the professor’s duty to the
institution is defined as searching for truth, acquiring knowledge, and imparting that knowledge
to students, so long as the professor is doing so, an outside activity that conflicts with other
perceived interests is not a conflict under University regulations.
Of course, the University has a mission that should not be undermined by a professor, but
that mission, as stated in the faculty handbook, is teaching, research and scholarship, and

14
7.010(1)(a).
15
7.010(1)(c).
16
7.010(1)(d)(4).

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 7

service.17 That mission includes “enabling students to lead and influence the next generation and
beyond for economic, cultural and societal benefit.” Nothing in this statement suggests that a
professor’s loyalty to the University requires that the professor stifle his or her speech rights to
protect the interests of political factions within the State’s government. A professor’s duty to the
University is a fiduciary duty to the people of the State of Florida to promote truth, acquire and
promulgate knowledge, and help shape a better future for Florida, the nation and the world.
To the extent a professor’s duty of loyalty to the University might be thought to include a
duty not to engage in activities that might jeopardize the University’s interest, either because
they might cause harm to the University’s reputation, might result in the withdrawing of grant
funding, or might result in punitive measures taken by political entities, those considerations are
not expressly mentioned in any of UF’s regulations. If the professor is appropriately performing
his or her duty to the University to pursue knowledge and promulgate the truth, and doing so
conflicts with the reputational or political interests of the institution, it would seem that the
professor is not in a conflict situation. The express duties of the professor is to seek truth and
acquire knowledge; it is not to forego that search in fear of political reprisal. In fact, doing so
would be a violation of the professor’s duty to the institution and to the state which expressly
mandates the search for truth and promulgation of knowledge.
Moreover, the decision to punish the University over a professor’s work, or to think more
critically of the University because of a position taken by a professor in his or her professional
judgment, are decisions made by outsiders, decisions that are influenced by countless other
factors unrelated to the academic issue propounded by a professor and is not an appropriate
element of the conflicts of interest determination. A fundamental principle of free speech
jurisprudence was articulated by Justice Brandeis, who wrote: “If there be time to expose
through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education,
the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”18 Because the expressly
articulated duty of the professor is the search for and promulgation of knowledge, and that is the
core mission of a university, it would seem unreasonable to silence the professor on the basis of
amorphous or abstract opinions as to how others might react to that knowledge.

17
The University of Florida is a comprehensive learning institution built on a land-grant foundation. We are The
Gator Nation, a diverse community dedicated to excellence in education and research and shaping a better future
for Florida, the nation and the world. Our mission is to enable our students to lead and influence the next
generation and beyond for economic, cultural and societal benefit. The university welcomes the full exploration of
its intellectual boundaries and supports its faculty and students in the creation of new knowledge and the pursuit of
new ideas.
 Teaching is a fundamental purpose of this university at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
 Research and scholarship are integral to the educational process and to the expansion of our
understanding of the natural world, the intellect and the senses.
 Service reflects the university's obligation to share the benefits of its research and knowledge for the public
good. The university serves the nation's and the state's critical needs by contributing to a well-qualified and
broadly diverse citizenry, leadership and workforce.
The University of Florida must create the broadly diverse environment necessary to foster multi-cultural skills and
perspectives in its teaching and research for its students to contribute and succeed in the world of the 21st century.
These three interlocking elements — teaching, research and scholarship, and service — span all the university's
academic disciplines and represent the university's commitment to lead and serve the state of Florida, the nation and
the world by pursuing and disseminating new knowledge while building upon the experiences of the past. The
university aspires to advance by strengthening the human condition and improving the quality of life.
(http://handbook.aa.ufl.edu/about-uf/mission-and-plans/).
18
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 8

 The second phase of the conflicts of interest analysis asks whether a professor’s outside
activity conflicts with the professor’s duty to the University. So long as a professor’s outside
activity does not interfere with the professor’s time commitments, does not undermine the
professor’s objective search to acquire knowledge, and represents an honest commitment to
professional integrity, there would not seem to be a conflict. UF’s COI website identifies three
factors in considering outside activities conflicts: 1) must not compete with or do business with
UF, 2) must not interfere with the performance of responsibilities to UF, and 3) must avoid use
of UF resources.19 None of these factors appear to involve taking a position that is contrary to
the politicians of the state or that might even damage the University’s reputation or funding
stream. Moreover, determining a professor’s commitment to professional integrity is an inquiry
that would likely benefit from an examination of that professor’s professional organization’s
mission statement, conflicts policy, and professional code of ethics. These professional
standards cannot be reduced to a simple aphorism that UF is an arm of the state.
UF’s Conflicts policy expressly provides that “Employees must avoid situations which
interfere with—or reasonably appear to interfere with—their professional obligations to the
University.” So long as faculty are able to thoroughly and competently perform their
professional obligations to the University, and their outside activities do not undermine their
professional duty to acquire and promulgate knowledge, it would seem that view-point-based
restraints on their outside activities pose a direct threat to their academic freedom.

How is a Conflict of Interest Determined?

The procedure for disclosing and identifying conflicts of interest has changed over the
past few years. For years, professors were expected to disclose outside activities that might
present a conflict, or might present an appearance of a conflict, to their immediate supervisors.
If necessary, those disclosure documents would be forwarded to the offices of the relevant deans
for record keeping, and the decision to permit the outside activity was usually pro forma and
permissive. There was no centralized office that kept track of disclosures, and decisions about
whether a professor’s outside activities created a conflict were made by immediate supervisors
who were knowledgeable about the professor’s work, the professor’s duties and responsibilities
to the University, and the subject of the outside activity. The immediate supervisor was
generally deemed to be the best judge whether the outside activity hampered the professor’s
duties to UF.
The UF Conflicts of Interest Program was established to centralize the conflicts of
interest determination. According to the COI website:

The UF Conflicts of Interest (COI) Program is an office established under the purview of
the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The UF COI Program
administers UFOLIO (UF Online Interest Organizer), UF’s new online reporting system
that streamlines, modernizes, and standardizes the way UF employees disclose their
reportable outside activities and financial interests. In collaboration with our campus
partners, the UF COI Program seeks to identify and manage conflicts of interest that
could undermine institutional integrity.20

19
https://coi.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2020/03/UFHR_UFOLIO_ExternalActivities-Legacy.pdf
20
https://coi.ufl.edu/about/. Although Florida law was amended to require disclosure of contracts that affect the
integrity of state universities in 2020 (Fl. St. § 1012.977), the UF COI procedure was instituted prior to that date. It

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 9

 Under the new online disclosure procedure, outside activities must be disclosed and
approved in advance under a new, 2-level review. Level 1 review is done by immediate
supervisors such as chairs, directors, and department heads who have direct knowledge of the
employee’s job duties, understand the nature of the outside activity, and are familiar with the
standards of the professional organizations governing that discipline. For instance, an
appropriate level 1 reviewer for a law professor would be the dean of the College of Law who is
familiar with American Bar Association standards of conduct and the professor’s duties within
the institution. The checklist for the Level 1 Reviewer is available at
https://coi.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2020/05/Level-1-Review-Checklist.pdf and concerns precisely
the issues discussed above regarding conflicts of interest, such as time commitment, job
performance, whether the activity would inappropriately influence the discloser in their UF role,
and whether it would be more appropriate for the faculty member to undertake the activity as
part of the faculty member’s inside role.
Once a Level 1 review has been undertaken, the request may be forwarded for “ancillary
review” if it involves certain issues, such as expert witnessing, intellectual property, research
proposals, research/licensing, activities with foreign entities, or legal issues that might require
UF attorney review.21 There are no guidelines provided on the UFOLIO website for how this
ancillary review is to be undertaken or the criteria by which a decision is to be made. Nor is it
clear who will undertake the ancillary review, although senior vice presidents and the general
counsels office seem to be likely reviewers.
Assuming the disclosure passes the ancillary review, it then proceeds to the Level 2
review, which is undertaken by the COI administrative team. The Level 2 review consists of
identifying risk factors and then heightening the level of scrutiny based on the importance of the
risk factors. The risk factors identified by UFOLIO are:

 Discloser’s authority level at UF.

 Discloser’s authority level at the outside entity.
 Compensation amount or financial interest involved.
 Level of time commitment involved.
 Whether UF resources or students will be involved.
 Whether entity does business with UF.
 Whether the entity or activity will compete with UF programs or services.
 Whether the activity may adversely impact UF’s interests.
 Whether the activity relates to outside research that should be coordinated through
UF.
 Whether the entity sponsors discloser’s UF research.
 Whether the entity may license UF technology invented by the discloser.
 Whether the activity may result in the discloser creating intellectual property.
 Whether the activity/interest may impair the discloser’s ability to faithfully fulfill
UF responsibilities.22

is unclear if the reference to “institutional integrity” in UF’s COI policy predated the Florida statute or if it was
amended to reflect the new law.
21
https://coi.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2020/12/Ancillary-Reviews-Infographic.pdf
22
https://coi.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2020/05/UFOLIO-Review-Level-Examples.pdf

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 10

 Although expert witnessing and legal consulting is identified as a low-scrutiny activity,
the UFOLIO guidelines create an exception in cases that might “adversely impact UF’s
interests.” This is the only activity identified on the Level 2 examples worksheet as implicating
the amorphous factor of “Whether the activity may adversely impact UF’s interests.” As one can
imagine, however, this amorphous factor could easily swallow everything else and be interpreted
to allow the institution to stifle speech and research of professors whenever a professor’s
activities might be perceived to negatively affect UF’s reputation, financial interests, or political
support. There is no indication where these thirteen factors came from. Furthermore, decisions
to deny an outside activity appear to be final, with Level 2 review appearing to be the last
word.23 There is no appeals process identified.
It is difficult to determine who has responsibility for ancillary and level 2 reviews and,
for a faculty member whose outside activity request has been denied, to whom one should lodge
an appeal. The Presidential Task Force on Outside Activities released recommendations related
to the COI process on November 23, 2021, one of which is the establishment of an appeals
process. Requests from members of this ad hoc committee for information on who made the
various decisions to deny the outside activities of numerous faculty went unanswered.

Summary
Summarizing the foregoing discussion of the relevant laws, policies, and procedures,
indicates that the regulations and policies of UF do not define a conflict of interest to be taking a
stand that might oppose the interests of the executive branch. In fact, UF regulations and
policies clearly define conflict of interest quite narrowly and consistently to be a conflict of time
or interest created by an outside activity that threatens to undermine the professor’s own duties to
the institution. However, the language of Fl. St. § 1012.977, passed in 2020, adds to the conflicts
calculation the more amorphous factor of “undermining the integrity of the institution.” A major
goal of the University’s mission is to promote its university faculty as experts.24 To the extent
the COI analysis focuses on balancing the faculty member’s inside and outside activities,
consideration of the viewpoint or political interests of the University are not warranted.

1.2 Collective Bargaining Agreement

Article 10 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for the protection of faculty
members’ academic freedom. It provides, in relevant part, that

Academic freedom and responsibility are essential to the integrity of the University. The
principles of academic freedom are integral to the conception of the University as a
community of scholars engaged in the pursuit of truth and the communication of
knowledge in an atmosphere of tolerance and freedom. The University serves the
common good through teaching, research, scholarship/creative activities, and service.
The fulfillment of these functions rests upon the preservation of the intellectual freedoms

23
https://coi.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2020/04/Visio-DOI-Process-Flow-Chart.pdf
24
The State University System and the Board of Governors has promulgated a clearinghouse of Florida faculty as
experts to promote university-based research activities and opportunities and provide Florida-based expertise and
resources to the public sector, business, and industry. See https://expertnet.org/

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 11

 of teaching, expression, research, and debate. The University and UFF affirm that
academic freedom is a right protected by this Agreement in addition to a faculty
member’s constitutionally protected freedom of expression and is fundamental to the
faculty member’s responsibility to seek and to state truth as he/she sees it.25

To fulfill its responsibilities to faculty to protect academic freedom, the University has agreed
that it shall not violate a faculty member’s academic freedom, and it will affirmatively protect
faculty from external forces aimed at restricting academic freedom.26 The rights to academic
freedom and responsibilities of the University and the faculty spelled out in the collective
bargaining agreement are generally consistent with the University regulations detailed above.
However, the University’s obligation to protect faculty from external pressures does not appear
to be an element in the Regulations that would be binding on the University in cases involving
faculty outside the Collective Bargaining Unit. Article 10.4 details the University’s affirmative
obligations to protect the academic freedom of faculty. This includes the obligation to
“Maintain, encourage, protect and promote academic freedom so that it is not
compromised by harassment, censorship, reprisals, or prohibited discrimination as defined in
Article 11, Nondiscrimination. Recognize the right of faculty members to enjoy, without fear of
institutional censorship or discipline, the same constitutional rights and freedoms as other
individuals.”27 It is conceivable that the University’s initial decision to deny the professors’
opportunity to provide expert testimony, or to remove the word “critical” from a program, is a
violation of this provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement to the extent the University
participated in the censorship and did not protect the faculty from outside censorship or reprisal.

1.3 State Laws

As noted earlier, there are at least two Florida statutes that might have an impact on
conflict of interest determinations. The first is the Florida Code of Ethics, Fl. St. § 112.311 et
seq., which requires full and public disclosure of financial interests by public officers and certain
designated employees (Fl. St. § 112.3144), prohibits taking gifts and requires disclosure of
financial interests by procurement employees (Fl. St. § 112.3148), disclosure of honoraria (Fl. St.
§ 112.3149), as well as other disclosure requirements. Specifically, this statute does not apply to
UF employees except trustees, the president, vice-presidents, provost, general counsel, and
deans. However, the UF Regulation on Disclosure affirmatively imposes the obligations of the
Florida Ethics code onto all UF faculty and staff.28 It is unclear how applicable the Ethics Code
would be to individual faculty since it speaks primarily of public officers, regulatory agency
employees, and the like.

25
Article 10.1, Collective Bargaining Agreement between the University of Florida Board of Trustees and the
United Faculty of Florida, 2021-2024, available at: https://hr.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-2024-UFF-
UF-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf
26
In order to ensure within the University an atmosphere of academic freedom,
(1) The University shall not apply any provision in this Agreement to violate a faculty member’s academic freedom
or constitutional rights, nor shall a faculty member be punished for exercising such freedom or rights, either in the
performance of University duties or activities outside the University.
(2) The University recognizes that internal and external forces may seek at times to restrict academic freedom, and
the University shall maintain, encourage, protect and promote academic freedom. Id. at Art. 10.1(b)
27
Article 10 is reproduced in Appendix 1.2.
28
See UF Regulation 1.011(2) https://regulations.ufl.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/1011DisclosureandRegulationofOutsideActivitiesandFinancialInterests.pdf

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 12

 The second statute is newly enacted § 1012.977 (2020) that requires disclosure of
contracts by employees of public universities and that a determination be made that the outside
activity does not “affect the integrity of the state university.” It is currently unclear how this law
can be applied or how it will be interpreted or even whether it can be applied if it stifles the free
speech rights of government employees. To the extent this statute enlarges the definition of
conflict of interest from that articulated in UF regulations, to include any activity that affects the
integrity of the university, this new statute would reflect a significant change to existing law.
Moreover, it is unclear how restricting academic freedom does not, in fact, affect the integrity of
the state university since academic freedom is the bedrock of institutions of higher learning.
The UF COI policy requires disclosure of contracts for books, for expert witnessing
arrangements, and other activities. It is impossible to submit a disclosure form under UFOLIO
without uploading documentation regarding outside activities like expert witnessing. In many
situations, those contracts are required to remain confidential, and being forced to disclose them
to UF, where such documents are likely to be made public, may in fact breach the faculty
member’s contract. This requirement appears to be a new aspect of the COI policy and might
also breach the faculty member’s free speech and academic freedom rights. This is a matter that
would benefit from further research and consideration by this or another committee.
The Constitution of the State of Florida includes protections for freedom of speech. The
relevant language of Article 1, Section 4, provides that “Every person may speak, write and
publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law
shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.” At this time, it is
unclear whether the newly enacted § 1012.977 would be interpreted to abridge the liberty of
speech of individual faculty members. These are unanswered legal questions that are likely to
require litigation before we can answer with any certainty the extent to which speech protections
and academic freedom can be restricted by the Legislature or the University pursuant to a
conflicts of interest law.

1.4 Federal Laws

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for freedom of speech. The
Amendment prohibits state institutions from restricting protected speech rights of individuals.
As an arm of the State, the University of Florida is certainly a state actor and therefore subject to
the requirements of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally taken the position
that speech should not be restricted unless there is a clear and present danger of violence or harm
to others, and that more speech is the antidote to speech with which the state disagrees. Whether
the UF conflict-of-interest policy, or its application to the faculty who were denied the ability to
engage in outside activities, violates their First Amendment rights is a matter under litigation at
this time. This ad hoc committee will not speculate on the complicated legal issue involved in
the lawsuit filed by six UF faculty members on November 15, 2021. A somewhat dated but
thorough treatment of the legal aspects of the speech and academic freedom issues is provided by
the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in a report authored by Donna
Euben, dated May, 2002 and is available at https://www.aaup.org/issues/academic-
freedom/professors-and-institutions
The AAUP also has numerous other reports and resources on the interplay between
academic speech and the First Amendment at https://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-
freedom/resources-academic-freedom. A summary of federal cases on the subject is available at
https://www.aaup.org/get-involved/issue-campaigns/speak-speak-out-protect-faculty-voice/legal-

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 13

cases-affecting-academic. And a report explaining the interplay between academic freedom and
the First Amendment is available at: https://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/57BFFE5E-900F-
4A2A-B399-033ECE9ECB34/0/AcademicfreedomandFirstAmenoutline0907doc.pdf.

1.5 Policies of Peer Institutions

The range of Conflict of Interest (COI), Conflict of Commitment and outside activities
rules and regulations among UF peer and AAU institutions varied and ran the gamut. Appendix
1.5 provides an excerpt of these rules and regulations. The majority of these policies were
collected for the Presidential Task Force on Outside Activities and supplemented by this
committee to include AAU and Land Grant institutions.

1.6 Legal Complaints - Austin et al. vs. the University of Florida

The filing of a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida on November 5, 2021 by three faculty members in the Department of Political Science
rocketed the University of Florida into a storm of controversy in the national press concerning
academic freedom.29 Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald, and Daniel Smith took this step after
their requests to serve as expert witnesses in voting rights lawsuits were denied by UF as a
conflict of interest.
On July 7, 2021, Smith’s UFOLIO request to perform legal consulting for Demos &
Perkins Coie was the first to be denied. The denial indicates that “Outside activities that may
pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the
University of Florida.”30 Smith received a second disapproval for “Legal Consulting” on October
11, 2021 with the same rationale.31 Smith was to be called as an expert witness in litigation that
challenged “SB 90,” new legislation regulating voting in Florida
(https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90). The bill was passed by the legislature and
signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in May 2021.32
Professor McDonald’s request to provide expert testimony for the law firm of Arnold and
Porter was denied on October 13, 2021. This was followed two days later by a denial of a request
by Professor Austin to consult for the Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization
(https://advancementproject.org/home/). Both McDonald and Austin sought approval to serve as
experts on voting in the state.33 The denials used identical language -- “UF will deny its
employees’ requests to engage in outside activities when it determines the activities are adverse
to its interests. As UF is a state actor, litigation against the state is adverse to UF’s interests.”34
Subsequent to the disapprovals, the suits in which all three were invited to consult were
consolidated into one led by the League of Women Voters. All three colleagues are experts in

29
SHARON WRIGHT AUSTIN, MICHAEL MCDONALD, AND DANIEL A. SMITH, v. UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Plaintiffs, v. the public body corporate acting for and behalf of the University
of Florida, W. KENT FUCHS, in his official capacity as President of the University Florida, and JOSEPH
GLOVER, in his official capacity as Provost of the University of Florida, Defendants. UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE DIVISION. Case 1:21-
cv-00184-MW-GRJ, Document 1. November 5, 2021. (See exhibit Wright et al. original).
30
See exhibit DOI00013593.
31
See exhibit DOI00019899.
32
See exhibit ACLU Letter Smith Expert Testimony.
33
WRIGHT et al. v. UNIVERSITY (original)… op cit., p. 2.
34
See exhibits DOI0019897 and DOI0020370.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 14

voting rights and have consulted on such issues both nationally and in Florida in the past. This is
the first time that UF has raised an objection to their outside activity in this regard. In fact,
Smith’s previous outside work in this area was positively evaluated in his annual reviews.35
Austin, McDonald and Smith were joined in their lawsuit by three additional faculty on
November 15, 2021.36 The added plaintiffs were Jeffrey Goldhagen, a Professor of Pediatrics in
the UF College of Medicine, and Professors Teresa J. Reid and Kenneth B. Nunn, of the UF
Levin School of Law. Professor Goldhagen had sought permission to serve as an expert witness
in McCarthy et al. vs. DeSantis et al., a lawsuit that challenged the Governor’s Executive Order
21-175 “Ensuring Parents’ Freedom to Choose – Masks in Schools.” Goldhagen is considered
an expert in pediatric health and volunteered to testify on a pro bono basis. His request was
turned down on August 12, 2021 by Gary Wimsett, head of the UF COI Program, after he filed
for permission on UFOLIO. Here the language given for the refusal was similar to that received
by Professor Smith -- “Outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive
branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the University of Florida.” When professor
Goldhagen wrote to Mr. Wimsett about appealing the decision the response stated, “[t]here is no
mechanism for appealing disapprovals in UFOLIO.”37
Professors Nunn and Reid were among a number of UF Faculty who expressed a
willingness to sign onto an Amicus Curiae brief that challenged Florida Senate Bill 7066 which
requires those convicted of felonies in the state to pay all financial obligations accruing from
their conviction before their voting rights would be restored. Until the new COI policy was
adopted in 2020, signing onto Amicus Curiae briefs was not subject to approval or UFOLIO
review; however, the policy was changed to encompass all briefs which opposed the position of
the state of Florida.38 Additionally, the Dean of the Law School issued an additional layer of
approval for certain entities within the college:

Entities of the College of Law, such as centers, clinics, or other classes, seeking to
participate in such litigation or amicus briefs must separately receive approval
from me, the General Counsel, and President Fuchs.39

Professors Nunn and Reid were ultimately allowed to sign onto the brief but were not allowed to
reveal their affiliation with the UF Levin College of Law. The signatories included 28 faculty
from Florida law schools. Only the affiliation of the four UF signatories was omitted.40
All six plaintiffs in the lawsuit had carried out similar work without any objection from
the UF administration in the past. UF put in place its new Conflict of Interest Policy in July
2020. The policy defines conflict of interest in the following fashion:

35
Ibid, p. 4-5, 8-9.
36
SHARON WRIGHT AUSTIN, MICHAEL MCDONALD, AND DANIEL A. SMITH, JEFFREY
GOLDHAGEN, TERESA J. REID, and KENNETH B. NUNN, v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, Plaintiffs, v. the public body corporate acting for and behalf of the University of Florida, W. KENT
FUCHS, in his official capacity as President of the University Florida, JOSEPH GLOVER, in his official capacity as
Provost of the University of Florida, and LAURA ROSENBURY, in her official capacity as Dean of the Fredric G.
Levin College of Law, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE DIVISION. Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ. Document 19. November 15, 2021.
(See exhibit Wright et al. amended).
37
Ibid, 13-14.
38
Ibid, 8-9.
39
Ibid, 10.
40
Ibid, 12.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 15

 Conflict of Interest: occurs when a University Employee’s financial, professional,
commercial or personal interests or activities outside of the University affects, or
appears to affect, their professional judgment or obligations to the University.41

From the rationales provided on the rejections, it is unclear how the actions for which the
faculty applied for permission were either unprofessional or prevented them from
meeting their obligations to the university. Despite the definition above, the policy
rejects the idea that there are any definitive rules for determining whether a conflict of
interest exists:

Employees of the University of Florida must adhere to the highest ethical and
professional standards. Good judgment is essential and no set of rules can
adequately address the myriad of potential conflicts.42

The University’s new UFOLIO system, that has centralized the decision-making process,
authorizes the University to take punitive steps to limit or prevent individual employees from
engaging in activities that the University, in its sole discretion, views as a potential conflict of
interest.

Employees must avoid situations which interfere with—or reasonably appear to

interfere with—their professional obligations to the University. Such situations
might create an appearance of impropriety and, therefore, must be disclosed. As
discussed below, Employees will use the UFOLIO system to disclose Outside
Activities in which they wish to engage. When the University determines a
Conflict of Interest may exist with an Employee, the University may, in its sole
discretion, prohibit the individual from engaging in the activity presenting a
potential conflict; take actions to limit the individual’s activity; or implement
other measures the University deems reasonably necessary to eliminate the
potential conflict.43

Given the wording of the policy it is hard to reconcile the explicit rationale behind the individual
decisions. There is no explicit set of rules to guide decision-makers, and the decisions are made
at the discretion of the administration. On the face of it, based on the limited sample in this
lawsuit, the only consistent factor is that in all these cases faculty were prevented or limited in
their ability to participate in lawsuits in which the policies of the current executive administration
were challenged in the courts.
Conflict of Interest filings in UFOLIO follow one of two procedures depending on the
position of the reporter. In cases of faculty, two determinations are made as to whether a
potential conflict of interest may exist. The first is performed by the faculty member’s direct
supervisor and the second by the Conflict of Interest (COI) Program. So, for instance in the case
of Professors Austin and McDonald we assume that Professor Smith, in his role as Chair of

41
“Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest,” https://policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-of-commitment-and-
conflicts-of-interest/
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 16

Political Science, approved their requests, but that the negative determination was made by the
COI program and was thus communicated by its head Gary Wimsett. Again, the lack of
documented rules and procedures make understanding this outcome difficult. We do not know
the decision tree here, whether a COI determination overrules that of the supervisor or whether a
finding by either leads to disapproval. In the case of Professor Goldhagen, we do not know what
position his supervisor took, but we assume that since the disapproval came from Gary Wimsett,
that this was the determination made by the COI program.
In the disapproval of Professor Smith and the constraints placed on Professors Reid and
Nunn, we know their direct supervisors, Dean David Richardson of the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences and Dean Laura Rosenbury of the Law School, communicated the decisions. The
procedure at the level of Deans overseeing Chairs or Directors involves a consultation procedure
with other administrative offices at higher levels. It is clear from the amended lawsuit that the
restraints put on Professors Reid and Nunn involved imperfect coordination between Dean
Rosenbury and Gary Wimsett, and ultimately the invocation of the authority of both Executive
Vice President and General Counsel Amy Hass and President Kent Fuchs. No other documents
have yet been filed in the lawsuit, including the University’s answer, responses to demands to
produce documents, or other evidentiary materials.
In order to further understand how and why these decisions were made we contacted
members of the central administration. That inquiry did not yield much new information. We
started with Assistant Vice President Wimsett in his role as head of the COI program to provide
the rationale for why the proposed activities of Austin and McDonald may have been a breach of
“their professional judgement or obligations to the University” and for a range of documents
relevant to the policy and these specific decisions. He informed us that after consulting with the
General Counsel’s Office, due to the pending lawsuit, that he could not discuss these issues with
the ad hoc committee.
In Wimsett’s reply email to the committee he cc’d Associate Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel Ryan R. Fuller. As we knew the General Counsel’s Office was involved in
Smith’s decision (more on this below), we asked Associate VP Fuller about all three cases, and
requested the same set of documents. He responded in a similar fashion to Assistant VP
Wimsett, demurring to participate because of the pending lawsuit. We followed up with a
reminder that the documents we requested should be available due to Florida’s Sunshine Law.
He referred our email to the University of Florida Public Records Request Center and cc’ed
Provost and Executive Vice President Joseph Glover. We were not able to obtain further
information.
The Smith decision provides the most comprehensive information that we have on a
UFOLIO denial. This is also the earliest denial of which we have knowledge, so it is possible
that was one of the first cases adjudicated under the new policy. As noted above, the refusal in
this case was conveyed by the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, David
Richardson. Before making his decision on Smith’s request, he communicated with the Office of
the General Council which provided him with language for the denial. The General Counsel’s
Office also directed him to contact the Office of the Executive Vice President for Governmental
and Community Relations, Mark Kaplan, to confirm the language.44 From this it is clear that
these two offices and the Conflict of Interest Program were intrinsic to implementing the policy
change. Who formulated it and to what end was not made clear by our inquiry. It is possible that
the policy change was the product of one or both of these offices. Both the General Counsel and

44
Fall 2021 CLAS Assembly - November 15 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968Ch4G7uHw&t=3s

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 17

Government and Community Relations Offices report to the Office of the President and the
Board of Trustees. We were not able to document the involvement of either of these higher
authorities in the decision-making on the cases or what their role was in the reformulation of the
Conflict of Interest Policy.
Ultimately, the Office of the President did overturn the Smith, Austin and McDonald
denials and created a taskforce to study the policy and reform it. The results of that taskforce’s
deliberations were made public on November 23, 2021.45 Given the deadline on our charge, this
is where our factfinding on these cases ends.

1.7 Grievance filed by Chris Busey

On November 28, Associate Professor Chris Busey filed a grievance through the faculty
union alleging that the university violated his academic freedom. The grievance referenced a
meeting held between College of Education administrators, Associate Provost Chris Hass, and
multiple faculty members from the College of Education. The meeting was held to discuss new
College of Education curricular initiatives around race and education that were in the curricular
approval process, including a doctoral concentration titled “Critical Studies of Race, Ethnicity,
and Culture in Education.” Multiple faculty members in attendance reported that Chris Hass
stated that University administration was under pressure to avoid doing anything that might
provoke the legislature or governor to take a dim view of the University. Specifically, Hass
suggested that the jobs of top administrators, including President Fuchs and Provost Glover,
were at risk if the university moved forward with any activities out of favor with the current state
governing party; should President Fuchs be removed, a political appointee could replace him,
such as Richard Corcoran, former speaker of the Florida House and current commissioner of the
Florida Department of Education. Furthermore, Hass stated that Mark Kaplan recommended the
College of Education not do anything to harm a positive relationship with the state, a relationship
that had resulted in funding for the college. After this meeting, college administrators suggested
that the concentration be retitled to remove the word “critical.”
This grievance suggests that there was implicit but direct influence from the Board of
Trustees and political outsiders on internal curricular decisions. In press coverage of the
grievance, two state legislators confirmed that university courses and programs about critical
race theory are a direct target of pending legislation. According to the Miami Herald:

“I am heartened to see universities act proactively to get this garbage out of our state,”
said Sen. Joe Gruters, a Sarasota Republican who is sponsoring legislation that would
prohibit the teaching or promotion of “divisive concepts, race or sex scapegoating, or
race or sex stereotyping” in state institutions.

“If I were the University of Florida I would not want to become the example that Randy
Fine uses when he is pitching his bill,” [Randy] Fine [a Palm Bay Republican] said. “Part
of the way that I sell my bills is through stories that prove the point that they are
needed.”46

Press coverage of the grievance filed by Chris Busey through the faculty union suggests
that President Fuchs and Provost Glover were under pressure from the Board Trustees to keep

45
Task Force on Outside Activities. Final Report (11/22/2021). https://fora.aa.ufl.edu/docs/147/Final%20Report.pdf
46
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article256260062.html)

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 18

faculty from using language or engaging in activities that might provoke the legislature to take a
dim view of the University and thus threaten state funding or the jobs of top administrators. UF
has responded to press inquiries by saying “the documents you provided contain a number of
inaccuracies, and we will address them through the appropriate processes.” Which aspects of the
reports were inaccurate in UF’s view were not specified.47

2. Reported Incidents
This committee solicited comments and information from faculty across the University,
and individual members made themselves available to colleagues as much as possible. Because
many faculty expressed concern about retaliation, we have made efforts to maintain
confidentiality by providing summaries of the reported incidents with as little identifying
information as possible.

2.1 Incidents Reported to the ad hoc committee

Multiple concerns and incidents were reported to members of the ad hoc committee from
faculty across the University of Florida. These can be classified under the different categories of
non-financial outside activities, financial outside activities, and inside constraints on academic
freedom. Faculty members reported numerous issues of restriction of activities along all three of
these axes. Ad hoc committee members received the following comments:

a. Non-financial outside activities

 Concern that denials for outside activities were tied to questions of race and ethnicity.
 UF and the State of Florida are not one and the same, and that UF serves the people of
Florida, not the politicians who happen to be in power during any given administration.
“The mission of UF is to develop and disseminate knowledge.”
 I’m sure it comes as no surprise, but I think UF should dump the task force and refer this
to Committee A of the AAUP: https://www.aaup.org/our-programs/academic-
freedom/committee-procedures. The university administration has lost all credibility on
my side of campus, and given the perception they are too frightened to lead I think only
doing something that demonstrates they realized how serious this is would help right the
ship. Otherwise, I’m guessing we’ll see lots of retirements and job hunting and rejections
from applicants we’re recruiting.
 In partnerships between the University of Florida and a State of Florida government
entity, there are reported inconsistencies in procedures related to access to deidentified
data, disposition of deidentified data, destruction of deidentified data, and publication of
deidentified data, specifically related to Covid-19 compared to prior partnerships. One
illustrative example relates to reports that the government entity created barriers to and
delayed publication of Covid-19 data which were collected collaboratively.
 Reports that University of Florida employees were told verbally not to criticize the
Governor of Florida or UF policies related to Covid-19 in media interactions.

47
Divya Kumar, “At UF, someone used ‘critical’ and ‘race’ in a sentence. Trouble ensued.” Tampa Bay Times,
https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2021/11/30/at-uf-someone-used-critical-and-race-in-a-sentence-trouble-
ensued/ (December 1, 2021) and Emma Pettit, “‘It Just Felt Wrong’: U. of Florida Faculty Say Political Fears
Stalled an Initiative on Race.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-just-felt-
wrong-u-of-florida-faculty-say-political-fears-stalled-an-initiative-on-race (November 30, 2021).”

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 19

  Since early 2020, the College of Medicine and UF Heath has been in the spotlight
because of the Covid19 pandemic. The desire of many UF faculty with very relevant
expertise to provide guidance was and still is high. It was clear from early in the
pandemic that non-medical staff UF Health Shands were principle spokesmen for the
University on pandemic-related issues. Restrictions to speak out and provide op-ed pieces
and commentary were individually imposed as specific instructions from the Office of the
SVP and staff. Restrictions included not using their UF titles and UF affiliation in written
commentary. Oral presentations were discouraged or not authorized. There is a palpable
feeling of fear among tenured and non-tenured COM faculty of reprisal if they speak out
on these issues.
 The hiring of Dr. Joseph Ladapo has also had a demoralizing effect on some faculty,
particularly junior faculty, but there is fear of speaking out. For this particular hiring,
faculty had a 48-hour turnaround time for comments.
 Concern was expressed by some faculty interviewed that COM/UF Health facility
expansion funding in the state would be in jeopardy if the state administrative branch
policy on pandemic regulations were not followed in opinion articles by medical faculty.
 IFAS Regulations, 6.015 Outside Activity Guidelines (5) states that IFAS faculty are not
able to give expert testimony in their field in the State of Florida. There is support within
the current IFAS administration to remove that restriction and to have IFAS in-line with
the rest of UF. This restriction has been troublesome for some faculty who have been
asked to give expert testimony.
 IFAS has had one widely publicized situation related to restrictions on speaking by a
faculty member with internationally recognized expertise in biotechnology. It was
claimed that a former SVP in response to a UF administrative directive requested this
limitation on speaking activities.
 Veterinary Medicine: Limited interviews were conducted. These did not provide
evidence of restrictions on outside activity. There were concerns about restrictions on
intellectual property issues and commercialization of research

b. financial outside activities

 Comments that the view-point discrimination of the professors’ denial to participate in
lawsuits was not a question of pay or pro bono, and that payment for outside activities is
a red herring and “truly outrageous.”
 Concerns were expressed about disclosure of potentially confidential contracts covering
books or other activities.
 Comments that UF was unreasonably claiming Intellectual Property rights.

c. Inside constraints on academic freedom

 Grievance filed by Professor Chris Busey to remove the term “critical” from a doctoral
concentration in the College of Education is indicative of the fear that many feel when
teaching or researching about race or ethnicity.
 Comments were provided that websites were required to be changed, that course syllabi
had to be restructured, and that use of the terms “critical” and “race” could not appear
together in the same sentence or document.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 20

2.2 Incidents Reported to the Faculty Senate
The Faculty Senate Chair received emails from faculty members reporting incidents
affecting their ability to participate in outside activities. Several of these emails were outside the
scope of the committee’s charge and are summarized in Appendix 2.2.
Relevant to the committee’s charge, faculty raised concerns about the university’s policy
on communicating with the legislature in a personal capacity. Numerous faculty reported
concerns with the university policy that lobbying the legislature in a personal capacity requires
approval from a supervisor. The legality of this policy was questioned although we could not
confirm where the policy exists or if this continues to be the policy. Similarly, faculty expressed
concerns about possible repercussions if they speak in opposition to the views of UF or the state
government on social media platforms or even in the workplace. Finally, faculty reported that
approval to participate in Speaker’s Bureaus was difficult to obtain. Speaker’s Bureaus provide
an opportunity for clinicians to disseminate information and collaborate with industry. The
rationale behind UF’s restriction on this practice was questioned.

a. Concerns over academic freedom within the university

Although issues of academic freedom within the university, such as restrictions on
teaching certain subjects, on website information, on syllabi, research interests, and the like,
were outside the scope of this committee’s charge, we received reports from faculty members
about such issues. Issues reported included:
 Content from college, program, or center websites asked to be removed
 Curricular proposals asked to be delayed or altered
In reported cases, the reason for such requests appeared to be that such content conflicted with a
position taken by political actors or factions within the State government.
In addition, we received reports from faculty who had not been specifically asked to alter
their research agendas or curricular content but who were concerned that their work may put
them at odds with political actors and were unsure how to proceed. Such a climate of self-
censorship is chilling at an institution that strives to be considered among the nation’s most elite.

b. Concerns over the treatment of financial conflicts

Financial conflicts of interest were outside the scope of the committee’s charge, yet the
committee received reports from faculty members about UFOLIO issues related to financial
conflicts of interest that UF Faculty Senate leadership or UF Faculty Senate itself may wish to
address. Specifically, faculty reported:
 UF’s policy on intellectual property is not aligned with peer institutions. UF claims a
right to all intellectual property (IP) within a researcher’s discipline or area of expertise
that is created by a UF faculty member while employed at UF. UF’s position is that this
right includes IP generated during paid outside consulting work. Many peer institutions
only claim a right to IP when the invention was developed using university facilities,
resources, or funds, as part of employment. UF’s IP policy may preclude faculty from
engaging in some outside consulting work because companies hiring an outside
consultant will not sign over IP rights.
 UF’s policy that the identities of all potential clients be revealed through the UFOLIO
process has prevented faculty from doing some consulting work, including reviewing

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 21

 patents. Faculty expressed interest in a process by which potential clients could be vetted
for possible conflicts while retaining confidentiality.
 IFAS’s policy that prevents faculty from providing any in-state consulting or expert
witness for pay as a condition of employment may be out of date.

3. Perspectives of the Press

When news of the denial of the three political science professors hit the press in mid-
October 2021, the local and national press have been regularly reporting on the state of academic
freedom at UF. The issue was quickly picked up in the academic press such as the Chronicle of
Higher Education and Inside Higher Education. The ad hoc committee has collected many of
these articles and some of those are reproduced in Appendix 3.1 (Academic Press) and in
Appendix 3.2 (Regular Press). This issue has gripped the academic community with as many
as fifteen articles appearing just in the Chronicle of Higher Education in the past six weeks.
Dozens of articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles
Times, the Miami Herald, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Gainesville Sun. The professors
involved in the lawsuit have appeared on CNN and other national broadcast news.
The press coverage has been predominantly, if not entirely, negative, from simply
reporting on the events as unusual and serious incursions on academic freedom to insinuating
that the University of Florida has become an arm of the DeSantis administration. Press coverage
has suggested that the situation is serious enough to warrant outside investigations by accrediting
organizations and the United States House of Representatives, and has spurred letters from the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) among others. It is not an exaggeration
to state that the firestorm of negative press prompted senior administration officials at UF to
reverse its denial of permission to the professors to testify, to appoint a presidential
administrative task force to make policy recommendations to revise UF’s COI policy, and to
convince faculty that protecting academic freedom is a priority. None of the administration’s
response, however, addresses the deeper questions raised by this report of incursions inside the
institution involving program names, course materials, syllabi, and the like, and the filing of the
grievance by Professor Chris Busey reflects the fact that the administration’s hasty and limited
response does not address the systemic problems identified here. More significantly, the
administration’s revision of the COI policy does not address the serious reports of efforts to stifle
the scientific and medical community’s research into and professional duty to report the
developing scientific information on Covid-19.

4. Outside Investigations
On November 2, 2021, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ Commission
on Colleges (SACSCC) announced that it would investigate UF’s alleged infringement of the
academic freedom rights of its faculty.45 That investigation is ongoing, UF has filed a response
and this ad hoc committee has no further information on its activity and is awaiting the SACSCC
response. The SACSCC letter requesting information and UF’s response are provided in
Appendix 4.
On November 18, 2021 the U.S. House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
launched an investigation into whether UF had violated the first amendment rights of its

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 22

faculty.48 Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Jamie Raskin expressed deep concern
that UF was censoring its faculty based on viewpoint. In their 10-page letter, Representatives
Wasserman Schultz and Raskin stated:

We are concerned that UF is censoring its faculty based on viewpoint, which would set a
dangerous precedent that flies in the face of its own commitment to freedom of
expression. We are also concerned that, possibly due to pressure from trustees,
politicians, or others, UF has adopted and enforced a conflicts policy that undermines the
academic and free speech values that are essential to American higher education. As one
of the top five public research universities in the nation, UF must ensure that it is not
creating the appearance of anticipatory obedience or that it is responding to political
pressure in deciding which speech activities it will permit.

Further, the letter stated:

The Subcommittee is investigating the extent to which your university’s actions have
undermined the integrity of academic freedom and interfered with employees’
constitutional right to speak freely as private citizens on matters of great public concern.
In addition, we seek to understand the extent to which federally funded universities use
conflicts-of-interest policies to censor employees who oppose the interests of the political
party in power.

The Congressional investigation demanded that UF produce numerous documents involved in

the amendments to UF’s COI policy and the actions that led to the denial to testify or participate
in amicus briefs set forth in the professors’ lawsuit. The Congressional Letter is reproduced in
Appendix 4. This ad hoc committee requested the same information be provided to it, but our
requests were denied.

5. Response of the Board of Trustees

At the December Board meeting of the UF Board of Trustees, Board Chair Morteza
“Mori” Hosseini commented on the negative press that UF has been receiving around this issue
of outside activities. His comments are provided in full in Appendix 5. Chair Hosseini stated
that the motivation for the revised COI policy was “ faculty members taking second jobs using
the university’s state resources for their own personal gain. . . [and] faculty members who use
their positions of authority to improperly advocate personal political viewpoints to the exclusion
of others.”49 It is unclear how either of those supposed improprieties are implicated in any of the
events that spurred this committee’s report.

6. Summary
As noted numerous times above, the charge of this task force was to do as much fact-
finding as we could do in the limited time allowed. Consistent with our charge, we have
collected extensive information on UF regulations and its COI policy, the lawsuits and outside
investigations, state and federal laws, the policies of some peer institutions, the contract rights of

48
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html
49
Hosseini comments, p. 11.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 23

those within the collective bargaining unit, and articles in the academic and regular news around
the most recent events. Perhaps most importantly, we have solicited input from our faculty
colleagues and collected anecdotal reports of censorship and/or denials of faculty rights to do
their job to search out and promulgate knowledge. As the integral element of an institution of
higher learning, UF faculty must be free to do their job unhampered by political pressure or fear
of reprisals. The professional organizations that govern most of our disciplines clearly demand
academic freedom and a workplace free of censorship. It is evident that faculty throughout UF
are feeling greater and greater pressure to conform to political pressures and to stifle or modify
their speech and research to avoid retaliation. It is also clear that this pressure is coming from
the senior UF administration and not just from the COI office. The charge of this ad hoc
committee was to look primarily at outside activities, but it was evident from faculty comments
that there have been incursions on academic freedom within the institution, such as pressure to
alter one’s research, change websites or course names, and even to change course content. There
were also extensive comments provided about the University’s IP policy and attacks on the
academic freedom of faculty doing research in foreign countries.
This task force simply did not have the resources or the time to fully investigate these
reports or their legal and policy implications. Faculty did express discontent about political
interference with our mission, that academic freedom is under attack, and that we will likely lose
faculty as a result. We hope this report provides an opportunity to ultimately address these
concerns and contribute to enhancing the integrity and mission of UF as a respected institution of
higher learning so that the people of Florida will benefit from a world-class institution that they
have paid so much to create and support and to which they are so deserving.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 24

 Appendices
Appendix 1.1
UF Regulation 7.018 Academic Affairs; Academic Freedom and Responsibility.
(1) Academic Freedom and Responsibility.
(a) The University believes that academic freedom and responsibility are essential to
the full development of a true university and apply to teaching, research, and creativity. In the
development of knowledge, research endeavors, and creative activities, the faculty and student
body must be free to cultivate a spirit of inquiry and scholarly criticism and to examine ideas in
an atmosphere of freedom and confidence. The faculty must be free to engage in scholarly and
creative activity and publish the results in a manner consistent with professional obligations. A
similar atmosphere is required for university teaching. Consistent with the exercise of academic
responsibility, a teacher must have freedom in the classroom in discussing academic subjects
selecting instructional materials and determining grades. The university student must likewise
have the opportunity to study a full spectrum of ideas, opinions, and beliefs, so that the student
may acquire maturity for analysis and judgment. Objective and skillful exposition of such
matters is the duty of every instructor.
(b) The established policy of the University continues to be that the faculty member
must fulfill his/her responsibility to society and to his/her profession by manifesting academic
competence, scholarly discretion, and good citizenship. The university instructor is a citizen, a
member of a learned profession, and an academic officer of the University. The instructor should
be constantly mindful that these roles may be inseparable in the public view, and should
therefore at all times exercise appropriate restraint and good judgment.
(2) Academic freedom is accompanied by the corresponding responsibility to:
a. Be forthright and honest in the pursuit and communication of scientific and
scholarly knowledge;
b. Respect students, staff and colleagues as individuals and avoid any exploitation of
such persons for private advantage;
c. Respect the integrity of the evaluation process with regard to students, staff and
colleagues, so that it reflects their true merit;
d. Indicate when appropriate that one is not an institutional representative unless
specifically authorized as such; and
e. Recognize the responsibilities arising from the nature of the educational process,
including such responsibilities, but not limited to, observing and upholding the ethical standards
of their discipline; participating, as appropriate, in the shared system of collegial governance,
especially at the department/unit level; respecting the confidential nature of the relationship
between professor and student; and adhering to one’s proper role as teacher, researcher,
intellectual mentor and counselor.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 25

 UF Regulation 7.010(1)(d) – Statement on Professional Ethics
1. The professor, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the
advancement of knowledge, recognizes the special responsibilities devolving upon
members of the profession. The professor's primary responsibility to his or her field is to
seek and to state the truth as he or she sees it. To this end, the professor devotes himself
or herself to developing and improving his or her scholarly competence. The professor
accepts the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending
and transmitting knowledge. The professor must never seriously hamper or compromise
anyone's freedom of inquiry.
2. As an instructor, the professor encourages the free pursuit of learning in students. The
professor maintains and represents the best scholarly standards of his or her discipline.
The professor demonstrates respect for the student as an individual, and adheres to the
proper role of intellectual guide and counselor. The professor makes every reasonable
effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that evaluation of students reflects
their true merit. The professor respects the confidential nature of the relationship between
professor and student. The professor avoids any exploitation of students for private
advantage and acknowledges significant assistance from them. The professor protects
their academic freedom.
3. As a colleague, the professor has obligations that derive from common membership in
the community of scholars. The professor respects and defends the free inquiry of
associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas the professor shows due respect for the
opinions of others. The professor acknowledges academic responsibilities and strives to
be objective in professional judgment of colleagues. The professor accepts his or her
share of faculty responsibility for the governance of the University.
4. As a member of the University, the professor seeks above-all to be an effective teacher
and scholar. The professor observes the stated regulations of the institution, provided they
do not contravene academic freedom, but nonetheless maintains the right to criticize and
seek revision. The professor determines the amount and character of the work he or she
does outside the University with due regard to his or her paramount responsibilities
within it, provided such amount and character of outside employment is in compliance
with State law and University and State University System’s policies on outside
employment. When considering the interruption or termination of employment, the
professor recognizes the effect of this decision
upon the programs of the University and gives due notice of his or her intentions.
5. As a member of the community, the professor has the rights and obligations of any
citizen. The professor measures the urgency of these obligations in light of
responsibilities to his or her field, to students, to the profession, and to the University.
The professor, when speaking or acting as a private person shall avoid creating the
impression that he or she speaks or acts for the college or the University. As an individual
engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity the
professor has a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further
public understanding of academic freedom.50

50
7.010(1)(d)

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 26

UF Conflicts of Interest Policy – available at https://policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-of-
commitment-and-conflicts-of-interest/
1. Policy Statement and Purpose

The University of Florida encourages its Employees to engage in activities supporting their
professional growth, creating new knowledge and ideas, and furthering the University’s mission
of excellence in education, research, and service. University Employees’ primary professional
obligation, however, is to act in the best interest of the University and to maintain the highest
ethical and professional standards. A University Employee’s Outside Activities or interests must
not conflict, or appear to conflict, with their professional obligations to the University of Florida.
Accordingly, this Policy establishes standards and requirements to protect the University’s
financial wellbeing, reputation, and legal obligations and provides a system for identifying,
reporting, and managing real or apparent conflicts.

2. Applicability

All University Employees as defined below. To the extent this Policy conflicts with other
University policies or procedures, this Policy shall control.

3. Definitions

Conflict of Commitment: occurs when a University Employee engages in an Outside Activity,

either paid or unpaid, that could interfere with their professional obligations to the University.

Conflict of Interest: occurs when a University Employee’s financial, professional, commercial or

personal interests or activities outside of the University affects, or appears to affect, their
professional judgement or obligations to the University.

Employee: University Faculty or Staff as defined herein.

Entity: any business, company, or other organization, whether public or private, including
without limitation any partnership, corporation, limited liability corporation, unincorporated
association, or other institution or organization, whether for-profit or not-for-profit.

Faculty: all positions identified as Academic Personnel in the University of Florida Regulation
7.003 Academic Personnel Employment Plan.

Financial Interest: Any monetary or equity interest held by or inuring to an Employee or their
Immediate Family Member which would create an actual or apparent Conflict of Interest.

Immediate Family Member: an Employee’s spouse, domestic partner, child or stepchild, parent,
parent-in-law, sibling, and anyone sharing the employee’s household (other than a tenant or
employee).

Outside Activity: any paid or unpaid activity undertaken by an Employee outside of the
University which could create an actual or apparent Conflict of Commitment or Conflict of

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 27

Interest. Outside Activities may include consulting, participating in civic or charitable
organizations, working as a technical or professional advisor or practitioner, or holding a
parttime job with another employer.

Reportable Outside Activity: any Outside Activity that is required to be disclosed to the
University through the UFOLIO system.

Staff: any regular, non-exempt or exempt employee in research, academic, or administrative

positions, including Technical, Executive, Administrative and Managerial Support (TEAMS)
staff; University Support Personnel System (USPS) staff; and Other Support Personnel (OSP) as
defined in University of Florida Regulation 1.100.

4. Conflicts

A. Guiding Principles

Employees of the University of Florida must adhere to the highest ethical and professional
standards. Good judgment is essential and no set of rules can adequately address the myriad of
potential conflicts. If Employees have questions concerning a potential conflict of commitment
or conflict of interest, they must first discuss these concerns with their supervisor1. Real or
apparent conflicts must be managed or disclosed as set forth in section 5 below.

B. Conflicts of Commitment

University Employees must commit their primary professional and intellectual energy towards
supporting the University’s mission of excellence in education, research and service. A Conflict
of Commitment occurs when an Employee’s professional time or energy is devoted to Outside
Activities adversely affecting their capacity to satisfy their obligations to the University of
Florida.

Conflicts of Commitment usually involve time allocation. For instance, when an Employee
attempts to balance their University responsibilities with Outside Activities such as consulting or
volunteering, they may be left with inadequate time to fulfil their University responsibilities
adequately.

Employees wishing to engage in an Outside Activity that may present a Conflict of

Commitment—however insignificant it may seem to the Employee—must disclose the Outside
Activity to their supervisor and receive approval for before engaging in the outside activity.
Irrespective of disclosures, it is the responsibility of University supervisors (in the case of
Faculty, their department chairs and deans) to identify and manage any Conflicts of Commitment
undertaken by their direct reports.

If the University determines an Outside Activity will result in a Conflict of Commitment, the
University may, in its sole discretion, prohibit the individual from engaging in the activity;
require the individual take personal time off or a leave of absence to participate in the activity; or
implement other measures the University deems reasonably necessary.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 28

C. Conflict of Interest

Employees must avoid situations which interfere with—or reasonably appear to interfere with—
their professional obligations to the University. Such situations might create an appearance of
impropriety and, therefore, must be disclosed. As discussed below, Employees will use the
UFOLIO system to disclose Outside
Activities in which they wish to engage. When the University determines a Conflict of Interest
may exist with an Employee, the University may, in its sole discretion, prohibit the individual
from engaging in the activity presenting a potential conflict; take actions to limit the individual’s
activity; or implement other measures the University deems reasonably necessary to eliminate
the potential conflict.

D. Intellectual Property

The University’s mission includes fostering invention and the development of new patentable
and non-patentable ideas, technologies, methodologies, copyrights and other creations of the
human mind. The University attempts to license many of these innovations to commercial
entities so the fruits of this innovation may reach the marketplace for the public good and
provide resources for further innovation. The University, therefore, must be protected from both
real and perceived disclosure of intellectual property with entities in which University inventors
have personal or financial interests or are adverse to the University’s interest. More information,
including applicable definitions, the University’s ownership rights to inventions and works can
be found in the University’s Intellectual Property Policy located here:
http://generalcounsel.ufl.edu/media/generalcounselufledu/documents/IntellectualProperty-
Policy.pdf

5. Disclosure Requirements

A. When to Disclose

1.
1. Conflict of Interest:
Regardless of whether an Outside Activity occurs during a University assignment
or appointment, Employees must disclose certain Outside Activities and Financial
Interests through the UFOLIO system (and receive approval through the UFOLIO
System prior to commencing such activities or pursuing such interests), which
may lead to a Conflict of Interest under the following circumstances:
1. Upon initial hiring or engagement with the University;
2. Prior to acquiring a new Financial Interest;
3. Prior to engaging in, or committing to engage in, an Outside Activity;
4. Prior to accepting a position or role which could reasonably be perceived
as creating a Conflict of Interest;
5. Prior to entering a relationship, including a familial relationship, which
could reasonably be perceived as creating a Conflict of Interest; and
6. At least annually, even if attesting to no change from previous disclosures.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 29

Employees failing to receive approval through the UFOLIO system prior to commencing an
Outside Activity as required herein may be subject to administrative or disciplinary action as set
forth in section 7 below. The absence of express disapproval of an outside activity does not
constitute approval by the University.

Regarding the annual reporting obligation in section 5(A)7 above, Employees must annually
disclose their Financial Interests and Outside Activities existing at that time or which existed in
the previous calendar year. The University will make efforts to provide courtesy notice to
Employees at least 30 days prior to their annual disclosure date. However, the failure to provide
such notice or the failure of an Employee to receive such notice does not relieve an Employee of
the obligation to make a timely annual disclosure.

2. Conflict of Commitment:

Employees must disclose to their supervisor any Outside Activity that may create a Conflict of
Commitment, either alone or together with other Outside Activities, before engaging in the
Outside Activity. Irrespective of whether an Outside Activity is disclosed, however, it is the
responsibility of all supervisors to identify any Conflicts of Commitment undertaken by their
direct reports and manage it appropriately. If a supervisor is unsure whether a given activity
poses a Conflict of Commitment or how to manage it, the supervisor should consult with the
dean or vice president to whom they report.

B. What to Disclose

The following potential Conflicts of Interest and Outside Activities must be disclosed as
provided below:

1.
1. Management or Material Interest: You, your spouse, dependent children, or
relatives have a management position (e.g., officer, director, partner, proprietor),
or a material (more that 5% ownership interest in the entity) financial interest in
an entity that enters into any agreements or contracts with UF (e.g., service
agreements, leases, sales agreements).
2. Publicly-Traded Entity Payments/Ownership: You, your spouse, or dependent
children receive payments or have an ownership interest of $5,000 or more
(including shares, partnership stake, or derivative interests such as stock options)
in a publicly-traded entity where the ownership interest reasonably appears to be
related to your institutional responsibilities. [Note: This does not include if the
ownership interest is managed by a third party such as a mutual or retirement
fund.]
3. Privately-Held Entity Ownership: You, your spouse, or dependent children have
any ownership interest in a privately held entity where the ownership interest
reasonably appears to be related to your institutional responsibilities.
4. Public Office/Candidate: You are a candidate for public office or you hold public
office.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 30

 5. Outside Teaching Appointments: You have or you are seeking approval to hold a
teaching appointment with any entity other than UF.
6. Outside Research: You conduct or you are seeking approval to conduct any
research at, or receive any research funding from or through, any entity other than
UF. [Note: Research conducted at outside entities as part of a UF sponsored
project or research funding received by UF does not need to be disclosed.]
7. Classroom Works: You require or you are seeking approval to require students to
purchase works used in your classroom you or your spouse created, authored or
co-authored (e.g., textbook(s), computer software, electronic or digital media) and
for which you or your spouse will receive, or anticipate receiving payment, loan,
subscription, advance, deposit of money, service, or anything of value.
8. Royalties/Licensing/Copyright Income: You receive royalties, licensing fees
and/or copyright income in excess of $5000 annually from an entity other than
UF.
9. Expert Witness/Legal Consulting: You serve or you are seeking approval to serve
as an expert witness and/or engage in consulting in a legal matter like a lawsuit or
a potential lawsuit.
10. Professional Services Related to UF Expertise: You provide or you are seeking
approval to provide paid or unpaid professional services to an outside entity and
the professional services relate to your UF expertise.
11. Leadership Roles: You have a senior management, administrative, or leadership
role, whether paid or unpaid, with an outside entity related to your UF expertise
where you make executive business and/or financial decisions on behalf of the
outside entity.

C. How to Disclose

1.
1. Conflict of Interest. Outside Activities and Financial Interests required to be
disclosed under this Policy can be found at, and shall be made through, the
University’s online reporting system, UFOLIO or as otherwise directed by the
Office of the Provost for non-faculty employees. UFOLIO,
including disclosure instructions, FAQ and other information, can be accessed
here: https://compliance.ufl.edu/ufolio/
2. Conflict of Commitment. Disclosure of a potential Conflict of Commitment shall
be made to the University Employee’s supervisor in the manner specified by the
respective Employee’s department. In the absence of a specified manner for
approval of a Conflict of Commitment, the Employee must at least obtain
approval from the Employee’s supervisor in writing and in a form that
demonstrates the supervisor was informed of the full extent of the Outside
Activity and commitment prior to approval. Outside Activities presenting a
potential Conflict of Commitment must be disclosed and approved before the
Employee undertakes the activity.

D. Failure to Disclose

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 31

 1. Failure to disclose a Reportable Outside Activity by a respective deadline shall
result in a written notification from the University, with copies to the Employee’s
supervisor, department chair and dean, directing the Employee to complete their
disclosure within 10 business days.
2. Failure to disclose more than 10 business days following the receipt of a
delinquency notification shall result in a written reprimand from the University,
with copies to the Employee’s supervisor, department chair and dean, as
applicable, indicating the Employee must complete their disclosure within 10
business days.
3. If an Employee fails to disclose more than 10 business days following receipt of a
written reprimand, the University may take administrative or disciplinary action
against the Employee up to and including termination of employment.
4. Failure to make truthful and complete disclosure of all Reportable Outside
Activities or Conflicts of Commitment may subject the Employee to
administrative or disciplinary action as set forth in section 7 below.

6. Review and Adjudication

For activities and interests disclosed through UFOLIO, the Assistant Vice President for Conflicts
of Interest and, depending upon the type of activity or interest, other applicable designated
University officials, will determine whether a disclosed activity, interest or circumstance
presents a Conflict of Interest. In addition to an Employee’s obligation to report a potential
Conflict of Commitment to the Employee’s supervisor, University supervisors shall be
responsible for identifying any Conflict of Commitment of their direct reports and managing the
conflict appropriately.

7. Policy Violations

The University may take administrative or disciplinary action concerning violations of this
Policy up to and including termination of employment.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 32

 11/22/2021 Task Force on
Outside Activities
Final Report

Submitted to University of Florida President Kent

Fuchs

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 33

Introduction.
On November 5, 2021, President Kent Fuchs announced to the university community the formation of a
task force to “review UF’s practice regarding requests for approval of outside activities involving
potential conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment.” He continued, “In particular, the task force
will make a recommendation to me on how UF should respond when employees request approval to
serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which their employer, the state of Florida, is a party. I’m asking
the task force to provide me with a preliminary recommendation by Monday, November 29.”

In the same memo, he announced the members of the task force:

• Joe Glover – Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Task Force Chair
• Katie Vogel Anderson – Clinical Associate Professor, College of Pharmacy (former Faculty Senate
Chair)
• Hub Brown – Dean, College of Journalism and Communications
• Clay Calvert – Professor of Law and Professor of Journalism and Communications, Brechner
Eminent Scholar and Director, Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project
• Terra DuBois – Chief Compliance, Ethics & Privacy Officer, UF
• John Kraft – Professor and Susan Cameron Chair of International Business, Warrington College
of Business
• Laura Rosenbury – Dean, Levin College of Law

To preserve the historical record, we note that in the same November 5 memo, President Fuchs also
announced: “Without prejudice regarding the task force recommendations, I have also asked UF’s
Conflicts of Interest Office to reverse the decisions on recent requests by UF employees to serve as
expert witnesses in litigation in which the state of Florida is a party and to approve the requests
regardless of person compensation, assuming the activity is on their own time without using university
resources.”

The Task Force Charge.

The Task Force understood its charge to recommend “how UF should respond when employees request
approval to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which their employer, the state of Florida, is a
party.” Task Force members have focused considerable attention and effort on this charge. In general,
the recommendations contained in this report are narrowly constructed to address the charge as stated.
There are some recommendations that stray beyond the charge, but these arose from
recommendations developed to address the charge that seem to have more general applicability.

In the course of their work, Task Force members became aware that some members of the university
community believe the Task Force was charged with investigating the circumstances that led to its
formation. At no time was this Task Force asked to do any sort of investigation.

When a faculty member wishes to serve as an expert witness in litigation in which their employer, the
State of Florida, is a party, the faculty member is required to disclose that activity to the university. The
disclosure in the UFOLIO system initiates an internal analysis to determine whether the activity poses a
conflict of interest. The Task Force asked two questions about this analysis. First, does the university
policy that underlies and informs this analysis need revision? Thanks largely to the participation of two
legal scholars on the Task Force, we were able to have a nuanced discussion of First Amendment

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 34

principles and how they can and should apply in this context. The Policy Recommendations section
below contains the fruits of that discussion. There was unanimous agreement among the members of
the Task Force to forward these recommendations.

The second question the Task Force asked is the following. Does the university process that underlies
and informs the analysis need revision? The Process Recommendations section below contains several
suggestions for improving the transparency of the process, faculty participation in the process, and the
opportunity to appeal decisions. There was unanimous agreement among the members of the Task
Force to make these recommendations.

Policy Recommendations.

The Task Force recommends adopting a policy that does the following:

• Publicly affirms the academic freedom of faculty when performing their duties as teachers and
scholars;

• Publicly affirms the free speech rights of faculty and staff to comment on matters of public
concern set forth by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 4 of the
Florida Constitution;

• Clarifies that such comments, including those to the media, are not reportable as outside
activities when made by faculty and staff in their capacities as individual citizens and not on
behalf of another person or entity;

• Emphasizes that comments on matters of public concern become reportable outside activities,
subject to university review for potential conflicts of interest or conflicts of commitment, as
defined in UF policy and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the UF Board of Trustees
and the United Faculty of Florida, when faculty and staff seek to testify as expert witnesses on
behalf of a party in litigation;

• Establishes a strong presumption that the university will approve faculty or staff requests to
testify as expert witnesses, in their capacities as private citizens, in all litigation in which the
State of Florida is a party, regardless of the viewpoint of the faculty or staff member’s testimony
and regardless of whether the faculty or staff member is compensated for such testimony. This
presumption is particularly important in cases that challenge the constitutionality, legality, or
application of a Florida law;

• Imposes a heavy burden on the university to overcome the strong presumption set forth above,
such that requests to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which the State of Florida is a

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 35

 party may be denied only when clear and convincing evidence establishes that such testimony
would conflict with an important and particularized interest of the university, which the
university must set forth and explain in writing. A general assertion that such testimony is a
conflict of interest is insufficient to rebut the strong presumption in favor of such testimony.
Additionally, an undifferentiated fear or apprehension of harm resulting from a conflict is
insufficient to rebut the strong presumption in favor of such testimony; and

• Preserves the university’s ability to deny requests to serve as expert witnesses when those
requests, along with other outside activities, would cumulatively amount to a conflict of
commitment.

Process Recommendations.

The Task Force recommends the following steps to increase transparency in the decision-making process
and to include faculty perspectives.

• Create a Provost’s Advisory Committee charged with reviewing proposed denials of requests to
serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which the State of Florida is a party, as well as any other
proposed denials submitted at the discretion of the COI Program staff. The Committee will provide
a documented recommendation to the Provost, who will make the final determination.
(While the university COI review process may be further served by requiring the Provost’s Advisory
Committee to review all proposed denials of outside activity disclosures, consideration of that
expanded scope is beyond the task force’s charge and is not necessary to implement the proposed
policy revisions within the scope of the task force’s charge.)
o Standing vs. ad hoc committee – The task force recommends that a standing committee be
created, as it provides stability through regular meetings, consistent membership with
voting rights, and established structure.
o Composition – The task force recommends a balanced committee including both faculty and
UF administrators from across the university enterprise. Faculty members shall be
nominated by the Faculty Senate and appointed by the Provost. Administrators shall be
appointed by the President. In making the appointments, the President, the Provost, and
the Faculty Senate shall seek to ensure a diversity of voices drawn from among the tenured
and non-tenured ranks of the faculty, including representation from UF Health, IFAS, and
E&G units.
o Terms – Faculty committee members shall serve three-year terms with staggered term
expiration dates. Administrative committee members shall serve in an ex officio capacity.
o Scope – The task force recommends the committee be charged with reviewing proposed
denials of requests to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which the State of Florida is a
party, as well as any other proposed denials submitted at the discretion of the COI Program
staff. The committee will provide a documented recommendation to the Provost, who will
make the final determination.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 36

 o Required Consultations - The Dean of each college shall designate a faculty representative
to serve as a dedicated COI consultant. In reviewing matters before it, the Provost’s
Advisory Committee must confer with the COI consultant representing the requester’s
college.
o Staff – The task force recommends the committee be staffed by representatives from the
COI Program office.

• Appeal Process. Revise the COI regulation and policies to include an appeal process for all denials of
requests to engage in an outside activity. The task force offers the following appeal process as an
example:
o Within 30 calendar days of a denial of any request to engage in an outside activity, the
requester may appeal in writing to an appeals panel. Such a panel may include the Faculty
Senate Chair, Provost, Senior Vice President for Health Affairs, Senior Vice President for
IFAS, and the Vice President for Research.
o The panel’s decision will be final and may be grieved in accordance with an applicable
grievance procedure.

• Revise the operating procedures of the COI Program office to increase transparency in its process.
Specifically, the COI Program should:
o Revise procedures to include a requirement that all consultations with university subject
matter experts that significantly contribute to the COI Program office’s determination about
an outside activities disclosure are documented within the UFOLIO system.
o Require that all disapprovals of disclosures reviewed by supervisors, the COI Program, and
ancillary reviewers, include specific reasoning for the disapproval with sufficient detail.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 37

Appendix 1.2
The Collective Bargaining Agreement is available here at https://hr.ufl.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/08/2021-2024-UFF-UF-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement.pdf

Article 10 of the CBA is as follows:

ARTICLE 10
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

10.1 Policy. Academic freedom and responsibility are essential to the integrity of the
University. The principles of academic freedom are integral to the conception of the University
as a community of scholars engaged in the pursuit of truth and the communication of knowledge
in an atmosphere of tolerance and freedom. The University serves the common good through
teaching, research, scholarship/creative activities, and service. The fulfillment of these functions
rests upon the preservation of the intellectual freedoms of teaching, expression, research, and
debate. The University and UFF affirm that academic freedom is a right protected by this
Agreement in addition to a faculty member’s constitutionally protected freedom of expression
and is fundamental to the faculty member’s responsibility to seek and to state truth as he/she sees
it.

(a) The University and UFF shall maintain, encourage, protect, and promote the faculty’s full
academic freedom in teaching, research/creative activities, and professional, university, and
employment-related public service, consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility
described in Sections 10.3 and 10.4, below.
(b) In order to ensure within the University an atmosphere of academic freedom,
(1) The University shall not apply any provision in this Agreement to violate a faculty member’s
academic freedom or constitutional rights, nor shall a faculty member be punished for exercising
such freedom or rights, either in the performance of University duties or activities outside the
University.
(2) The University recognizes that internal and external forces may seek at times to restrict
academic freedom, and the University shall maintain, encourage, protect and promote academic
freedom.

10.2 Academic Freedom. Consistent with the exercise of academic responsibility described
in Sections 10.3 and 10.4 below, a faculty member shall be free to discuss all relevant matters
in the classroom, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression, to
speak freely on all matters of university governance, and to speak, write, or act in an atmosphere
of freedom and confidence.
(a) Teaching and Research/Creative Activities. Faculty members shall have the
freedom to:
(1) Freely engage in scholarly and creative activity and publish the results.
(2) Present and discuss, frankly and forthrightly, academic subjects, including controversial
material relevant to the academic subject being taught.
(3) Select instructional materials, define course content, and determine grades within general
department guidelines. Consistent with the principle that the faculty member should be the sole

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 38

judge of a student’s performance in a course, the grade a faculty member determines for a
student’s performance shall not be changed without the faculty member’s consent, except as the
result of an official investigation. In the case of an official investigation, the chair shall appoint a
panel of faculty members with expertise in the course material. Such panel shall conduct the
investigation and shall report its findings to the chair.

The chair of the department shall then take appropriate action. The factors to be considered
include if:
a. there was discrimination against a student in determining the grade or the grade was imposed
without proper authority; or
b. the faculty member’s assessment of the student’s performance was not supportable by an
accepted pedagogical practice or was substantially inconsistent with the basis for evaluation that
the faculty member specified for the course.

(b) Service. Service includes, but is not limited to, participation in governance processes of the
University. Faculty members shall have freedom to present and discuss, frankly and forthrightly,
academic subjects and policy, university governance, or other matters pertaining to the health of
the University.

(c) All rights provided in this Article shall extend to all bargaining unit members, regardless of
whether their primary assignments include teaching and research.

10.3 Academic Responsibility of the Faculty. Academic responsibility implies the competent
performance of duties and obligations and the commitment to support the responsible exercise
of academic freedom by others. Members of the faculty have a responsibility to:
(a) Observe and uphold the ethical standards of their disciplines in the pursuit and
communication of scientific and scholarly knowledge;
(b) Treat students, staff, and colleagues fairly and civilly in discharging one’s duties
as teacher, researcher, and intellectual mentor. Avoid any exploitation of such persons for private
advantage and treat them in a manner consistent with the provisions of the article on
NONDISCRIMINATION;
(c) Respect the integrity of the evaluation process, evaluating students, staff, and colleagues
fairly according to the criteria and procedures specified in the evaluation process;
(d) Represent one self as speaking for the University only when specifically
authorized to do so;
(e) Participate, as appropriate, in the system of shared academic governance, especially at the
department level, and seek to contribute to the civil and effective functioning of the faculty
member’s academic unit (program, department, school and/or college) and the University;
(f) Perform appropriate duties assigned by the University and observe applicable state and
federal law and applicable published College, University, and Board of Governors regulations,
policies, and procedures, provided that the assigned duty or the regulation, policy, or procedure
at issue does not contravene the provisions of the Agreement or the faculty member’s right to
criticize or seek revision of those duties, laws, regulations, policies, or procedures. Faculty
members seeking change must not do so in ways that unreasonably obstruct the functions of the
University.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 39

10.4 Academic Responsibility of the University. Academic responsibility implies the
competent performance of duties and obligations and a commitment to foster within the
University a climate favorable to the responsible exercise of academic freedom. Therefore, it is
the responsibility of the University to:
(a) Maintain, encourage, protect and promote academic freedom so that it is not compromised by
harassment, censorship, reprisals, or prohibited discrimination as defined in ARTICLE 11,
NONDISCRIMINATION. Recognize the right of faculty members to enjoy, without fear of
institutional censorship or discipline, the same constitutional rights and freedoms as other
individuals.
(b) Treat faculty members fairly and civilly in discharging the duties in managing the University.
(c) Respect the integrity of the evaluation process, evaluating faculty fairly and accurately
according to the criteria and procedures specified in the evaluation process.
(d) Sustain principles of the system of shared governance, which recognizes that in the
development of academic policies and processes the professional judgments of faculty members
are of crucial importance.
(e) Prohibit persons who are not authorized students, authorized instructional staff, or authorized
officials of the University from entering or interrupting faculty classrooms or laboratories during
instructional time, except with prior permission from the responsible administration
representative, faculty member or during emergencies. The University shall support the authority
of each faculty member to have unauthorized persons removed from the faculty member’s
classroom/laboratory.
(f) Prohibit disruptive student behavior, including behavior that involves violence against
faculty, staff or students, threat(s) of violence, instigation of violence, malicious vandalism,
possession of weapons of any type, willful disregard of a faculty member’s legitimate directions,
continued use of abusive language or gestures, or other behavior that is so unruly, disruptive,
harassing, or abusive that it seriously interferes with the faculty member’s ability to effectively
communicate with other students in the class or with the ability of the student’s classmates to
learn. The University shall support the authority of each faculty member to have disruptive
persons removed from the faculty member’s classroom/laboratory.
(1) Upon receiving a report of disruptive student behavior, the Dean of Students shall act
promptly to investigate and resolve the matter. Faculty may request that a disruptive student be
barred from returning to the classroom. If the Dean of Students declines such a request, the Dean
shall take appropriate alternative action that ensures against a recurrence of the disruptive
behavior and shall inform the faculty member.
(2) A faculty member shall not be disciplined for taking reasonable action in self-defense or in
defense of others.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 40

Appendix 1.3
Florida Statutes § 1012.977
(1) Any person employed by a state university or entity engaging in research which was created
or authorized pursuant to part II of chapter 1004 consents to the policies of the university or
entity, the regulations of the Board of Governors, and the laws of this state. At a minimum, such
policies shall require employees engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of research to
disclose and receive a determination that the outside activity or financial interest does not affect
the integrity of the state university or entity.
(2)(a) “Financial interest” includes anything of value other than that provided directly by the
university or entity.
(b) “Outside activity” includes anything an employee does for an organization or an individual,
other than the university or entity, that is related to the employee's expertise.
(3) An employee who has failed to disclose any outside activity or financial interest as required
by subsection (1) shall be suspended without pay pending the outcome of an investigation which
shall not exceed 60 days. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the university or entity may
terminate the contract of the employee.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 41

Appendix 1.5 Peer Institution Conflict of Interests Policies
Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
UCLA (UC- Employee members of the University community are expected to devote
Berkley, UC- primary professional allegiance to the University and to the mission of
Santa teaching, research, and public service. Outside employment must not interfere
Barbara, UC- with University duties. Outside professional activities, personal financial
San Diego, interests, or acceptance of benefits from third parties can create actual or
UC-Irvine & perceived conflicts between the University’s mission and an individual’s
UC-Davis private interests. University community members who have certain
same) professional or financial interests are expected to disclose them in compliance
with applicable conflict of interest/conflict of commitment policies. In all
matters, community members are expected to take appropriate steps, including
consultation if issues are unclear, to avoid both conflicts of interest and the
appearance of such conflicts.
https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1200679/CompendiumCOIPoliciesGuidance
University of A potential conflict of interest exists whenever personal, professional,
Michigan commercial, or financial interests or activities outside of the University have
the possibility (either in actuality or in appearance) of (1) compromising a
faculty or staff member’s judgment; (2) biasing the nature or direction of
scholarly research; (3) influencing a faculty or staff member’s decision or
behavior with respect to teaching and student affairs, appointments and
promotions, uses of University resources, interactions with human subjects, or
other matters of interest to the University; or (4) resulting in a personal or
family member’s gain or advancement at the expense of the University. For
purposes of subsection (4), family members include spouse, domestic partners
and dependents. https://spg.umich.edu/policy/201.65-1
University of Real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of
Virginia another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing
personal or professional relationships.
https://uvapolicy.virginia.edu/policy/FIN-054
University of Employees must avoid situations which interfere with—or reasonably appear
Florida to interfere with—their professional obligations to the University. Such
situations might create an appearance of impropriety and, therefore, must be
disclosed. As discussed below, Employees will use the UFOLIO system to
disclose Outside Activities in which they wish to engage. When the University
determines a Conflict of Interest may exist with an Employee, the University
may, in its sole discretion, prohibit the individual from engaging in the activity
presenting a potential conflict; take actions to limit the individual’s activity; or
implement other measures the University deems reasonably necessary to
eliminate the potential conflict.
https://policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-of-commitment-and-conflicts-of-interest/
University of "Conflict of Interest" (COI) relates to situations in which financial or other
North personal considerations, circumstances, or relationships may compromise, may
Carolina involve the potential for compromising, or may have the appearance of
compromising a Covered Individual's objectivity in fulfilling their University

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 42

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
duties or responsibilities, including research, teaching activities, and
administrative duties. The bias that such conflicts may impart can affect many
University responsibilities, including decisions about personnel, the purchase
of equipment and other supplies, the selection of instructional materials for
classroom use, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the sharing of
research results, the choice of research protocols, the use of statistical methods,
and the mentoring and judgment of student work. The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill utilizes the definition of conflict of interest specified in
the University of North Carolina Board of Governor's Policy on Conflict of
Interest and Commitment (300.2.2).
https://policies.unc.edu/TDClient/2833/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=131873
Georgia 8.2.18.2.1 Conflicts of Interest and Apparent Conflicts of Interest
Institute of Each University System of Georgia (USG) employee shall make every
Technology reasonable effort to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interests. An apparent
(University conflict exists when a reasonable person would conclude from the
of Georgia circumstances that the employee’s ability to protect the public interest, or
same) perform public duties, is compromised by a personal, financial, or business
interest. An apparent conflict can exist even in the absence of a legal conflict
of interest. USG employees are referred to State Conflict of Interest Statutes
O.C.G.A. § 45-10-20 through § 45-10-70 and institutional policies governing
professional and outside activities.
https://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section8/C224/#p8.2.18_personnel_conduc
t

Each USG employee has an ongoing responsibility to report and fully disclose
any personal, professional, or financial interest, relationship, or activity that
has the potential to create an actual or apparent conflict of interest with respect
to the employee’s USG duties.
Institutions shall adopt guidelines governing conflicts of interest and may
further define methods of reporting conflicts of interest, how to manage said
conflicts, and terms used within this policy section, so long as such guidelines
and definitions are not inconsistent with this policy.

Conflicts of Interest – Research and Institutional

The USG recognizes the benefits of collaboration and commercialization with
the private sector and other third-party entities that supports the USG mission.
The resulting relationships and agreements, however, must not undermine the
public’s trust, compromise the integrity of the USG mission, or inappropriately
influence teaching, research, and service activities. Under no circumstances
should a grant, gift, contract or other funding be accepted that limits the ability
of USG employees to conduct or report the results of research in accordance
with applicable scientific, medical, professional, and ethical standards.
Institutions shall incorporate policy and review procedures within its
institutional guidelines consistent with this policy.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 43

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
University of A significant outside interest of a University employee or one of the
Texas- employee’s immediate family members that could directly or significantly
Austin affect the employee’s performance of the employee’s institutional
responsibilities. The proper discharge of an employee’s University
responsibilities could be directly or significantly affected if the employment,
service, activity or interest: (1) might tend to influence the way the employee
performs his or her University responsibilities, or the employee knows or
should know the interest is or has been offered with the intent to influence the
employee’s conduct or decisions; (2) could reasonably be expected to impair
the employee’s judgment in performing his or her University responsibilities;
or (3) might require or induce the employee to disclose confidential or
proprietary information acquired through the performance of University
responsibilities.
https://policies.utexas.edu/policies/conflict-interest-conflict-commitment-and-
outside-activities
University of Doesn't define but provides: Conflicts of interest represent a state of affairs, not
Wisconsin- - behavior, frequently involve perceptions, and are judged by others, not by
Madison those directly involved.
Significant financial gains are considered to be of ultimate relevance in the
current context for understanding conflicts of interest because money is
recognized by the general public to be a potent motivator -- one that is easily
understood, easily quantified, and discretionary. While the focus of conflict of
interest considerations is financial gain, other relevant interests inherent in
academia, including prestige, promotion, grants, and publications, can also
potentially exert influence over research activities.
https://policy.wisc.edu/library/UW-4001
University of A conflict of interest arises when:
Illinois - (a) an academic staff member is in a position to influence either directly or
Urbana/ indirectly University business, research, or other decisions in ways that could
Champaign lead to gain for the academic staff member or his/her immediate family to the
detriment of the University, or
(b) an academic staff member or a member of his/her immediate family is or
seeks to be in a vendor relationship with the University, whether directly or by
having a financial or ownership interest in a vendor doing business with the
University. https://www.vpaa.uillinois.edu/rnua/coci_policy
Ohio State A conflict of interest exists if financial interests or other opportunities for
University tangible personal benefit may exert a substantial and improper influence on an
employee’s professional judgment in exercising any university duty or
responsibility, including designing, conducting, or reporting research.
“Employees” include faculty, staff, administrators, and others. A conflict of
interest is not an accusation and does not imply that an employee’s judgment
has been compromised.
https://compliance.osu.edu/compliance-focus-areas/conflicts-of-
interest/university-conflicts-of-interest-policies-rules-and-related-forms.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 44

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
Purdue In the Individual Financial Conflicts of Interest As part of fulfilling their
University responsibilities, and to assist the University in avoiding or managing Financial
Conflicts of Interest, all Employees and Investigators must disclose any known
Financial Interests that they or a Dependent have in any of the following:
Any University purchase or procurement of goods or services (whether or not
pursuant to a formal contract) or in any investment or loan made by the
University.
Proposals submitted to external sponsors for funding. In the case of proposals
to Public Health Services (PHS) agencies, Investigators must also disclose
Significant Financial Interests held by them and/or their Dependent(s) that are
associated with their Institutional Responsibilities.
Protocols for research that are submitted for review and approval by a
Regulatory Committee (or to a subcommittee).
Any agreement relating to University technology or other intellectual property
that is or will be subject to negotiations between the Office of Technology
Commercialization (OTC) and any third person or entity.
A donor that contributes a monetary gift or gift-in-kind designated to be in
support of the Employee’s scholarly activities. This includes a gift to support a
faculty member that is given by the faculty member, the faculty member’s
Dependent or parent, and/or an entity in which the faculty member (or
Dependent or parent) has a financial interest.
Any research protocol submitted to a Regulatory Committee on which the
Employee is a member (with the Employees also recusing themselves from the
review process regarding such protocol).
For Employees who are Investigators, any Significant Financial Interest that
they have not already disclosed as a Financial Interest.
https://www.purdue.edu/research/regulatory-affairs/conflict-of-
interest/policies-and-regulations.php
University of Among other things, State Ethics Law generally prohibits University
Maryland - Employees from having financial interests in or employment relationships
College Park (including consulting) with entities under the authority of the University or
entities that have or are negotiating contracts or subcontracts with the
University. Other employment relationships (including consulting) prohibited
under State Ethics Law include those which would impair the impartiality or
independent judgment of the Employee and those involving an entity which is
a party to a State contract (greater than $1000) if the Employee’s duties include
matters which substantially relate to the subject matter of the contract. State
Ethics Law also prohibits State Employees from: participating in matters in
which they (or certain family members or business entities) have an interest;
soliciting and accepting gifts, including payment of travel and lodging
expenses; using the prestige of their office or confidential information for
private gain; and representing parties in State matters for contingent
compensation.
https://policies.umd.edu/assets/section-ii/II-310B.pdf

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 45

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
University of In conformity with the Ethics in Public Service Act (Chapter 42.52 RCW), this
Washington policy sets forth basic principles of that act for reference for all University
employees.
A. No employee shall have an interest, financial or otherwise, direct or
indirect, that is in conflict with the proper discharge of his or her official
duties. No officer or employee shall incur an obligation, of any nature, or
engage in a business, transaction, or professional activity that is in conflict with
the proper discharge of his or her official duties.
B. No employee, except as provided by law, shall have a beneficial interest in
a contract, sale, lease, purchase, or grant that may be made by, through, or is
under the supervision of the employee, in whole or in part. No employee may
accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity, or reward from any
other person beneficially interested in the contract, sale, lease, purchase, or
grant; except such prohibition shall not apply to University officers and
employees who have, with respect to that beneficial interest, complied fully
with the provisions of Executive Order No. 57, Section 6, "Involvement with
Commercial Enterprise, Deeper than Consulting," University of Washington
Grants Information Memorandum 10, and, as applicable, National Science
Foundation (GPM 510) 1995, and Public Health Service Regulations, 42
C.F.R., Part 50 and 45 C.F.R. Subtitle A.
C. No employee shall, except in the course of official duties or incident to
official duties, assist another person, directly or indirectly, whether or not for
compensation, in a transaction involving the University:
1) In which the employee has participated, or
2) If the transaction has been under the official responsibility of the employee
within a period of two years preceding such assistance.
No officer or employee may share in compensation received by another for
assistance that the officer or employee is prohibited from providing by law.
D. A business entity of which an employee is a partner, managing officer, or
employee shall not assist another person in a transaction involving the
University if the employee is prohibited from doing so by Subsection C.
E. No employee shall, directly or indirectly, ask for, give, receive, or agree to
receive any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity for performing, omitting, or
deferring the performance of any official duty, unless otherwise authorized by
law. See Board of Regents Governance, Standing Orders, Chapter 1, Section 8;
Executive Order No. 62, and Executive Order No. 41.
F. No employee shall employ or use any person, money, or property under the
employee's official control or direction, or in his or her custody, for the private
benefit or gain of the employee or another.
G. After termination of employment with the University, no former employee
shall, within a period of one year from the date of termination of such
employment, accept employment or receive compensation from an employer if
the former employee, during the two years immediately preceding termination
of University employment:

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 46

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
1) Was engaged in a substantial and significant way in the negotiation or
administration on behalf of the University of one or more contracts with a total
value of at least $10,000 with that employer;
2) Was, as a consequence of such substantial and significant involvement in
such negotiation or administration, in a position to make discretionary
decisions affecting the outcome of such negotiation or the nature of such
administration; and
3) Will have duties of employment with the employer or the activities for
which the compensation would be received that include fulfilling or
implementing, in whole or in part, the provisions of such contract(s) or include
the executive supervision or high-level managerial control of actions taken to
fulfill or implement such contract(s).
H. No employee may accept an offer of employment or receive compensation
from an employer if:
1) The employee knows,
2) The employee has reason to believe, or
3) The circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that the offer
of employment or offer of compensation was intended, in whole or in part, to
influence the performance or nonperformance of duties by the employee during
the course of University employment.
I. No former employee may subsequent to his or her University employment
assist another person outside the University, whether or not for compensation,
in any particular transaction involving the University in which the former
employee participated during University employment.
The above statements summarize provisions of the Ethics in Public Service Act
and are provided for descriptive purposes only. In matters where the possibility
exists of conflicts, reference should be made to one's supervisor, to the text of
the Ethics in Public Service Act, and to the applicable federal regulations,
particularly NSF Investigator Financial Disclosure Policy (GPM 510) 1995 and
the PHSR, 42 C.F.R. Part 50 and 45 C.F.R. Subtitle A, and University of
Washington Grants Information Memorandum 10.
https://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/PO/EO32.html
Texas A&M 31.05.01.M1 Faculty Consulting and/or External Professional
University Employment
Approved April 17, 2018; Revised December 15, 2020; Next scheduled review
December 15, 2025
Rule Statement
Faculty wishing to engage in consulting and/or external professional
employment directly related to their academic and professional discipline must
obtain appropriate approval prior to initiation of the external activity.
Employment by faculty members not directly related to their professional
discipline is governed by System Regulation 31.05.02, External Employment.
Reason for Rule

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 47

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
This rule is required by System Regulation 31.05.01, Faculty Consulting
and/or External Professional Employment, and establishes guidelines for the
approval process for consulting and/or external professional employment
activities for all faculty members employed by Texas A&M University.
Procedures and Responsibilities
1. GENERAL
1.1 In accordance with System Regulation 31.05.01, Faculty Consulting and/or
External Professional Employment, consulting and external professional
employment may be authorized only if approved in advance according to
appropriate procedures and all other conditions listed in System Policy 31.05,
External Employment and Expert Witness, and related System regulations are
met, using the System Faculty Consulting and/or External Professional
Employment Application and Approval form.
1.2 In addition, this rule requires the disclosure of any potential or actual
conflict of interest or commitment arising from, but not limited to, consulting
and/or external professional employment as directed in System Regulation
15.01.03, Financial Conflicts of Interest in Sponsored Research, and
University Rule 15.01.03.M1, Financial Conflicts of Interest in Sponsored
Research, SAP 15.99.99.M0.02, Conflict of Commitment.
Therefore, it is important for the faculty member to disclose all actual or
potential conflicts of interest that are applicable to their external consulting
and/or external professional employment request.
2. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
2.1 Texas A&M University faculty members engaged in external employment
and/or consulting shall comply with the principles of ethical conduct in System
Policy 07.01, Ethics.
2.2 Standards of conduct of Texas A&M University officers and employees are
established by law, by The Texas A&M University System policies and
regulations, and by Texas A&M University rules and procedures. Any
employee who violates such standards through a consulting and/or external
professional employment engagement may be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action, regardless of approval status of the application for external
employment.
3. CONSULTING AND/OR EXTERNAL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT
3.1 Consulting and/or external professional employment activities of faculty
are considered secondary activities that may be engaged in only after duties
and responsibilities to Texas A&M University are fulfilled. Texas A&M
University faculty members may enter into an employment and/or consultation
relationship provided that:
3.1.1 it does not interfere with the regular work of the faculty member;
3.1.2 it is reasonable in amount;
3.1.3 it is directly related to the faculty member’s academic and professional
discipline;
3.1.4 it avoids unfair competition with private business and those in private

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 48

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
professional practice. Faculty members are responsible for the disclosure of
any potential conflict of interest and conflict of commitment that may arise
from consulting and/or external professional employment;
3.1.5 it complies with section 2.6 of System Regulation 31.05.01 regarding
restriction on the grant to third parties of intellectual property rights; and
3.1.6 it does not involve the use of any resources (facilities, equipment, or
personnel) of The Texas A&M University System (System), unless permitted
by System Policy 33.04, Use of System Resources, and System Regulation
33.04.01, Use of System Resources for External Employment. However, if a
collaboration with a foreign entity is part of the faculty member’s normal
scholarly work, and the collaboration has been approved pursuant to Section
4.2 of this regulation, System resources may be used.
4. APPROVAL PROCESS
4.1 Full time faculty members must complete and route for approval the
External Employment and/or Consulting Application and Approval form that
can be found in the Appendix to System Regulation 31.05.01 prior to initiating
the external activity including, specifically, engagements that may affect
System intellectual property. The college dean, in consultation with the faculty
member’s department head, is authorized to approve these activities. Part-time
faculty are not required to request approval for external employment under this
section, but are required to submit the required conflict of interest and conflict
of commitment disclosures under section 4.3 and 4.4 below.
4.2 If a faculty member proposes to engage in faculty consulting and/or
external
professional employment with a foreign entity whether compensated or not, the
faculty member will submit the proposed engagement for review to the
University export controls Empowered Official, as per University Rule
15.02.99.M1, Export Controls, prior to submission to the department head for
approval. A copy of the faculty member’s application and approval form and
supporting documentation will also be provided to the System Research
Security Office.
4.3 All faculty members, full-time and part-time, must disclosure all actual and
potential conflicts of interest, regardless of their nature, in a memorandum
addressed to the department head and the college dean. Full-time faculty
members must submit the disclosure memorandum with the Approval Form
required in section 4.1 above. The department head and dean will review the
disclosed conflicts of interest and determine if a management plan is necessary.
If a management plan is necessary, it will be developed by the faculty member,
department head, and dean and documented.
4.4 Conflict of Commitment disclosures should be routed for approval
according to the process specified in SAP 15.99.99.M0.02.
4.5 Faculty members are required to disclose to their department head and dean
any conflict of interest that may arise after the external employment is

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 49

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
approved. The disclosure will take the form of a memorandum and approval
process as per section 4.3 above.
4.6 Faculty members sponsored for employment under a nonimmigrant status
to work for Texas A&M University may not consult or be employed by a third-
party entity unless such third party entity sponsors them for employment.
4.7 Faculty members may not engage in external consulting or external
professional employment activities unless prior written approval is obtained.
4.8 Authorizations for consulting and/or external professional employment will
expire August 31st each year.
4.9 Approved requests will be maintained within the faculty’s personnel file in
the academic department in accordance with System records retention policy;
retained for the fiscal year plus three years.
5. RELEASE TIME
5.1 The use of “release time” as defined in System Regulation 31.05.01 for
consulting will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Related Statutes, Policies, or Requirements
Supplements
System Regulation 31.05.01, Faculty Consulting and/or External Professional
Employment
University Rule 15.01.03.M1, Financial Conflicts of Interest in Sponsored
Research
University Rule 15.02.99.M1, Export Controls
University SAP 15.99.99.M0.02, Conflict of Commitment
https://rules-saps.tamu.edu/PDFs/31.05.01.M1.pdf
Michigan Faculty Handbook - Outside Work For Pay
State Last updated: 5/5/2006
University IV. ACADEMIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES (Cont.)
The following policy was approved by the Board of Trustees on August 9,
1951 and revised on May 5, 2006.
I. Policy Overview
Full time faculty members are compensated for full time professional effort for
the University. Faculty may have duties in instruction, research, or outreach, or
in a combination of these areas. Regardless of the character of the faculty
member's duties, the University expects that each full-time faculty member
will carry a reasonable and full-time load, assuming a proper share of the total
functions and responsibilities of the department/school, college, and
University. Within this framework, the University recognizes that, through
consulting and other relationships with government, industry, not-for-profit
organizations, and others outside the University, its faculty members can make
valuable contributions off campus while enhancing their expertise in their
discipline.
This Policy is intended to protect the integrity of the faculty-University
professional relationship, to ensure that approved outside work for pay is

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 50

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
consistent with the University's mission, and to provide that faculty members
remain accessible to students, colleagues, and the public.
II. Applicability1
This Policy applies to all faculty members (tenure system and fixed term) at
the rank of instructor through professor who hold appointments of at least 50%
time.2 Faculty appointed less than full-time are not eligible to perform outside
work for pay during regular University duty periods. With the exception of the
approval process, outside work for pay performed during non-duty periods is
subject to the remaining provisions of this Policy.
Certain activities are expected of faculty members as part of their normal
scholarly activities and are not regulated by this Policy (even if a faculty
member is paid to do them by a person or entity other than the University).
These include, but are not limited to3:
 presentations at professional meetings and other similar gatherings
 peer review of articles and grant proposals
 leadership positions in professional societies
 preparation of scholarly publications
 editorial services for educational or professional organizations
 service on advisory committees or evaluation panels for government
funding agencies, nonprofit foundations, or educational organizations
 musical and other creative performances and exhibitions, if there is an
expectation in the faculty member's discipline that he/she will engage in
such performances or exhibitions.
III. Limitations on Performing Outside Work for Pay During Duty
Periods
Faculty members may request approval to engage in outside work for pay
during duty periods if all of the following conditions exist:
1. All approved outside work for pay and overload pay assignments for the
faculty member will not exceed a total average of four (4) days a month.
2. The work in question will enhance the faculty member's expertise as a
teacher and scholar in his/her discipline.
3. The work will not interfere with the performance of the faculty member's
University duties, including those non classroom responsibilities expected
of all faculty members.
4. The work will not adversely affect the University's interests or violate
University policies or regulations.
5. The work will be of a professional nature.
IV. Definitions
1. "Outside work" is any work performed for a person or entity other than
Michigan State University.
2. "Work" is any service or activity in the general area of expertise for which
the faculty member is employed by the University. Examples of work
include, but are not limited to, consulting, advising, research,

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 51

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
demonstrating, performing, outreach, or teaching in the faculty member's
discipline.
3. "Pay" is anything of value received in consideration for work (except
reimbursement of expenses, indemnification, or insurance coverage for
claims arising out of or occurring in connection with the work). Examples
of pay include, but are not limited to, any salary, fee, honorarium, stock,
stock option, monetary gift or contribution beyond actual expense, or the
promise of any of these in the future. Work for any business or other for-
profit enterprise owned or operated by a faculty member or by his/her
relative(s), shall be considered "pay" (whether or not the faculty member
receives anything of value in consideration for the work) because of the
likelihood that the faculty member's work will increase the value of the
business or enterprise to the faculty member's direct or indirect financial
benefit.
V. Required Approval
1. A faculty member must request and obtain the written approval of his/her
unit administrator and dean/separately reporting director before engaging in
outside work for pay.
2. University administrators to whom the Authorization Form is submitted
may seek additional information or clarification from the faculty member
regarding the proposed outside work for pay.
3. University administrators shall process completed Authorization Forms in a
timely fashion.
4. If a request to engage in outside work for pay is denied, the unit
administrator shall provide the faculty member with written reasons for the
denial. A faculty member may not challenge a decision to deny approval
for outside work for pay through the Faculty Grievance Policy unless the
faculty member alleges that the denial is contrary to University policy or
established practice.
5. Each dean/separately reporting director shall keep Authorization Forms
submitted by faculty on file for at least three years.
6. Each dean/separately reporting director shall submit annual reports to the
Office of the Provost concerning the outside work for pay performed by
faculty in that college/administrative unit. The reports shall not identify
individual faculty by name.
VI. Non-Duty Periods
Faculty who hold academic year appointments or part-time appointments of at
least 50% time may engage in outside work for pay during non-duty periods if
the work does not adversely affect the University's interests, violate University
policies or regulations, or circumvent University policies or regulations that
would apply if the work was performed during the duty period. The University
does not limit the amount of time faculty may spend on outside work for pay at
times other than their duty periods.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 52

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
A faculty member must provide written notice to his/her unit administrator
prior to engaging in outside work for pay during non-duty periods by
submitting an Outside Work for Pay Authorization form.

Footnotes:
1
This Policy does not apply to unrenumerated outside activities, whether of a
charitable or professional nature. However, faculty members are expected to
arrange their outside activities so as to avoid conflicts of commitment. A
"conflict of commitment" occurs when the time and attention a faculty member
devotes to outside activities interferes with the performance of his/her
responsibilities to the University.
2
Executive managers (senior level University administrators, including
associate and assistant vice presidents and specified directors) and academic
administrators (e.g., deans, department chairs, and school directors) are also
subject to this Policy and must obtain prior written approval from their direct
supervisor before engaging in outside work for pay.
3
A faculty member or unit administrator may (1) request an individual or group
exemption from specific provisions of this Policy, or (2) request that a
particular activity or type of activity be exempt from this Policy. Such requests
must be approved in writing by the applicable department chair/director and
dean/separately reporting director and by the Provost or his/her designee.
Failure to request or receive exemption approval in writing results in coverage
of the activity under this Policy.
4
Faculty using University facilities, supplies and materials, services, or
equipment for outside work for pay do not need to reimburse the University for
the fair market value of the use if it is a de minimis, incidental use which
imposes no, or little, additional cost or expense on the University.
https://hr.msu.edu/policies-procedures/faculty-academic-staff/faculty-
handbook/outside_work_for-pay.html
University of Individual Conflicts of Interest and Standards Governing Relationships
Minnesota with Business Entities
This policy, which applies to all University faculty and staff, provides the
framework to effectively identify and manage conflicts of interest, and
establishes standards that enable faculty and staff to collaborate with business
entities while ensuring that students, faculty, and staff of the University, as
well as the general public have confidence in the integrity and objectivity of
the University’s research and discovery, teaching and learning, and outreach
and public service activities.
Faculty and staff are encouraged to engage in relationships with business
entities to further the University’s mission while acknowledging that inherent
in these relationships is the risk that professional judgment may be improperly
influenced by the existence of such relationships. Faculty and staff are held to a
shared ethical standard of ensuring that their relationships with business
entities are transparent, grounded in objectivity, and do not improperly

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 53

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
influence their professional judgment, exercise of University responsibilities,
or performance of University-related activities.
Some relationships with business entities require greater vigilance than others.
For example, when a relationship with a business entity could influence
decisions made in the provision of clinical health care or conduct of research
involving human participants, ensuring the safety of patients and research
participants is paramount.
Campuses, colleges, departments, and administrative units may adopt
standards that are more, but not less, restrictive than those set forth in this
policy.
Section I. Reporting, Review & Management Of Relationships With
Business Entities
Report of External Professional Activities (REPA). All paid faculty,
Professional and Academic Administrative employees (P&A), and other
individuals designated by a senior leader or their designate, or the Conflict of
Interest (COI) Program staff [“covered individuals”], must comply with the
following requirements to report financial interests and business interests they
or their family members hold that relate to the covered individual's University
expertise and responsibilities:
Annual reporting. Covered individuals must complete an annual Report of
External Professional Activities (REPA), even if they have no reportable
external activities, financial interests, or business interests.
Change in circumstances reporting. In addition to the annual reporting
requirement, covered individuals must file a REPA within 30 days of:
 acquiring a significant financial interest or acquiring a business interest that
relates to their University expertise and responsibilities;
 assuming a new University responsibility that relates to an existing
business or significant financial interest; or
 for Public Health Service (PHS) funded investigators, travel that is related
to one’s University responsibilities valued in excess of $5000 paid for or
reimbursed by a business entity.
o Travel paid for or reimbursed by a governmental agency, an
institution of higher education, an academic teaching hospital, a
medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an
institution of higher education does not need to be reported.
o The covered individual must disclose the purpose of the trip, the
identity of the sponsor/organizer, the destination, and the duration.
Supervisors or designees within the covered individual’s department,
administrative unit, college, or campus are responsible for reviewing the
REPA. Conflict of Interest (COI) Program staff review REPAs that reflect a
significant financial or business interest, and refer potential conflict of interest
matters to a Conflict Review Panel (CRP). A CRP determines whether a
conflict of interest exists and, if so, whether the conflict can be managed under
the terms of a conflict management plan.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 54

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
When a conflict management plan is established, the Conflict of Interest
Program will conduct a compliance review 90 days after the plan is executed,
and then annually until the conflict no longer exists and the management plan
is retired by Conflict of Interest Program Staff. Compliance review results are
reported to the CRP.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Applications. Investigators, and
individuals who enroll or consent participants, must disclose relevant financial
interests and business interests when completing IRB applications for human
participant studies.
Educational Requirements
Covered individuals must complete the University’s conflict of interest course
when filing the REPA for the first time, and every four years thereafter.
In addition, investigators engaged in PHS-funded research, to include sub-
recipient investigators, must complete the University’s conflict of interest
course prior to engaging in research related to any PHS-funded grant, and must
take the course immediately when:
 there is a revision to this conflict of interest policy or procedures in any
manner that affects the requirements imposed on investigators;
 an Investigator is new to the University; or
 the investigator is found to be out of compliance with this policy or a
conflict management plan.
Disclosing Business And Significant Financial Interests
All employees must disclose relevant business and significant financial
interests in certain circumstances, whether or not required under the terms of a
conflict management plan. For specific disclosure requirements, see Appendix:
Required Disclosures
Disclosing Conflict of Interest Information Associated With PHS-Funded
Research
The Conflict of Interest Program will provide the following information in a
written response within five business days of a request involving a financial
conflict of interest related to a PHS-funded research project:
 the investigator’s name, title, and role on the research;
 the name of the business entity in which the significant financial interest is
held;
 the nature of the significant financial interest; and
 the approximate value of the significant financial interest in dollar ranges
or a statement that the value cannot be readily determined.
For at least three years from the date on which the information was most
recently updated, information concerning the significant financial interests of
an investigator will remain available in order to respond to written requests for
this information.
Section II. Standards Governing Relationships With Business Entities

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 55

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
Employees are prohibited from engaging in the following activities with
business entities (see Appendix: Prohibited Activities with Business Entities
for more details.)
 Having a financial or personal beneficial interest in a University contract or
purchase order in which the employee has direct or indirect influence (see
Minnesota Statute, Section 15.43)
 Receiving personal gain from the use of instructional materials without
proper administrative approval
 Ghostwriting
 Endorsing a product or service related to one’s University responsibilities
and expertise
 Accepting payment for the selection, use or promotion of products or
services for University purposes
 Accepting payment for the referral of students to prospective employers
 Accepting payment for the recruitment of patients for clinical research
studies
 Accepting payment for participating in surveys intended to promote,
market or sell a drug or medical device directly to the practitioner
 Using or disclosing nonpublic research information in violation of insider
trading laws
 Making professional referrals to a business entity in which they have a
business or financial interest.
Receiving Personal Remuneration from a Company While Participating in
a Human Participant Study Sponsored by that Company
Investigators who participate in an open human participant research study
requiring IRB approval and oversight that is sponsored by a company, or
involves the development or evaluation of a company’s product, device, or
other technology, may provide consulting or speaking services (“services”) for
the company during the period of the research study if all of the following
conditions are met:
 Any payments made in exchange for the services are directed to the
University under the terms of a University External Sales Agreement.
 The funds are not used to support the salary of the investigator.
 The arrangement is preapproved by a Conflict Review Panel.
For purposes of this provision, a human participant research study is open from
the time the study is approved by the IRB until participant enrollment is closed
and the primary outcome from the study has been published.
Investigators may receive study-related expenses as approved in the University
budget for the study, including salary support and travel expenses.
An investigator may request that the Conflict Review Panel approve an
exception to this provision (Section IIB) in order to receive personal
remuneration or equity from the company while participating in the study.
Compelling circumstances must be present to warrant approval of the
exception.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 56

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
D. Consulting with Business Entities
1. Written Agreement. Employees who plan to provide compensated
consulting services for one year or longer relating to their University expertise
and responsibilities should enter into a signed, written agreement with the
business entity prior to providing the consulting services. The written
agreement should:
 state the timeframe covered by the agreement;
 describe the services and any deliverables to be provided by the employee;
 state the amount of compensation and expenses to be paid; and
 make clear that the employee is acting solely in their individual capacity
and not on behalf of the University.
Compensation should fall within fair market value parameters for the services
provided.
Payment of travel, food, and lodging expenses should be consistent with the
standards set forth in Administrative Policy: Traveling on University Business.
2. Additional Compliance Obligations
a. Unless an exception is approved by a Conflict Review Panel, employees
may not receive personal remuneration or equity from a company while
serving as an investigator on an open human participant study requiring
IRB approval and oversight that is sponsored by that company, or involves
the development or evaluation of that company’s product, device, or other
technology.
b. Employees must also comply with the requirements of Board of Regents
Policy: Outside Consulting and Other Commitments, Administrative
Policy: Outside Consulting and Other Commitments, and related
administrative procedures.
Non-Compliance
Non-compliance with the provisions of this policy includes, but is not limited
to, failing to timely disclose a significant financial or business interest, failing
to complete educational requirements, intentionally filing an incomplete,
erroneous, or misleading report of external activities, failing to provide
additional information as required by the REPA approving authority, or failing
to follow an approved plan for managing, reducing or eliminating a conflict of
interest.
Non-compliance with this policy may result in disciplinary action, up to and
including termination of employment, as well as ineligibility of employees to
submit grant applications, seek approval from the Human Research Protection
Program, or supervise graduate students.
Failure to timely disclose a significant financial interest may result in a
retrospective review to determine whether any PHS-funded research or portion
of the research conducted during the period of noncompliance was biased. The
retrospective review, reporting, and submission of a mitigation report if bias is
found, will be conducted in accordance with PHS procedures established in 42

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 57

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
CFR 50.605(a)(3). See Administrative Procedure: Retrospective Reviews and
Mitigation Plans.
Reason for Policy
To implement Board of Regents Policy: Individual Conflicts of Interest and to
comply with federal and state law. This policy is intended to ensure that
covered individuals report and fully disclose financial and business interests
that relate to their University expertise and responsibilities so that potential
conflicts of interest can be reviewed and, where conflicts of interest are found
to exist, eliminated, reduced, or effectively managed. To gain and maintain the
public’s trust, the University must demonstrate that the work that is conducted
here is free from improper influence and bias that might otherwise result from
external interests and relationships.
Procedures
 Reporting External Relationships and Business and Financial Interests
 Evaluating Reports of Business and Financial Interests and Managing
Individual Conflicts of Interest
 Retrospective Reviews and Mitigation Plans
https://policy.umn.edu/operations/conflictinterest
Pennsylvania Human Resources Policies
State HR91 Conflict of Interest
University Policy Status: Active
Policy Steward: Vice President for Human Resources
POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: June 23, 1983
THIS VERSION EFFECTIVE: March 12, 1993
PURPOSE:
To avoid the possibility of any misunderstandings concerning the appropriate
conduct of faculty and staff members in regard to all transactions touching
upon their University duties and the property of the University.
POLICY:
Faculty and staff members of the University shall exercise the utmost good
faith in all transactions touching upon their duties to the University and its
property. In their dealings with and on behalf of the University, they shall be
held to a strict rule of honest and fair dealings between themselves and the
University. They shall not use their positions, or knowledge gained there from,
in such a way that a conflict of interest might arise between the interest of the
University and that of the individual. Faculty and staff members shall disclose
to the administrative head of the college or other unit in which they are
employed, or other appropriate administrative officer, any potential conflict of
interest of which they are aware before a contract or transaction is
consummated.
University tangible assets, equipment, supplies and services may not be used
by employees for personal gain, or for purposes outside the scope of their
employment.
RESPONSIBILITY:

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 58

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
The first responsibility for adherence to this policy lies with the faculty or staff
member(s) directly involved. If there is reason to believe that this policy is not
being adhered to, the matter should be reported to the faculty or staff member's
administrative head for investigation and resolution. If the matter cannot be
resolved at that level, it should be referred to the next higher administrative
level for resolution.
CROSS REFERENCES:
Other Policies in this Manual should also be referenced, especially:
RA12 - Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurial Activity (Faculty Research),
AD47 - General Standards of Professional Ethics,
RP02 - Handling Inquiries/Investigations into Questions of Ethics in Research
and in Other Scholarly Activities,
FN14 - Use of University Tangible Assets, Equipment, Supplies and Services,
RP06 - Disclosure and Management of Significant Financial Interests
Date Approved: March 12, 1993
Date Published: March 12, 1993
Effective Date: March 12, 1993
University of Conflict of Commitment Policy
Arizona Purpose and Summary
The University of Arizona (the “University”) encourages its faculty and
appointed professionals to use their professional expertise to advance and
communicate knowledge through interaction with the public, the community,
and external entities. The University feels that such activities enhance
performance of University teaching, advance University research and public
service missions, and bring credit to the University.
At the same time, the University has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that
inappropriate external influences outside the course and scope of one’s
University employment do not affect the performance of one’s primary duties
to the University. Outside Employment and Outside Professional
Commitments1 raise important questions related to time and energy allocation,
University resource allocation, intellectual property protection and potential for
financial conflicts of interest.
As used in this Policy, “Conflict of Commitment” relates to an individual’s
distribution of time and effort between his/her full-time duties as a University
Employee, and his/her responsibilities resulting from Outside Employment and
Outside Professional Commitments.
The purpose of this Policy is to
 provide guidance on the University’s requirements related to possible
Conflicts of Commitment resulting from Outside Employment and Outside
Professional Commitments;
 outline Conflict of Commitment disclosure requirements; and
 provide guidance to assist Supervisors, Department Heads and Deans in
their review of such disclosures for approval or rejection.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 59

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
While every full-time University employee is considered to have a primary
commitment of time and intellectual energies to his/her work for the
University, this Policy is not intended to deter the cultivation of outside interest
in University expertise. Both the individual employee and the University may
benefit from approved interactions with external scholars and organizations
and from commitments to professional societies, journals, etc. Administrative
Departments and individual colleges may establish their own Conflict of
Commitment conventions within the parameters outlined in this Policy and
based upon the Department Head or Dean’s determination of the unit’s and
University’s best interests.
1. All capitalized terms used in this Policy that are not otherwise defined in the
text have the meanings set forth in the "Definitions" below.
Scope
This Policy applies to all Covered Individuals (as defined below). Covered
Individuals have a primary commitment of time and intellectual energies to
their work for the University. Outside Employment and Outside Professional
Commitments must not detract in time or content from their obligations to
these responsibilities.
Definitions
Conflict of Commitment relates to an individual’s distribution of time and
effort between his/her full-time duties as a University Employee, and his/her
responsibilities resulting from Outside Employment and Outside Professional
Commitments.
Covered Individual refers to Full-time University Employees (as each of
those terms is defined below), including faculty members, administrators, and
academic and service professionals who are appointed to serve in the area of
teaching, research, and administrative services pursuant to notices of
appointment issued by the University’s Human Resources Department.
Full-time is a status determined by the University’s Division of Human
Resources. For tenured/tenure-eligible faculty, full-time is generally defined as
50% or more full-time equivalent, which employment is expected to continue
for six (6) months or more. Please consult with your department’s hiring
manager or business office if you are unsure whether you have full-time status.
Institutional Responsibilities means activities in the course and scope of an
individual’s performance as a University employee related to the individual’s
professional expertise, such as teaching, administrative duties, clinical
activities, research (sponsored or unsponsored), service on University
committees, professional participation on panels and review boards, creation
and presentation of scholarly work, and duties and responsibilities outlined in
an individual’s University employment agreement, etc., regardless of when and
where the activities occur.
Outside Employment refers to any employment relationship of a Covered
Individual outside of the University. For purposes of this Policy, Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitments may or may not be a

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 60

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
professional activity and may or may not be compensated but does require a
time commitment from the Covered Individual.
Outside Professional Commitments are professional activities undertaken by
a Covered Individual that are related to the individual’s professional expertise,
outside of the individual’s Institutional Responsibilities, for the benefit of an
external entity or individual and/or not covered by a fully executed written
agreement between the University and the external entity.
Significant Use of University Resources has the meaning set forth in the
ABOR Intellectual Property Policy, No. 6-908, Section F(9). By way of
example only, Significant Use of University Resources may include
 Use of University research funding;
 Use of funding allocated for asynchronous or distance learning programs;
 Use of University-paid time within the employment period (other than
during sabbaticals, under approved consulting arrangements, or otherwise
as permitted under ABOR and University policies);
 Assistance of University-employed support staff;
 Use of University telecommunication services (beyond ordinary telephone
services);
 Use of University central computing resources;
 Use of University instructional design or media production services; and
 Access to and use of University research equipment and facilities, or
production facilities.
Any inconsistency between this Policy and the ABOR IP Policy definition of
“Significant Use of University Resources” shall be resolved by reference to the
ABOR IP Policy definition.
Supervisor, in relation to an Appointed Professional, refers to the individual
who is directly responsible for day-to-day oversight, performance evaluations,
and promotion recommendations related to such Appointed Professional.
University Employee, for the purposes of this Policy, refers to all University
Appointed Personnel, as defined by the University Division of Human
Resources in the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP)
Definitions Section. Such appointments may be tenure eligible, tenured, career-
track, adjunct, or visiting, and are subject to ABOR Personnel Policies as
follows:
 6-101. Conditions of Administrative Service
 6-201. Conditions of Faculty Service
 6-301. Conditions of Service for Academic and Service Professionals
Policy
A. Request and Approval Responsibilities
1. Covered Individuals’ Responsibilities: Covered Individuals must request
written approval as provided in this Policy prior to engaging in Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitments that occur at any time
during the calendar year while the individual’s status is that of a Full-time
University Employee. Prior approval is not required to participate in

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 61

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
professional commitments that are (a) required as a condition of
employment or tenure eligibility, (b) are a part of a Covered Individual’s
duties on behalf the University, or (c) are encouraged by the University as
part of the Covered Individual’s academic or professional development
(such as professional societies, committee memberships, journal
editorships, service to the discipline, service to the University, routine
scholarly collaboration, etc.).
The requestor must complete a Request for Approval of External
Professional Commitment or Outside Employment form (“Request form”),
available on the Conflict of Interest Program Office website, and submit it
for written approval as follows:
o For Faculty Members: the Request form must be submitted to and
approved by the requestor’s Department Head and Dean.
o For all other University Employees, including Deans, Vice
Presidents, Assistant and Associate Vice Presidents, Senior Vice
Presidents and above (but excluding the University President2: the
Request form must be submitted to and approved by the requestor’s
Supervisor.

It is recommended that the Request form be submitted four (4)

weeks prior to beginning the outside activity to allow a reasonable
time for consideration of the Request.
2. Responsibility for Review and Approval or Denial: The Covered
Individual’s Department Head and Dean (with respect to faculty members),
or Supervisor (with respect to all other University Employees), are
responsible for reviewing the requestor’s Request form and providing
approval or denial. Approval or denial will be based upon the information
provided in the Request form and an assessment of the requestor’s time
commitments relative to the request. To avoid denial and facilitate
approval, the individual(s) responsible for reviewing the requestor’s
Request form (as provided in paragraph A(1) of this section, above) may
make recommendations for adjustment of commitments to allow
appropriate time allocation.
3. Responsibility for Maintaining Request Form Records: The primary
administrative unit, department, or college of the individual is responsible
for the review and approval or denial of a Request form (see paragraphs
A(1–2) of this section) is the “Office of Record” and is responsible for
maintaining the original documentation of the Request form and response
as a personnel record in accord with the University’s Records Retention
Policy for personnel records. The Office of Record is responsible for
providing a copy of each approved Request form to the Conflict of Interest
Program Office.
B. Contracts, Liabilities, etc.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 62

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
1. When a Covered Individual enters into a personal consulting, non-
disclosure, fee-for-service, or other type of agreement with an external
entity relative to an approved Outside Employment or Outside Professional
Commitment, the University shall not be a party to the agreement, and shall
have no obligations whatsoever under such agreement.
2. Covered Individuals who enter into a personal consulting, non-disclosure,
fee-for-service, or other type of agreements relative to an approved Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitment are solely responsible
for the negotiation of such agreements and for ensuring that the terms and
conditions are consistent with this Policy and all other applicable ABOR
and University policies, including but not limited to Intellectual Property
Policies (see Section F below).
3. The University will not provide indemnity nor any other form of guarantee
or insurance coverage for activities or obligations pursuant to Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitment agreements executed
between any Covered Individuals and external third parties.
4. Use of the University’s name, logo, or other identifiers for the promotion or
endorsement of an outside entity generally is not permitted.
C. External Faculty, Administrative, Managerial, and Operational
Responsibilities
1. Outside Employment with Postsecondary Institutions: Covered
Individuals may not be employed as faculty members, professional staff, or
administrators at any other postsecondary educational institution while they
are Full-time University Employees unless approved under this Policy;
however, consulting and collaborative research relationships with other
postsecondary institutions may be permitted, subject to the review and
approval process set forth in paragraph A(1) under "Compliance and
Responsibilities."
2. External Managerial Responsibilities:
a. Covered Individuals, including individuals on approved sabbatical
leave, must file a Request form and obtain prior written approval
(as described in paragraphs A(1–2) under "Compliance and
Responsibilities") prior to assuming significant managerial
responsibilities with an outside entity (e.g. as an officer or director).
If a Covered Individual believes it to be essential for the success of
an outside entity that he/she provide significant managerial
responsibilities to the entity, he or she may be required to take a full
or partial leave of absence from the University, or a revised
appointment at the University, for a specified period of time,
consistent with relevant leave of absence policies. The Covered
Individual in such case should work with the individual responsible
for reviewing his/her Request form (i.e., Supervisor, Department
Head or Dean) to explore the best course of action, and must also

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 63

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
fulfill the disclosure and other obligations under the University’s
applicable Conflict of Interest policies.3
b. It is not unusual for Covered Individuals to be asked to serve on the
boards of commercial enterprises or nonprofit entities. The
following guidelines apply to board memberships (excluding those
situations where prior approval is not required as outlined in
paragraph A(1) under "Compliance and Responsibilities"). Before
joining any board of a for-profit or nonprofit entity related to one’s
professional expertise, and regardless of whether the board
membership is paid or unpaid, a Covered Individual must receive
advance written approval in addition to fulfilling the disclosure and
other obligations under the University’s applicable Conflict of
Interest policies.
3. Involvement in Certain Sponsored Projects: Faculty Members are
normally prohibited from serving as Principal Investigator at the University
on sponsored projects that are funded by an organization in which the
Faculty Member has an Outside Employment or Outside Professional
Commitment arrangement. In such cases, the Faculty Member must fulfill
the disclosure and other obligations under the University’s applicable
Conflict of Interest policies. Exceptions may be approved by the Senior
Vice President for Research in special circumstances such as (but not
limited to) an SBIR/STTR arrangement or for ongoing research of a
Faculty Member newly arriving at the University from another research
institution. This stipulation is not intended to limit Faculty Members from
participating in multi-site training or research programs, nor is it intended
to apply to circumstances in which the Faculty Member's research requires
access to facilities not available at the University.
D. Faculty and the Protection of University Students, Postdoctoral Scholars,
and Trainees
1. The academic activities of students, graduate students, postdoctoral
researchers, and other University trainees (together referred to as
“Trainees”), including but not limited to those activities described in
Section F, below) must be directed in accord with the best interests of the
academic progress of these individuals and without regard for the external
interests of a Covered Individual. While Covered Individuals who have
external interests in companies often see opportunities for Trainees to
obtain valuable practical experience through those companies, issues can
arise when the Covered Individual has an interest in a successful outcome
that is related to his/her Outside Employment or Outside Professional
Commitment with the company involved. A Trainee may not feel that
he/she is in a position to decline the opportunity when it is offered by a
Covered Individual on whom the Trainee is dependent for academic
guidance or recommendations. Additionally, after becoming involved with
a project supported by the entity with which the Covered Individual has an

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 64

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
Outside Employment or Outside Professional Commitment, the Trainee
may become concerned about the effects on his or her academic career
caused by unanticipated issues in the external relationship.
2. Certain steps are necessary to ensure that Trainees are informed and
properly advised in these situations:
a. Where the matter relates to research or research-related activities,
the University requires that such activities adhere to the Policy on
Individual Conflict of Interest in Research.
b. For non-research-related matters, the Covered Individual’s Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitment arrangements
must be presented to the Trainee in a context that (a) protects the
Trainee from feeling any potential coercion in accepting an offer of
employment, internship, or project experience; and (b) includes a
mechanism for handling any issues that may emerge in the
employment, internship, or project experience separately and
independently from evaluation and guidance on academic progress.
The Conflict of Interest Officer, in coordination with the Faculty
Member’s Department Head and Dean (or Administrative
Professional’s Supervisor) is available to assist and provide
guidance in such arrangements.
E. Requirements for Significant Use of University Resources and
Proprietary Confidential Information
1. Significant Use of University Resources or the University’s proprietary
confidential information may not occur in connection with a Covered
Individual’s Outside Employment or Outside Professional Commitments
unless
a. Such use is approved by the head(s) of all unit(s) with authority
over the resources and by the Dean and the relevant Vice President;
and
b. The use does not interfere with the University’s performance of its
missions; and
c. The use is covered by a fully executed written agreement signed by
a duly authorized signatory on behalf of the University in which all
such uses of University resources are compensated in accord with
fair market value or actual costs, pursuant to the relevant University
research, business, and finance policies; and
d. The Office of Record provides a copy of the Facilities Use
Agreement Form or other agreement authorizing the use of
University resources to the University’s Conflict of Interest Officer,
along with the approved Outside Employment or Outside
Professional Commitment form.
2. Resources purchased by the University through sponsored project grants or
other contractual arrangements may be used only in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the grant or contract and may not be used to fulfill

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 65

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
an individual’s Outside Employment or Outside Professional
Commitments.
3. Covered Individuals may not provide, as part of any approved Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitment, access to or use of
research results, patentable inventions, copyright-protected materials,
confidential information, materials or products, or other intellectual
property in which ABOR claims an ownership interest under ABOR
Intellectual Property Policy No. 6-908, without first obtaining a University
license agreement, nondisclosure agreement, material transfer agreement or
other appropriate contract authorizing such access and use, signed by a
duly authorized signatory on behalf of the University.
4. The University’s or any University Sponsor’s confidential Information may
not be used as part of an Outside Employment or Outside Professional
Commitment, without first obtaining the written consent of the owner of
such confidential information (i.e., the University or University Sponsor)
for such use, signed by a duly authorized signatory. (See also the
University’s policy on Misuse of University Assets.)
F. Publication Rights and Protection of Open Exchange of Scholarship
Free and open exchange of ideas and the results of scholarly activities are of
the utmost importance to the University. As such, University scholars,
including Faculty and Trainees, must be able to pursue topics of interest, have
access to available information and facilities, and be able to communicate the
results of their work to other scholars and the public. Therefore, Covered
Individuals must ensure that their Outside Employment or Outside Professional
Commitment arrangements do not restrict the rights of the University and
University scholars to undertake research and scholarly work, and to publish,
present, and disseminate the results of University research and scholarship in
an open and timely manner to the broader scholarly community and public in
keeping with University and ABOR policies.

G. Ownership of Intellectual Property

Covered Individuals do not have the authority to license, assign, or otherwise

transfer rights in any intellectual property in which ABOR and/or University
claims ownership under ABOR Intellectual Property Policy, and should not
enter into any agreements in connection with an approved Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitment that purport to confer rights
to such intellectual property in conflict with the ABOR and University
Intellectual Property Policies. Information related to the ABOR and University
Intellectual Property Policies and assistance in obtaining a license or other
grant of rights to ABOR-owned intellectual property rights are available
through Tech Launch Arizona or the Office of the General Counsel.
H. Authorship, Speaking, and Marketing/Promotional Activities

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 66

 Academic
Conflict of Interest (COI) Definition
Institution
1. Where a Covered Individual is listed as an author on any publication or
presentation that is based on his/her performance of an Outside
Employment or Outside Professional Commitment (and not as the result of
work performed under a University agreement with the external entity), the
Covered Individual should clearly identify the entity under which the
performance occurred. In such cases, the Covered Individual may list the
University in his or her affiliation, but each such publication or
presentation should include a disclosure of funding and must not state or
imply that project funding was provided by the University, nor that the
Covered Individual’s contribution to such publication or presentation was
part of his/her Institutional Responsibilities.
2. Covered Individuals are prohibited from publishing under their own names
articles related to their professional activities or Institutional
Responsibilities that are written in whole or in part by employees of
external entities who are not identified as authors and project collaborators
(i.e., “Ghost Written”). This is intended to address situations such as those
in which articles essentially are drafted by employees of an external
commercial entity (such as, but not limited to, a pharmaceutical company)
for publication under the Covered Individual’s name. This section does not
apply to publications from multi-site programs, including training, clinical
trial, and other research programs that are drafted on behalf of the group by
a subset of the multi-site collaborators.
I. Noncompliance
In cases of noncompliance with this Policy, the University, the Faculty
Member’s Department Head and/or Dean, or the Appointed Professional’s
Supervisor may apply personnel sanctions or administrative actions in
accordance with relevant University administrative, academic, and
employment policies.
2. The University President’s accountability relative to Conflict of
Commitment is to ABOR and is not addressed in this Policy.
3. See the Office for the Responsible Conduct of Research Conflict of Interest
web page for further guidance.
https://policy.arizona.edu/research/conflict-commitment-policy

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 67

 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 27

Appendix 1.6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
----------------------------------------- x
SHARON WRIGHT AUSTIN, MICHAEL MCDONALD, :
DANIEL A. SMITH, JEFFREY GOLDHAGEN, TERESA :
J. REID, and KENNETH B. NUNN, :
: 21-cv-184-MW-GRJ
Plaintiffs :
v. : AMENDED COMPLAINT
:
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, :
the public body corporate acting for and on behalf of the :
University of Florida, W. KENT FUCHS, in his official :
capacity as President of the University Florida, JOSEPH :
GLOVER, in his official capacity as Provost of the :
University of Florida, and LAURA ROSENBURY, in her :
official capacity as Dean of the Fredric G. Levin College of :
Law, :
Defendants. :
----------------------------------------- x

Plaintiffs Sharon Wright Austin, Michael McDonald, Daniel A. Smith, Jeffrey

*ROGKDJHQ 7HUHVD - 5HLG DQG .HQQHWK % 1XQQ FROOHFWLYHO\ ³3ODLQWLIIV´ Ey and

through the undersigned attorneys, file this Amended Complaint for injunctive and

declaratory relief against Defendants University of Florida Board of Trustees, W. Kent

Fuchs, in his official capacity as President of the University of Florida, Joseph Glover, in

his official capacity as Provost of the University of Florida, and Laura Rosenbury, in her

official capacity as Dean of the Frederic G. Levin College of Law (collectively,

³'HIHQGDQWV´

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. The University of Florida is a publiFUHVHDUFKLQVWLWXWLRQZLWKDPLVVLRQ³WR

VKDUHWKHEHQHILWVRILWVUHVHDUFKDQGNQRZOHGJHIRUWKHSXEOLFJRRG´&RQWUDU\WRWKDW

goal²and to foundational principles of academic freedom and free speech²it has


Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 68
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 2 of 27

adopted a policy of censoring faculty members who participate in lawsuits against the

6WDWHRI)ORULGD¶VSROLFLHV

2. Plaintiffs are six full-time professors at the University who were asked and

VRXJKWWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VSHUPLVVLRQWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQOLWLJDWLRQFKDOOHQJLQJODZVRQYRWLQJ

rights and COVID-1SXEOLFKHDOWKPHDVXUHV7KH8QLYHUVLW\GHQLHG3ODLQWLIIV¶UHTXHVWV

for one reason: Plaintiffs wanted to use their experience and expertise to support Florida

FLWL]HQVZKRFKDOOHQJHGWKH6WDWHRI)ORULGDUDWKHUWKDQEDFNLQJWKH6WDWH¶VSRVLWLRQ

3. PlaintLIIV¶MREDVSXEOLFXQLYHUVLW\SURIHVVRUVDQGUHVHDUFKHUVLVQRWWREH

PRXWKSLHFHV IRU WKH JRYHUQPHQW¶V SRLQW RI YLHZ  ,W LV WR GHYHORS DQG VKDUH WKHLU

academic knowledge and expertise with the people of Florida while upholding the

8QLYHUVLW\¶VYDOXHVDQG fulfilling their oath²taken by all public employees in the State²

WR³VXSSRUWWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGRIWKH6WDWHRI)ORULGD´

4. Nor did Plaintiffs surrender their constitutional rights when they became

public employees. By discriminating against Plaintiffs based on the viewpoints they wish

to express and by seeking to prevent them from speaking on issues of overwhelming

SXEOLF LPSRUWDQFH WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD YLRODWHG 3ODLQWLIIV¶ ULJKWV XQGHU WKH )LUVW

Amendment.

5. The University will continue to do so if it is not stopped. Facing a

firestorm of nationwide criticism, the University agreed to let Plaintiffs proceed with

their already-SODQQHGWHVWLPRQ\LQSHQGLQJFDVHV%XWWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VXQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO

conflict-of-interest policy remains in place, giving the University unfettered discretion to

VWLIOHVSHHFKWKDWLWGHHPV³DGYHUVH´WRWKH6WDWH¶VSROLWLFDOLQWHUHVWV

2
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 69
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 3 of 27

6. 8QOHVV DQG XQWLO WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO SROLF\ LV UHVFLQGHG

3ODLQWLIIV¶)LUVW$PHQGPHQWULJKWVDQGDFDGHmic freedom²and those of every University

of Florida faculty member²remain at stake.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Sharon Wright Austin is a Professor of Political Science at the

University of Florida. Professor Austin has been a member of the University faculty

since 2001. Her scholarship and research focuses on African American mayoral

elections, African American and Caribbean American political relationships, rural

African American political activism, and African American political behavior. Professor

Austin has authored books on African American political participation and published

numerous articles on related topics. In addition, she was until recently the Director of the

8QLYHUVLW\¶V$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVSURJUDP

8. Plaintiff Michael McDonald is a Professor of Political Science at the

University. Professor McDonald has been a member of the University faculty since

2014. His research focuses on elections, including voter turnout and eligibility. He has

consulted on redistricting measures and served as an expert witness in lawsuits

concerning elections in states around the country. Professor McDonald is also a co-

principal investigator on the Public Mapping Project, which encourages public

participation in redistricting.

9. Plaintiff Daniel A. Smith is a Professor of Political Science and Chair of

WKH8QLYHUVLW\¶V3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFH'HSDUWPHQW3URIHVVRU6PLWKKDVEHHQDPHPEHURIWKH

University faculty since 2003. His research examines the effects of ballot measures,

campaign financing, redistricting, and electoral laws on voting and political participation

in the United States. Professor Smith has served as an expert witness in a number of

3
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 70
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 4 of 27

lawsuits concerning voting rights, ballot measures, campaign finance laws, and

redistricting. He has also testified before Congress and the state legislatures of Colorado

and Florida on elections issues.

10. Plaintiff Jeffrey Goldhagen is a Professor of Pediatrics and the Chief of the

Division of Community and Societal Pediatrics at the University of Florida College of

Medicine. Professor Goldhagen has been a member of the University faculty since 1993.

He focuses on community-based pediatrics and public health services. He serves as the

Medical Director for the Partnership for Child Health, the President of the International

Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health, and is the co-founder of the Population

Health Consortium of Northeast Florida, which was formed in 2020 to respond to the

COVID-19 pandemic. Professor Goldhagen has served as an expert witness in litigation

relating to lead poisoning of children. He has also served as the Director of the Duval

&RXQW\+HDOWK'HSDUWPHQWDQGWKH0HGLFDO'LUHFWRURI&OHYHODQG2KLR¶V'HSDUWPHQWRI

Public Health.

11. Plaintiff Teresa J. Reid is a Professor at the University of Florida Fredric

*/HYLQ&ROOHJHRI/DZWKH³/DZ6FKRRO´3URIHVVRU5HLGKDVEHHQDPHPEHURIWKH

University faculty since 1987. Her areas of expertise and teaching include the death

penalty, legal writing, appellate advocacy, legal ethics, legal professionalism, evidence,

and mediation. She has presented numerous lectures and performed pro bono work on

these topics, including by signing on to amicus curiae briefs (otherwise known as friend-

of-the-court briefs).

12. Plaintiff Kenneth B. Nunn is a Professor at the Law School. Professor

Nunn has been a member of the University faculty since 1990. His areas of teaching and

4
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 71
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 5 of 27

expertise include criminal law, criminal procedure, African American history and the

law, race and the justice system, and law and cultural studies. Professor Nunn has served

as a member of the Innocence Commission of the State of Florida, which was charged

with identifying causes of wrongful convictions in the State and recommending changes

in legislation, court rules, and law enforcement practices to reduce the incidence of

wrongful convictions. He has also authored numerous academic articles, given scholarly

presentations, and signed amicus briefs on issues related to his fields of study.

13. Defendant University of Florida Board of Trustees is the public body

FRUSRUDWHRIWKH8QLYHUVLW\,WVHWVSROLF\IRUWKHLQVWLWXWLRQDQGVHUYHVDVWKHLQVWLWXWLRQ¶V

legal owner and governing board.

14. Defendant W. Kent Fuchs is the President of the University. As President,

Defendant Fuchs is responsible for the general administration of all University activities.

Defendant Fuchs is being sued only in his official capacity.

15. Defendant Joseph Glover is the Provost of the University. As Provost,

Defendant Glover is the chief academic officer and the second highest-ranking officer of

the University, acting for the President in his absence. Defendant Glover is responsible

for: supervising the allocation of academic resources; improving instruction and

coordinating instructional activities; developing and improving research activities;

HYDOXDWLQJ8QLYHUVLW\DFDGHPLFDFWLYLW\HVWDEOLVKLQJWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VSROLF\ZLWKUHVSHFW

WR HPSOR\PHQW SURPRWLRQ DQGWHQXUHRIDFDGHPLFIDFXOW\ RYHUVHHLQJWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶V

Conflicts of Interest Office; and implemenWLQJWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶V$IILUPDWLYH$FWLRQ(TXDO

Opportunity Program. Defendant Glover is being sued only in his official capacity.

5
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 72
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 6 of 27

16. Defendant Laura Rosenbury is the Dean of the Law School. In that

position, Dean Rosenbury has been tasked with enforcing thH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V &RQIOLFW RI

Interest Policy as it applies to Law School professors. Defendant Rosenbury is being

sued only in her official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress

deprivation under color of state law of their rights secured by the First Amendment of the

United States Constitution.

18. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant

WR86&††DQGEHFDXVH3ODLQWLIIV¶FODLPDULVHVXQGHUWKH Constitution and

laws of the United States.

19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, who are sued in their

official capacities as officers of the State of Florida or its political subdivisions.

20. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because

'HIHQGDQWVSHUIRUPWKHLURIILFLDOGXWLHVLQWKLVMXGLFLDOGLVWULFWDWWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VFDPSXV

in Gainesville, Florida. Venue also is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

because a substantial part of the events that give riVHWR3ODLQWLIIV¶FODLPRFFXUUHGLQWKLV

judicial district.

21. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201±2202.

6
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 73
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 7 of 27

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The University Adopts a Policy Giving It Unbridled Discretion to Prohibit Faculty

from Speaking Out Against the State.

22. The University requires its faculty members to get its permission before

engaging in certain DFWLYLWLHV  7KH FXUUHQW YHUVLRQ RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V &RQIOLFWV RI

&RPPLWPHQWDQG&RQIOLFWVRI,QWHUHVW3ROLF\³WKH3ROLF\´ZKLFKWRRNHIIHFWRQ-XO\

UHTXLUHVIDFXOW\WRILOHDUHTXHVWIRUSHUPLVVLRQRQWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VRQOLQHFRQIOLFWV

system ³8)2/,2´HDFKWLPHWKH\VHHNWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQDQ³2XWVLGH$FWLYLW\´ZKLFKLW

GHILQHV DV ³DQ\ SDLG RU XQSDLG DFWLYLW\ . . . which could create an actual or apparent

&RQIOLFWRI&RPPLWPHQWRU&RQIOLFWRI,QWHUHVW´

23. The Policy provides little clarity as WR ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV D ³&RQIOLFW RI

&RPPLWPHQW´RUD³&RQIOLFWRI,QWHUHVW´,WGHILQHVD³&RQIOLFWRI&RPPLWPHQW´DV³DQ

2XWVLGH $FWLYLW\ HLWKHU SDLG RU XQSDLG WKDW FRXOG LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH>@ >HPSOR\HHV¶@

SURIHVVLRQDO REOLJDWLRQV WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\´  ,W GHILQHV D ³&RQIOLFW RI ,QWHUHVW´ DV

VRPHWKLQJ WKDW ³RFFXUV ZKHQ D 8QLYHUVLW\ (PSOR\HH¶V ILQDQFLDO SURIHVVLRQDO

commercial or personal interests or activities outside of the University affects, or appears

to affect, their professional judgement or obligaWLRQVWRWKH8QLYHUVLW\´

24. 6LJQLILFDQWO\ WKH 3ROLF\ JLYHV WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ ³VROH GLVFUHWLRQ´ WR

³GHWHUPLQH>@´ ZKHWKHU D &RQIOLFW RI ,QWHUHVW RU D &RQIOLFW RI &RPPLWPHQW ³PD\ H[LVW´

and to determine what sanctions should be imposed on a faculty member with such a

conflict. As set forth below, the University has used its discretion to define those terms

LQ D PDQQHU WKDW GLVFULPLQDWHV RQ WKH EDVLV RI IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV¶ YLHZSRLQWV DQG KDV

offered shifting and inconsistent explanations for its interpretation of the Policy.

7
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 74
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 8 of 27

25. 7KHSHQDOWLHVIRUDQHPSOR\HH¶VIDLOXUHWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKH3ROLF\FDQEH

severe. The Policy provides that any violation of its requirements²including failure to

disclose an outside activity or proceeding with an outside activity without first obtaining

approval²FDQ UHVXOW LQ ³DGPLQLVWUDWLYH RU GLVFLSOLQDU\ DFWLRQ    XS WR DQG LQFOXGLQJ

WHUPLQDWLRQRIHPSOR\PHQW´

The University Prevents Law School Professors From Signing an Amicus Curiae
Brief with Their Institutional Affiliation.

26. On January 31, 2020, Gary Wimsett, Jr., Assistant Vice President for

Conflicts of Interest, gave a presentation to the Law School faculty on the Policy.

27. On February 10, 2020, Dean Rosenbury emailed the Law School faculty to

SURYLGH ³VRPH FODULILFDWLRQ´ RQ WKH 3ROLF\¶V VFRSH  6KH WROG WKH /DZ 6FKRRO IDFXOW\

³:ULWLQJRUVLJQLQJRQ WRDQDPLFXVEULHILQ\RXUFDSDFLW\DVDQLQGLYLGXDOODZSURIHVVRU´

ZDV QRW DQ ³2XWVLGH $FWLYLW\´ WKDW UHTXLUHG SULRU DSSURYDO XQGHU WKH 3ROLF\ EHFDXVH LW

ZDV³>F@RQVLGHUHG>S@DUWRI>\@RXU8)>D@VVLJQPHQW´HPSKDVLVDGGHG2QO\³>D@PLFXV

briefs ZULWWHQ IRU DQRWKHU LQGLYLGXDO RU HQWLW\´ ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG ³2XWVLGH $FWLYLWLHV´

under the Policy. (emphasis added.)

28. In or around July 2020, Professor Nunn was contacted by attorneys for the

plaintiffs in -RQHV HW DO Y 'H6DQWLV HW DO, No. 20-12003 (11th Cir.). That case

challenged Florida Senate Bill 7066, which requires Florida citizens who have completed

their sentence for felony convictions to pay any financial obligations included in their

sentence before they can exercise their right to vote. The attorneys wanted to know

whether Professor Nunn would be interested in signing an amicus brief in opposition to

Florida Senate Bill 7066 along with other law professors from around the country and

across the State of Florida.

8
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 75
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 9 of 27

29. On July 1, 2020, Professor Nunn emailed over two dozen Law School

colleagues who had expertise in constitutional law, voting rights law, civil rights law, or

criminal procedure to ask whether they would be interested in joining the amicus brief in

-RQHVY'H6DQWLV. Professor Nunn requested that they respond by July 8, 2020.

30. Professor Reid was among the faculty members who Professor Nunn

contacted, and she agreed to join the amicus brief. Eight other Law School professors

DOVRDJUHHGWRVLJQRQLQDGGLWLRQWRWKH/DZ6FKRRO¶V&HQWHUIRUWKH6WXG\RI5DFHDQG

Race Relations.

31. ,Q OLJKW RI 'HDQ 5RVHQEXU\¶V )HEUXDU\   JXLGDQFH 3URIHVVRUV

1XQQDQG5HLGGLGQRWWKLQNWKDWWKH\QHHGHGWRVHHNWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VSHUPission merely

to sign the amicus brief in -RQHVY'H6DQWLV. It made sense to them that signing on to the

DPLFXV EULHI ZRXOG QRW EH FRQVLGHUHG DQ ³2XWVLGH $FWLYLW\´ EHFDXVH LW ZDV FRQVLVWHQW

with their job responsibilities at the Law School, where each taught courses implicating

the rights of criminal defendants and those convicted of felonies. Moreover, both

Professors Nunn and Reid had previously signed numerous amicus briefs on issues

relevant to their areas of expertise with no opposition from the University.

32. But on July 9, 2020, just one day after the deadline that Professor Nunn

had set for agreeing to sign on to the amicus brief, the law school abruptly changed its

position on signing amicus briefs. Dean Rosenbury emailed the Law School faculty,

stating for the first time that faculty were required to seek permission before signing onto

an amicus brief²but only if the brief was filed in a case opposing the State of Florida:

[F]aculty participation in litigation against the state of

Florida or any agency thereof, including through amicus
briefs, is considered a potential conflict of interest. If you
seek to participate in such litigation or to write or sign on to

9
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 76
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 10 of 27

an amicus brief in support of a party suing the state of

Florida, you must fill out a disclosure form through
UFOLIO and receive approval before participating. . . .

33. In an apparent reference to the Center for the Study of Race and Race

5HODWLRQV¶SODQWRVLJQWKHDPLFXVEULHILQ-RQHVY'H6DQWLV, Dean Rosenbury added an

additional requirHPHQW VSHFLILF WR HQWLWLHV OLNH WKH &HQWHU  ³(QWLWLHV RI WKH &ROOHJH RI

Law, such as centers, clinics, or other classes, seeking to participate in such litigation or

amicus briefs must separately receive approval from me, the General Counsel, and

PresidenW)XFKV´

34. Confused by this sudden change, Professor Nunn asked Dean Rosenbury

to clarify the Policy as it applied to signing the amicus brief in -RQHV Y 'H6DQWLV.

Contrary to her February 10, 2020 guidance that only outside activities were required to

EH GLVFORVHG 'HDQ 5RVHQEXU\ UHVSRQGHG  ³<RX DUH FRUUHFW WKDW WKLV LV QRW DQ RXWVLGH

activity, but it is a potential conflict of interest because the amicus brief will be filed in an

action against the state. You, and others, must therefore disclose on tKDWEDVLV´

35. On July 13, 2020, Dean Rosenbury wrote to Professor Nunn and other

Law School faculty members:

I have confirmed that the university will approve this

activity so long as you participate solely in your individual
capacity. You may not participate in your capacity as an
employee of the University of Florida or on behalf of the
Levin College of Law or the University of Florida. Please
ensure that the amicus brief clearly indicates that any law
school or university affiliation is included for identification
purposes only.

36. &RQVLVWHQWZLWK'HDQ5RVHQEXU\¶VDGYLFH3URIHVVRU1XQQFRPSOHWHGKLV

UFOLIO disclosure for his participation in the litigation and included the following

language:

10
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 77
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 11 of 27

[Signing on to the amicus brief] will not put me in a

position adverse to the interests of the University of
Florida. I simply wish to sign on to an amicus brief, as one
of more than 100 professors at law, to express an opinion
about the proper interpretation of the law in regards to not
infringing on the voting rights of ex-felons as provided by
citizen initiative in the State of Florida. I understand that I
may not participate in my capacity as an employee of the
University of Florida or on behalf of the Levin College of
Law or the University of Florida. I will ensure that the
amicus brief clearly indicates that any law school or
university affiliation is included for identification purposes
only.

37. 3URIHVVRU 1XQQ¶V 8)2/,2 UHTXHVW ZDV XQFRQGLWLRQDOO\ DSSURYHG RQ

July 14, 2020.

38. Professor Reid also submitted a UFOLIO request to sign on to the -RQHVY

'H6DQWLV DPLFXV EULHI  2Q -XO\   3URIHVVRU 5HLG¶V 8)2/,2 UHTXHVW ZDV

DSSURYHG ZLWK WKH FRQGLWLRQ WKDW VKH ³SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKLV RXWVLGH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ >KHU@

LQGLYLGXDOFDSDFLW\RQO\´%XWXQOLNH3URIHVVRU1XQQher approval also stated that she

ZDV ³QRW SHUPLWWHG WR XVH DQ\ 8) marks, logos or other LGHQWLILHUV in [her] outside

activity/interest, and [could] not otherwise imply or suggest any official affiliation with

8)´HPSKDVLVDGGHG

39. Following the controveUV\VXUURXQGLQJWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VVKLIWLQJSRVLWLRQV

most of the 10 professors who had expressed interest in signing the amicusbrief in -RQHV

Y 'H6DQWLV ultimately did not do so. When the amicus brief was filed, only four Law

School professors, including Professors Nunn and Reid, were listed among the 109

signatories.1 The Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations was not listed.

1
6HHAppearance of Counsel Form filed by Jennifer Altman for 109 Professors of Law,
-RQHVHWDOY'H6DQWLVHWDO, No. 20-12003 (11th Cir. Aug. 6, 2020).

11
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 78
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 12 of 27

40. ,Q DGGLWLRQ DV D UHVXOW RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V FRQGLWLRQV WKH /DZ 6FKRRO

SURIHVVRUV¶LQVWLWXWLRQDODIILOLDWLRQVZHUHRmitted from the brief. Of the 28 law professors

from Florida schools, Professors Nunn, Reid, and two additional Law School professors

were the only ones who did not have their institutional affiliations listed alongside their

signatures. All of the other 24 law professors from other Florida schools²including

Florida State University College of Law and Florida International University College of

Law²who signed the amicus brief listed their institutional affiliations alongside their

signatures.2

41. Although Professors Nunn and Reid agreed to join the amicus brief in

-RQHVY'H6DQWLVin their personal capacities, listing their institutional affiliations was an

important part of the message that they had wanted to convey. Their professional

association with the Law School²)ORULGD¶VWRS-ranked law school²reflected their years

of practice and scholarship and would have given greater weight and credibility to their

signatures on the amicus brief.

The University Blocks Professor Goldhagen from Testifying as an Expert Witness in

Support of a Challenge to the Ban on Mask Mandates in Public Schools.

42. On July 30, 2021, Governor Ron DeSantis entered Executive Order

Number 21-HQWLWOHG³(QVXULQJ3DUHQWV¶)UHHGRPWR&KRRVH²0DVNVLQ6FKRROV´WKH

³([HFXWLYH2UGHU´7Ke Executive Order precluded school districts from enacting mask

mandates and threatened to withhold state funds for any school district that chose to

require masks in schools.

43. Florida parents quickly sued to enjoin the Executive Order, arguing that it

impaired the safe operation of schools in the State. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit

2
6HHLG.

12
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 79
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 13 of 27

Court in Leon County under the caption 0F&DUWK\ HW DO Y 'H6DQWLV HW DO

³0F&DUWK\´1R-CA-001382 (Fla. Cir. Ct.).

44. An attorney for the plaintiffs in the 0F&DUWK\ litigation asked Professor

Goldhagen to serve as an expert witness in support of the challenge to the Executive

Order, including testifying at trial, to which Professor Goldhagen readily agreed. As an

expert in pediatric public health, Professor Goldhagen was asked to testify on the impact

of COVID-19 on the pediatric population and the health benefits of requiring students to

wear masks in schools to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

45. Although expert witnesses are typically compensated for their time and

expenses in preparing expert reports and giving expert testimony, Professor Goldhagen

did not request compensation for his work on the 0F&DUWK\ case. Instead, he chose to

donate his time pro bono to what he considered to be a crucial matter of public health.

46. In accordance with the Policy, on or about August 11, 2021, Professor

Goldhagen duly submitted a request through UFOLIO disclosing his engagement as an

expert witness in the 0F&DUWK\ case.

47. Professor Goldhagen had served as an expert witness multiple times before

ZLWK WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V DSSURYDO DQG KH GLG QRW H[SHFW WR PHHW DQ\ RSSRVLWLRQ IURP WKH

University this time. After all, he believed, testifying on behalf of parents who wanted to

SURWHFW WKHLU FKLOGUHQ¶V KHDOWK DQG VDIHW\ LQ VFKRRO ZDV HQWLUHly consistent with the

8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD &ROOHJH RI 0HGLFLQH¶V ³JRDO RI LPSURYLQJ LQGLYLGXDO DQG

FRPPXQLW\KHDOWK´DQGKLVRDWKDVDPHGLFDOGRFWRU

48. So Professor Goldhagen was astonished when, on August 12, 2021, Gary

:LPVHWWPDUNHGKLVDSSOLFDWLRQ³GHQLHG´,QH[SODLQLQJWKHEDVLVIRUWKHGHFLVLRQ0U

13
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 80
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 14 of 27

:LPVHWWPDGHQRDWWHPSWWRKLGHWKDWWKH8QLYHUVLW\ZDVGHQ\LQJ3URIHVVRU*ROGKDJHQ¶V

application because Professor Goldhagen sought to testify on behalf of Florida parents

and not the State, stating: ³2XWVLGHDFWLYLWLHVWKDWPD\SRVHDFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWWRWKH

H[HFXWLYHEUDQFKRIWKH6WDWHRI)ORULGDFUHDWHDFRQIOLFWIRUWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI)ORULGD´

49. 3URIHVVRU *ROGKDJHQ VXEVHTXHQWO\ LQTXLUHG WR ³OHDUQ DERXW WKH DSSHDO

process/procedure for decisions UHODWHG WR 'LVFORVXUH IRU RXWVLGH DFWLYLWLHV´ DQG ZDV

LQIRUPHG E\ 0U :LPVHWW WKDW ³>W@KHUH LV QR PHFKDQLVP IRU DSSHDOLQJ GLVDSSURYDOV LQ

8)2/,2´

50. Professor Goldhagen informed the lawyer who had asked him to serve as

an expert witness that the University did not approve his request. Though he encouraged

the lawyer to subpoena him for his testimony²in which case he would be required to

testify²the case moved too quickly, and the lawyer instead sought other expert witnesses

who were not prevented from participating.

51. As a result of the Policy, Professor Goldhagen was not able to serve the

people of Florida by sharing his expertise, experience, and medical knowledge on one of

the most critical public health matters of our time.

The University Tries to Stop Professors Austin, McDonald, and Smith from
Testifying as Expert Witnesses in Support of a Challenge to Voting Restrictions.

52. 2Q0D\*RYHUQRU'H6DQWLVVLJQHG6HQDWH%LOO³6%´LQWR

law. Among other things, SB 90 imposes obstacles on FloridD YRWHUV¶ DELOLW\ WR FDVW

ballots through in-person voting, mail-in voting, and the use of secure drop-boxes for

early voting. It also places new restrictions on third-party voter-registration drives and

prohibits certain organizations, including churches, from providing assistance to voters

waiting in line to vote.

14
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 81
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 15 of 27

53. Voting rights advocates sued to enjoin SB 90, arguing that it

disproportionately harms Black and Latino voters and poor voters. The lawsuits were

consolidated before this Court under the caption /HDJXH RI :RPHQ 9RWHUV RI )ORULGD

,QFHWDOY/DXUHO0/HH ³/HDJXHRI:RPHQ9RWHUV´1R-cv-00186-MW-MAF

(N.D. Fla.).

54. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the /HDJXHRI:RPHQ9RWHUV litigation asked

Professors Austin, McDonald, and Smith (thH ³3ROLWLFDO 6FLHQFH 3URIHVVRUV´ WR DFW DV

expert witnesses in support of their challenge to SB 90 and ultimately to testify at trial, to

which the Political Science Professors readily agreed. Those attorneys asked the Political

Science Professors to testify on topics including the history of voting discrimination

against minority groups, the use of mail balloting and in-person early voting in Florida,

and the impact of vote-by-mail measures on minority groups.

55. Two of the Political Science Professors had undertaken similar work

before. In particular, Professors McDonald and Smith previously served as expert

witnesses in a number of lawsuits opposing voting regulations in states around the

country, including lawsuits challenging Florida legislation and naming officers of the

State of Florida as defendants.3 Professor Austin began serving as an expert witness this

year.

3
Professor Smith has served as an expert witness in a number of cases, including:
*UXYHUHWDOY%DUWRQHWDO, No. 1:19-cv-00121-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla. 2019); 5LYHUDY
'HW]QHU, No. 1:18-cv-00152-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla. 2018); /HDJXH RI :RPHQ 9RWHUV RI
)ORULGD ,QFY 'HW]QHU, No. 4:18-cv-00251-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla. 2018); )ORULGD
'HPRFUDWLF 3DUW\ Y 6FRWW, No. 4:16-cv-00626-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla. 2016); $UFLD Y
'HW]QHU, 1:12-cv-22282-WJZ (S.D. Fla. 2012); and 5RPRY6FRWW, No. 2012-CA-000412
(Fla. Cir. Ct. 2012).

15
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 82
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 16 of 27

56. As is typical and expected in expert witness engagements, Professors

McDonald and Smith received fair compensation for their time and expenses in preparing

WKHLU H[SHUW WHVWLPRQ\ LQ SULRU FDVHV  3ODLQWLIIV¶ HQJDJHPHQW LQ WKH /HDJXH RI :RPHQ

9RWHUV litigation was no different in this respect.

57. 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ GLG QRW REMHFW WR 3URIHVVRU 6PLWK DQG 0F'RQDOG¶V SULRU

work as expert witnesses. If anything, it commended them. For example, in Professor

6PLWK¶VDQQXDOSHUIRUPDQFHUHYLHZVWKH8QLYHUVLW\SUDLVHGKLVUHVHDUFKDQGDGYRFDF\RQ

YRWLQJULJKWVDV³LPSDFWIXODQGLPSRUWDQWIRURXUFROOHDJXHVVWXGHQWVDQGWKHFLWL]HQVRI

)ORULGD´$QGLWFelebrated both his considerable scholarly writings as well as his role as

DQ DGYRFDWH RQ YRWLQJ LVVXHV FDOOLQJ KLV ZRUN ³LPSRUWDQW ERWK DV D VFKRODU DQG DV D

FRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHSHRSOHRI)ORULGD´

58. In accordance with the Policy, each of the Political Science Professors

submitted requests through UFOLIO disclosing their engagement as expert witnesses in

connection with the /HDJXHRI:RPHQ9RWHUV litigation.

59. 7KH8QLYHUVLW\UHIXVHGWRDSSURYHHDFKRIWKH3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFH3URIHVVRUV¶

applications, offering a series of shifting and inconsistent explanations that laid bare the

8QLYHUVLW\¶V UHDO JRDO  WR SUHYHQW WKH 3ROLWLFDO 6FLHQFH 3URIHVVRUV IURP WHVWLI\LQJ LQ

VXSSRUWRIDFKDOOHQJHWRWKH6WDWH¶VSROLFLHV

60. On July 7, 2021 and again on October 11, 2021, the University sent

Professor Smith a disapproval notice. As with Professor Goldhagen, the University told

3URIHVVRU6PLWK³2XWVLGHDFWLYLWLHVWKDWPD\SRVHDFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWWRWKHH[HFXWLYH

branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the UnLYHUVLW\RI)ORULGD´

16
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 83
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 17 of 27

61. On October 13, 2021, the University sent Professor McDonald a

disapproval notice, which once again equated the interests of the University²a public

research institution²ZLWKWKRVHRIWKH6WDWH,W VWDWHG³8)>Z@LOOGHQ\LWVHPSOR\HHV¶

requests to engage in outside activities when it determines the activities are adverse to its

LQWHUHVWV´

62. $OVR RQ 2FWREHU   WKH $PHULFDQ &LYLO /LEHUWLHV 8QLRQ¶V

³$&/8´ )ORULGD FKDSWHU VHQW D OHWWHU WR *DU\ :LPVHWW $VVLVWDQW 9LFH 3UHVLGHQt for

Conflicts of Interest, and Brian Powers, Director, Conflicts of Interest, which stated that

WKHUH³LVQRTXHVWLRQWKDW'U6PLWKZRXOGEHVSHDNLQJLQKLVFDSDFLW\DVDSULYDWHFLWL]HQ

QRWDVDQHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLYHUVLW\´WKDW³KHZRXOGREYLRXVO\Ee speaking on a matter

RI SXEOLF FRQFHUQ´ DQG WKDW KLV ³LQWHUHVW LQ VKDULQJ KLV LPSRUWDQW SHUVSHFWLYH DQG WKH

SXEOLF¶VLQWHUHVWLQEHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGLQJWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHLUJRYHUQPHQWIDURXWZHLJK

DQ\ SXUSRUWHG FRQWUDU\ LQWHUHVW WKDW 8) PLJKW KDYH´  The ACLU requested that the

8QLYHUVLW\ ³immediately UHVFLQG WKH GHQLDO´ RI 3URIHVVRU 6PLWK¶V SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DV DQ

expert witness. The University did not respond to this letter.

63. On October 15, 2021, the University sent Professor Austin a disapproval

notice FRQWDLQLQJWKHVDPHODQJXDJHDVZDVVHQWWR3URIHVVRU0F'RQDOGEXWDGGLQJ³$V

8)LVDVWDWHDFWRUOLWLJDWLRQDJDLQVWWKH>6@WDWHLVDGYHUVHWR8)¶VLQWHUHVWV´

64. )ROORZLQJ3URIHVVRU$XVWLQ¶VDQG3URIHVVRU0F'RQDOG¶VGLVDSSURYDOVWKH

ACLU sent letters on their behalf similar to the letter sent on behalf of Professor Smith.

The ACLU, again, received no reply.

65. 2Q 2FWREHU   3ODLQWLIIV¶ FRXQVHO VHQW D OHWWHU WR 5\DQ )XOOHU

Associate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for the University, which noted

17
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 84
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 18 of 27

WKDWWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶V3ROLF\YLRODWHGWKH3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFH3URIHVVRUV¶FRQVWLWXWLRQDOULJKWV

and asked the University to reverse its disapproval decisions.

66. In response, the University adopted an all-new justification for its actions.

In a statement posted on its website on October 30, 2021, the University suggested that

WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKH GLVDSSURYDOV ZDV QRW RQO\ WKDW WKH 3ROLWLFDO 6FLHQFH 3URIHVVRUV¶

WHVWLPRQ\ZDVH[SHFWHGWREH³DGYHUVHWRWKH>8@QLYHUVLW\¶VLQWHUHVWVDVDVWDWHRI)ORULGD

inVWLWXWLRQ´EXWDOVRWKDWWKH3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFH3URIHVVRUVZRXOGEH³SDLG´IRUWKHLUWLPH

and expenses.

67. 2Q1RYHPEHUZKHQ3ODLQWLIIV¶FRXQVHOVHQWDQRWKHUOHWWHUWRWKH

University asking for clarity, the University retreated to yet a new position. In a letter

UHSO\LQJ WR 3ODLQWLIIV¶ FRXQVHO )XOOHU UHLWHUDWHG WKDW WKH 3ROLWLFDO 6FLHQFH 3URIHVVRUV¶

WHVWLPRQ\³LQYROYHGDFWLYLWLHVWKDWDUHDGYHUVHWRWKH6WDWHRI)ORULGD´%XWKHDVVHUWHG

³SXUVXDQW WR WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V SROLF\ UHODWHG WR RXWVLGH DFWLYLWLHV´ WKH 3ROLWLFDO 6FLHQFH

3URIHVVRUVFRXOGWHVWLI\DVORQJDVLWZDV³LQWKHLUSHUVRQDOFDSDFLW>LHV@ZLWKRXWWKHXVHRI

DQ\8QLYHUVLW\UHVRXUFHVDQGZLWKRXWFRPSHQVDWLRQ´

68. Apparently recognizing the inconsistencies in its shifting positions, in a

NovePEHU   OHWWHU IURP 3UHVLGHQW )XFKV WR WKH ³FDPSXV FRPPXQLW\´ WKH

8QLYHUVLW\ DQQRXQFHG LW ZDV ³LPPHGLDWHO\ DSSRLQWLQJ D WDVN IRUFH WR UHYLHZ WKH

>8@QLYHUVLW\¶VFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWSROLF\DQGH[DPLQHLWIRUFRQVLVWHQF\DQGILGHOLW\´EXW

provided no RWKHUGHWDLOV$VWRWKH3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFH3URIHVVRUV3UHVLGHQW)XFKV¶OHWWHU

VWDWHG  ³>,@I WKH SURIHVVRUV ZLVK WR WHVWLI\ SUR ERQR RQ WKHLU RZQ WLPH ZLWKRXW XVLQJ

>8@QLYHUVLW\UHVRXUFHVWKH\DUHIUHHWRGRVR´

18
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 85
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 19 of 27

69. But, as President Fuchs and Mr. Fuller surely knew, the Political Science

3URIHVVRUV¶ ZRUN DV H[SHUW ZLWQHVVHV ZRXOG EH SHUIRUPHG VROHO\ LQ WKHLU SHUVRQDO

capacities, and it would not impinge on the time that they are expected to devote to their

work for the University or use University resources.

70. $VIRUWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VVXJJHVWLRQWKDWLWVUHDOSUREOHPZLWKWKH3ROLWLFDO

6FLHQFH3URIHVVRUV¶WHVWLPRQ\ZDVWKDWWKH\ZRXOGEHFRPSHQVDWHGIRULWWKDWUDWLRQDOHLV

DW RGGV ZLWK WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V SRVLWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH /DZ 6FKRRO SURIHVVRUV¶ XQSDLG

participation in the -RQHV Y 'H6DQWLV DPLFXV EULHI DQG 3URIHVVRU *ROGKDJHQ¶V XQSDLG

participation in the 0F&DUWK\ case.

71. Moreover, the State seemingly had no problem with the faculty of a public

university testifying and receiving compensation for expert witness work that favors the

6WDWH¶V YLHZSRLQW  )ORULGD ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 8QLYHUVLW\ OLNH WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD KDV

DGRSWHGDSROLF\WKDWOLPLWVIDFXOW\¶VRXWVLGHDFWLYLWLHVWKDWSRVHDFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWZLWK

WKH³XQLYHUVLW\WKH%RDUGRI*RYHUQRUVDQGRUWKH6WDWHRI)ORULGD´8SRQLQIRUPDWLRQ

and belief, pursuant to that policy, Florida International University permitted Professor

Dario Moreno to receive compensation for being an expert witness for the Republican

National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee as intervenors in

the very same litigation in which the University forbade the Political Science Professors

from doing the same for voting rights groups.

Facing a Public Outcry, the University Rescinds Specific UFOLIO Denials But the
Policy Remains in Place.

72. 7KH8QLYHUVLW\¶VUHIXVDOWRDOORZWKH3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFH3URIHVVRUVWRWHVWLI\

was made public in late October 2021, igniting a firestorm of public criticism.

19
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 86
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 20 of 27

73. )ORULGD¶V 'HPRFUDWLF FRQJUHVVLRQDO GHOHJDWLRQ VHQW D OHWWHU Wo President

)XFKV ODPEDVWLQJ WKH VFKRRO¶V DWWHPSW WR EORFN SURIHVVRUV IURP VHUYLQJ DV H[SHUW

witnesses, and the American Association of University Professors released a statement

FRQGHPQLQJ ³LQ WKH VWURQJHVW SRVVLEOH WHUPV´ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V ³LQIULQJHPHQW Rf [its

SURIHVVRUV¶@DFDGHPLFIUHHGRPULJKWV´4

74. 1DWLRQDOO\ UHFRJQL]HG DFDGHPLFV FRQGHPQHG WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V 3ROLF\ DV

well. Keith Whittington, a Princeton professor and Chair of the Academic Committee of

the Academic Freedom Alliance, wrote in an October 31, 2021 letter to President Fuchs

DQGRWKHU8QLYHUVLW\OHDGHUV³7KH8QLYHUVLW\LVPLVWDNHQLQWKLQNLQJWKDWWKLVGHFLVLRQLV

FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHSULQFLSOHVRIIUHHVSHHFKDQGDFDGHPLFIUHHGRP´5 Similarly, Robert

George, a Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in

American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, told University administrators

DWDPHHWLQJRIWKH)ORULGD%RDUGRI*RYHUQRUVWKDWWKH3ROLF\LQIULQJHGSURIHVVRUV¶)LUVW

Amendment rights.6

75. The Universit\¶V DFWLRQV EURXJKW DERXW D WKUHDW WR LWV RZQ DFFUHGLWDWLRQ

status. On or about November 1, 2021, the Southern Association of Colleges and

4
6HHStatement from AAUP President Irene Mulvey
RQ8QLYHUVLW\RI)ORULGD¶V%ODWDQW9LRODWLRQRI$FDGHPLF)UHHGRP8QLYHUVLW\RI
)ORULGD¶V3ROLWLFDOO\0RWLYDWHG9LRODWLRQRI$FDGHPLF)UHHGRP8QGHUPLQHVWKH
Common Good, Am. Assoc. of Univ. Professors (Nov. 1, 2021),
https://www.aaup.org/news/university-floridas-politically-motivated-violation-academic-
freedom-undermines-common-good#.
5
6HHLetter from Keith Whittington to President Kent Fuchs (Oct. 31, 2021),
https://academicfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/AFA-letter-to-UF-on-expert-
testimony-prohibition.pdf.
6
6HH Jimena Tavel, 3ULQFHWRQ/HJDO6FKRODU$GYLVHV8)WR%DFN2II5HVWULFWLQJ
3URIHVVRUVLQ6XLW$JDLQVW6WDWH, MIAMI HERALD (Nov. 3, 2021),
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255522016.html#storylink=cp
y.

20
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 87
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 21 of 27

6FKRROVWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VDFFUHGLWRUDVNHGIRUFODULILFDWLRQRQWKH3ROLF\DQGVWDWHGWKDWLW

might launch an invesWLJDWLRQWRGHWHUPLQHLIWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VDFWLRQVYLRODWHGLWVUXOHV7

76. On November 5, 2021, the University reversed its denials of the Political

6FLHQFH 3URIHVVRUV¶ 8)2/,2 DSSOLFDWLRQV DSSDUHQWO\ DV D PDWWHU RI GLVFUHWLRQ  2Q RU

about that date, ProfessoU*ROGKDJHQ¶V8)2/,2GHQLDOIRUWKH0F&DUWK\ case and for at

OHDVWRQHRWKHUFDVHFRQFHUQLQJWKHEDQRQPDVNPDQGDWHVZHUHFKDQJHGWR³DSSURYHG´

77. President Fuchs also announced that the newly appointed task force would

³PDNH D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ WR >KLP@ RQ KRw [the University] should respond when

employees request approval to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which their

HPSOR\HUWKHVWDWHRI)ORULGDLVDSDUW\´DQGZRXOGEHDVNHGWRGHOLYHU³DSUHOLPLQDU\

UHFRPPHQGDWLRQE\0RQGD\1RYHPEHU´

ThH3ROLF\5HPDLQVLQ3ODFH&RQWLQXLQJWR9LRODWH3ODLQWLIIV¶)UHH6SHHFK5LJKWV

78. 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO 3ROLF\ UHPDLQV LQ SODFH DQG WKH

8QLYHUVLW\¶V KDVWLO\ DSSRLQWHG WDVN IRUFH LV XQOLNHO\ WR UHPHG\ WKH SUREOHP  3XEOLF

statements by President Fuchs, Provost Glover, and Dean Rosenbury²the latter two of

whom serve on the task force²DOO LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH WDVN IRUFH¶V PDQGDWH LV OLPLWHG WR

expert witness work and will not address other forms of participation in litigation or

advocacy against State SROLFLHV  3UHVLGHQW )XFK¶V 1RYHPEHU   DQQRXQFHPHQW

VWDWHG RQO\ WKDW WKH WDVN IRUFH¶V SUHOLPLQDU\ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ ZRXOG DGGUHVV H[SHUW

witness work by faculty members. Likewise, Dean Rosenbury, while inviting her
7
6HH Lindsay Ellis, 8RI)ORULGD¶V$FFUHGLWRU:LOO,QYHVWLJDWH'HQLDORI
3URIHVVRUV¶9RWLQJ5LJKWV7HVWLPRQ\, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION (Nov. 1,
2021); $FFUHGLWDWLRQ)LUP,QYHVWLJDWLQJ8)3URIHVVRUV7HVWLPRQ\,QFLGHQW, WCJB (Nov.
2, 2021), https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-floridas-accreditor-will-investigate-
denial-of-professors-voting-rights-testimony;
https://www.wcjb.com/2021/11/02/accreditation-firm-investigating-uf-professors-
testimony-incident/.

21
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 88
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 22 of 27

FROOHDJXHV¶LQSXWLQWRWKH3ROLF\Dsked only for advice about the policies and procedures

³DVWKH\UHODWHWRWKHLVVXHRIVHUYLQJDVDQH[SHUWZLWQHVV´3URYRVW*ORYHUVWDWHGGXULQJ

WKH WDVN IRUFH¶V ILUVW PHHWLQJ WKDW LW ZDV IRFXVLQJ VROHO\ RQ WKH LVVXH RI H[SHUW ZLWQHVV

testimony because ³>3UHVLGHQW )XFKV@ IHHOV WKDW WKLV LV RQH RI WKH LVVXHV WKDW LV PRVW

SUHVVLQJ>@´

79. Moreover, there is no set timeline for the University to make revisions²if

any²to the Policy. President Fuchs asked only that the task force give him a

³SUHOLPLQDU\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ´E\1RYHPEHU,WUHPDLQVXQFOHDUZKHQLIHYHU

WKH8QLYHUVLW\ZLOOUHDFKDILQDOGHFLVLRQDVWRWKH3ROLF\¶VWHUPVDQGVFRSH

80. Finally, the composition of the task force highlights its inadequacy. The

group excludes any representation from the Faculty of the College of Liberal Arts and

Sciences or the College of Medicine. And it includes at least two members²Dean

Rosenbury and Terra DuBois, Chief Compliance, Ethics, & Privacy Officer²who are

conflicted because they have both been engaged in the development and unconstitutional

execution of the existing conflict of interest policies. Neither can fairly or objectively

judge the permissibility or constitutionality of their own actions.

81. In the meantime, the Policy continues to violate PlDLQWLIIV¶ ULJKWV

Plaintiffs frequently are asked to participate in lawsuits concerning their areas of research

and teaching. Many of these cases challenge legislation or government action related to

elections or criminal procedure. Many seek emergent relief, including emergency

motions in death penalty cases or motions for temporary restraining orders regarding

voting procedures. Plaintiffs may be required to provide research or analysis on a highly

expedited basis²sometimes in a matter of hours and sometimes without knowing

22
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 89
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 23 of 27

whether the State is a party to the litigation and, if so, whether their testimony will be for

RUDJDLQVWWKH6WDWH¶VSRVLWLRQ

82. 7KH3ROLF\¶VYDJXHO\ ZRUGHGWHUPV DQGWKHGLVFUHWLRQWKDWLWYHVWVLQ WKH

University to define them²seemingly at whim²leaves Plaintiffs unable to determine

ZKHWKHUWKH\DUHUHTXLUHGWRVHHNWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VDSSURYDOXQGHUWKH3ROLF\DQGLIVR

whether the activity likely would be approved. As a result, Plaintiffs are likely to lose out

on opportunities to participate as amici curiae or expert consultants or witnesses,

particularly in fast-paced litigation.

83. As a matter of principle and commitment to academic freedom and

integrity, Plaintiffs intend to continue to participate in litigation challenging State policies

that are within their areas of expertise whenever possible.

84. Plaintiffs face serious risks in doing so. If Plaintiffs were to accept an

H[SHUW HQJDJHPHQW RU VLJQ DQ DPLFXV EULHI ZLWKRXW ILUVW UHFHLYLQJ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V

permission, they would invite significant professional consequences. These could

include, for example, withholding of institutional support or funding for projects that are

important to their career advancement or denial of promotions. The Policy even states

that faculty who violate its terms can be terminated.

85. 7KH8QLYHUVLW\¶VLQFRQVLVWHQWDQGGLVFULPLQDWRU\DSSOLFDWLRQRIWKH3ROLF\

has already left some Plaintiffs hesitant to participate in litigation at all. For example, on

November 3, 2021, Professor Nunn received an invitation to join an amicus brief in

VXSSRUW RI 7HUUHQFH $QGUXV¶V UHTXHVW IRU UHVHQWHQFLQJ IRU D FULPH FRPPLWWHG DV D

juvenile in $QGUXVY7H[DV, No. 21-6001. Ordinarily, Professor Nunn would not hesitate

to lend his name and prominence as a criminal law scholar to an amicus brief on such an

23
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 90
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 24 of 27

important issue. Nevertheless, on November 7, 2021, he declined the invitation,

H[SODLQLQJWKDW³ZLWKDOOWKHWXUPRLOJRLQJRQGRZQKHUHZLWKXQLYHUVLW\RYHUVLJKWRIRXU

amicus signons, [he had] decided to wait until WKHUH LV PRUH FODULW\´ RQ WKH 3ROLF\¶V

scope. The Policy was the sole reason Professor Nunn decided not to sign the amicus

brief in $QGUXV.

86. Unless and until the Policy is rescinded or declared unconstitutional to the

H[WHQW LW HTXDWHV WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V ³LQWHUHVW´ ZLWK WKDW RI WKH 6WDWH DQG DOORZV WKH

University unlimited discretion to block speech that it dislikes, it will continue to impede

Plaintiffs from participating in litigation or other forms of advocacy that challenge State

policies, in violation RIWKH)LUVW$PHQGPHQWDQG3ODLQWLIIV¶DFDGHPLFIUHHGRP

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FIRST AMENDMENT
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against All Defendants)

87. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this

Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

88. 7KH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW GHFODUHV WKDW ³&RQJUHVV VKDOO PDNH QR ODZ   

DEULGJLQJWKHIUHHGRPRIVSHHFK´7KH)LUVW$PHQGPHQWDSSOLHVWRWKH6WDWHVXQGHUWKH

Fourteenth Amendment.

89. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action, including for declaratory or

LQMXQFWLYH UHOLHI DJDLQVW ³>H@YHU\ SHUVRQ ZKR XQGHU FRORU RI DQ\ VWDWXWH RUGLQDQFH

regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the

United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

ULJKWV SULYLOHJHV RU LPPXQLWLHV VHFXUHG E\ WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ DQG ODZV´ RI WKH 8QLWHG

States.

24
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 91
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 25 of 27

90. Pursuant to the Policy, Defendants have unbridled discretion over whether

WR SHUPLW RU GHQ\ 3ODLQWLIIV¶ H[SUHVVLYH DFWivity based on viewpoint or content and to

VXSSUHVVGLVIDYRUHGVSHHFKLQYLRODWLRQRI3ODLQWLIIV¶)LUVW$PHQGPHQWULJKWV

91. 'HIHQGDQWV DOVR YLRODWHG3ODLQWLIIV¶ULJKWV XQGHUWKH)LUVW $PHQGPHQWE\

restricting Plaintiffs from participating in litigation on the basis of their viewpoint and by

LPSRVLQJ D SULRU UHVWUDLQW RQ WKHLU VSHHFK QDPHO\ E\ UHTXLULQJ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\¶V

permission to participate in litigation against the State.

92. Discrimination and prior restraint on the basis of viewpoint or content are

preVXPSWLYHO\XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO7KXVWKH8QLYHUVLW\¶VUHVWULFWLRQVPXVWEHVWUXFNGRZQ

unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest of the State.

93. The State has no compelling interest in silencing University faculty and

preventing them from speaking on a topic of such significant public importance as voting

ULJKWVDQGSXEOLFKHDOWK$QG3ODLQWLIIV¶LQWHUHVWLQVSHDNLQJIUHHO\RQDPDWWHURISXEOLF

concern far outweighs any interest that the State may have in censoring their testimony.

³7he notion that the State may silence the testimony of state employees simply because

that testimony is contrary to the interests of the State in litigation or otherwise, is

DQWLWKHWLFDOWRWKHSURWHFWLRQH[WHQGHGE\WKH)LUVW$PHQGPHQW´+RRYHUY0RUDOHV, 164

F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 1998).

94. 7KH3ROLF\IXUWKHUYLRODWHV3ODLQWLIIV¶)LUVW$PHQGPHQWULJKWVEHFDXVHLWV

vague terms give Plaintiffs no notice of what conduct is prohibited and lead to arbitrary

and viewpoint discriminatory enforcement.

95. Finally, tKH 3ROLF\¶V WHUPV DUH RYHUEURDG EHFDXVH WKH\ FDSWXUH D

substantial amount of protected speech.

25
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 92
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 26 of 27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

1. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing Defendants from

enforcing any policy or practice that provides the University discretion to

OLPLW3ODLQWLIIV¶DELOLW\WRXQGHUWDNHRXWVLGHDFWLYLWLHVRQDSDLGRUXQSDLG

basis, on the ground that the proposed activity is not aligned with the

³LQWHUHVWV´RIWKH6WDWHRI)ORULGDRUDQ\Rf its entities or instrumentalities;

2. 'HFODUDWRU\UHOLHIGHFODULQJXQODZIXO'HIHQGDQWV¶SROLF\RUSUDFWLFHWKDW

SURYLGHVWKH8QLYHUVLW\GLVFUHWLRQWROLPLW3ODLQWLIIV¶DELOLW\WRXQGHUWDNH

outside activities, on a paid or unpaid basis, on the ground that the

SURSRVHGDFWLYLW\LVQRWDOLJQHGZLWKWKH³LQWHUHVWV´RIWKH6WDWHRI)ORULGD

or any of its entities or instrumentalities;

3. 5HDVRQDEOHDWWRUQH\V¶IHHVDQGFRVWVDQG

4. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: November 15, 2021

Washington, D.C.

By:______________________
'$9,'$2¶1(,/SURKDFYLFH) PAUL DONNELLY
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Florida Bar No. 813613
801 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 500 LAURA GROSS
Washington, D.C. 20004 Florida Bar No. 858242
(202) 383-8000 CONOR P. FLYNN
daoneil@debevoise.com Florida Bar No. 1010091
Donnelly + Gross LLP
MORGAN A. DAVIS (SURKDFYLFH) 2421 NW 41st Street, Suite A-1
ALEXANDRA P. SWAIN* Gainesville, FL 32606
JAIME FREILICH-FRIED (SURKDFYLFH) (352) 374-4001
SAMUEL ROSH (SURKDFYLFH) paul@donnellygross.com

26
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 93
 Case 1:21-cv-00184-MW-GRJ Document 19 Filed 11/15/21 Page 27 of 27

SOREN SCHWAB (SURKDFYLFH) laura@donnellygross.com

KATHARINE WITTEMAN (SURKDFYLFH) conor@donnellygross.com
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(212) 909-6000
mdavis@debevoise.com
apswain@debevoise.com
jmfried@debevoise.com
sjrosh@debevoise.com
sschwab@debevoise.com
kwitteman@debevoise.com

*$SSOLFDWLRQIRUDGPLVVLRQSURKDFYLFH
IRUWKFRPLQJ

&RXQVHOIRU3ODLQWLIIV6KDURQ:ULJKW$XVWLQ0LFKDHO0F'RQDOG'DQLHO$
6PLWK-HIIUH\*ROGKDJHQ7HUHVD-5HLGDQG.HQQHWK%1XQQ

27
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 94
Smith,Daniel A

From: please-do-not-reply@ufl.edu
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 10:51 AM
To: Smith,Daniel A; AUSTIN,SHARON D
Subject: DOI00020370 UFOLIO Disapproved

This is an automated notification. Please do not reply to this email.

UFOLIO Disclosure Disapproved

Disclosure: DOI00020370

Discloser: Sharon Austin

Department: LS-POLITICAL SCIENCE

Entity: Advancement Project

Disclosure Type: Legal Consulting

Gary Wimsett reviewed the above referenced disclosure and disapproved this request.

Comments: Reasons:

Impermissible Conflict of Interest

UF will deny its employees’ requests to engage in outside activities when it determines the activities are adverse to its
interests. As UF is a state actor, litigation against the state is adverse to UF’s interests.

Gary Wimsett
Assistant Vice President, Conflicts of Interest

Click here to access the disclosure.

NOTE: This communication may contain information that is legally protected from unauthorized disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return
email and delete this message from your computer.

1
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 95
Smith,Daniel A

From: please-do-not-reply@ufl.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 3:29 PM
To: Smith,Daniel A
Subject: DOI00013593 UFOLIO Disapproved

This is an automated notification. Please do not reply to this email.

UFOLIO Disclosure Disapproved

Disclosure: DOI00013593

Discloser: Daniel Smith

Department: LS-POLITICAL SCIENCE

Entity: Demos & Perkins Coie

Disclosure Type: Legal Consulting

David Richardson reviewed the above referenced disclosure and disapproved this request for the following reasons:

Comments: Outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a
conflict for the University of Florida.

Click here to access the disclosure.

NOTE: This communication may contain information that is legally protected from unauthorized disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return
email and delete this message from your computer.

1
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 96
Smith,Daniel A

From: please-do-not-reply@ufl.edu
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 1:49 PM
To: Smith,Daniel A
Subject: DOI00019899 UFOLIO Disapproved

This is an automated notification. Please do not reply to this email.

UFOLIO Disclosure Disapproved

Disclosure: DOI00019899

Discloser: Daniel Smith

Department: LS-POLITICAL SCIENCE

Entity: Demos

Disclosure Type: Legal Consulting

David Richardson reviewed the above referenced disclosure and disapproved this request for the following reasons:

Comments: Outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a
conflict for the University of Florida.

Click here to access the disclosure.

NOTE: This communication may contain information that is legally protected from unauthorized disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return
email and delete this message from your computer.

1
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 97
Smith,Daniel A

From: please-do-not-reply@ufl.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 3:16 PM
To: Smith,Daniel A; McDonald,Michael
Subject: DOI00019897 UFOLIO Disapproved

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

This is an automated notification. Please do not reply to this email.

UFOLIO Disclosure Disapproved

Disclosure: DOI00019897

Discloser: Michael McDonald

Department: LS-POLITICAL SCIENCE

Entity: Arnold and Porter

Disclosure Type: Legal Consulting

Gary Wimsett reviewed the above referenced disclosure and disapproved this request.

Comments: Reasons:

Impermissible Conflict of Interest

UF will deny its employees’ requests to engage in outside activities when it determines the activities are adverse to its
interests. As UF is a state actor, litigation against the state is adverse to UF’s interests.

Gary Wimsett
Assistant Vice President, Conflicts of Interest

Click here to access the disclosure.

NOTE: This communication may contain information that is legally protected from unauthorized disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return
email and delete this message from your computer.

1
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 98
 October 13, 2021

Gary D. Wimsett
Brian J. Power
University of Florida
Conflicts of Interest Program
720 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 202
Gainesville, FL 32601

Via email: gwimsett@ufl.edu

brian.power@ufl.edu
panders@ufl.edu

Re: Professor Smith’s ability to serve as an expert

witness in litigation concerning SB90

4343 West Flagler Street Dear Assistant Vice President Wimsett and Director Powers,
Suite 400
Miami, FL 33134
(786) 363-2714 (Direct) I write concerning a time-sensitive and important matter of
dtilley@aclufl.org academic freedom. One of the University’s professors, Dr. Daniel A.
aclufl.org
Smith, informed me that he was recently denied the ability to serve as
Daniel Tilley an expert witness in litigation challenging a voter-restriction law
Legal Director
sometimes referred to as SB90. Specifically, his request was
disapproved on the grounds that “Outside activities that may pose a
conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create
a conflict for the University of Florida.” This is a breathtaking
admission that not only contravenes the most basic principles of
academic freedom but also violates Dr. Smith’s First Amendment
freedom to speak.1

The First Amendment prohibits the government from burdening

public-employee speech so long as: (1) the employee is speaking in
their capacity as a private citizen; (2) on a matter of public concern; and
(3) the employee’s interest in speaking, and the public’s interest in
receiving the employee’s speech, outweigh the government’s legitimate
interests as an employer. See, e.g., Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014);

1
Dr. Smith reserves all rights with respect to other grounds for overturning the denial—
for example, any violation of the collective bargaining agreement or University policy on conflicts
of interest).

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 99

 Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). I will address each element
in turn.
First, there is no question that Dr. Smith would be speaking in
his capacity as a private citizen, not as an employee of the University.

[T]he mere fact that a citizen’s speech concerns

information acquired by virtue of his public
employment does not transform that speech into
employee—rather than citizen—speech. The
critical question under Garcetti is whether the
speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope
of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely
concerns those duties.
Lane, 573 U.S. at 240. In other words, although Dr. Smith’s
testimony may relate to matters that he also teaches, he would
still be testifying as a citizen because testifying in court as an
expert witness is not part of his employment duties. Compare
Bott v. Bradshaw, 791 F. App’x 41, 45 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Unlike
the employee in Lane v. Franks whose ‘ordinary job
responsibilities did not include testifying in court proceedings,’
one of [Deputy Sheriff] Bott’s essential job duties entailed
providing testimony regarding her investigation of and
interaction with criminal defendants. And the Sheriff’s Office
paid Bott for the time she expended testifying in the defendant’s
bond revocation proceedings. Because Bott made her statements
pursuant to her official duties, she was not speaking as a citizen
for First Amendment purposes.”) (cleaned up). Dr. Smith would
be speaking as a citizen, not as an employee of UF.
Second, he would obviously be speaking on a matter of
public concern. Indeed, UF’s cited reason for denying the request
almost concedes as much. Governor DeSantis was a champion of
SB90, among other voter-restriction measures. The fact that
these measures have been highly controversial does not weigh
against Dr. Smith’s participation—quite the opposite, the
sociopolitical controversy around such measures merely
confirms that these are matters of the upmost public concern.
Third, Dr. Smith’s interest in sharing his important
perspective, and the public’s interest in better understanding the

Page 2 of 4
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 100
 operation of their own government, far outweigh any purported
contrary interest that UF might have. Even assuming a different
public employer would have any significant interest in
preventing employees from testifying as an expert in their
personal capacity, principles of academic freedom significantly
reduce the scope of the government’s legitimate prerogative to
police professors’ speech on matters of public concern.
Universities are places for open and vigorous debate, not
muzzling professors and students out of fear that a vindictive
governor may retaliate. Moreover, it is hardly clear that Dr.
Smith’s act of testifying would even conflict with the purported
principles of the executive branch. To the contrary, beyond
championing SB90 and being a prominent opponent of so-called
“cancel culture,” Governor DeSantis also championed multiple
pieces of legislation that he claimed were needed to protect the
principles of freedom of expression in the State of Florida.
Specifically, he secured the passage of an anti-“deplatforming”
bill and a bill that, in the Governor’s office’s own words,
“requires state colleges and universities to conduct annual
assessments of the viewpoint diversity and intellectual freedom
at their institutions to ensure that Florida’s postsecondary
students will be shown diverse ideas and opinions, including
those that they may disagree with or find uncomfortable.”2 In
other words (and while both of those laws suffer from their own
problems), it is actually by prohibiting Dr. Smith’s speech that
the University is contravening the repeatedly expressed free-
speech values of the State of Florida and its Governor. But
perhaps most importantly, UF simply should not be looking to
Governor DeSantis to decide which speech activities it will
permits its employees and students to engage in. That is precisely
the opposite of the values that universities are thought to stand
for.

Dr. Smith’s expert testimony would be given in his

capacity as a private citizen and would be on a matter of great
public concern. Moreover, his testimony would be crucial to the
public’s understanding of one of their most valuable rights—the
right to vote. I request that you immediately rescind the denial of

2
https://www.flgov.com/2021/06/22/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-to-set-the-
pace-for-civics-education-in-america/

Page 3 of 4
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 101
 Dr. Smith’s participation as an expert witness in the SB90
litigation and that you let me know by 8pm ET that you have
done so.

Sincerely,
Daniel Tilley

Page 4 of 4
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 102
Notes: Angela Kohnen Appendix 1.7
Meeting date: 9/28
3:30-5:00

Attendees: Glenn Good (COE Dean), Tom Dana (COE Associate Dean), Tina Smith-Bonahue (COE
Associate Dean), Chris Hass (Associate Provost for Academic and Faculty Affairs), Ester de Jong
(STL director), Erica McCray (SESPECS director), Alyson Adams (STL associate director), Chris
Busey (Associate Professor, STL), Angela Kohnen (Associate Professor, STL; FPC chair); Taryrn
Brown (Clinical Assistant Professor, STL); Travis Smith (Clincial Assistant Professor, HDOSE);
Elayne Colon (Director of Assessment and Accreditation)

This meeting was called to discuss curricular initiatives around race and antiracism that have
drawn the attention of university officials, specifically the proposed concentration “Critical
Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Education” (approved by the college, waiting at the
university) and the in-process master’s certificate on Anti-Black Racism in Education (the first
course of this proposed certificate has been held up at the college level)

Chris Hass began by making the following points:

• Mark Kaplan (UF Vice president, government and community relations) says that the UF
COE is being viewed favorably by the state and has been receiving lots of money—COE
is a “solution” to education in the state. He recommends that COE not raise any issues
that might jeopardize this relationship

• President Fuchs is serving at the pleasure of the board of trustees. He can be removed
at any time for any reason. Other state universities have been threatened with the
replacement of their president with a political appointment. Richard Corcoran (former
speaker of the FL house, current commissioner of the FLDOE) has been mentioned as a
replacement for removed presidents. Provost Glover also could be removed for political
reasons.

• Fuchs has not done what people want in terms of Covid—i.e., mask or vaccine
mandates—because of threats to his job. He is jeopardizing his legacy at UF so he can
remain in place. Neither Glover nor Fuchs are willing to be fired if the COE decides to
press the issue of anti black racism curriculum. All the consequences will be on Dean
Good or the college

• There is a fear if we push too hard that we will get a “Trump-style ban” in Florida

• Someone [who—this was unclear to me] has asked for all courses that have the word
“race” in the title to be examined. Students are weaponizing syllabi by sending them to
their representatives. A syllabus in computer science [is this right?] was mentioned as
having been the subject of attack for asking students to consider race, gender, and
inclusivity

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 103

 • At least we now know that Florida is racist. We may have suspected it before but now it
is known. Grew up here, knew it was the south, but is surprised by this

• Many departments/colleges are moving anything controversial out of the fall calendar
while the legislature is in session. There is a feeling that after budget allocations are
finished, it may be possible to move on other things. One center that wants to become a
department has delayed this request until the spring, in hopes of not drawing
controversy

• The specific combination of the words “critical” and “race” is a problem. The
comparison institutions we listed as having similar programs do not use those specific
words in combination. These words together are drawing attention. People are googling
them. “We” know that the legislature and these people don’t know what critical race
theory is, but they are looking for these words

• Recommended that we either 1) change the name of the concentration to remove the
word “critical”; and/or 2) not put the concentration forward until the spring; and/or 3)
not put the concentration or courses forward at all and continue doing the work to
“change the hearts and minds” of students without these specific courses or
concentrations

Questions/points raised by other attendees :

Kohnen: the students reached out and asked for this certificate and concentration. Students are
googling these things because they want to take these courses and have this concentration on
their transcripts. They are getting jobs to study these issues. These aren’t people who need
their hearts and minds changed. They are seeking out these topics

Hass: Not all programs use these terms, even the ones we list on the form

Busey: Why would we remove the word “critical”? all courses with “race” are being examined.
If we take out the word “critical” it will just be a new word later. The institutions who are ahead
of us in the rankings have these programs. Our students are getting jobs in these institutions.
UC-Berkley

Hass: they do not care about California. California was given as an example about covid policies
and the governor laughed. They want to be compared to California and to be doing the
opposite of California. They point to our state university system as being ranked number 1 in
the country by US News and World Report and say we don’t need to look at California

Adams: how do we expect to attract and retain faculty of color if this work is not valued? Why
would faculty in this meeting want to stay here

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 104

Hass: They don’t want these issues studied. “I don’t know how I can look at you and say you
shouldn’t look for another job.” The work is not valued here

Hass: something about teaching these things without the course titles. Do it without drawing
attention to it. Do you need to have the certificate or concentration for students to study these
issues?

De Jong: asks if we can teach the courses under special topics and not have the titles

Busey: Critical Race Theory in Education has already been approved, has a course number

Conversation turned to the certificate. The tenor of the conversation was that this was a
certificate that some faculty were pushing (although in reality this was a college-wide collective
initiative). Brown was mentioned repeatedly as if she was the one spearheading the efforts

[someone]: the point of the certificate was to draw from all three schools and to package the
courses together. Students asked for this. The college worked on this in response to George
Floyd. There was a sense that these would be marketable and would draw students. We spent
last year trying to make things more visible. We already have been doing these things at the
doctoral level, as it says in the proposal, but the concentration would give it visibility
purposefully. Now we are being asked to make them less visible

Hass: yes, this was also true last year in our meetings--we focused on diversity and inclusivity in
every meeting but that isn’t happening anymore

Smith-Bonahue: the first certificate course was held up at the college level because of this issue

Hass: made several comments where he used the pronoun “we”

Smith: I keep hearing “we” but right now there is no “we.” Was hired to be a critical scholar,
uses critical methodologies. Unless the administration will support this work, there is no “we”

Hass: something about feeling dirty for having to have this conversation

Hass leaves, COE faculty and administrators stay on

Agreement to schedule another meeting

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 105

 Appendix 2.0

A WAY FORWARD
UF Race Scholars on Support,
Obstacles, and the Need for
Institutional Engagement

Dr. Katheryn Russell-Brown

Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law &
Director, Race and Crime Center for Justice
Levin College of Law, University of Florida

Dr. Ryan Morini

Research Director
Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations
Levin College of Law, University of Florida

Fall 2021

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 106

 A WAY FORWARD
UF Race Scholars on Support,
Obstacles, and the Need for
Institutional Engagement

Dr. Katheryn Russell-Brown

Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law &
Director, Race and Crime Center for Justice
Levin College of Law, University of Florida

Dr. Ryan Morini

Research Director
Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations
Levin College of Law, University of Florida

Fall 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Review of UF Race Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Review of the Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Findings and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Wish List For Race Scholars and Race Scholarship . . . . . . . . . 22
Emergent Themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7 Recommendations For UF Race Scholars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
16 Recommendations For UF Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Cover image: May Picture (1925) by Paul Klee. Original from the MET Museum, made available in the public domain through a Creative Commons CC0 1.0
Universal Public Domain Dedication License, at https://www.rawpixel.com/image/2989115/free-illustration-image-paul-klee-color-abstract.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 107
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•1•
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This research project was designed to identify strategies and steps the
University of Florida (UF) can take to more effectively support faculty
whose work focuses on race or anti-racism. These steps can consider-
ably strengthen UF’s foundations for scholarship on race, an imperative
for a top-five public university that is also the state’s flagship academic
institution. This report is based on interviews with and survey responses
from UF faculty members whose scholarship focuses on issues of race or
anti-racism. The 39 faculty members who participated in the study rep-
resent a broad range of disciplines and colleges, spanning arts, human-
ities, social sciences, and STEM. Their responses draw on a wide range
of experiences that represent the complexities of a large institution. After
identifying and highlighting the concerns, perceptions, and thematic
suggestions raised by UF race scholars, the researchers identify 23 recom-
mendations for UF race scholars and campus administrators. This study
received funding from the UF Grant, “Advancing Racial Justice through
Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Access at the University of Florida,”
established by the Office of UF Research and the Office of the Chief Diver-
sity Officer.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 108
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•2•
 INTRODUCTION
In June 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police
officer Derek Chauvin, there were national and international civil rights
protests around the globe. In one response, University of
Florida president Kent Fuchs announced that he had directed Which paradigms and strategies
the UF Office of Research to make competitive grants available should the University of Florida
to faculty on topics including race, equity, justice, and reconcil- implement to support and
iation.1 UF faculty members were invited to submit proposals amplify faculty engagement
to the UF Racial Justice Research Fund for grants ranging from on racial justice and the Black
$15,000 to $75,000. Forty-five grants were submitted, and fol- experience?
lowing a peer review process, 16 were funded. UF had initially
set $400,000 as the amount of available grant funds. After the
positive responses to the solicitation, the Office of Research
increased the grant funds to $970,000, more than double the initial
amount. This grant funding opportunity is one of UF’s strongest recent
statements about the value of race-related scholarship and programming
at the university.

Dr. Katheryn Russell-Brown, director of the Center for the Study of Race
and Race Relations (CSRRR)2 and Dr. Diedre Houchen, the CSRRR post-
doctoral associate,3 submitted a proposal, “Building Faculty Capacity
to Develop Curriculum on Racial Justice Related to the Black Experience:
A Mixed-Methods Study.” The question at the core of the proposal was,
“Which paradigms and strategies should the University of Florida imple-
ment to support and amplify faculty engagement on racial justice and
the Black experience?”4 This research question aligns with UF’s mission
statement, which states that the “university welcomes the full exploration
of its intellectual boundaries and supports its faculty and students in the
creation of new knowledge and the pursuit of new ideas.”5 The proposal
was awarded $60,000 from the UF Racial Justice Research Fund.

In recent years, there has been a growing literature on how to build an

anti-racist university. Little of that research, however, has focused on

1 https://research.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020-RJcallFinal.pdf.
2 Dr. Russell-Brown was the CSRRR director from 2003 to 2021 and in Fall 2021 became the
director of the Race and Crime Center for Justice (RCCJ) at UF’s Levin College of Law.
3 Dr. Houchen was the CSRRR postdoctoral associate from 2016 to Spring 2021.
4 Earlier reports have addressed UF’s racial climate, usually focusing on student experiences.
See Rankin and Associates Consulting (2016); Baker et al. (2001); and Gonzalez et al. (1990).
5 https://catalog.ufl.edu/UGRD/administration/#missionstatementtext.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 109
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•3•
 the strategies for ensuring that a university can actively and structur-
ally support race scholarship. In this study, the term “race scholarship”
encompasses research, teaching, and curriculum development. In exam-
ining the question of what UF can do to support its race scholars and race
research, some people may wonder why this would be necessary. Why
would a university need to do something more or different for race schol-
ars than it would for scholars in other research areas?

Research addressing race, racism, and Blackness has long been a fraught
area of inquiry. This is especially true for scholarship that forthrightly
focuses on race and challenges common understandings of race, history,
and institutions. Research in these areas is bountiful yet largely unseen.
It has thrived at the margins of mainstream analyses of race. In contrast,
some race issues are never far from the center. This is true on college cam-
puses. For instance, in the aftermath of local or national racial incidents or
campus invitations to controversial speakers. At these times, race schol-
arship can become a national focal point. Thus, issues of race and racism
often occupy dual spaces in the academy: They are both muted and
hypervisible. Centering the work of race scholars and their scholarship is
necessary to overcome this visibility/invisibility paradox.

This report, written by Dr. Katheryn Russell-Brown and Dr. Ryan Morini6,
provides a detailed examination and analysis of the research findings.
The researchers have attempted to present and discuss these findings in
ways that are thoughtful, informative, and instructive for future applica-
tion. The researchers also offer context for interpreting and applying the
findings. Ideally, this report will foster dialogue and action among race
scholars and expand the lines of communication and support between
race scholars and the UF administration. Where possible, the report cites
material that may be of particular interest to race scholars and university
administrators. The report includes the following sections: Executive
Summary; Introduction; Review of UF Race Data; Review of the Liter-
ature; Research Methods; Findings and Discussion; Emergent Themes;
Recommendations; Conclusion; References; and Acknowledgments.

6 Research Director for the CSRRR (April to December 2021).

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 110
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•4•
 REVIEW OF UF RACE DATA
To provide some context for assessing UF race statistics, it is helpful to
consider the racial demographics of the state of Florida. As seen in Figure 1,
U.S. Census data for 2020 indicate the following racial breakdown for
Florida’s population of 23 million people: 53 percent White (but not His-
panic/Latinx), 26 percent Hispanic/Latinx, 17 percent Black, 3 percent
Asian, 0.6 percent Indigenous (including American Indian, Native
Alaskan, and Native Hawaiian) and Pacific Islander.7 Of this 0.6 percent,
0.5 percent is American Indian and Native Alaskan, and 0.1 percent is
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.

FIGURE 1: FLORIDA POPULATION BY RACE, 2020 (23 MILLION)

53% White 26% Hispanic/ 17% Black/ 3% Asian 0.6% Indigenous/

Latinx African American Pacific Islander

The most current statistics on race and UF faculty members are from
Fall 2020. The numbers in Figure 2 include information for 6,384 full and
part-time faculty members.8 The data cover all faculty at UF, of all ranks,
including lecturers, professors, librarians, and extension agents.

7 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/FL. It is noted that 2.2 percent of the population

reported having more than one race.
8 https://ir.aa.ufl.edu/uffacts/workforce/. This number does not include faculty members
who are identified as belonging to more than one racial group, those whose race was not
reported, or those categorized as “Nonresident alien.”

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 111
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•5•
 FIGURE 2: UF FACULTY BY RACE, 2020 (6,384 FULL AND PART-TIME)

67.6% White 8.1% Hispanic/ 4.4% Black/ 12.7% Asian 0.19% Indigenous/
Latinx African American Pacific Islander

Using state population as the baseline, the data show that Black, His-
panic/Latinx, and Indigenous/Pacific Islander faculty members are
statistically underrepresented at UF. For instance, Black people comprise
17 percent of Florida’s population, but only 4.4 percent of UF faculty
members. In other words, the percentage of Blacks in the state is almost
four times higher than the percentage of Blacks on the UF faculty. This
underrepresentation also exists for Hispanic/Latinx people, who com-
prise 26 percent of the state’s population, but make up only 8 percent of
UF faculty members. The percentage of Hispanic/Latinx people in the
state is over three times higher than the percentage of Hispanic/Latinx
UF faculty. Likewise, the percentage of American Indians and Native
Alaskans in Florida (0.5 percent) is more than three times greater than
their percentage on UF’s faculty (0.16 percent). The situation is similar for
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders, who comprise 0.1 percent
of the population of Florida, but only 0.03 percent of UF faculty.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 112
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•6•
 Figure 3 offers a more nuanced look at race and UF faculty status.9 The
table lists each racial group’s percentage for each faculty rank, which
includes lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor,
and distinguished professor.

FIGURE 3: UF FACULTY BY RACE AND RANK (2020) 10

Lecturer Assistant Associate Full Distinguished

(all ranks) Professor Professor Professor Professor

White 69.4% 51.1% 67.4% 77.1% 71.1%

Hispanic/
9.5% 7.6% 7.6% 6% 3.8%
Latinx
Black/African
6.6% 4.0% 4.3% 2.5% 0%
American

Asian 6.4% 16.4% 17.9% 12.2% 25%

Indigenous/
0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0% 0%
Pacific Islander

These data show that except for Asian faculty members, faculty of color
comprise a higher percentage of lower-tier faculty such as lecturers,
and a much lower percentage of senior-ranked faculty. Strikingly, there
has not been a Black/African American, Indigenous, or Pacific Islander
faculty member at the distinguished professor rank since at least 2011.
Further, UF has no full professors who identify as Indigenous or as Pacific
Islander. These data provide a snapshot of the demographic milieu within
which UF race scholars operate.

A look at race statistics for UF students allows for a more detailed under-
standing of the university environment for race scholars and scholarship.
In Fall 2020, 57,841 students were enrolled at UF, either part-time or

9 Column percentages do not add up to 100 percent because categories such as “Nonresident
alien” and “Two or more races” are not included here.
10 The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in Fall 2018, out of 832,119 full-
time faculty at US higher education institutions, 68.8 percent were White, 10.2 percent Asian,
5.5 percent Black or African American, 5 percent Hispanic or Latinx, while American Indian,
Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander combined accounted for approximately
0.5 percent. While UF’s Hispanic/Latinx faculty representation is higher than the national
average, UF’s Black faculty representation falls below the national average (13.5 percent) and
far below the population percentage in Florida (17 percent). See https://nces.ed.gov
/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_315.20.asp.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 113
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•7•
 fulltime—including professional, graduate, and undergraduate students.
Figure 4 provides the racial demographics for UF students.

FIGURE 4: UF STUDENT POPULATION BY RACE, 2020 (57,841)

51.8% White 20.4% Hispanic/ 5.9% Black/ 8.1% Asian 0.25% Indigenous/
Latinx African American Pacific Islander

Black, Indigenous and Pacific Islander students have the lowest repre-
sentation in proportion to the state population. In recent years a decline
in Black student enrollment has been a particular point of tension at UF.11
Race scholarship of the type that this study considers can help to address
why such a decline has occurred, further underscoring the importance of
supporting faculty who do this work as well as generating solutions for
stemming or reversing such declines.

The racial makeup of top-level university administrators offers another

contextual point of reference. The UF president’s cabinet, the Provost’s
Office, and the roster of UF deans include few people of color.12 Analysis
of the available information appears to indicate that upward of 80 percent

11 See https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/At-UF-black-students
-feel-a-reckoning-on-race-is-long-overdue_171057831/and https://www.gainesville.com
/opinion/20200527/where-are-all-black-students-at-uf.
12 University of Florida, president’s cabinet https://president.ufl.edu/cabinet/; University of
Florida, Provost’s Office, http://aa.ufl.edu/about-the-office/staff/.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 114
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•8•
 of upper-level positions are held by White people.13 A more comprehen-
sive assessment would include race data for all UF associate and assistant
provosts, as well as members of the UF Board of Trustees.

Factors that operate beyond the campus walls also affect race-related
academic inquiry. One recent example has been the national backlash
against race-focused curriculum and inquiry. This movement seeks to
ban the reading, teaching, and discussing of Critical Race Theory (CRT)
in particular, and analyses based on systemic racism more broadly. While
the primary focus of these attacks has been the curriculum in K-12 public
education, race studies and race scholars at postsecondary institutions,
such as the University of Florida, have been placed in the bull’s eye of
anti-CRT protests.14 Florida has sanctioned restrictions on instructors who
discuss or assign readings that address the histories of people of color and
U.S. colonialism. In 2021, the Florida State Board of Education passed a
“Required Instruction Planning and Reporting” rule, which includes the
following language:

Instruction… must be factual and objective, and may not suppress

or distort significant historical events… Examples of theories that
distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board
approved standards include the denial or minimization of the
Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory, meaning the
theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that
racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems
in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons. Instruction
may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define
American history as something other than the creation of a new
nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declara-
tion of Independence.15

13 This is an estimate based upon the available online information. The researchers were not
able to locate reported race data for UF administrators.
14 See https://www.wcjb.com/2020/08/20/uf-law-students-defend-online-critical-race-theory
-class-after-the-college-cancelled-it-for-the-fall-semester/.
15 See Required Instruction Planning and Reporting, 6A-1.094124, 3(b), https://www.flrules.org
/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=6A-1.094124/. Additionally, Florida legislation proposed in
September 2021, would expand the reach of anti-CRT legislation. The ban would make it
unlawful to teach CRT in public schools, colleges, and universities. It would also extend the
prohibition of CRT to municipal, county, and state agencies, as well as private contractors who
work for the state of Florida. Fla. HB 57 (2021): https://www.flsenate.gov/Session
/Bill/2022/57/BillText/Filed/PDF.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 115
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
•9•
 Nationally, twenty-six states have introduced anti-CRT bills. Twelve states
have bans that have already taken effect.16 These rules consign race schol-
arship to a kind of academic purgatory, based on an overly broad defini-
tion of CRT that potentially encompasses all race scholarship.

In the current climate, faculty members who conduct race-related

research face additional burdens. They must consistently evaluate
whether their teaching and scholarship run afoul of CRT legislation.
Ultimately, UF race scholars must engage in an existential inquiry: What
are the values and costs of studying and teaching about race and racism
and are they worth the risk?

A review of race data for UF faculty, students, and administra-

These rules consign race tors, and the state of Florida, provides context for evaluating
scholarship to a kind of academic the university’s support of race scholars and their research.
purgatory, based on an overly An assessment of the current social climate for this research
broad definition of CRT that also helps to situate the work of race scholars. This backdrop
potentially encompasses all race frames the comments and perspectives made by the faculty
scholarship. participants in this study.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A robust and growing body of literature investigates how universities can
become anti-racist institutions. Research on this topic typically centers on
one or more of the following six interrelated questions. One, where and
how does structural racism operate within institutions of higher learn-
ing?17 Two, what are the barriers to creating an anti-racist institution?18
Three, what practices and processes are necessary to create an anti-racist
university?19 Four, what are some strategies for adopting an anti-racist
curriculum at a predominantly White university?20 Five, what role should
institutional leaders play in initiating a culture of racial change at their
universities?21 Last, how can universities disrupt institutional practices

16 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06.
17 See Law (2017); Tate and Bagguley (2017); Welton, Owens, and Zamani-Gallaher (2018).
18 See Tate and Page (2018) and Tate and Bagguley (2017) (article argues that universities
operate in ways that legitimize “epistemologies of ignorance,” at 146).
19 See Gaudion (2021); Law (2017); Tate and Bagguley (2017).
20 See Brunsma, Brown, and Placier (2012); Gaudion (2021).
21 See Conway, Saidman-Krauss, and Schreiber (2021); Portugal (2006); Welton et al. (2018: 11-12).

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 116
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 10 •
 that reinforce and perpetuate longstanding racial disparities or points of
contention on campus?22

The existing studies meet at the intersection of two distinct literatures:

anti-racism and organizational change.23 This research is instructive,
seminal in fact, because it identifies the infrastructures that universities
must build to uphold race scholarship. However, deep voids are present in
the existing studies. Specifically, they do not fully investigate how univer-
sities can support faculty members who engage with race-related subject
matter in their teaching or in their research. The scholarship does not inves-
tigate the key role of college and university administrations and how they
can support faculty members who write and teach on racial topics, such as
African American studies, Indigenous studies, immigration, mass incarcera-
tion, Critical Race Theory, and Whiteness. The research does, however, offer
a framework within which to think about the individual and structural
needs of faculty whose scholarship and instruction involve race.24

RESEARCH METHODS
Participants were required to meet two eligibility requirements for the
research project. One, they had to be current members of the UF faculty.
For purposes of this study, “faculty” includes the following titles: adjunct,
lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Second,

22 See Grande (2018) and Leong (2013).

23 See Welton et al. (2018:2).
24 In the wake of George Floyd’s killing, scores of universities, in the United States and
abroad, issued statements expressing their commitment to racial justice, diversity, and
inclusion. Some of these statements included action plans and curriculum guides. See e.g.,
John Jay College of Criminal Justice (2021) “Culturally Responsive, Inclusive and Anti-Racist
Curriculum.” (2020). http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/sites/default/files/u1862/principles_for_a_
culturally_responsive_inclusive_and_antiracist_curriculum_adopted_by_college_council_
april8_2021.pdf; Select Penn State Presidential Commission on Racism, Bias, and Community
Safety—Recommendations (2020), http://perma.cc/7497-U4LH, https://dickinsonlaw.psu.edu
/important-university-report-dean-conway-co-authored-released-comment. For a discussion
of campus statements following Floyd’s killing, see Wesley, Dunlap, and Russell. (2021).

Several universities have adopted faculty-directed initiatives as part of a larger anti-racism
action plan. For instance, U.C. Berkeley’s $2.8 million Mellon Foundation grant provides
for research grants to researchers in African Americans Studies. (See https://news.berkeley.
edu/2021/01/15/berkeley-african-american-studies-awarded-2-8-million-grant-to-expand-
community-impact/.) Some colleges have identified the need to hire more professors who
teach race-related subjects. For instance, the University of Michigan has stated that it will hire
twenty additional faculty members, “who focus on anti-racism and justice scholarship.” It
has also created research seed grants for faculty members, to incentivize scholarship on anti-
racism. See https://lsa.umich.edu/ncid/antiracism-collaborative/funding.html.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 117
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 11 •
 they had to be currently engaged in either research or instruction that
focuses on race-related subjects, such as anti-racism or Blackness. All par-
ticipants were required to sign an informed consent form.

Data collection for this project took place during May and June 2021. The
two-tiered research design included interviews and questionnaires.25 The
researchers generated a list of UF faculty members known to be engaged
in race-related scholarship and/or curriculum. The list included a racially-
diverse group of faculty who represent more than a dozen academic
departments and several colleges. These faculty members varied widely
in their teaching positions, academic ranks, and time of employment at
UF. Participants included faculty members across a wide age spectrum,
different genders, and different sexual orientations.

After reviewing the list of faculty members, the researchers identified

nine people to invite for a discussion—an individual meeting or a small
group conversation. Small group interviews were scheduled for sixty
minutes, and individual interviews were arranged for thirty minutes. The
interviews were conducted using an online video recording platform. A
professional transcription service was used to prepare a written document
of the interview conversations. Interviewees were eligible to receive $50
electronic debit cards for their time and participation.

At the conclusion of each interview session, the researchers asked

interviewees to share the names of other UF faculty members who are
engaged in research or curriculum that addresses race, racism, anti-
racism, and/or Blackness. This inquiry was very helpful and yielded
the names of several faculty members who were not on the initial list
drafted by the researchers.

Questionnaires were sent via email to forty-eight faculty members who

were identified as meeting the criteria for participation.26 Participants
were given approximately three weeks to complete the survey and
received weekly email reminders. Qualtrics was used to create the web-
based five-item survey. The estimated time for completion of the open-
ended questionnaire was fifteen minutes. Participants were given

25 The initial research plan was to conduct a series of focus group discussions. However,
attempts to schedule six or more faculty members for a focus group meeting were
unsuccessful.
26 To avoid redundancy, questionnaires were not sent to faculty members who took part in
individual or group interviews.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 118
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 12 •
 information about the particulars of the survey and the grant. Each
person was offered a $25 electronic debit card as compensation for their
time and participation.

The individual and small group interviews were completed prior to dis-
semination of the questionnaires. These discussions aided the researchers
in preparing the questionnaire and interpreting the responses. A total of
thirty-nine people participated in this study (nine were interviewed and
thirty completed questionnaires). Of the faculty participants, eighteen
were Black, twelve were White, and nine were Latinx.

Response Rates and Confidentiality Concerns

As noted, 48 faculty members were invited to take the survey.
Of that number, 30 completed the questionnaire—a response rate
of 62 percent. Some faculty members informed the researchers
that they were hesitant to complete the survey for fear of being
identified and possibly retaliated against for any perceived crit-
icisms of the University of Florida. Notably, only 53 percent of
the faculty members who took the survey completed the form
required to receive the $25 gift card. Completion of the form
required name and contact information.27 To reduce the chances
of compromising anyone’s confidentiality in this report, when
quotes are used or references made to faculty members’ com-
ments, no information about the participant’s demographic
background or affiliation is included.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Individual and Small Group Interviews
The conversations with faculty race scholars offer layered reflections and
insightful strategies for UF to use to support these scholars and race-
related scholarship. Over the course of these discussions, common concerns

27 It was necessary to gather this information so that the researchers could keep track of grant
spending. Participants were informed that the contact information was separated from the
survey responses so that completing the form would not compromise the anonymity of the
survey responses.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 119
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 13 •
 and understandings emerged. The stories, information, and observations
coalesced around two focal points, discussed below.

INADEQUATE FOCUS ON RACE SCHOLARSHIP

Several faculty members commented that research on race is not a recog-
nized strength or an apparent interest by UF’s administration. One person
stated, “My fear is that our work [is going to be] ephemeral… that we do
our work and we just vanish.” Several participants said that their scholar-
ship does not appear to register on the UF radar. Some concluded that race
scholarship at UF does not have institutional heft or longevity. This work is
not considered part of the larger, important work that UF produces as an R1
university. One participant stated, “We need to talk about the long term.”
To do this, UF will need to create a structure that treats race-related research
and instruction as viable and integral to UF’s institutional mission.

The responses indicate that UF’s apparent disinterest in race

“My fear is that our work manifests in other ways. An example is the commissioning of
[is going to be] ephemeral... surveys that measure faculty climate, but then not applying
that we do our work and we the findings. Some faculty members noted that over the years,
just vanish.” the results from UF surveys have not translated into substan-
tive or lasting changes. Some wondered how, for instance,
UF uses reports from university committees, such as the UF
Faculty and Staff Climate Report.28 One faculty member asked, “[Do these
committees] really have an impact on campus or is this just a showcase
thing and we’ll forget about it next year?”

One participant said it is important for UF to signal that race scholarship

and race scholars have institutional value, beyond discussions about
national rankings or current events. This is particularly important in view
of the 2021 challenges to race-related research and curriculum, such as
Critical Race Theory.29 The research silos discussed next may be exacer-
bated by the fact that UF does not appear to treat race-related scholarship
as one of its research strengths or areas of emphasis.

DISCONNECTEDNESS, ACADEMIC SILOS, AND UNIVERSITY STRUCTURES

Several interviewees emphasized a need to establish a physical, collabora-
tive workspace for scholars who study and teach on race. Various names
were used to name this space, including a “Black Politics Institute,” an

28 Rankin and Associates Consulting (2016).

29 See discussion in “Review of UF Race Data.”

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 120
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 14 •
 “Anti-Racism Center,” and an “Ethnic Studies department.” Respondents
commented that this workspace should not be limited to a particular
college or department but serve the entire university. One faculty member
said, “It can’t belong to any one college, it has to cut across [UF] colleges
in the same way that racism cuts across all institutions of our society.” The
respondent continued, “UF needs to invest in a center, a meeting place, a
physical structure, staff, resources, so that there’s a clear intellectual hub. I
think that is key.”

Faculty respondents noted that UF has had institutional supports for

race-related teaching and research. The Samuel Proctor Oral History
Program and the Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations were
referenced by several faculty members as having provided key support
for race-related curriculum and programming. Faculty members also
observed that due to a variety of factors—including inadequate funding,
sparse staffing, lack of faculty lines, and targeted or circumscribed
program missions—existing centers and programs cannot address the
gaps in support for race-related faculty scholarship. The Institute for Black
Culture (IBC), the Institute of Hispanic-Latino Cultures (La Casita), and
the cluster hires in the African American Studies Program were also men-
tioned as forms of institutional support for race-related scholarship.

An overview of UF structures would address how the uni-

“UF needs to invest in a center,
versity could highlight race scholarship and curriculum. For
a meeting place, a physical
instance, the discussions pointed to a disconnect between
structure, staff, resources, so
UF’s existing online race/anti-racism content and content that
that there’s a clear intellectual
would be particularly useful to race scholars. UF has web-
hub. I think that is key.”
pages that address its recent anti-racism efforts.30 However,
most faculty respondents indicated that they were not aware
of these webpages and had no input in their creation or content.

Overall, the concerns raised in the interviews urge UF to be more proac-

tive, more transparent, and bolder in its support of race scholarship. The
recurring themes indicate that UF race scholars believe their work is mar-
ginalized and is not treated as part of UF’s core research.

The observations that emerged in the interviews offer useful organizing

principles for assessing which steps UF should take to build an institution
that fully supports race-related faculty scholarship and curriculum. The

30 See https://antiracism.ufl.edu/central-initiatives/history/.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 121
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 15 •
 responses to the questionnaires, discussed in the next section, echo and
illuminate these observations. Those responses detail why greater admin-
istrative engagement and support are essential, and the responses identify
specific forms of administrative support that would be beneficial.

B. Questionnaires
Five questions appeared on the online survey. What follows is a summary
of the responses to each question.

QUESTION 1 PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR WORK ON RACE AND/OR

ANTI-RACISM. WHAT ARE YOUR AREAS OF EXPERTISE?

UF has a deep well of faculty expertise on race-related topics. Faculty

members cited numerous research topic areas for their work on race,
including gender, class, technology, ability, slavery, sexuality, art, lan-
guage, law, sports, immigration, media, social movements, and religion.
Most respondents noted that their research and courses exist at multiple
intersections.

While this list is inclusive of topic areas referenced by survey participants,

it does not adequately capture the breadth and depth of race-related work
that UF scholars are doing. They are engaging in research that involves
analyses of institutional structures (e.g., educational systems, courts, and
political units); they are conducting studies that involve people from
various racial backgrounds; they are assessing how laws and practices
impact girls, women, and mothers; they are engaged in historical and
contemporary critiques of how systems work; and in some instances,
they are conducting cross-continent analyses of select behaviors. Faculty
also report various modes of research engagement, including qualitative
research, quantitative research, legal analysis, and theoretical develop-
ment and critique.

QUESTION 2 WHAT STRUCTURES OR FORMS OF SUPPORT EXIST AT UF

THAT HELP YOU WITH YOUR WORK ON RACE AND/OR ANTI-RACISM?

Formal Support
Most faculty respondents said that UF provides inadequate institutional
support for race-related research and curriculum. One person responded,
“I have not received any direct support from UF for this research.”
Another answered, there are “no structures.”

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 122
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 16 •
 Many participants said that there is scattered and limited support for their
work. This includes forms of assistance that have been made available at
the department, college, or university level. As one faculty member com-
mented, “In my areas of research, there is little to no research support
that exists beyond the general [college] support for UF faculty.” Several
people described receiving support from the university that was not spe-
cifically geared toward race scholarship. Examples include general faculty
grants made available from their department or college, summer stipends,
research assistance, and travel allowances for conferences. One respon-
dent said that allowing faculty members to have flexibility in their course
schedules is another form of general faculty support, which allows them to
prioritize their research on race.

Faculty members also referred to the efforts of several interdisciplinary

UF centers and programs that, though located within particular colleges,
also provide support or programming that is available to
individuals or units across campus. This includes the Samuel
Proctor Oral History Program, the Center for the Study of Race “In my areas of research, there
and Race Relations,31 the Center for Latin American Studies, is little to no research support
the Center for Humanities and the Public Sphere, and the that exists beyond the general
African American Studies Program. Additionally, a few people [college] support for UF faculty.”
said that they used resources from one of the special collec-
tions within UF’s library system.

Examples of campus-wide support include faculty-led workshops and

other forms of training, knowledge-sharing, and mentorship. Numerous
comments reveal that faculty have worked to create the forms of com-
munity and support they need. To the degree that these activities took
place within the university, they may technically qualify as “university
support.” However, because these activities are not embedded within
existing UF structures, they could justifiably be called “ephemeral”—the
term a faculty respondent used to describe temporary, non-institutionalized
practices.32 An example of this would be a one-time event or program that
does not impact the university’s long-term approach to race.

31 Several faculty members referred specifically to the CSRRR Course Development Grants.
These grants were designed to encourage and support the teaching of race-related courses
at UF. Funding was available to professors and doctoral students to teach upper-division
undergraduate courses on race. From 2008 to 2020, the CSRRR awarded more than twenty-
five course development grants. The grant recipients represented a wide range of disciplines,
including psychology, education, health services research, English, political science, African
American Studies, history, anthropology, and sociology.
32 See “Individual and Small Group Interviews,” in “Findings and Discussion.”

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 123
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 17 •
 Informal Support
In their comments about the types of support that are available at UF,
faculty members often compared the availability of formal and informal
assistance. Most faculty respondents stated that formal supports were few
and far between. One said, “I do not find UF to be genuinely supportive
of race issues.” Most scholars, however, referenced informal supports.
One person commented, “There is little structure at UF that helps support
my work. Fortunately, there is a small pool of faculty and graduate stu-
dents that share an interest in work on race and racism.” Another said,
“Network[ing] and supports from colleagues with similar expertise have
functioned as the primary support in my work on race/anti-racism.”

In the absence of strong and identifiable institutional aids for race-focused

scholarship and curriculum, race scholars have adopted numerous strat-
egies to engage in and bolster their work. As noted, many have initiated
successful informal supports to build community, such as workshops and
informal gatherings. Some have developed informal structures for peer
collaborations and mentorship. In the absence of systemic structures at UF
that support their work, faculty members (and each faculty cohort) who
do research on race or anti-racism are left to figure out their own academic
support structure. These makeshift adaptations, borne of necessity, have
been successful for many. However, they impose added layers of aca-
demic labor and usually no additional compensation. On this point, one
respondent shared:

I have not found structural supports for the kind of work that
challenges and seeks to transform institutional inequalities (pay
equity, disproportionate teaching and service loads, and com-
pensation for cognitive and emotional labor involved with doing
anti-racist work).

This comment underscores the observation that the university’s primary

assistance for race scholarship is in the form of generic support for tra-
ditional scholarship. At best, this approach provides superficial support
for race research. The absence of more substantive race-related resources
exacts a toll. For instance, the fact that there is no campus resource or
repository for race-related curriculum reduces the likelihood that UF
faculty can easily engage with cutting-edge theoretical and pedagogical
research on race. As one respondent said, “My department… provides
moral support, but I do not have structural support for teaching about
race.” Pedagogical preparedness is particularly important for faculty

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 124
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 18 •
 members who address fraught subject matter in the classroom. Faculty
responses make clear that it would be beneficial to students and faculty if
UF provided greater curriculum support for those who teach race-related
course content.33

QUESTION 3 DO ANY STRUCTURAL FEATURES AT UF HINDER OR

IMPEDE YOUR WORK ON RACE AND/OR ANTI-RACISM?

With notably few exceptions, the thirty respondents stated “To be free to do something is not
that there are existing structural features that hinder, impede, the same as being encouraged,
or do not support their research. This question drew strong supported, and honored for doing
and detailed responses. The answers point to a range of inter- particular work.”
related factors and processes at UF that impose roadblocks to
faculty scholarship and courses on race.

A number of respondents raised concerns about the administration’s

approach to issues involving race. Several suggested that UF sends clear
messages that it does not value race scholarship. One person said UF
shows “general neglect” toward race issues, while another described UF
as “basically indifferent” to race matters. Respondents detailed the impact
of what might be called “institutional malaise” toward race. A few faculty
members noted their academic freedom in pursuing race-related research.
However, as one person stated, “To be free to do something is not the
same as being encouraged, supported, and honored for doing particular
work.” Another faculty member said that the university’s climate sets the
tone for race scholarship:

As a non-tenured faculty member, I am hesitant to share certain

views and perspectives regarding race and structural racism
due to prevailing political tendencies that are evident at UF. I
do not feel open to share those perspectives… because of fear of
retribution during evaluation periods. This dynamic ultimately
impedes my work on race and anti-racism because I knowingly
hold back out of concern for my job security. In other words, I
often feel my freedom of expression and academic inquiry is
suppressed.

33 See Race, Education, and Pedagogy (REAP) Guide, compiled by the Center for the
Study of Race and Race Relations (2021), https://guides.law.ufl.edu/reap/positionality#s
-lg-box-25998174.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 125
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 19 •
 More than one person said that as a group, UF faculty members have
limited knowledge about race, anti-racism, or Blackness scholarship.
This dearth of knowledge means that those with expertise in these areas
pull the laboring oar in terms of educating colleagues and assisting the
administration when it must respond to campus race issues. One faculty
member commented, “Structurally the lift for those few who have exper-
tise is exhausting.”

Further, assessing the institutional climate includes evaluating how the

university treats its current and past race scholars, and its commitment
to build a team of race scholars. One respondent, referencing the depar-
ture of race scholars Dr. Ibram Kendi and Dr. Faye Harrison, said that
UF has “an inability or refusal to hire and maintain faculty [who] can
build a critical mass for teaching, research, and publishing in the fields
of race and anti-racism.”

Several people noted that external factors also impact the

“Structurally the lift for those viability of their scholarship and instruction. The attacks
few who have expertise is on Critical Race Theory were cited by several respondents
exhausting.” as having an impact on their academic work. One faculty
member commented, “Politics in the state of Florida—and
the university’s acquiescence to such politics—may soon
make any scholarship and teaching about race and racism impossible if
not illegal.” Another said UF has shown “public cowardice” in pushing
back against assaults on race scholarship which “impedes our ability
to recruit, retain and do this work. Thank goodness for tenure. But not
everyone has tenure.”

Many faculty members expressed concern about the vulnerability of

faculty who are engaged in race scholarship. One person said, “Scholars
conducting work on racism are being heavily surveilled and I do not get
the sense that the school will protect them.” Another person
stated, “UF does not have the backs of those they rely on to
“Politics in the state of burnish their image.”
Florida—and the university’s
acquiescence to such politics— Overall, the comments strongly suggest that race scholar-
may soon make any scholarship ship is neither celebrated nor protected—simply tolerated.
and teaching about race and Further, administrative silence mutes race research and
racism impossible if not illegal.” curriculum. There is no clear structure within which the
university assigns credit to faculty conducting anti-racism
work (such as service, scholarship, or curriculum develop-

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 126
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 20 •
 ment). This is particularly notable in a socio-political climate in which
race scholarship is under a national microscope. The comments of race
faculty point to the irony of the university being silent about attacks on
research that was created within university walls.

QUESTION 4 IF YOU COULD CREATE A WISH LIST OF THINGS THAT

UF COULD DO OR CREATE TO SUPPORT RACE AND/OR ANTI-RACISM
SCHOLARSHIP, WHAT WOULD BE ON THE LIST (E.G., SPECIFIC
STRUCTURES, INCENTIVES, RESOURCES, ORGANIZATIONS, POLICIES,
PROGRAMS, OR OTHER FORMS OF SUPPORT)?

Faculty members provided their most extensive responses to this ques-

tion, and most offered several items for the Wish List, which they often
framed as interrelated and cumulative.34 The list as presented on pages
22 and 23 is pared down from more than 125 suggestions and ideas.
Many of the items on the list were mentioned by multiple participants.
Overall, the Wish List items are a detailed portrait of the labor, time,
and energy expended by race scholars. The vast majority appear to be
directed toward UF’s upper administration and college deans, and they
are all framed specifically around race scholars, race scholarship, and
anti-racism. Entries that refer to “faculty” should be understood to refer
to faculty race scholars.

The Wish List includes a broad range of items, some of which were men-
tioned multiple times. This includes the need for more support and rec-
ognition of race scholarship, the need for UF to demonstrate a clear and
unequivocal commitment to race scholarship and anti-racism, and the
need for dedicated university physical space to support race scholarship
for the entire UF community. The list includes some actions that race
scholars themselves can engage in as well as steps UF can take to engage
with and bolster race-related scholarship. One of the most unifying
threads that faculty expressed in their responses, both in the survey and
the interviews, is the need for campus-wide resources and units designed
to support faculty and race scholarship across UF colleges.

34 In addition to inclusion on the questionnaire, faculty members who were interviewed were
also asked to identify items for the Wish List. The interview responses are incorporated into
the Wish List items in Figure 5.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 127
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 21 •
FIGURE 5:
WISH LIST FOR RACE SCHOLARS AND RACE SCHOLARSHIP
General Institutional Principles and Imperatives
k Involve UF faculty of color and race scholars in creating support structures
k Audit colleges and departments on tenure and promotion statistics regarding race scholars
k Protect and support faculty and race scholarship vis-à-vis state politics
k Recognize that investing in diversity deans is not a substitute for investing in faculty race scholars
k Identify and address race-related structural inequities
k Allow race experts to guide requisite administrative changes on race
k Generate a long-term plan emphasizing people (not just their work) and a transformation of institutional culture
k Create a directory of race scholars, scholarship, and campus resources
k Staff a centralized hub to highlight new race scholarship by UF faculty and advertise events
k Use what UF has done with artificial intelligence as a model for supporting race scholarship
k Redesign policies to be proactive rather than reactive in relation to race and anti-racism
k Actively review the successes of racial justice projects and identify meaningful next steps

Recruitment and Retention of Race Scholars

k Prioritize pay equity for UF faculty, do not underpay Black faculty
k Commit to a recruitment plan to increase faculty lines for race scholars
k Create an endowed chair on race, which could rotate through different departments
k Improve access to databases and archives crucial to race-related scholarship
k Fund research grants, conference travel, and curriculum development

Material Recognition and Support of Race Scholarship

k Identify incentives for additional mentoring and service work tied to race scholarship (e.g., course releases, leaves,
pay increases)
k Create incentives and operating budgets for faculty who spearhead university-level initiatives
k Add specific language in tenure/promotion evaluations that credits extra work (e.g., community engagement)
required in race scholarship
k Offer awards for outstanding race-related scholarship (with funding)
k Support race faculty, especially women of color, against unfair or retaliatory course evaluations
k Recognize that qualitative research is as valuable as quantitative research

Curriculum and Teaching

k Provide time and resources for instructors to learn anti-racist pedagogies
k Assess current curriculum and teaching through an anti-racist lens
k Require specific language on syllabi regarding race and anti-racism
k Fund ongoing course development grants; encourage team teaching with full funding
k Require that all students have coursework that addresses race and anti-racism

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 128
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 22 •
Funding or Strengthening Support Units—Centers and Departments
k Increase faculty lines, postdocs, graduate assistantships, fellowships, and undergraduate research support
k Establish faculty funds for competitive grants for research or travel
k Make funds available for visiting scholars, conferences, and lecture series with global analysis of race
k Continue building up African American Studies and other units with race scholars
k Provide more support for Latinx Studies
k Create a center for race scholarship, with a dedicated building and campus-wide mission
k Support organizations or resources that help UF race scholars network and collaborate
k Create an organization for anti-racist faculty
k Support faculty colloquia, forums, dialogues, or other gatherings that rotate among colleges

Professional Development
k Provide mentors from outside race scholars’ department
k Establish more programs that build on the success of “Academics for Black Lives”35
k Have annual workshop series on race and racism with campus-wide call for proposals
k Mandate anti-racist workshops for all instructors
k Make more counseling and related support programs available for instructors of color
k Support programs on contemporary race topics, such as state-sponsored education bills
k Acknowledge mental health toll of engaging in race scholarship
k Support annual retreats that allow faculty to share and evaluate ongoing work and plan collaborations

Addressing UF’s Ongoing Legacies of Racism and Inequity

k Have serious deliberation on renaming buildings
k Investigate UF’s historic ties to slavery and prisons
k Abolish campus police
k Join the Universities Studying Slavery Initiative36

Campus and Community Engagement

k Support research projects in Gainesville designed to benefit communities of color
k Fund studies of Black and Indigenous histories in Gainesville
k Improve town-gown relations, via off-campus presentations and dialogues
k Support outreach to area high schools
k Establish funds to compensate community experts for speaking on campus (in classes or at events)

35 See Academics for Black Survival and Wellness Program, co-founded by Dr. Della Mosley, former UF faculty member, and
Pearis Bellamy, UF graduate student. https://www.academics4blacklives.com/.
36 https://slavery.virginia.edu/universities-studying-slavery/.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 129
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 23 •
 QUESTION 5 HAVE YOU INTERACTED OR COLLABORATED WITH
OTHER RACE AND/OR ANTI-RACISM SCHOLAR(S) AT UF? IF SO,
WHICH DEPARTMENT(S) OR COLLEGE(S) WERE THEY FROM?

Almost all respondents indicated that they had communicated or collab-

orated with scholars outside of their department or college. One faculty
member observed that opportunities for collaboration are “difficult to
find, establish and maintain.” In total, faculty members referenced seven
of UF’s sixteen colleges as academic spaces for interaction or collabora-
tion with peers. The colleges named were Agricultural and Life Sciences,
Arts, Education, Engineering, Journalism and Communication, Law, and
Liberal Arts and Sciences. Respondents also referenced their collabora-
tions with the Smathers Libraries and the Institute of Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences. In some instances, faculty indicated that they worked with
colleagues from more than one college or department on campus.

EMERGENT THEMES
This section identifies the five key themes that emerged from the faculty
interviews and survey responses. These topics demonstrate the connect-
edness of university structures, priorities, and practices and how they
affect UF race scholars. Unpacking the themes provides a skeletal outline
for next steps the race scholars and the UF administration might under-
take to advance race scholarship.

5 KEY THEMES THAT EMERGED FROM THE FACULTY

INTERVIEWS AND SURVEY RESPONSES

1 Insufficient Engagement with Race

One of the most salient themes to emerge from the research is the concern
that UF is neither interested in nor concerned with race scholarship. As
an example, some respondents noted that research on race, anti-racism,
or Blackness has not been the focus of high-level fundraising at the uni-
versity. Further, while the topic of race intersects with a vast number of
other subject areas, it has not been chosen as the focal point of a well-
funded campus-wide project, such as UF’s 2020 initiative on artificial
intelligence.37 The concern is that race scholars (and their work) are more

37 https://ai.ufl.edu/.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 130
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 24 •
 likely to receive attention in response to external events, rather than being
viewed as part of the university’s core research mission. One interpreta-
tion of how this reality impacts race scholars is that it creates
a largely sub rosa existence for their research. This is ironic
given that race-related matters command a sizeable share Faculty members were surprised
of the public discourse—including policing, eviction mora- to learn that more than fifty
toriums, incarceration, and access to healthcare during the scholars are engaged in race
COVID-19 pandemic. As well, UF often relies on faculty race research at UF.
scholars for the university’s ongoing work on diversity, equity,
and inclusion.

2 Absence of Connectedness
Respondents consistently brought up the need for academic connection.
A few people said they do not have direct contact with other researchers
engaged in race or anti-racism work. In the interviews, several faculty
members were surprised to learn that more than fifty scholars are
engaged in race research at UF.

Responses also emphasized a need for greater institutional emphasis on

collaboration between units and across colleges, in place of what can seem
like competition between them. Several study participants brought up
policies and other structural impediments that disincentivize or otherwise
make it difficult to team-teach, cross-list courses, or develop new courses.
This concern is heightened when funding structures encourage depart-
ments or other units to be territorial about subject areas in
curriculum. Faculty members would like to move beyond silos
and develop a larger intellectual community. Some are inter- “I am wondering what
ested in more opportunities for cross-disciplinary collabora- institutional capacities we
tions, such as an annual symposium on race scholarship at UF, have to respond to the recent
a retreat for race scholars, and informal gatherings. The com- attacks on academic freedom
ments make clear that race scholars would welcome greater but also on our very identities as
administrative aid in connecting with other race scholars and educators.”
their work.

3 Lack of Institutional Protection

Many faculty members said they are concerned about the heightened tensions
around race-related scholarship in the academy. One person commented:

This is a very difficult time to be an educator in the state of

Florida. I am wondering what institutional capacities we have to
respond to the recent attacks on academic freedom but also on

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 131
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 25 •
 our very identities as educators. If we cannot teach about race in
relation to American and global politics, what can we teach?

Several people noted that faculty who focus on race have become increas-
ingly vulnerable. There was general agreement that UF should do more
to provide active and vocal support for race scholarship. More pointedly,
several of the comments centered on the need for protection. There is a
general sense that UF faculty members who study race do so at their own
peril. UF’s silence in the face of attacks on race scholarship has caused
many of the faculty members who took part in the study to question the
university’s commitment to this work. For instance, some said, the uni-
versity has not provided any public or private assurances to race schol-
ars—either that their jobs are safe or that the university will stand up for
them if their scholarship is subject to a challenge. This issue poses acute
concerns for untenured faculty members.

4 Need for Greater Institutional Supports
Numerous participants indicated that UF should do more to support and
bolster race-focused research. Faculty feedback included a range of ways
that the administration could signal that research on race, anti-racism,
and Blackness matters. Some referenced making more funds available for
conducting research, hosting an annual race symposium, and bringing
renowned race scholars to campus.

Others identified structural changes, such as fostering and embedding

lines of communication between campus race scholars. One suggestion
made by several faculty members is that UF should have an upper-level
administration point person who is knowledgeable about race scholarship
and who would be charged with addressing the concerns identified by
race scholars. Another shared idea is to establish substantial dedicated
physical space to foster collaborations across departments and colleges,
such as publications, workshops, and lectures. This work would enhance
and amplify ongoing race scholarship. The conversations on this topic
again raised the issue of ephemerality. As noted earlier, one faculty
member expressed worry that once race scholarship is completed, it dis-
appears. Based on the comments, the ideal forms of institutional support
would allow UF race scholarship to “live”—by ensuring that support is
long term and baked into UF’s academic structure.

Respondents referenced several successful programs at UF that have

enhanced race scholarship and teaching. This includes the Samuel Proctor

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 132
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 26 •
 Oral History Program’s annual trips to the Mississippi Delta
and the Course Development Grants, sponsored by the Center Ideally, UF will invest in more
for the Study of Race and Race Relations. A faculty respon- programs that support race
dent observed that amplifying research and teaching on race scholarship so that it becomes
could be a powerful recruiting tool for attracting students and a recognized strength—not a
faculty to UF. problem—at the university.

5 Reactive Responses to Race Issues

This theme cuts across the others discussed earlier. It is listed separately
to underscore its importance. The faculty comments suggest that UF’s lack
of rigorous engagement with race, its largely non-vocal support of race-
related scholarship, and the lack of sufficient structural supports for race
and anti-racism work indicate that UF mostly reacts to race issues and
problems (such as the reactions after the killing of George Floyd). Ideally,
one commenter notes, UF will invest in more programs that support race
scholarship so that it becomes a recognized strength—not a problem—at
the university.

The next chart offers a visual synopsis of the interview comments, ques-
tionnaire responses, and emergent themes. The graphic shows the inter-
play between the suggestions and observations that UF faculty shared
in this study. The center of the graphic highlights three key institutional
investments. The outer edges of the circle describe the mutual benefits—
for race scholars and UF at large—that may result from these investments.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 133
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 27 •
 FIGURE 6: POTENTIAL IMPACT OF WISH LIST ITEMS ON UF COMMUNITY

Reduce
faculty
isolation

Enrich
student Enhance
educational recruitment
environment efforts

1. Central Campus
Support Reward
Increase community
collaboration 2. Physical Space
engagement
3. Online Resources

Increase Enhance
publication curriculum
opportunities development

Promote
cross-
disciplinary
fertilization

Now that the faculty responses have been described and assessed, the
next section addresses what should be done. The answer is presented in
the form of recommendations. These recommendations engage both UF
faculty and the UF administration in addressing the identified concerns.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 134
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 28 •
 RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations are drawn from the comments, insights, requests,
and realities described by 39 UF race scholars who participated in this
study. These items incorporate and highlight the recurring
themes that emerged from the interview discussions and
questionnaire responses. There was broad overlap and con- Implementing these suggestions
vergence among the faculty members regarding the steps UF could position UF as a strong
should take to support race scholars and scholarship. Notably, academic leader in race and
the suggestions cohere with UF’s mission “to welcome the anti-racism scholarship and
full exploration of its intellectual boundaries,” and in doing
38
instruction.
so, may enhance both faculty and student recruitment efforts.
The recommendations offer nascent blueprints for UF to build a
powerhouse of race scholars and scholarship. Implementing these sugges-
tions could position UF as a strong academic leader in race and anti-racism
scholarship and instruction. This would be a powerful mantle for UF, a
flagship university in the American South.

Two lists of recommendations appear here. The first offers action items
for UF faculty whose scholarship or teaching focuses on race. The
second list offers concrete steps that UF can take as an institution to
facilitate, embed, and protect race scholarship. These dual and com-
plementary lists acknowledge that the work required to enhance and
amplify race scholars and scholarship involves the faculty members
themselves and a greater investment by the university. Developing and
sustaining synergy between the faculty and the university are essential
to achieve these transformative changes.

38 https://catalog.ufl.edu/UGRD/administration/#missionstatementtext.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 135
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 29 •
 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR UF RACE SCHOLARS
1 Form a Working Group of Race Scholars
The group would be open to all UF faculty who engage in research or
teaching on race-related subjects. The group would include scholars
whose work examines one or more racial groups; the impact of systems
and practices on particular racial groups; race-related theories; those
who use varied methods of inquiry, such as qualitative, quantitative, or
legal analysis; and those focused on pedagogical issues. The objective of
a working group would be to create a forum for race scholars interested
in discussion, collaboration, and research. Through this collaborative
process, the group might also develop a network, directory, and e-mail
list of race scholars, or another well-considered and appropriate means
of facilitating networking and collaboration.

2 Identify Race-Related Courses

A list of UF courses that focus on race, by department and frequency
of course offering, would provide insight into how race is utilized and
embedded across the UF curriculum. This information would provide
a baseline and guidance on how and where race issues and race-related
subjects could be integrated in courses.

3 Identify Potential Race-Related Courses

Once information is gathered on existing race-focused courses, race
scholars and others can determine other courses that UF can offer to
strengthen its curricular base on race-related subjects. A useful list
would specify which college(s) would offer the course, the course level
(e.g., undergraduate or graduate), and how often the course should
be offered. Discussions about this list might also address whether UF
should either mandate a course on race or propose an optional race cur-
riculum for students.39

39 See CSRRR webinar, June 25, 2020, “Should Colleges Mandate a Race/Anti-Racism Course?”
https://www.law.ufl.edu/csrrr-events/should-colleges-mandate-a-course-on-race-anti-racism.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 136
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 30 •
 4 Draft Model Syllabus Language on Race
Recommendations for syllabus language would help faculty members
set ground rules in anticipation of potentially charged classroom con-
versations on race and anti-racism. Adding language to course syllabi
that addresses race and classroom dynamics sends a strong message
that even though talking about race may be difficult, it is important and
encouraged in academic settings.

5 Create a Faculty Mentoring Program

This program would match junior faculty with senior faculty. A peer
mentoring program would create another opportunity for collabora-
tion and connection. Faculty pairings could be made within and across
departments and colleges.

6 Create an Anti-Racism Faculty Organization

Some faculty members expressed interest in meeting and working with
other faculty members interested in anti-racism teaching and scholar-
ship. Faculty members who do not conduct research or teach about race
might also be interested in such an organization.

7 Host an Annual Conference on Race Scholarship

An annual symposium on UF race scholarship would encourage
cross-campus collaborations. It would also amplify the research of UF
race scholars.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 137
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 31 •
 16 RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR UF ADMINISTRATION
1 Enhance the Sustainability of Race Scholarship
Identify strategies to bolster and support race-related scholarship and
teaching. This can be done by developing a multi-year strategic plan
that addresses the specifics of how UF will encourage, promote, and
advance race scholarship. Ideally this would include a timeline for
goals, intermittent review, and assessment of strategies.

2 Use the Expertise of UF Race Scholars

UF has more than fifty faculty members who research or teach on
race-related subjects. These faculty members have a wealth of knowl-
edge and expertise on race-related subject matter and curriculum. The
university is encouraged to partner with these faculty members as deci-
sions are made that impact the growth and development of race scholar-
ship on campus, including faculty recruitment and retention.

3 Offer More Resources to Race Scholars

The specific demands of race scholarship are sometimes difficult to
meet under existing funding structures at UF. This is particularly true
for qualitative research methods, and community-engaged research.
Types of support the university could offer include competitive grant
funding, stipends, research assistance, conference travel funds, and
course releases. Faculty who are asked to lead large-scale committees,
projects, or initiatives about race at UF should receive compensation of
some kind.

4 Revive the Course Development Grants

Provide incentives for faculty and graduate students to develop new (or
revitalize) upper-division undergraduate race-focused courses. Encour-
age departments to regularly offer courses on race at graduate and
undergraduate level.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 138
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 32 •
 5 Continue the UF Racial Justice Research Fund
Allotting university funding for race-related scholarship sends a
message that UF values this research. Further, such funding amplifies
the research of UF race scholars and encourages synergies across
departments and colleges.

6 Incentivize Faculty Incorporation of Race in Course Curriculum

UF can implement incentives that will encourage faculty members who
do not have race-related expertise to incorporate race issues into their
curriculum. Stipends, service credit, and academic recognition are some
examples. Ideally, campus resources, such as the Center for Teaching
Excellence, would have staff members with expertise on race and ped-
agogy who can advise and work with faculty as they design and rede-
sign courses.

7 Increase Racial Diversity in UF Administration

Faculty respondents consistently noted that few people of color hold top
positions at UF. There is a concern that the racial homogeneity in UF’s
upper administration reflects a lack of diverse viewpoints about the
types of scholarship that are important. Ideally UF would always have
at least one top-level administrator (e.g., associate provost, vice provost,
or above) who is a race scholar.40 To be effective, this person should have
administrative and financial authority to institute needed changes.

8
Implement Targeted Resources for Race Scholars and Scholarship
In some instances, discussions about race-related scholarship overlap with
conversations about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). While there are
some areas of convergence, funding and supporting scholarship on race
are distinct from programs and initiatives designed to address DEI issues.
Faculty comments make clear that UF’s investment in diversity deans, for
instance, is not a substitute for investment in faculty race scholars.

40 This is different from the chief diversity officer position.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 139
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 33 •
 9 Increase the Pipeline for Race Scholars and Scholarship
The university can take additional steps to integrate race scholars and
scholarship. More can be done to facilitate, support, and highlight race
scholarship across UF’s colleges, departments, and units. For instance,
creating more race-related post-doctorates, graduate assistantships, and
fellowships will increase the number of campus scholars engaged in
race-related studies and bolster their work.

10 Broaden Access to Race-Related Databases

Faculty members discussed a range of ways the university could
provide stronger support for their scholarship. One idea is to have the
university subscribe to more digital archival databases that would be
useful to race scholars. Faculty members and administrators can work
together to identify a list.

11 Create Webspace for UF Race-Based Scholarship

Expand and prioritize university webspace and social media promo-
tion for race-related scholarship and activities on campus. One option
is to expand UF’s anti-racism webpages to include this material.
Ideally this information, including upcoming events (e.g., lectures and
symposia) and recently published research would be accessible from
the UF homepage.

12 Dedicate a Building for Race Research and Collaboration

There was wide-ranging support for establishing a campus hub for
race research. Primarily this space is envisioned as a set location for
race scholars to gather, share, collaborate, discuss, and critique works
in progress.

13 Establish an Endowed Chair on Race

One idea is to institute an endowed chair on race, racism, and anti-racism.
This would be the first of its kind at UF and would signal that race
scholarship is an essential area of research expertise for a top-five U.S.
public university. Establishing this position would present a major fund-
raising opportunity for the university.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 140
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 34 •
 14 Protect Race Scholars
Numerous faculty members said their race-related research and teach-
ing are under attack. As a result, many are concerned about the viabil-
ity of their work in the current academic climate. For instance, state-
ments of public support that the university recognizes race as an area
of serious academic inquiry would send a strong message to UF race
scholars, the campus community, and beyond. Further, the university
should ensure that researchers who examine race are not penalized
(e.g., during the promotion and tenure process or annual reviews) for
their research and teaching. This includes offering protection against
retaliatory or unfair course evaluations.

15 Initiate an Annual Award for Race Scholarship

An annual award for race scholarship would underscore the impor-
tance of this area of academic research. For instance, the award could
honor a publication, project, or other initiative. Ideally the award
would include a stipend or other resource to aid further research.

16 Enhance Town-Gown Relationships

Many faculty members support an expanded investment in town-
gown relationships. This includes support for research that encourages
campus engagement with local communities, particularly communities
that have historically been denied access to UF. Community experts
should be invited to campus to share their knowledge directly with the
UF community—and they should be fairly compensated for their time
and energy. Additionally, addressing UF’s contemporary and historical
relationships to the surrounding community should be a significant
ongoing priority for research, teaching, and community engagement.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 141
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 35 •
 CONCLUSION

This report highlights the experiences, perceptions, and insights of
UF faculty members whose research or teaching focuses on race. The
faculty respondents detail why UF should make a targeted, foundational
investment in race scholarship. Most strikingly, members of this group
spoke with one voice, offering variations on the themes of collaboration,
support, and protection. The researchers have distilled these findings
into twenty-three recommendations that set forth the necessary steps for
UF to take to meet this moment. UF has a strong, committed, and envi-
able core of faculty who have wide and deep expertise on race-related
subject matters. A renewed investment in race scholarship by UF has the
potential to bear rich academic fruit for the UF community—including
increased scholarly production, greater success with student and faculty
recruitment, and an improved campus climate. In the words of one
faculty member, “Hopefully UF will find ways to bring together an intel-
lectual community so that [race] scholars who have allied interests don’t
feel a sense of isolation but rather connection.” UF is one of the nation’s
top public universities. It has the talent and the resources, and with this
report, a roadmap for change. Hopefully UF will demonstrate that it has
the will to make a way forward.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 142
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 36 •
 REFERENCES
Baker, Gail F., Brian Dassler, Carlton Davis, Ed Delgado-Romero, Sheila
Dickison, Lisa Diekow, Javier Ley-Soto, Bob Miller, and Mike Powell.
(2001). “Committed to Community: University of Florida Campus
Climate Committee Report.” Administrative Policy Records of
the University of Florida Office of the President, Special and Area
Studies Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Brunsma, David, Eric S. Brown, and Peggy Placier. (2012, September 11).
“Teaching Race at Historically White Colleges and Universities: Iden-
tifying and Dismantling the Walls of Whiteness.” Critical Sociology,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0896920512446759.
Conway, Danielle M., Bekah Saidman-Krauss, and Rebecca Schreiber.
(2021, March 13). “Building an Antiracist Law School: Inclusivity in
Admissions and Retention of Diverse Students—Leadership Deter-
mines DEI Success,” Rutgers Race and the Law Review, forthcoming
(see https://ssrn.com/abstract=3804022 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3804022).
Fuchs, Kent. (2020, June 18). “Another Step toward Positive Change
Against Racism.” UF Statement, http://statements.ufl.edu/state-
ments/2020/june/another-step-toward-positive-change-against-
racism.html.
Gaudion, Amy C. (2021, March 15). “Exploring Race and Racism in the
Law School Curriculum: An Administrator’s View on Adopting an
Antiracist Curriculum.” Rutgers Race and the Law Review, forthcom-
ing (see https://ssrn.com/abstract=3805994).
Gonzalez, Gerardo, Simon Johnson, Andrea Toles, Bobby Baker, Saidy
Barinaga, Joel Buchanan, Isis Carbajal de Garcia, Betty Cortina,
Patrick Chelsey, Vivian Correa, Erney Cox III, Dovie Gamble, Betsy
Gardner, Antoinette Jones, Rosiana Oliver, Randall Shanafelt, Alex-
andria Stewart, and Juan Vitali. (1990). Report of the Quality of Life
Task Force on African-American and Hispanic Students. Administrative
Policy Records of the University of Florida Office of the President
(John V. Lombardi), George A. Smathers Libraries, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Grande, Sandy. (2018). “Refusing the University.” In Eve Tuck and K.
Wayne Yang, eds., Toward What Justice?: Describing Diverse Dreams of
Justice in Education, 47–65. New York: Routledge.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 143
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 37 •
 Ivanov, Danielle. (2021, July 4). “It’s Been a Year since UF’s President
Announced 15 Anti-Racism Goals. How Has Work Gone?” Gaines-
ville Sun, https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/education/
campus/2021/07/04/uf-students-president-kent-fuchs-reflect
-anti-racism-goals/7779974002/.
Law, Ian. (2017). “Building the Anti-Racist University: Action and New
Agendas.” Race Ethnicity and Education 20, no. 3: 332–43.
Leong, Nancy. (2013). “Racial Capitalism.” Harvard Law Review 126, no. 8:
2153, https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs
/vol126_leong.pdf.
Portugal, Lisa. (2006). “Diversity Leadership in Higher Education.”
Academic Leadership Online Journal 4, no. 3: https://scholars.fhsu.edu
/alj/vol4/iss3/2/.
Rankin and Associates Consulting. (2016). University of Florida Faculty and
Staff Climate Survey, https://apps.ir.ufl.edu/HrClimateSurvey
/Reports.
Tate, Shirley, and Paul Bagguley. (2017). “Building the Anti-Racist Univer-
sity: Next Steps.” Race Ethnicity and Education 20, no. 3: 289–99.
Tate, Shirley, and Damien Page. (2018). “Whiteliness and Institutional
Racism: Hiding behind (Un)Conscious Bias.” Ethics and Education 13,
no. 1: 141–55.
University of Florida News. (2021, January 12). “UF Awards Faculty Nearly
$1Million to Study Racial Disparities,” https://news.ufl.edu/2021/01
/racial-disparities-studies-funding/.
Welton, Anjale, Devean Owens, and Eboni Zamani-Gallaher. (2018).
“Anti-Racist Change: A Conceptual Framework for Educational
Institutions to Take Systemic Action.” Teachers College Record 120, no.
14: https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=22371.
Wesley, Alexa, Jill Dunlap, and Paulette Granberry Russell. (2021).
NASPA—Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education,
“Moving from Words to Action: The Influence of Racial Justice State-
ments on Campus Equity Efforts,” https://www.naspa.org/report
/moving-from-words-to-action-the-influence-of-racial-justice-state-
ments-on-campus-equity-efforts.

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 144
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 38 •
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A number of people were instrumental in getting this grant and report
across the finish line. We thank Dr. Diedre Houchen, who had the initial
research idea for this grant and helped to write the proposal that resulted
in funding; Dr. Henry Frierson, Dr. Clarence Gravlee, and Dr. Paul Ortiz,
for guidance and insights; Professor Gail Mathapo, UF Law Librarian,
who helped tremendously with locating hard-to-find articles and doc-
uments; UF Law students Madison Pinkney and Kyla George for their
research assistance; Sherrice Smith, UF Law Director of Faculty and Aca-
demic Support, who was instrumental in helping to create a seamless plan
for data collection, meeting schedules, and keeping track of numerous
documents and emails; Dianna Brook, UF Accounting Coordinator, for
her assistance; Lynn Stuart, for her expert graphic design work; Whitney
Smith, UF Law Assistant Dean for Messaging and Outreach, for her
guidance; and finally we thank the UF Office of Research, with a special
nod to Dr. Sobha Jaishankar, Assistant Vice President for Research, for her
patience in responding to our many questions.

A WAY FORWARD
UF Race Scholars on Support,
Obstacles, and the Need for
Institutional Engagement

Dr. Katheryn Russell-Brown

Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law &
Director, Race and Crime Center for Justice
Levin College of Law, University of Florida

Dr. Ryan Morini

Research Director
Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations
Levin College of Law, University of Florida

Fall 2021

A Way
Faculty Senate Ad HocForward: UF on
Committee Race ScholarsFreedom
Academic on Support, Obstacles, and the Need for Institutional Engagement Page 145
Race and Crime Center for Justice • Levin College of Law • University of Florida
• 39 •
Appendix 2.2
[Note: An analysis of IP policies of peer institutions, done by an outside law firm, was provided
to the Faculty Senate Chair, and we reprint this analysis here for your information. We have not
confirmed these findings]

We reviewed the provisions governing ownership of IP in the IP policies of University of

California, University of Illinois, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University
of Texas and the University of Wisconsin/WARF. Each of these universities require that for the
university to claim ownership of an invention that was developed during a researcher’s
employment with the university, the researcher must have (a) used university facilities,
university resources or funds administered by the university or (b) done the work that lead to the
invention within the scope of the researcher’s employment or university responsibilities or on
the university’s time. None of these universities have a provision that give the university
ownership merely because the research or invention is within the researcher’s field or discipline
or area of expertise. In fact, per below, the University of Texas formerly claimed ownership of
inventions within the researcher’s “area of expertise,” but changed that policy because of faculty
objection and to align with peer institutions.

University IP Ownership Policies

1. California
a. Patent Acknowledgment: “I acknowledge my obligation to assign, and do hereby assign,
inventions and patents that I conceive or develop 1) within the course and scope of my
University employment while employed by University, 2) during the course of my utilization of
any University research facilities, or 3) through any connection with my use of gift, grant, or
contract research funds received through the University.”
b. Patent Policy III-A: “An agreement to assign inventions and patents to the University, except
those resulting from permissible consulting activities without use of University facilities, shall be
mandatory for all employees, for persons not employed by the University but who use University
research facilities, and for those who receive gift, grant, or contract funds through the
University.”

2. Illinois
a. Sec. B - “The University is the owner of all software, copyrightable works and inventions
(intellectual property [IP]) created by employees in the performance of employment with the
University, or created with University resources or funds controlled by the University, with the
exception of copyrights in traditional academic works such as scholarly publications and course
notes.”

3. Michigan
a. Section II-1: “Intellectual Property made (e.g., conceived or first reduced to practice) by any
person, regardless of employment status, with the direct or indirect support of funds administered
by the University (regardless of the source of such funds) shall be the property of the University,
except as provided by this or other University policy. Funds administered by the University
include University resources, and funds for employee compensation, materials, or facilities.”

4. Minnesota

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 146

a. Sec. V-1: “The University shall be the sole owner of all rights, titles, and interests (including
intellectual property rights) in and to technology: (a) created by University employees in the
course of their employment; (b) created by individuals, including employees, students, or post-
doctoral or other fellows, using substantial University resources.”

5. Texas
a. “Sec. 4 - Intellectual Property Subject to this Rule. Intellectual property (a) developed within
the course and scope of employment of the individual, (b) resulting from activities performed on
U. T. System time or with support of state funds, or (c) resulting from using facilities or
resources owned by the U. T. System or any U. T. System institution (other than incidental use)
is owned by the Board of Regents.
b. Sec. 5 - Intellectual Property Not Subject to this Rule. Intellectual property developed or
created by a U. T. System employee outside the course and scope of employment of the
individual that is developed or created on his/her own time and without the support of the U. T.
System or any U. T. System institution or use of U. T. System facilities or resources, is the
exclusive property of the creator.”
c. Texas Policy Pre-2005: “Intellectual property either related to the area of expertise for which
an individual was hired or resulting from activities performed on U. T. System time, or with
support by State funds, or from using facilities owned by the U. T. System or any of its
institutions is subject to ownership by the Board of Regents.”

6. Wisconsin/WARF
a. Patent Policy Sec. 6A – “All inventions discovered by faculty, staff, or students on
appointment while pursuing their university duties, or on university premises, or with
university supplies or equipment must be reported to the chancellor or designee or the
appropriate IPMO on the Invention Disclosure Report Form associated with this policy or a
form that is substantially similar.”
b. IP Policy
i. Sec. II - “Except as required by funding agreements or other University policies, the University
does not claim ownership rights in the intellectual property generated during research by its
faculty, staff, or students.”
ii. Sec III-A – “Federal law and regulations provide that the University has the right to retain title
to any inventions conceived or made in whole or in part during federally funded grants and
contracts.”

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 147

U. of Florida Stops 3 Professors From Taking Part in Voting-Rights Suit,... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-florida-stops-professors-from-part...

Appendix 3.1

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 148

1 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:58 AM
U. of Florida Stops 3 Professors From Taking Part in Voting-Rights Suit,... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-florida-stops-professors-from-part...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 149

2 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:58 AM
U. of Florida Stops 3 Professors From Taking Part in Voting-Rights Suit,... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-florida-stops-professors-from-part...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 150

3 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:58 AM
Florida Is a Five-Alarm Fire for Academic Freedom https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-is-a-five-alarm-fire-for-academ...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 151

1 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:59 AM
Florida Is a Five-Alarm Fire for Academic Freedom https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-is-a-five-alarm-fire-for-academ...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 152

2 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:59 AM
Florida Is a Five-Alarm Fire for Academic Freedom https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-is-a-five-alarm-fire-for-academ...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 153

3 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:59 AM
Stand Up for What You Believe, President Fuchs https://www.chronicle.com/article/stand-up-for-what-you-believe-preside...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 154

1 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
Stand Up for What You Believe, President Fuchs https://www.chronicle.com/article/stand-up-for-what-you-believe-preside...

Michael McDonald @ElectProject · Oct 30, 2021

Thank you for all your comments of support in the replies

FLORIDA @UF
The University of Florida has a long track record of supporting
free speech and our faculty’s academic freedom, and we will
continue to do so.

Read the full university statement: fal.cn/3jrrM

Michael McDonald
@ElectProject

Lots of folks asking what if we do the work pro bono? Our

compensation was not given as a reason in the original
disapproval from UF. That is new language the university
added in its PR statement

3:12 PM · Oct 30, 2021

498 42 Copy link to Tweet

Tweet your reply

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 155

2 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
Stand Up for What You Believe, President Fuchs https://www.chronicle.com/article/stand-up-for-what-you-believe-preside...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 156

3 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
Stand Up for What You Believe, President Fuchs https://www.chronicle.com/article/stand-up-for-what-you-believe-preside...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 157

4 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
Totalitarianism Takes Aim at Higher Education https://www.chronicle.com/article/totalitarianism-takes-aim-at-higher-ed...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 158

1 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:55 AM
Totalitarianism Takes Aim at Higher Education https://www.chronicle.com/article/totalitarianism-takes-aim-at-higher-ed...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 159

2 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:55 AM
Totalitarianism Takes Aim at Higher Education https://www.chronicle.com/article/totalitarianism-takes-aim-at-higher-ed...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 160

3 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:55 AM
Totalitarianism Takes Aim at Higher Education https://www.chronicle.com/article/totalitarianism-takes-aim-at-higher-ed...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 161

4 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:55 AM
U. of Florida’s Accreditor Will Investigate Denial of Professors’ Voting-... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-floridas-accreditor-will-investiga...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 162

1 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:56 AM
U. of Florida’s Accreditor Will Investigate Denial of Professors’ Voting-... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-floridas-accreditor-will-investiga...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 163

2 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:56 AM
U. of Florida’s Accreditor Will Investigate Denial of Professors’ Voting-... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-floridas-accreditor-will-investiga...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 164

3 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:56 AM
Academics’ Work on Court Cases Is Common and Often Uncontroversia... https://www.chronicle.com/article/academics-work-on-court-cases-is-c...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 165

1 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
Academics’ Work on Court Cases Is Common and Often Uncontroversia... https://www.chronicle.com/article/academics-work-on-court-cases-is-c...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 166

2 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
Academics’ Work on Court Cases Is Common and Often Uncontroversia... https://www.chronicle.com/article/academics-work-on-court-cases-is-c...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 167

3 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
Academics’ Work on Court Cases Is Common and Often Uncontroversia... https://www.chronicle.com/article/academics-work-on-court-cases-is-c...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 168

4 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:52 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 169

1 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 170

2 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 171

3 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 172

4 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 173

5 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 174

6 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 175

7 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘I’m Speechless’: What Prompted the U. of Florida to Tell Professors Not... https://www.chronicle.com/article/im-speechless?utm_source=Iterable&...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 176

8 of 8 11/10/2021, 7:50 AM
‘It Just Felt Wrong’: U. of Florida Faculty Say Political Fears Stalled an I... https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-just-felt-wrong-u-of-florida-faculty-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 177

1 of 7 12/1/2021, 7:57 AM
‘It Just Felt Wrong’: U. of Florida Faculty Say Political Fears Stalled an I... https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-just-felt-wrong-u-of-florida-faculty-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 178

2 of 7 12/1/2021, 7:57 AM
‘It Just Felt Wrong’: U. of Florida Faculty Say Political Fears Stalled an I... https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-just-felt-wrong-u-of-florida-faculty-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 179

3 of 7 12/1/2021, 7:57 AM
‘It Just Felt Wrong’: U. of Florida Faculty Say Political Fears Stalled an I... https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-just-felt-wrong-u-of-florida-faculty-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 180

4 of 7 12/1/2021, 7:57 AM
‘It Just Felt Wrong’: U. of Florida Faculty Say Political Fears Stalled an I... https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-just-felt-wrong-u-of-florida-faculty-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 181

5 of 7 12/1/2021, 7:57 AM
‘It Just Felt Wrong’: U. of Florida Faculty Say Political Fears Stalled an I... https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-just-felt-wrong-u-of-florida-faculty-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 182

6 of 7 12/1/2021, 7:57 AM
3 U. of Florida Experts Couldn’t Testify on a Voting-Rights Law. This Pr... https://www.chronicle.com/article/3-u-of-florida-experts-couldnt-testify-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 183

1 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:53 AM
3 U. of Florida Experts Couldn’t Testify on a Voting-Rights Law. This Pr... https://www.chronicle.com/article/3-u-of-florida-experts-couldnt-testify-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 184

2 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:53 AM
3 U. of Florida Experts Couldn’t Testify on a Voting-Rights Law. This Pr... https://www.chronicle.com/article/3-u-of-florida-experts-couldnt-testify-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 185

3 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:53 AM
3 U. of Florida Experts Couldn’t Testify on a Voting-Rights Law. This Pr... https://www.chronicle.com/article/3-u-of-florida-experts-couldnt-testify-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 186

4 of 5 11/10/2021, 7:53 AM
After Scathing Criticism, U. of Florida Will Let Professors Testify Agains... https://www.chronicle.com/article/after-scathing-criticism-u-of-florida-wi...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 187

1 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:47 AM
After Scathing Criticism, U. of Florida Will Let Professors Testify Agains... https://www.chronicle.com/article/after-scathing-criticism-u-of-florida-wi...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 188

2 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:47 AM
After Scathing Criticism, U. of Florida Will Let Professors Testify Agains... https://www.chronicle.com/article/after-scathing-criticism-u-of-florida-wi...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 189

3 of 4 11/10/2021, 7:47 AM
Florida Looks at Raising the Stakes on Post-Tenure Review https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-looks-at-raising-the-stakes-on-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 190

1 of 6 11/10/2021, 7:46 AM
Florida Looks at Raising the Stakes on Post-Tenure Review https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-looks-at-raising-the-stakes-on-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 191

2 of 6 11/10/2021, 7:46 AM
Florida Looks at Raising the Stakes on Post-Tenure Review https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-looks-at-raising-the-stakes-on-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 192

3 of 6 11/10/2021, 7:46 AM
Florida Looks at Raising the Stakes on Post-Tenure Review https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-looks-at-raising-the-stakes-on-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 193

4 of 6 11/10/2021, 7:46 AM
Florida Looks at Raising the Stakes on Post-Tenure Review https://www.chronicle.com/article/florida-looks-at-raising-the-stakes-on-...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 194

5 of 6 11/10/2021, 7:46 AM
U. of Florida Dean Says He Was Directed to Reject Professor’s Request ... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-florida-dean-says-he-was-directe...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 195

1 of 4 11/17/2021, 7:38 AM
U. of Florida Dean Says He Was Directed to Reject Professor’s Request ... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-florida-dean-says-he-was-directe...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 196

2 of 4 11/17/2021, 7:38 AM
U. of Florida Dean Says He Was Directed to Reject Professor’s Request ... https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-florida-dean-says-he-was-directe...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 197

3 of 4 11/17/2021, 7:38 AM
After Controversy, U. of Florida Has a New Policy on Faculty Testimony... https://www.chronicle.com/article/after-controversy-u-of-florida-has-a-n...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 198

1 of 4 11/24/2021, 8:19 AM
After Controversy, U. of Florida Has a New Policy on Faculty Testimony... https://www.chronicle.com/article/after-controversy-u-of-florida-has-a-n...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 199

2 of 4 11/24/2021, 8:19 AM
After Controversy, U. of Florida Has a New Policy on Faculty Testimony... https://www.chronicle.com/article/after-controversy-u-of-florida-has-a-n...

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 200

3 of 4 11/24/2021, 8:19 AM
University of Florida bars faculty from testifying against law signed by ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/30/florida-voting-right...

Appendiox 3.2
Democracy Dies in Darkness

The University of Florida barred three faculty members from testifying for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging a voting-restrictions law enthusiastically
embraced by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), which activists say makes it harder for racial minorities to vote. The school’s move raises sharp concerns about
academic freedom and free speech in the state.

The public university said the three faculty members — political scientists Daniel A. Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Wright Austin — could
present “a conflict of interest to the executive branch” and harm the school’s interests by testifying against the law signed by DeSantis in May.

“As UF is a state actor, litigation against the state is adverse to UF’s interests,” school officials said, according to documents reviewed by The Washington
Post.

Lawyers trying to reverse the Florida law, also known as Senate Bill 90, have sought to question DeSantis on whether he was involved in the decision to
prevent the academics from testifying, according to the New York Times, which first reported on the university’s move.

The move to bar professors from being expert witnesses in public trials is highly unusual. In a letter to the university, lawyers representing the
professors said that faculty members retain their First Amendment rights to free speech even if their remarks may “make a University’s relationship with
funding sources more difficult.”

The attorneys cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings that protect the rights of individuals to disclose information acquired “by virtue of their public
employment.”

The academics will file a legal challenge against the university if it does not change its stance, said Paul Donnelly, a lawyer representing Smith,
McDonald, and Austin.

As Florida’s governor, DeSantis has influence over the funding of the state’s public institutions of higher education. He also has the authority to name six
of the 13 members of the university’s board of trustees. All appointed trustees are subject to state Senate confirmation.

In a statement provided to The Post on Saturday, the university denied it had violated the First Amendment rights of its faculty members.
Representatives for DeSantis could not be reached for comment.

After the 2020 presidential election, DeSantis and Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law whose provisions include restricting
voting by mail and barring everyone except election officials from providing food or water to voters waiting in long lines. In Florida, particularly during
early voting in October, waiting to cast a ballot can mean standing in line in the hot sun.

This law was enacted despite a virtually flawless election in Florida last year. Former president Donald Trump, who has baselessly alleged electoral fraud
elsewhere, won the state’s 29 electoral votes.

About 40 percent of all votes cast by Black Americans in last year’s presidential election were submitted by mail, or double the percentage for 2016,
according to Demos, a think tank that is among the groups suing to reverse the new voting restrictions.

Multiple studies show that precincts with larger Black populations tend to endure longer lines on Election Day. Restricting mail voting will mean longer
voting lines at more crowded polling stations, Demos said.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 201

1 of 2 11/12/2021, 12:52 PM
University of Florida prohibits professors from testifying - The Washingt... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/university-of-florida-prohibits...

Democracy Dies in Darkness

 | 

ORLANDO, Fla. — The University of Florida is prohibiting three professors from providing expert testimony in a lawsuit challenging a new law that
critics claim restricts voting rights, saying it goes against the school’s interest by conflicting with the administration of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Though the decision is being criticized as threat to academic freedom and free speech, the university said in a statement Saturday that allowing
professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin to serve as paid experts for plaintiffs challenging the law would be “adverse to the
university’s interests as a state of Florida institution.”

“The University of Florida has a long track record of supporting free speech and our faculty’s academic freedom, and we will continue to do so,” the
statement said.

Lawyers for a coalition of civic groups challenging the law said in court papers Friday that the professors were told by the university that their expert
testimony would dissent from the administration of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, creating a conflict for the school.

“UF will deny its employees’ requests to engage in outside activities when it determines the activities are adverse to its interests. As UF is a state actor,
litigation against the state is adverse to UF’s interests,” according to an email from an assistant vice president at the university to McDonald that was
filed with the court documents.

Another university official said in an email to Smith that “outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of
Florida create a conflict for the University of Florida.”

Attorneys for the professors said Saturday that they would take legal action claiming violations of the First Amendment and academic freedom if the
school doesn’t reverse the decision.

“The university cannot silence the professors on matters of great public importance. These professors are citizens entitled to participate in the
marketplace of ideas,” attorneys Paul Donnelly and Conor Flynn said in a letter to a university lawyer. “These unlawful restrictions are shameful, and
could very well deter top scholars from joining UF’s ranks.”

The legal director of the ACLU of Florida, writing on behalf of Smith, said the professor was acting as a private citizen and his testimony would be crucial
to the public in understanding “one of their most valuable rights.”

“But perhaps most importantly, UF simply should not be looking to Governor DeSantis to decide which speech activities it will permit its employees and
students to engage in,” the ACLU’s Daniel Tilley wrote to university officials.

Like universities elsewhere, the University of Florida routinely allows its professors to testify in cases in which they can provide expertise, and Smith has
previously testified in voting rights cases in Florida.

In its statement, the University of Florida said the decision not to let the professors perform outside paid work wasn’t denying them their First
Amendment rights or academic freedom.

Lawyers for the coalition of civic groups are trying to get testimony from the governor about his role in the formation of the new law, but administration
attorneys are fighting the attempt. The new law limits how vote-by-mail drop boxes can be used, requires voters to ask for a vote-by-mail ballot and
prohibits non-poll workers from giving food or drink to voters waiting in line.

Two weeks ago, on the day he found out he wouldn’t be able to provide testimony, Smith tweeted an image of Hannah Arendt’s classic book “The Origins
of Totalitarianism.”

“Dusting this classic off the bookshelf for some light weekend reading,” Smith wrote.

For his part, McDonald on Friday night tweeted a video of Tom Petty singing, “I won’t back down.” He and his colleagues “are the faculty being denied
our constitutional right to free speech by the university,” he wrote.

___
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 202

1 of 2 11/12/2021, 12:47 PM
Opinion | Why did the University of Florida ban professors from testifyin... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/01/university-of-flor...

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Last spring, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida took the reprehensible step of signing the state’s new voter suppression law on Fox News. In so doing, the
Republican acted out an ugly truism: Restricting voting as governor in a high-profile way is bound to have great appeal to the national GOP base,
possibly boosting future presidential aspirations.

Now this story has taken another ugly turn: The University of Florida has barred three professors from serving as expert witnesses in a lawsuit against
the voter suppression measure.

This story is about to get worse for the university: The Democratic members of Congress from Florida are set to come out sharply against the decision,
I’m told, and depending on how things go, this could result in congressional hearings.

This will ratchet up the stakes in this battle and draw more national scrutiny to a move that experts have denounced as a startling and inexplicable attack
on academic freedom.

This blowup began when the New York Times reported that the university had informed the professors that they could not participate in a lawsuit
against the law. The rationale was that assisting a lawsuit against the state is “adverse to U.F.’s interests.”

The lawsuit argues that the voting law’s provisions, such as the ones restricting drop boxes and making it harder to get absentee ballots in various ways,
will impose disproportionate burdens on nonwhite voters. The professors — Daniel A. Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Wright Austin — were
hired by the plaintiffs to testify to this and other matters.

The DeSantis angle here is potentially very troubling. DeSantis, it turns out, has top allies at the university, such as Morteza Hosseini, who is both head
of the university’s board of trustees and a big GOP donor and close DeSantis adviser.

It’s not clear whether those allies — or DeSantis himself — are behind this decision. But the lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to question DeSantis
about his potential involvement as part of their litigation, and the Times reports that DeSantis has “resisted questioning.”

The university’s rationale is strange and opaque. It’s not immediately clear why testifying in this lawsuit would be contrary to the university’s “interests.”

When I asked a university spokesman to clarify, he emailed me this:

To your question, the university views the professors’ request as a request to be paid to testify against the state, and the
university, as a public institution, is part of the state — therefore, that would be adverse to the university’s interests. However, to
be clear, if the professors wish to do so pro bono on their own time without using university resources, they would be free to do
so.

But this raises more questions than it answers. First, one of the professors — Smith — has repeatedly testified in previous voting rights cases against the
state of Florida. And Smith tells me these were approved by the university and that he was paid for his work on them.

“Quite the contrary, UF has celebrated my involvement in these high-profile cases, as it brings national recognition to the university,” Smith told me. So
it’s not clear why getting paid is problematic this time.

What’s more, a lawyer for the three professors told me that at no point did the university indicate to them that working on the lawsuit pro bono was an
option. This raises more questions about the integrity of the process here.

Smith’s point about the university celebrating previous cases raises still more questions. In what sense would the university’s role as part of the state
mean the professors’ participation in the lawsuit is contrary to their interests? And even if you accept that absurd notion, why would doing it pro bono
somehow mitigate that?
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 203

1 of 3 11/12/2021, 12:50 PM
Opinion | Why did the University of Florida ban professors from testifyin... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/01/university-of-flor...
These and other questions are why Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) tells me she is circulating a letter among the Florida congressional
delegation condemning the decision and asking for an accounting of how it was arrived at.

“We’ll be asking a series of questions, and we expect answers,” Wasserman Schultz tells me, adding that it’s likely that all 10 Democrats will sign it.
Republicans will be invited to sign as well, but it seems inevitable that they will decline.

Wasserman Schultz noted that such activity by professors was routinely approved in the past, adding that the only difference now is “who is governor.”
She noted that she had a private conversation with university president Kent Fuchs, in which she was “quite critical,” and found his answers
“unsatisfactory.”

Wasserman Schultz, who attended the university herself, pointed out that it’s far more likely that it’s damaging its own interests with this stance. “This is
activity that enhances the reputation of the university,” she told me, in that it showcases its “nationally renowned professors using their expertise.”

The big unknown here is how this is supposed to be harming the university’s interests. Regardless, it will soon be pressed to account for this:
Wasserman Schultz says she and Democrats will pursue “every possible way to ensure that these professors can participate in this case.”

When I asked whether this might include congressional hearings, she said: “When I say ‘every,’ it includes every.”

With conservatives regularly railing against allegedly rampant liberal censoriousness on college campuses, how Republicans and their media allies
approach this should prove instructive. Fox News will be all over this, right?

• • •

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 204

2 of 3 11/12/2021, 12:50 PM
Opinion | We're political science professors working for Florida's people.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/03/we-work-people-f...

Democracy Dies in Darkness

’ ’

This article has been updated.

Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald and Daniel Smith are political science professors at the University of Florida. Smith is also the chair of the
university’s Department of Political Science.

As political science professors, each of us teaches, writes and speaks every day on issues of voting and democracy. For years, our expertise has been
valued by our employer, the University of Florida.

So we were stunned to learn last month that the university was barring us from testifying in an upcoming legal challenge to Florida’s new voting law, S.B.
90. The university’s move is a gross violation of academic freedom; more importantly, though, it’s an undermining of our mission to serve the people of
Florida — all of them — as employees of a state research university.

We should be permitted to testify and will fight for our right to do so.

Because of our experience and knowledge, we were hired as expert witnesses on a major voting rights case brought by the NAACP and numerous other
nonprofit organizations against the Florida secretary of state and 67 elections supervisors over the new voting law, which the Brennan Center for Justice
calls “an omnibus voter suppression bill that will make it harder for Floridians to vote.” Voting rights groups maintain that the law is bad on many levels,
but, most importantly, it will harm poor and minority voters by making voting by mail much more difficult.

We have worked on cases like this before without objection from university officials. But with S.B. 90, a piece of legislation that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R)
signed into law live on Fox News, the university has offered a series of shifting rationales to justify blocking us from testifying. In our view, all the
rationales reveal is a fear of retribution from political actors for our testimony.

First, the university tried to block our participation by claiming our testimony would be “adverse” to Florida’s interests. We do not understand how
identifying racial and ethnic discrimination in voting laws could possibly harm the state. As an institution that “strives to foster a diverse, equitable, and
inclusive environment for all students, employees, partners, and visitors,” shouldn’t the university be pleased with our efforts to examine whether voting
discrimination exists in Florida?

As public employees, each of us has sworn an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.” Our oath binds us to the
people of Florida, not the politicians in the government. Regardless of the merits of the case, the public is entitled to have a full airing, with competing
expert views, on an issue so central to the health of our democracy. That is how we fulfill the university’s stated goal of sharing the benefits of our
research and knowledge for the public good. Our job as public university professors and researchers is not to be mouthpieces for a particular
administration’s — or any administration’s — point of view.

When we pointed this out, the university retreated to a new rationale — that the problem with our testimony is that we would be compensated for it.
Again, this is an embarrassingly weak excuse and more likely just a way of punishing viewpoints that threaten politicians. The arrangements
surrounding our testimony are irrelevant.

And if, as the university has more recently claimed, its concern is the fact that “University full-time faculty are paid with taxpayer dollars,” the university
has chosen a particularly odd way of advancing that interest. With the university’s encouragement, we can spread our views in our official capacities as
professors whose activities are funded by the taxpayers. Why would it be a problem for the university if we said exactly the same things when our
compensation does not come from the state?

Further, this argument suggests that the university will favor certain viewpoints over others by making clear that if a professor supports the politicians,
she may receive just compensation, but if she opposes the politicians, she must pay her own way. This is antithetical to the most basic principles of
academic freedom.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 205

1 of 2 11/12/2021, 12:46 PM
Opinion | We're political science professors working for Florida's people.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/03/we-work-people-f...
We would have hoped that the university’s response to political encroachment would be to stand up for its independence and stand firm behind its
guiding mission. Instead, it has caved — and in the process, it has forgotten whom we work for. As public employees, we serve all Floridians, not the
politicians who control the state government.

That’s why we should be permitted to testify and intend to fight the university’s order. The court should hear evidence without censorship by politicians
or the University of Florida. Doing so, after all, is our job — and the cornerstone of the university’s own mission statement: “to share the benefits of its
research and knowledge for the public good.”

• • •

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 206

2 of 2 11/12/2021, 12:46 PM
Opinion | The University of Florida’s decision to silence its professors is ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/04/university-florida...

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Daniel A. Smith has been on the faculty at the University of Florida for nearly 20 years and is recognized for his scholarship on voting rights, ballot
issues and political participation. He has provided testimony to Congress and state legislatures, advised numerous outside groups, and served as an
expert witness in many voting rights cases. In the past, the university not only approved all of those outside activities but also celebrated his involvement
in high-profile cases, which brought national recognition to the university and created opportunities for students.

Now the university has barred Mr. Smith and two other professors, Michael McDonald and Sharon Wright Austin, from testifying in a major voting
rights case against Florida. The unprecedented decision is an infringement — likely unconstitutional — on academic freedom that raises troubling
questions about whether Florida’s flagship university bowed to political pressure to muzzle faculty voices on a matter of critical public interest.

A coalition of advocacy and voting rights groups wanted to hire the three professors, who all specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law, as
expert witnesses in their challenge of Florida’s new law restricting voting rights. Faculty are required to “report any outside activities and interests” and
file requests for approval through the university’s conflict-of-interest office. Such requests are routinely approved, but this time the activities were
adjudged to be “adverse to the university’s interests.” Mr. Smith was told in an email that “outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the
executive branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the University of Florida.”

The American Association of University Professors, condemning the decision “in the strongest possible terms,” noted that among the stated missions of
the university is its obligation “to share the benefits of its research and knowledge for the public good.” Silencing academic experts who can provide
testimony in a lawsuit aimed at strengthening voting rights is not consistent with that mission. Equally troubling is how the university seems to have
conflated its interests with those of the state’s executive branch, i.e., Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who has made legislation restricting voters a signature
issue. He signed the bill into law before a crowd of supporters of former president Donald Trump in a ceremony that was broadcast by Fox News but
excluded local reporters.

Lawyers for the groups challenging Florida’s Senate Bill 90 want to question Mr. DeSantis about whether he was involved in the university’s decision to
silence the professors. He initially, the New York Times reported, resisted on the grounds that all of his communications about the law are privileged
against disclosure, and he did not respond to media inquiries. The head of the university’s board of trustees, Morteza Hosseini, is a major Republican
donor and an adviser to Mr. DeSantis.

Though a spokeswoman for Mr. DeSantis subsequently denied that the governor had any direct involvement in the university’s move, she implied he
endorses it, saying the Constitution “guarantees the right to free speech, but there is no right to profit from speech.” What would actually profit most
from allowing the professors’ testimony, however, is the public interest.

’ |

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 207

1 of 2 11/12/2021, 12:42 PM
University of Florida reverses course, says professors can testify against... https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/11/05/university-florid...

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Three professors filed a lawsuit against the University of Florida on Friday, claiming school officials violated their right to free speech by trying to
prevent them from offering testimony in a voting rights case.

The case further inflames a heated debate over academic freedom, one that has brought national attention and criticism to the state flagship university.

It was filed on the same day school officials reversed course: After a week of controversy and pushback from faculty, alumni and academics across the
country, the University of Florida on Friday said the three political science professors should not be barred from testifying in a voting rights lawsuit
against the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).

The complaint by the professors contends the university is discriminating against them based on viewpoints they wish to express, and by trying to
prevent them from offering expert testimony on issues of overwhelming public importance, UF violated their First Amendment rights.

Seeking to restrict the professors from testifying is contrary to UF’s stated mission as a public research institution — “to share the benefits of its research
and knowledge for the public good,” and to the principles of academic freedom and free speech, the complaint says.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare unlawful the policy of “stifling faculty speech against the State.”

Hessy Fernandez, a UF spokeswoman, said the university does not comment on pending litigation.

UF president Kent Fuchs wrote in a campuswide email earlier Friday that he was asking the school’s Conflicts of Interest office to allow the professors,
all of whom are experts in their fields, to testify in a federal lawsuit.

The lawsuit by voting rights groups challenges a new state law, championed by DeSantis, that puts new limitations on ballot drop boxes and vote-by-mail
practices.

David A. O’Neil and Paul Donnelly, attorneys for the professors, said in an email that despite reversing the decision prohibiting the professors from
testifying, the school had “made no commitment to abandon its policy preventing academics from serving as expert witnesses when the University
thinks that their speech may be adverse to the State and whatever political agenda politicians want to promote.”

After Fuchs’s announcement Friday, Kenneth Nunn, a law professor at the university, who, along with several colleagues at the law school, has raised
concerns about academic freedom at the university, called it a welcome development. “I think it’s great that the president saw the university’s reputation
was being damaged by their unfortunate decision to restrict those three faculty members from testifying in their case.”

But Nunn said the decision doesn’t do anything about the many faculty who have been restricted from testifying and those who probably feel a chilling
effect.

Fuchs said in an email to students and faculty earlier this week that he was appointing a task force to review the university’s conflict of interest policy,
which was created last year.

“First, we would like to be abundantly clear that the University of Florida stands firmly behind its commitment to uphold our most sacred right as
Americans — the right to free speech — and to faculty members’ right to academic freedom,” Fuchs wrote. “Nothing is more fundamental to our
existence as an institution of higher learning than these two bedrock principles. Vigorous intellectual discussions are at the heart of the marketplace of
ideas we celebrate and hold so dear.”

But that did not quell the firestorm among faculty and others who saw the prohibition against professors Michael McDonald, Sharon D. Wright Austin
and Daniel A.Faculty
Smith Senate
as a violation
Ad HocofCommittee
academic on
freedom.
Academic Freedom Page 208

1 of 2 11/12/2021, 12:44 PM
University of Florida reverses course, says professors can testify against... https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/11/05/university-florid...
“It appears as though Fuchs made an exception to a policy that is deeply flawed,” said Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University
Professors and professor and chair of the Mathematics Department at Fairfield University.

“He’s managing a PR crisis by making an exception. But the policy still stands — which is deeply troubling. It never should have happened in the first
place,” Mulvey said.

In September, UF touted its rise to No. 5 on the U.S. News and World Report’s 2022 list of best public schools. Fuchs wrote in the UF Alumni
Association magazine that it was “very welcome and historic news” to achieve “a milestone decades in the making.”

But the controversy over barring professors from testifying as experts prompted UF’s accrediting agency, the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools Commission on Colleges, to say it was looking into the matter to see if an investigation is called for, a move that could threaten the school’s
coveted ranking.

The organization sent a letter to Fuchs on Nov. 2, asking him to prepare a report that “explains and documents” UF’s compliance with issues of academic
freedom and external influence. Fuchs has until Dec. 7 to respond.

“We’re just going to let the investigation play itself out,” said Belle Wheelan, president of the accrediting organization. “I can only imagine he will do
everything he can to turn this around.”

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 209

2 of 2 11/12/2021, 12:44 PM
Congress launches investigation into UF over academic freedom | Miam... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 210

1 of 8 11/18/2021, 4:43 PM
Congress launches investigation into UF over academic freedom | Miam... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html

TOP VIDEOS

WATCH MORE

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 211

2 of 8 11/18/2021, 4:43 PM
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 212
Congress launches investigation into UF over academic freedom | Miam... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 213

4 of 8 11/18/2021, 4:43 PM
Congress launches investigation into UF over academic freedom | Miam... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 214

5 of 8 11/18/2021, 4:43 PM
Congress launches investigation into UF over academic freedom | Miam... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 215

6 of 8 11/18/2021, 4:43 PM
Congress launches investigation into UF over academic freedom | Miam... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 216

7 of 8 11/18/2021, 4:43 PM
Congress launches investigation into UF over academic freedom | Miam... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article255928881.html

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 217

8 of 8 11/18/2021, 4:43 PM
UF professors: Political pressure raises academic freedom questions https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/local/state/2021/11/05/uf-florid...

'Guardrails for democracy (are) being broken down' in academia, one former dean says
Capital Bureau | USA TODAY NETWORK – FLORIDA
Published 9:33 a.m. ET Nov. 5, 2021 Updated 3:04 p.m. ET Nov. 5, 2021

Eight years ago, then-Gov. Rick Scott convinced Bernie Machen to stay on as president of the University of Florida in the
midst of the search for his replacement.

In return Machen got the Legislature to approve a preeminence program and millions in state tax dollars to finance UF’s
rise to top 10 status.

Now, almost a decade later, UF has achieved Machen’s goal of being among the top five public universities in the nation,
largely due to the efforts of new president Kent Fuchs and UF Board of Trustees Chairman Mori Hosseini, one of the most
powerful unelected people in Florida.

But the prestige that came with climbing the mountain of U.S. News and World Report college rankings is in jeopardy over
the decision to bar several professors from lending their expertise in court cases challenging key policies of Gov. Ron
DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature.

Previous coverage:

Accreditor: Did University of Florida violate academic freedom standards by blocking professors' testimony?
University of Florida president responds as objections mount over academic freedom, political meddling
UF professors could testify in voting rights case if they are unpaid, spokeswoman says

These decisions out of the administrative suite at Tigert Hall also threaten the university’s accreditation, which could
affect its eligibility for millions in federal grants, its ability to recruit and hold onto highly sought after professors of
national standing, and to pull in huge contributions from alumni, critics say.

“It’s a terrible policy and a disgrace to UF and the state, and they need to do something to resolve it quickly or lose their
status,” said Darryl Paulson, a retired University of South Florida political science professor and former member of the
conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

“It creates a permanent stain that lasts for decades,” Paulson added.

The move to muzzle professors testifying against the government in voting rights and mask mandate cases is “blatantly
political,” said Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors.

“All signs point to the governor and executive branch based on their stated justification,” said Mulvey, a department chair
at Fairfield University in Connecticut.

However, the governor's press secretary, Christina Pushaw, says DeSantis was not involved in any decision or policy to
keep the professors from testifying.
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 218

1 of 5 11/12/2021, 8:07 PM
UF professors: Political pressure raises academic freedom questions https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/local/state/2021/11/05/uf-florid...

"Neither the governor nor anyone in our office communicated directly or indirectly with UF regarding their professors’
requests to testify for pay in a lawsuit against the state," Pushaw said Thursday. "This is an internal UF issue and not the
sort of thing that the executive branch would be involved in."

Furthermore, she said, DeSantis supports academic freedom.

"Per UF’s public statements, those professors are free to testify in the lawsuit against the state, but pursuant to the
institution’s policy on conflicts of interest, they cannot receive financial compensation for their testimony against the
state," she said.

Fuchs told the Palm Beach Post that while academic freedom is bedrock, the policy "is very simply about participating in
litigation against your employer." Still, he said a newly convened task force would review the policy.

"We have a tradition here recently of not approving any employee that is an employee of the state of Florida then serving
as an expert witness in litigation against the state of Florida," Fuchs said. "That's been our practice. They can do it if they
don't use university resources, do it not on university time and not compensated. But we're re-thinking that practice
because most of the universities in the nation indeed have a practice of letting their employees participate as expert
witnesses in litigation against their employer."

A day later, Fuchs sent an email out to the campus community that he asked the Conflicts of Interest Office to "reverse the
decisions on recent requests by UF employees to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which the state of Florida is a
party and to approve the requests regardless of personal compensation, assuming the activity is on their own time without
using university resources."

Lawyers for the three political science professors denied permission to appear as experts in a case challenging new state
election laws replied that while UF reversed its course, "the fact remains that the University curtailed their First
Amendment rights and academic freedoms, and as long as the University’s policy remains, those rights and freedoms are
at risk. We are continuing to assess our options.”

More: UF president: Task force to evaluate policy barring testimony to be announced soon

This year, top administrators have made clear that bucking the governor can create problems for UF.

Fuchs, for instance, repeatedly said he had no power to require students and faculty to wear masks.

In September, he told the UF Faculty Senate, which was considering a statement critical of the governor’s COVID policies,
that anyone who represents UF shouldn’t do anything to “rupture or fracture our relationship with our state government
and our elected officials."

If he or any other person who represents the university “becomes an adversary of state government and our elected
officials, we'll lose that ability to influence those decisions that affect us,” he said.

That message was reiterated in emails denying political science professors Daniel E. Smith, Michael McDonald and
Sharon Austin permission to be expert witnesses for plaintiffs fighting the government’s newly approved election laws,
which limit drop boxes and change vote-by-mail rules.

More: A tale of two election laws: While Georgia saw a corporate backlash, response is muted in Florida

Such “outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a conflict
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 219

2 of 5 11/12/2021, 8:07 PM
UF professors: Political pressure raises academic freedom questions https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/local/state/2021/11/05/uf-florid...

for the University of Florida,” David Richardson, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, told Smith.

Before their complete reversal, UF administrators backed off an outright ban, letting the political science professors
provide expert testimony without pay.

Their decision to let faculty testify as expert witnesses without compensation was also met with criticism from several
academic institutions and professors, and seemed weak in light of the discovery that five other professors were also denied
permission to be expert witnesses, including one who said he was doing it for free.

“Their requests were denied because they were adverse to the university’s interests, conflating university interests with
those of the executive branch,” Mulvey said. “It’s a complete violation of the principles of higher education to support the
common good.”

The administration should instead build a firewall protecting faculty from undue political interference, she added, instead
of making decisions on what is best for the governor.

“When Tigert Hall (UF’s administration building) looks at Tallahassee, they are trying to anticipate how Tallahassee is
going to feel about my syllabus,” said Paul Ortiz, president of the UF faculty union.

“Full professors and deans walking through campus are saying they wonder what DeSantis will think about this program,
that syllabus, this diversity training,” he continued. “We have an administration that believes their job is to adhere to
DeSantis’ worldview.”

The political ties that bind become more apparent when you look at the Board of Trustees that oversees policy and
finances as the university’s legal overseer and final authority.

Eleven of the 13 board members are Republican donors who have contributed millions to the Republican Party and GOP
candidates over the past two decades, records show. The other two members are the faculty senate chair and the student
body president.

The governor appoints six of its members, and the State University System — made up of 14 political appointees —
appoints the other five.

A November 2020 editorial by the Independent Florida Alligator, using data from Followthemoney.org, showed that 11
trustees donated $2.3 million to Republican candidates, conservative political action committees and funds.

They also gave $350,000 since 2015 to Scott, now a U.S. Senator, and $235,000 to Donald Trump.

Hosseini, a Daytona Beach housing developer, gave $447,000 to Republican candidates in the last 18 years. In the last
three years, he gave $106,000 to DeSantis through two of his construction companies, lent DeSantis the use of his private
jet for campaigning and has served as an adviser to the governor.

Hosseini is also the one who forwarded the resume of Dr. Joseph Ladapo to the president of UF Health, kicking off a fast-
track hiring process to coincide with the governor’s announcement that he was appointing the UCLA professor as his new
surgeon general.

More: DeSantis mega-donor, UF Board of Trustees chair supplied Ladapo's resume, fast-tracking surgeon general's hire

Because of Hosseini's strong and steady support for UF, especially in getting funding for its preeminence initiative, faulty
and administrators see him
Faculty Senate asCommittee
Ad Hoc the trueonpresident of UF, and Fuchs as his factotum, Ortiz said.
Academic Freedom Page 220

3 of 5 11/12/2021, 8:07 PM
UF professors: Political pressure raises academic freedom questions https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/local/state/2021/11/05/uf-florid...

"Think about how this must look to Mori right now, sitting on top of the world," Ortiz said. "He took three nationally
renowned professors out of the elections case. Politically speaking, this is a real victory for DeSantis."

Having someone as powerful as Hosseini going to bat for UF and gaining the support of the governor and the legislature is
great, said Noah Fineberg, a UF junior and president pro tempore of the Student Senate.

“But it’s concerning when that tradeoff results in negative press for the university,” he said.

There's also the concern that what the legislature gives, it can also take away.

"If they do something embarrassing to the administration or the legislature, the governor and legislature have been known
to retaliate by withholding funds," Paulson said.

UF is not the only state university facing political pressure, said Candi Churchill, executive director of the statewide United
Faculty of Florida.

“All the university boards are stacked with political appointees and mega-donors,” Churchill said. “I would say that the
denial of professors to be expert witnesses for the public is part of a larger trend of trying to control higher education and
the public school system.”

A board member at Florida Atlantic University, Barbara Feingold, said she wasn't speaking just for herself at a board
meeting in May when she suggested a tenure review of faculty include information about professors' political views.

“I speak not just for myself but for the governor," she said. "I can’t think of any other position out there where people have
a job for life.”

Feingold was appointed by DeSantis to replace her husband, Dr. Jeffrey Feingold, after his second term expired. Feingold,
who died in October, was a huge DeSantis supporter and GOP megadonor.

Meantime, the governor and legislature have signed off on laws requiring an annual political bias survey of faculty and
allowing students to record their professors with the goal of filing a complaint against them.

“While claiming to be champions of free speech, they are denying the rights of professors pushing political and ideological
views contrary to those of the administration," Churchill said.

The administration’s latest actions are hypocritical given its long history of letting faculty members lend their expertise to
court cases, Fineberg said, especially since just two years ago the administration was praising Smith’s involvement in an
almost similar case.

“This is of grave concern to myself and other students who see this as an overreach by the governor,” Fineberg said. “It’s
an issue when partisan politics encroach (on) your ability to do your job.”

The legislative and executive “micromanagement of public universities is happening all around the U.S., and is not unique
to Florida,” said Robert Jerry, former dean of the UF Levin College of Law.

“We are seeing guardrails for democracy being broken down in many aspects of our lives,” Jerry said. “Universities are
caught up in these powerful movements, and this is the most recent episode of what’s happening around the country."

Jeffrey Schweers is a capital bureau reporter for USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida. Contact Schweers at
jschweers@gannett.com and follow him on Twitter @jeffschweers.
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 221

4 of 5 11/12/2021, 8:07 PM
UF professors: Political pressure raises academic freedom questions https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/local/state/2021/11/05/uf-florid...

Subscribe today using the link at the top of the page and never miss a story.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 222

5 of 5 11/12/2021, 8:07 PM
Ron Cunningham: Consider the track record of former UF presidents https://www.gainesville.com/story/opinion/2021/11/11/ron-cunningham-...

This piece expresses the views of its author(s), separate from those of this publication.

Columnist
Published 6:00 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2021 Updated 10:22 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2021

Wow! Talk about igniting a firestorm.

For a while there, Tigert Hall’s ham-handed attempts to censor professors caught more flack than Dan Mullen’s flailing
football fortunes.

Realizing he’d gotten a tiger by the tail (sly LSU reference) University of Florida President Ken Fuchs did an about-face,
told the suppressed professors to go ahead and testify and announced he’d appoint a task force to review UF’s conflict of
interest policies.

Hopefully, Fuchs will do some soul searching of his own while awaiting the work of the task force.

In that regard I suggest he ask himself three questions:

1. WWJHMD?

J. Hillis Miller was UF’s first post-World War II president. He oversaw a major campus expansion, and ended up getting
UF’s health center named after him.

But Miller was no champion of his faculty’s right to get involved in the larger world beyond campus. The so-called Miller
Memo prohibited faculty from running for office. It was insulting and blatantly unconstitutional, but Miller had been dead
for more than a decade before economics professor Jim Richardson finally defied his edict and ran for City Commission.

Don’t be a J. Hillis Miller, Dr. Fuchs.

2. WWJWRD?

J. Wayne Reitz has been dead for almost 30 years, but students are still agitating to get his name taken off the Student
Union. And rightly so.

When the Johns Committee came to town in 1958, to root out homosexuality on campus, Reitz played the stooge while
careers were ruined and students expelled.

Reitz called homosexuality “a complete aberration,” and he thanked the Johns Committee for its work.

Don’t be a J. Wayne Reitz, Dr. Fuchs.

3. WWJLD?

While he’s mulling all this over, Fuchs ought to invite law school Dean Emeritus Jon Mills in for a cup of tea and a little
chat about academic freedom.

Mills is former speaker of the Florida House (a position he could not have aspired to while Miller was in charge).
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 223

1 of 3 11/14/2021, 9:32 AM
Ron Cunningham: Consider the track record of former UF presidents https://www.gainesville.com/story/opinion/2021/11/11/ron-cunningham-...

He is also co-director of UF’s Center For Governmental Responsibility, which was founded after Dick Nixon impounded
funds earmarked for social and civil rights programs. The center’s work helped support successful litigation challenging
the impoundments.

In the decades since, the Center has been elbow deep in matters of environmental law, poverty, health and education
policies, gender and race bias and much more.

Needless to say, that work has not always been greeted with enthusiasm in Tallahassee. (“Governmental responsibility?
We don’t need no stinkin’ governmental responsibility!”)

More from Ron Cunningham:

New use for school district's headquarters would help revitalize downtown

Gainesville will regret it if we don’t two-lane University Avenue

City Commission speakers relentlessly cast doubt, assign bad motives

In 1998 the Legislature tried to strip its funding on the trumped-up excuse that the Center was somehow encouraging
people to sue the government. The horror!

It took then-President John Lombardi about five minutes to decide: No, we’re not going to do that.

“Lombardi basically said that the Center for Governmental Responsibility would continue to be funded separately under a
different line,” Mills recalled.

In other words, Lombardi ignored the Legislature. And, Mills recalls, “there was no further reaction” from Tallahassee to
his defiance.

Lombardi called Tallahassee’s bluff.

“It’s fair to say this was an attempt by somebody to send UF a message,” Mills reflected. Nonetheless, UF defended “the
ability of academics to talk about public policy.”

Let the record show that when it counted, Lombardi stood firmly in defense of academic freedom at UF

Which leaves one last question.

WWKFD?

Be a John Lombardi, President Fuchs. Else what is The Academy for?

Ron Cunningham is former higher education reporter for The Sun. He has known and written about every UF president
since J. Wayne Reitz. Read his blog at www.floridavelocipede.com. Email him at ron@freegnv.com.

Send a letter to the editor (up to 200 words) to letters@gainesville.com. Letters must include the writer's full name and
city of residence. Additional guidelines for submitting letters and longer guest columns can be found at
bit.ly/sunopinionguidelines.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 224

2 of 3 11/14/2021, 9:32 AM
Ron Cunningham: Consider the track record of former UF presidents https://www.gainesville.com/story/opinion/2021/11/11/ron-cunningham-...

Get a digital subscription to the Gainesville Sun. Includes must-see content on Gainesville.com and Gatorsports.com,
breaking news and updates on all your devices, and access to the Gainesville.com ePaper. Visit
www.gainesville.com/subscribenow to sign up.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 225

3 of 3 11/14/2021, 9:32 AM
UF students, faculty protest on streets, in writing over free speech https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/11/12/university-florida-pr...

The Gainesville Sun

Published 5:32 p.m. ET Nov. 12, 2021 Updated 5:53 p.m. ET Nov. 12, 2021

University of Florida students and faculty held a protest on Friday, saying their battle with university administration over
“academic freedom and free speech” is far from over.

The university has come under intense criticism after its initial decision to block three professors from providing expert
testimony against the state in a lawsuit over voting rights.

On Nov. 5, UF President Kent Fuchs reversed his administration's decision that had blocked the professors from providing
expert testimony in a federal court challenge involving an elections law that was a top priority of Gov. Ron DeSantis.

State influence: How a Florida university system 'stacked' with mega-donors became 'blatantly political'

Abrupt change of course: University of Florida President Fuchs reverses decision blocking professors' testimony
against state

List of demands: UF faculty union sticks by its list of demands on academic freedom

But the protesters argued that there are still serious unresolved issues of whether the university administration will allow
professors to exercise their First Amendment rights in other types of cases, such as in the classroom.

And the professors involved in the case — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — said in a letter sent to
Fuchs on Friday that they have no confidence in the objectivity of the task force he put together to review UF’s conflicts of
interest policies.

The protesters said they want independent academic associations to formally investigate the treatment of professors, as
well as the university’s broader policies of both academic freedom and outside activities.

“The present moment provides the university with an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to academic freedom,”
the professors wrote in the letter to Fuchs. “This is a crisis of academic sovereignty. We respectfully submit that the best
qualified experts to fix this problem are those who had no hand in its development, implementation, or administration. It
is unfortunate that this matter will have to be adjudicated in a court of law and not between peers.”

The professors tell Fuchs that assigning this issue to a task force of his choosing “appears simply to be a cynical tactic to
defuse press attention and stem the reputational damage" to the university.

“The ‘task force’ concept appears to have originated not with the faculty itself, but with the administration’s government
relations and public relations team,” the professors said in their letter.

Cynthia Roldan, a spokeswoman for UF, said Friday that the university is not commenting on the matter.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 226

1 of 3 11/12/2021, 8:13 PM
UF students, faculty protest on streets, in writing over free speech https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/11/12/university-florida-pr...

Students late Friday afternoon protested at the southwest corner of University Avenue and 13th Street.

They said their concerns over the censorship of professors goes well beyond this recent case.

“Originally, when this came out, it was just three professors, but we found out it was eight over the past year,” said Rachel
Wolfrey, the public relations director for UF College Democrats. “This one specific (incident) has gotten a lot of public
attention, which is why they backed down. But who's to say it’s not going to happen again?”

Wolfrey said they are hoping that something like this never happens again, not only at UF but at other campuses
nationwide.

“This is unacceptable behavior, but especially for a Top 5 acclaimed university," she said.

Student Brian Marra, the political director for the UF College Democrats, said at the protest that the censorship concerns
go well beyond the controversy involving the three professors.

“The goal is to make sure that the university is actually academically free, because if we can’t trust the university to allow
these professors to testify – and it took immense pressure for them to do that – how do we know that the university isn’t
telling our professors what to say in the classroom?” Marra asked.

In fact, he said, some professors have said they are hesitant to talk about certain subjects in the classroom because of fear
of new legislation coming out in the Florida Legislature.

Marra said they were concerned that students would get them in trouble by recording what they are saying in class about
sensitive political topics even though they were speaking the truth.

“There is a lot more at stake here,” he said.

The announcement of the protest came through a press release put out by the UF College Democrats and United Faculty of
Florida at the University of Florida, the faculty union.

The groups are calling for donors to withhold contributions to UF and agencies to revisit UF's accreditation until their first
four demands are met.

Those are:

The university must allow the professors -- as well as other faculty affected by similar prohibitions -- to provide paid
expert testimony related to Florida state legislation that restricts voting access or on any other topic related to their
expertise. And the university must also issue a formal apology.
University administration must affirm that it will not interfere with the right of any employee “to exercise their
conscience, academic freedom, free speech rights, and expertise in an expert witness context, regardless of whether
they receive payment for their expertise.”
UF must affirm its support for voting rights and commit “to opposing ongoing efforts to suppress voting rights in the
state of Florida.”
UF must formally declare that the university's mission to serve the public good is independent of the transitory
political interests of state officeholders.
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 227

2 of 3 11/12/2021, 8:13 PM
UF students, faculty protest on streets, in writing over free speech https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/11/12/university-florida-pr...

Stan Kaye, the government relations chair for United Faculty of Florida at the University of Florida, the faculty union, said
in the press release that they are calling upon the American Association of Universities, the American Association of
University Professors, “or a comparable, independent body with no formal ties to the state of Florida to immediately
initiate the investigations.”

Elizabeth Dale, a UF professor of history and law, said that Fuchs’ statement did not contain a broader affirmation of
academic freedom, and the newly announced task force members consist “almost exclusively of current or former
University of Florida administrators who were responsible for violating the constitutional rights of faculty.”

On Nov. 5, Fuchs announced that he had asked UF’s Conflicts of Interest Office to reverse the decisions on recent requests
by UF employees to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which the state of Florida is a party.

It was an abrupt change of course following blistering criticism across the university community, from noted academics
across the nation and amid a probe by the accreditation authority essential for student aid.

The university had denied permission to the professors to serve as paid experts on the basis that challenging a law would
be “adverse to the university’s interests as a state of Florida institution.”

The lawsuit was by Florida Rising Together and other voting rights organizations, who contend that Senate Bill 90, passed
earlier this year, violates federal voting protections.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 228

3 of 3 11/12/2021, 8:13 PM
UF professors sue university, alleging First Amendment violations https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/11/15/florida-professors-s...

The Gainesville Sun

Published 10:34 p.m. ET Nov. 15, 2021

Six professors are suing the University of Florida administration, alleging their First Amendment rights have been violated
when they were blocked from testifying as expert witnesses in cases challenging state laws.

The suit against UF was initially filed by three professors who had been sought as experts in a separate lawsuit
challenging a state voting law supported by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

On Monday, three more professors — two in the Levin College of Law and one in the College of Medicine — joined the suit.
They had been blocked in cases involving state bans on local mask mandates and felons' voting rights, issues that put then
at odds with DeSantis.

The university has come under intense criticism after its initial decision to block the three professors from providing
expert testimony against the state in the lawsuit over voting rights.

On Nov. 5 — the same day three professors filed the suit — UF President Kent Fuchs reversed his administration's decision
that had blocked the professors from providing expert testimony in the federal court challenge of the state law.

UF spokesman Steve Orlando said in a text message on Monday that the university does not comment about pending
lawsuits.

Background: UF professors could testify in voting rights case if they are unpaid, spokeswoman says

UF response and pushback: University of Florida president responds as objections mount over academic freedom,
political meddling

More UF news: Florida Surgeon General Ladapo was rushed into UF College of Medicine job, emails show

Attorneys David A. O’Neil and Paul Donnelly, representing the professors, said in an emailed statement that the lawsuit
“fires back at the brazen violation by the University of Florida of their First Amendment rights and academic freedom.”

“Despite reversing the immediate decision prohibiting the professors from testifying, the university has made no
commitment to abandon its policy preventing academics from serving as expert witnesses when the university thinks that
their speech may be adverse to the state and whatever political agenda politicians want to promote,” they said.

They added that: 'It is time for this matter to be rightfully adjudicated, not by press release, but in a court of law.”

Monday afternoon, the attorneys said the three law professors had joined in as well. They are medical Professor Jeffrey
Goldhagen and law Professors Teresa J. Reid and Kenneth B. Nunn.

Goldhagen submitted written statements in lawsuits challenging the state's ban on mask mandes. The law professors, Reid
and Nunn, were barred from testifying in a felons' voting rights case.
Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 229

1 of 3 11/16/2021, 7:22 AM
UF professors sue university, alleging First Amendment violations https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/11/15/florida-professors-s...

“Given the University of Florida’s pervasive and deferential adherence to the State Government's political whims, it is
unsurprising that three more Professors have joined this lawsuit. When the University hired the Plaintiffs, they swore an
oath to serve the people of Florida – not its Government," O'Neil and Donnelly said in a press release.

"As the State faces matters of great public importance, the University is unconstitutionally curtailing their free speech and
academic freedom, and coercing them into violating this oath for blatantly political reasons. We are confident that the
court of law will see through the University’s motives. And we will fight until the conflicts-of-interest policy is abandoned
once and for all,” they said.

Professors Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald and Daniel Smith filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Gainesville
against the university’s Board of Trustees, President Kent Fuchs, and Provost Joseph Glover.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue injunctive relief preventing the university “from enforcing any policy or practice that
provides the university discretion to limit plaintiffs’ ability to undertake outside activities, on a paid or unpaid basis, on
the ground that the proposed activity is not aligned with the ‘interests’ of the State of Florida or any of its entities.”

The lawsuit also asks for “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and another other relief the court may deem “just and proper.”

The lawsuit states that the university violated the professors' First Amendment rights by restricting them from testifying
as expert witnesses or serving as expert consultants for fair compensation on the basis of their viewpoints.

“Defendants also violated plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment by imposing a prior restraint on their speech,
namely by requiring the university’s permission to testify," the lawsuit states. "Discrimination and prior restraint on the
basis of viewpoint or content are presumptively unconstitutional.”

It adds the university’s restrictions “must be struck down unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest
of the state.”

“The state has no compelling interest in silencing university faculty and preventing them from speaking on a topic of such
significant public importance as elections,” the lawsuit said. “And plaintiffs’ interest in speaking freely on a matter of
public concern far outweighs any interest that the state may have in censoring their testimony.”

In letters sent to Fuchs on Friday, they ask him to change the makeup of the task force he created to address the issues of
conflicts of interest involving professors testifying in lawsuits against the state. It is not clear the task force will take up the
broader issue of conflicts of interest, such doing other research or sharing expertise in areas perceived as contesting state
policy or law.

“We write to express our grave concern about the formation, composition, and scope of the purported ‘task force’ that you
appointed in an attempt to respond to the threat to the university’s accreditation,” the professors write in the letter.

Through a press release issued by UF on Nov. 5, Fuchs says that will review UF’s practice regarding requests for approval
of outside activities involving potential conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment.

“In particular, the task force will make a recommendation to me on how UF should respond when employees request
approval to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which their employer, the state of Florida, is a party.”

He asks for a preliminary recommendation by Nov. 29.

He said the members of the task force will include:

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 230

2 of 3 11/16/2021, 7:22 AM
UF professors sue university, alleging First Amendment violations https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2021/11/15/florida-professors-s...

Provost Glover, who will serve as chair.

Katie Vogel Anderson, clinical associate professor at the College of Pharmacy and former Faculty Senate Chair.
Hub Brown, dean of the College of Journalism and Communications.
Clay Calvert, professor of law and professor of journalism and communications and a Brechner Eminent Scholar and
Director.
Terra DuBois, chief compliance and ethics and privacy officer at UF
John Kraft, professor and Susan Cameron Chair of International Business at Warrington College of Business
Laura Rosenbury, the dean of the Levin College of Law

"Without prejudice regarding the task force recommendations, I have also asked UF’s Conflicts of Interest Office to
reverse the decisions on recent requests by UF employees to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which the state of
Florida is a party and to approve the requests, regardless of personal compensation, assuming the activity is on their own
time without using university resources," Fuchs said in the release.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 231

3 of 3 11/16/2021, 7:22 AM
Congressional subcommittee to looking into academic freedom at UF https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/11/18/c...

The Gainesville Sun

Published 5:18 p.m. ET Nov. 18, 2021 Updated 5:40 p.m. ET Nov. 18, 2021

A U.S. House of Representatives oversight subcommittee is investigating the University of Florida after several professors
were prevented from participating in legislation against the State of Florida, a move many have since said calls into
question the university's commitment to academic freedom and free speech.

In a letter sent to UF President Kent Fuchs on Thursday, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties members wrote
they were "concerned that UF is censoring its faculty based on viewpoint, which would set a dangerous precedent that flies
in the face of its own commitment to freedom of expression ... As one of the top five public research universities in the
nation, UF must ensure that it is not creating the appearance of anticipatory obedience or that it is responding to political
pressure in deciding which speech activities it will permit."

The letter continued to say, "The Subcommittee is investigating the extent to which your university’s actions have
undermined the integrity of academic freedom and interfered with employees’ constitutional right to speak freely as
private citizens on matters of great public concern. In addition, we seek to understand the extent to which federally funded
universities use conflicts-of-interest policies to censor employees who oppose the interests of the political party in power."

With a deadline of Dec. 2, the letter to Fuchs also requested a long list of documentation and information from UF,
including records like communications from top university officials and the state regarding UF's Conflicts of Commitment
and Conflicts of Interest policy and detailed explanations for denials of professors' requests to engage in outside activities.

The letter follows a lawsuit from six professors against UF alleging First Amendment violations, an inquiry by the
university's accreditor, action from UF's faculty union and senate and multiple local protests.

See The Sun's past coverage on the unfolding situation here:

Background: UF professors could testify in voting rights case if they are unpaid, spokeswoman says
Fuchs responds: University of Florida president responds as objections mount over academic freedom, political
meddling
Accreditor inquires: Accreditor: Did University of Florida violate academic freedom standards by blocking
professors' testimony?
More professors speak out: University of Florida professor told not to give legal counsel participated in lawsuit
anyway
UF reverses course, forms task force: University of Florida President Fuchs reverses decision blocking
professors' testimony against state
Union response: UF faculty union sticks by its list of demands on academic freedom
Pushback continues: Protest on the street and in writing show continued concern at UF over academic freedom
Professors file suit: Six professors take free-speech battle with University of Florida administrators to court

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 232

1 of 2 11/19/2021, 10:35 AM
Congressional subcommittee to looking into academic freedom at UF https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/11/18/c...

It was signed by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, subcommittee chairperson, and UF alumna Rep. Debbie Wasserman-
Schultz, D-Weston, who previously led Florida’s entire Democratic congressional delegation in sending its own letter to
Fuchs.

In a separate written statement Thursday, Wasserman-Schultz explained some of her reasoning behind the
new committee message.

"I bleed Gator orange and blue, and I will not condone repressive political actors trying to strongarm or silence UF’s
leaders or its brilliant professors," her statement read. "This letter will stream sunshine and bring out of the shadows any
suppressive forces who seek to tarnish the sterling reputation of my alma mater."

UF spokeswoman Hessy Fernandez wrote in an email to the Gainesville Sun on Thursday afternoon that the university has
confirmed to the committee receipt of the letter.

"We are working to respond within the guidelines we received," she stated.

A task force of UF administrators and faculty assigned by Fuchs is in the process of reviewing UF's conflict of interest
policy. Its seven members have been asked to give him a recommendation by Nov. 29 on how UF should respond to
employees' requests to serve as expert witnesses in litigation where the state of Florida is a party.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 233

2 of 2 11/19/2021, 10:35 AM
Editorial: UF needs to do more to protect academic freedom https://www.gainesville.com/story/opinion/2021/12/02/editorial-uf-needs...

This piece expresses the views of its author(s), separate from those of this publication.

Published 6:02 a.m. ET Dec. 2, 2021

A new University of Florida policy focused on professors providing expert testimony doesn’t do enough to protect the
academic freedom of faculty, as a controversy over critical race theory is showing.

UF has faced criticism following revelations that administrators had barred professors from testifying in court cases
challenging laws backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature. UF President Kent Fuchs
formed a task force that recommended new guidelines on faculty testimony, which Fuchs approved last week.

A grievance filed this week by a College of Education faculty member adds to evidence that much more need to be done to
protect academic freedom and prevent political interference at UF. Associate professor Chris Busey claimed in the
grievance that he was pushed to drop the words "critical" and "race" from the title of a planned course due to concerns that
state officials would object.

More Sun editorials:

Passing over Certain as School Board chair sent the wrong message

East Gainesville shouldn’t be afterthought when it comes to safety improvements

Release full footage, conduct real review of SWAT raid on real estate office

Busey has been working on a proposed concentration called "Critical Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Education"
at the request of interested students. But faculty were told courses with titles including "critical" and "race" would not be
approved by the university unless the wording was changed, according to documents filed in the grievance by the faculty
union that were obtained by The Sun.

College of Education Dean Glenn Good reportedly said UF is particularly vulnerable to politics because of the "substantial
amount of funding" it gets from the state and that they did “not want to inflame Tallahassee,” according to the grievance.
The grievance claims that Busey was threatened with discipline if he used "critical race" in his curriculum.

Critical race theory is a decades-old academic concept that examines the way that racism is embedded in U.S. institutions.
Republicans such as DeSantis have attacked critical race theory in recent months as a way to gin up outrage among their
base, causing misunderstanding of what it means and where it is taught.

The Florida Board of Education in June banned the state’s public schools from teaching critical race theory, without any
evidence it was even being taught in any K-12 classrooms. State Rep. Randy Fine, R-Palm Bay, has filed legislation that
would outlaw critical race theory in training for public schools, universities and other government institutions.

Clearly these efforts have had a chilling effect on UF. Administrators had already been marching in lockstep with
Republican state officials in recent actions, including barring at least six UF professors from testifying in cases challenging
state laws and regulations
Faculty on mask
Senate Ad Hoc mandates
Committee andFreedom
on Academic voting rights. Page 234

1 of 2 12/2/2021, 9:40 PM
Editorial: UF needs to do more to protect academic freedom https://www.gainesville.com/story/opinion/2021/12/02/editorial-uf-needs...

The task force recommendations accepted by Fuchs establish a “strong presumption” that UF faculty be allowed to testify
in these kinds of cases moving forward. They also call for UF to publicly affirm the academic freedom and free speech
rights of faculty, but such affirmations mean little if administrators are altering courses due to political fears.

UF faces probes from its accrediting agency and a congressional subcommittee into professors being prevented from
testifying. Now the faculty union is demanding an independent, external investigation into the state of academic freedom
at the university. The grievance gives more evidence such an investigation is warranted.

If Fuchs wants to prevent UF’s reputation from being further tattered, giving lip service to academic freedom doesn’t cut
it. He needs to go beyond the task force’s recommendations and take additional steps to shield faculty from political
interference.

Send a letter to the editor (up to 200 words) to letters@gainesville.com. Letters must include the writer's full name and
city of residence. Additional guidelines for submitting letters and longer guest columns can be found at
bit.ly/sunopinionguidelines.

Get a digital subscription to the Gainesville Sun. Includes must-see content on Gainesville.com and Gatorsports.com,
breaking news and updates on all your devices, and access to the Gainesville.com ePaper. Visit
www.gainesville.com/subscribenow to sign up.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 235

2 of 2 12/2/2021, 9:40 PM
Appendix 4

November 18, 2021

Dr. Wesley Kent Fuchs

President
University of Florida
226 Tigert Hall
P.O. Box 113150
Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear President Fuchs:

We write with deep concern about recent actions by the University of Florida (UF) to
prevent professors from providing testimony and written submissions in litigation challenging
the constitutionality of actions taken by the state of Florida, in violation of the First Amendment
and in contravention of long-established principles of academic freedom.

According to reports, in July 2020, UF revised its conflicts-of-interest policy to require

all employees to seek approval from the university before engaging in outside activities.1 Prior
to this change, employees only needed to notify the university of their outside activities and
financial interests as they arose. 2 UF professors reportedly objected to this change, expressing
concerns that the policy would be “used as a prior restraint on speech.” 3 The professors’ fears
were confirmed when UF subsequently prevented multiple faculty members from participating in
litigation raising legal and constitutional concerns related to criminal justice reform, voter
suppression laws, and the state’s ban on mask mandates. 4

1
University of Florida, Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest (Nov. 10, 2020) (online at
policy.ufl.edu/policy/conflicts-of-commitment-and-conflicts-of-interest/). According to this policy, “outside
activities” are defined as “any paid or unpaid activity undertaken by an Employee outside of the University which
could create an actual or apparent Conflict of Commitment or Conflict of Interest. Outside Activities may include
consulting, participating in civic or charitable organizations, working as a technical or professional advisor
or practitioner, or holding a parttime job with another employer.”
2
Memorandum from Joseph Glover, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Jodi
Gentry, Vice President for Human Resource Services, University of Florida, Reporting Outside Activities and
Potential Conflicts of Interest (Nov. 6, 2018) (online at hr.ufl.edu/memoranda/uf-administrative-memo-reporting-
outside-activities-and-potential-conflicts-of-interest/).
3
President Fuchs Asks University to Reverse Decision Barring Professors from Testifying, Independent
Florida Alligator (Nov. 5, 2021) (online at www.alligator.org/article/2021/11/faculty-senate-meeting).
4
UF Restricted Five Other Professors’ Participation in Legal Cases Against the State, Miami Herald (Nov.
2, 2021) (online at www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article255487301.html).

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 236

 We are concerned that UF is censoring its faculty based on viewpoint, which would set a
dangerous precedent that flies in the face of its own commitment to freedom of expression. 5 We
are also concerned that, possibly due to pressure from trustees, politicians, or others, UF has
adopted and enforced a conflicts policy that undermines the academic and free speech values that
are essential to American higher education. As one of the top five public research universities in
the nation, UF must ensure that it is not creating the appearance of anticipatory obedience or that
it is responding to political pressure in deciding which speech activities it will permit.

In July 2020, under its new policy, UF prevented four law professors—Kenneth Nunn,
Sarah K. Wolking, Teresa Jean Reid, and Mark Fenster—from referencing their university
affiliation in an amicus brief submitted in support of challenges to the state legislature’s changes
to a constitutional amendment restoring the voting rights of felons in Florida—the same
litigation in which UF political science professor Daniel Smith participated as an expert witness
in 2019. 6 According to reports, UF subsequently denied three requests from Dr. Jeffrey L.
Goldhagen, a pediatrician and UF medical school professor, to testify in lawsuits challenging
Governor Ron DeSantis’s July 2021 ban on school districts’ mask mandates, even though he
would not have received any compensation. 7

In October 2021, UF initially blocked three more professors—Daniel Smith, Sharon

Austin, and Michael McDonald—from testifying as experts in a lawsuit challenging Florida’s
new restrictive voting law, S.B. 90. 8 In denying the professors’ requests to testify, UF officials
explained that because the school is a state institution, testifying in litigation that conflicts with
Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration “is adverse to U.F.’s interests.” 9 UF’s decision came
approximately one week after two of the professors published an October 7, 2021, op-ed in the
Tampa Bay Times accusing the state legislature of violating Florida’s 2010 anti-gerrymandering
Fair Districts constitutional amendments.10

Until last year, UF had a longstanding practice of allowing professors to participate in

administrative and judicial proceedings even when seemingly “adverse to the university’s
interests as a state of Florida institution.” 11 For example, prior to July 2020, Professor Smith

5
University of Florida, Freedom of Expression Statement (Apr. 12, 2019) (online at
http://statements.ufl.edu/statements/2019/april/freedom-of-expression-statement.html).
6
Id.
7
U. of Florida Doctor Says Administrators Blocked Him from Participating in Lawsuits About Masking,
Chronicle of Higher Education (Nov. 2, 2021) (online at www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-florida-doctor-says-
administrators-blocked-him-from-participating-in-lawsuits-about-masking). Despite UF’s denial, Dr. Goldhagen
provided written declarations in at least two cases and requested to be subpoenaed in a third case.
8
Florida Bars State Professors from Testifying in Voting Rights Cases, New York Times (Nov. 4, 2021)
(online at www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/florida-professors-lawsuit.html).
9
In “Chilling” Decision, UF Professors Have Been Barred from Testifying Against Florida, Miami Herald
(Oct. 31, 2021) (online at www.miamiherald.com/article255409716.html).
Id.; see also What Is the Florida Legislature Hiding, Tampa Bay Times (Oct. 7, 2021) (online at
10

www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/10/07/what-is-the-florida-legislature-hiding-on-redistricting-column/).
11
Florida Bars State Professors from Testifying in Voting Rights Cases, New York Times (Nov. 4, 2021)
(online at www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/florida-professors-lawsuit.html). For example, Professor Smith, one of

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 237

served as an expert witness in numerous voting rights lawsuits in which the state was named as a
defendant. According to Professor Smith, in the past, UF “celebrated” professors’ involvement
in activities that brought “national recognition to UF.” 12 Smith was even allowed to serve as a
consulting expert in lawsuits against the university involving early voting on college campuses in
Florida. 13

After significant backlash, on November 5, 2021, you indicated plans to reverse course
regarding Professors Smith, Austin, and McDonald’s participation in the S.B. 90 litigation,
requesting that UF officials “approve the requests regardless of personal compensation, assuming
the activity is on their own time without using university resources.” You also ordered a task
force to “review UF’s practice regarding requests for approval of outside activities involving
potential conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment.” 14 This was an important reversal,
but many questions remain about whether UF’s conflicts-of-interest policy is still in effect and, if
so, whether the university will continue to implement the policy in a manner inconsistent with
the First Amendment.

The Subcommittee is investigating the extent to which your university’s actions have
undermined the integrity of academic freedom and interfered with employees’ constitutional
right to speak freely as private citizens on matters of great public concern. In addition, we seek
to understand the extent to which federally funded universities use conflicts-of-interest policies
to censor employees who oppose the interests of the political party in power.

Protecting First Amendment rights is a priority for the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties and falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional oversight authority.15 The
Oversight Committee, under the leadership of both Democratic and Republican chairs, has
previously investigated potential deprivations of First Amendment rights by government
actors—including public universities.16

the academics who was blocked from testifying against the state of Florida in the S.B. 90 litigation, has served as an
expert witness in numerous voting rights lawsuits in which the governor and secretary of state were named as
defendants over the past decade.
12
UF Professors Could Testify in Voting Rights Case if They Were Unpaid, Spokeswoman Says,
Gainesville Sun (Oct. 31, 2021) (online at
www.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2021/10/31/university-of-florida-spokeswoman-three-
professors-could-testify-if-unpaid/6223947001/).
13
Id.
14
President Kent Fuchs, University of Florida, Message from President Fuchs—Outside Activities by UF
Employees Involving Litigation in Which the State of Florida Is a Party (Nov. 5, 2021) (online at
statements.ufl.edu/statements/2021/november/message-from-president-fuchs---outside-activities-by-uf-employees-
involving-litigation-in-which-the-state-of-florida-is-a-party.html).
See, e.g., Barenblatt v. U.S., 360 U.S. 109, 111 (“The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as
15

penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.”).
See, e.g., Subcommittee on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules and Subcommittee on
16

Intergovernmental Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Hearing on Challenges to Freedom of Speech on
Campus, 116th Cong. (July 27, 2017) (online at republicans-oversight.house.gov/hearing/challenges-freedom-
speech-college-campuses/); Subcommittee on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative Rules and Subcommittee on
Intergovernmental Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Hearing on Challenges to Freedom of Speech on

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 238

 For these reasons, we request that you produce the following information by December 3,
2021:

1. Identify all individuals who were consulted or otherwise involved in the creation,
revision, or development of UF’s 2020 Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of
Interest policy and any other policies related to requests to participate in outside
activities; and

2. For each request by a UF professor to engage in outside activities that was denied
under UF’s Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest policy or a related
policy from January 1, 2015, to the present, provide:

a. the name, title, and department of the professor;

b. the nature of the request;

c. a detailed explanation for the denial;

d. the name, title, and role of each individual involved in reviewing or

denying the request; and

e. whether President Fuchs, Provost Glover, or any member of the board of

trustees were made aware of any request prior to denial, or were involved
in the decision making process;

In addition, we request that you produce the following documents by December 3, 2021:

1. All conflicts of interest policies in effect from January 1, 2015, to the present;

2. All documents, including but not limited to board of trustees meeting minutes,
and communications sent, received, or created by President Fuchs, Provost
Glover, Assistant Vice President Wimsett or a member of his team, or any
member of the board of trustees, related to the creation, revision, or development
of UF’s 2020 Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest policy, including
any communications with the Executive Office of the Governor or any members
of the Florida legislature;

Campus Part II, 116th Cong. (May 22, 2018) (online at republicans-oversight.house.gov/hearing/challenges-to-the-
freedom-of-speech-on-college-campuses-part-ii/); Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Briefing on
First Amendment Violations at Black Lives Matter Protests, 116th Cong. (June 29, 2020) (online at
oversight.house.gov/legislation/briefings/select-subcommittee-briefing-on-first-amendment-violations-at-black-
lives). At the 2017 joint subcommittee hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan, then-Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Healthcare, Benefits, and Administration, stated, “This committee is committed to help colleges reinstate the
freedom of speech as an important protection. After all, it is no coincidence that the Constitution’s Framers
prioritized the freedom of speech in the First, the First Amendment.”

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 239

 3. All documents and communications related to concerns, complaints, or objections
raised or submitted by UF faculty or third parties in response to UF’s July 2020
Conflicts of Commitment and Conflicts of Interest policy;

4. All documents and communications sent, received, or created by President Fuchs,

Provost Glover, Assistant Vice President Wimsett or a member of his team, or
any member of the board of trustees, related to Professors Daniel Smith and
Michael McDonald’s October 7, 2021, op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times;

5. For requests by Professors Daniel Smith, Michael McDonald, and Sharon Austin
to serve as expert witnesses in Florida Rising Together, et al. v. Lee, et al. (Case
No. 4:21-cv-00201-MW/MJF) (N.D. Fl.); by Dr. Jeffrey L. Goldhagen to
participate in litigation involving Florida’s mask mandates in schools; and by any
UF Levin College of Law Professor, including Professors Kenneth Nunn, Sarah
K. Wolking, Teresa Jean Reid, and Mark Fenster, to participate in the amicus
brief filed in Jones, et al. v. Florida, et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00300) (N.D. Fl.):

a. Documents sufficient to show the identity of any individual with whom

Assistant Vice President Wimsett, Dean David E. Richardson, Dean Laura
Ann Rosenbury, or any members of their team, communicated about the
requests; and

b. All documents and communications sent, received, or created by Assistant

Vice President Wimsett, Dean David E. Richardson, Dean Laura Ann
Rosenbury, or a member of their teams, related to the requests;

6. All documents and communications sent, received, or created by President Fuchs,

Provost Glover, or any member of the board of trustees regarding any request to
engage in outside activities responsive to Request for Information 2, above;

7. All documents and communications related to President Fuchs’s task force

examining outside activities by UF employees involving litigation in which the
state of Florida is a party, including all preliminary and final recommendations;
and

8. All communications from January 1, 2017, to present involving President Fuchs,

Provost Glover, or any member of the board of trustees and anyone in the
Executive Office of the Governor, the Florida Department of Education, or the
Florida legislature regarding UF faculty participating in administrative or judicial
proceedings related to the state.

The Committee on Oversight and Reform is the principal oversight committee of the
House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under
House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional instructions for responding to the
Committee’s request. If you have any questions regarding these requests, please contact
Subcommittee staff at (202) 225-5051.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 240

 We look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

__________________________ __________________________
Jamie Raskin Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Chairman Member of Congress
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties

Enclosure

cc: The Honorable Nancy Mace, Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Mr. Joseph Glover, Provost

University of Florida

Mr. Gary Wimsett, Assistant Vice President for Conflicts of Interest

University of Florida

Ms. Laura Ann Rosenbury, Dean

University of Florida Levin College of Law

Mr. David E. Richardson, Dean

University of Florida College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 241

 Responding to Oversight Committee Document Requests

1. In complying with this request, produce all responsive documents that are in your
possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents,
employees, and representatives acting on your behalf. Produce all documents that you
have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access, as
well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control
of any third party.

2. Requested documents, and all documents reasonably related to the requested documents,
should not be destroyed, altered, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to
the Committee.

3. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual denoted in this request is or has
been known by any name other than that herein denoted, the request shall be read also to
include that alternative identification.

4. The Committee’s preference is to receive documents in electronic form (i.e., CD,

memory stick, thumb drive, or secure file transfer) in lieu of paper productions.

5. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed

electronically.

6. Electronic document productions should be prepared according to the following

standards:

a. The production should consist of single page Tagged Image File (“TIF”), files
accompanied by a Concordance-format load file, an Opticon reference file, and a
file defining the fields and character lengths of the load file.

b. Document numbers in the load file should match document Bates numbers and
TIF file names.

c. If the production is completed through a series of multiple partial productions,

field names and file order in all load files should match.

d. All electronic documents produced to the Committee should include the following
fields of metadata specific to each document, and no modifications should be
made to the original metadata:

BEGDOC, ENDDOC, TEXT, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, PAGECOUNT,

CUSTODIAN, RECORDTYPE, DATE, TIME, SENTDATE, SENTTIME,
BEGINDATE, BEGINTIME, ENDDATE, ENDTIME, AUTHOR, FROM, CC,
TO, BCC, SUBJECT, TITLE, FILENAME, FILEEXT, FILESIZE,
DATECREATED, TIMECREATED, DATELASTMOD, TIMELASTMOD,

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 242

 INTMSGID, INTMSGHEADER, NATIVELINK, INTFILPATH, EXCEPTION,
BEGATTACH.

7. Documents produced to the Committee should include an index describing the contents
of the production. To the extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb
drive, zip file, box, or folder is produced, each should contain an index describing its
contents.

8. Documents produced in response to this request shall be produced together with copies of
file labels, dividers, or identifying markers with which they were associated when the
request was served.

9. When you produce documents, you should identify the paragraph(s) or request(s) in the
Committee’s letter to which the documents respond.

10. The fact that any other person or entity also possesses non-identical or identical copies of
the same documents shall not be a basis to withhold any information.

11. The pendency of or potential for litigation shall not be a basis to withhold any
information.

12. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.§ 552(d), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and any
statutory exemptions to FOIA shall not be a basis for withholding any information.

13. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall not be a basis for withholding
information.

14. If compliance with the request cannot be made in full by the specified return date,
compliance shall be made to the extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full
compliance is not possible shall be provided along with any partial production.

15. In the event that a document is withheld on the basis of privilege, provide a privilege log
containing the following information concerning any such document: (a) every privilege
asserted; (b) the type of document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the date, author,
addressee, and any other recipient(s); (e) the relationship of the author and addressee to
each other; and (f) the basis for the privilege(s) asserted.

16. If any document responsive to this request was, but no longer is, in your possession,
custody, or control, identify the document (by date, author, subject, and recipients), and
explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your possession,
custody, or control.

17. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this request referring to a document is
inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise
apparent from the context of the request, produce all documents that would be responsive
as if the date or other descriptive detail were correct.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 243

18. This request is continuing in nature and applies to any newly-discovered information.
Any record, document, compilation of data, or information not produced because it has
not been located or discovered by the return date shall be produced immediately upon
subsequent location or discovery.

19. All documents shall be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially.

20. Two sets of each production shall be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set
to the Minority Staff. When documents are produced to the Committee, production sets
shall be delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 2157 of the Rayburn House Office
Building and the Minority Staff in Room 2105 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

21. Upon completion of the production, submit a written certification, signed by you or your
counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your
possession, custody, or control that reasonably could contain responsive documents; and
(2) all documents located during the search that are responsive have been produced to the
Committee.

Definitions

1. The term “document” means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature
whatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not
limited to, the following: memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals,
instructions, financial reports, data, working papers, records, notes, letters, notices,
confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers,
prospectuses, communications, electronic mail (email), contracts, cables, notations of any
type of conversation, telephone call, meeting or other inter-office or intra-office
communication, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, teletypes, invoices,
transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills, accounts, estimates,
projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases, circulars, financial
statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations, questionnaires and
surveys, and work sheets (and all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications,
revisions, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, as well as any attachments
or appendices thereto), and graphic or oral records or representations of any kind
(including without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm,
videotape, recordings and motion pictures), and electronic, mechanical, and electric
records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes,
disks, and recordings) and other written, printed, typed, or other graphic or recorded
matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and whether preserved in
writing, film, tape, disk, videotape, or otherwise. A document bearing any notation not a
part of the original text is to be considered a separate document. A draft or non-identical
copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.

2. The term “communication” means each manner or means of disclosure or exchange of

information, regardless of means utilized, whether oral, electronic, by document or
otherwise, and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, mail, releases, electronic

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 244

 message including email (desktop or mobile device), text message, instant message,
MMS or SMS message, message application, or otherwise.

3. The terms “and” and “or” shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or
disjunctively to bring within the scope of this request any information that might
otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and
vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neutral genders.

4. The term “including” shall be construed broadly to mean “including, but not limited to.”

5. The term “Company” means the named legal entity as well as any units, firms,
partnerships, associations, corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, subsidiaries,
affiliates, divisions, departments, branches, joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, or
other legal, business or government entities over which the named legal entity exercises
control or in which the named entity has any ownership whatsoever.

6. The term “identify,” when used in a question about individuals, means to provide the
following information: (a) the individual’s complete name and title; (b) the
individual’s business or personal address and phone number; and (c) any and all
known aliases.

7. The term “related to” or “referring or relating to,” with respect to any given subject,
means anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to,
deals with, or is pertinent to that subject in any manner whatsoever.

8. The term “employee” means any past or present agent, borrowed employee, casual
employee, consultant, contractor, de facto employee, detailee, fellow, independent
contractor, intern, joint adventurer, loaned employee, officer, part-time employee,
permanent employee, provisional employee, special government employee,
subcontractor, or any other type of service provider.

9. The term “individual” means all natural persons and all persons or entities acting on
their behalf.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 245

 November 2, 2021

Dr. W. Kent Fuchs

President
University of Florida
P. O. Box 113150
226 Tigert Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Dr. Fuchs:

The Southern AssociationofColleges and Schools Commission on Colleges' policy, "StandingRules:

SACSCOCBoardofTrustees, ExecutiveCouncil, andthe College DelegateAssembly" (available at
httDS://sacscoc. org/app/uploads/2019/07/standingrules_Edf), stipulates that the Commission give
appropriate consideratioii to significant accreditation-related unsolicited information revealed about an
institution between periods ofscheduledreview. This policy provides that ail institution be affordedthe
opportunity to respond to concerns raised during the review of the unsolicited information.

1 am writing here to seek an institutional response to reports recently published by various news outlets
(see accompanyingAppendixforcitations ofspecific newsreports) whichmay raisequestionsaboutthe
institution's ongoingcompliance with certain SACSCOCPrinciples ofAccreditation. In light ofthese
reports, and in accordancewith the Commission's policy andprocedures, 1 am requestingthatthe
institution prepare a report that explains and documents the extent of its current compliance with the
following standardsofthe PrinciplesofAccredilation:

. Comprehensive Standard 4.2. f (External influence)

. Comprehensive Standard 6. 4 (Academic freedom)

The request for this report does not indicate that the Commission has determined that the institution is out
of compliance with any standards; rather, the Commission recognizes that it needs additional information
before making any such determination. In providing an overview oflhe reported recent institutional
action and in addressing the specific listed standards, the submitted report should focus on the specific
recent institlitional action described in the cited published reports, not on the institution's overall
compliance with the listed standards. In sections whichdirectly address eachofthe listed standards (or in
an overview discussion), the report should include attention to the following questions:

. To what extent was the recently reported institutional action affected by entities and/or
individuals outside the institution's established governing system?

. To what extent, if any, was the institution's establislied governing board involved in the decisioii-
making process prior to the reported action?

. To whatextent and in whatways is the recently reported institutional action consistentwiththe

institution's published policy on academic freedom?

In addressing these questioiis in the coiitext ofdocumenting the institution's ongoing compliance with the
listed standards, the submitted report should include the following supporting information as well as any

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 246

 SOUTHERN ASSOCiATtON OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS
COMM!SStONON COLLEGES

Dr. W. Kent Fuchs

November 2, 2021
Page Two

other documents which you consider relevant to the institution's case for compliance: 1) minutes of any
governing board meetings at which the recently reported action was discussed (and any prior infonnation
or reports which were provided to, or prepared by, the Board in advance of its discussion); 2) the
institution's published policy on academic freedom.

Please submit to my office three copies of the institution's response to this letter (in either electronic
[preferred] or hard copy format) by no laterthan Tuesday, December 7, 2021.

In accord with Commission policy, the institution's response to the unsolicited information will be
reviewed upon receipt. If Commission staff determines that the unsolicited information is of factual
substanceand is accreditation related, the information anddocumentation, along with the institution's
response report, will be forwarded to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees for formal review. Or, it is
possible that the President of the SACSCOC could authorize a Special Committee to review the
institution.

If you or those preparing the report have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 404-994-6574 or
at ihardt(S)sacscoc. ore.

Sincerely,

^ /^tui^~
Johii S. Hardt
Vice President

JSH:sm

ec: Dr. Timothy S. Brophy, Institutional Accreditation Liaison, University of Florida

Dr. Belle S. Wheelan, President, SACSCOC

Faculty Senate1 Ad
866Hoc Committee
Southern Laneon. Decatur,
AcademicGeorgia
Freedom30033-4097 . Telephone 404/679-4500 . Fax 404/679-4558 Page 247
www.sacscdc.o i~g
 Appendix

1. Andiew Jeong, "Univei-sity ofFlorida bai's faculty membei's fi'om testifying invoting riglits lawsuit against DeSmtis
adminish'dtion, "Was'/i;ng;on/'oi<, October 30, 2021, hBps:/Av\\w. washingtonpost. com/natio]V2021/10/30/florida-VQtm^
nfihte-<lesai"ttis-IawsLii1/

2. Michael Wines, "Florida Bars Professors From Testifying As Expert Witnesses in Voting Case, " New
York Times, October 30, 2021, Page A 17.

3. Andy Thomason, "U. of Florida Stops 3 Professors From Taking Part in Voting-Rights Suit, Raising
Cries of Censorship, " Chronicle of Higher Education, October 31, 2021,
https://www. chronicle. com/article/u-of-florida-stops-professors-from-participating-in-voting-rights-suit-
raising-cries-of-censorship

4. Scott Jaschik, "D of Florida Bars Professors From Helping Lawsuit Against the State, " Inside Higher
Edticalion, November 1, 2021, https://www. insidehighered. com/news/2021/l 1/01/u-florida-bars-
protessors-hejping-^awsjjjt^a^am^t^s^

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 248

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 249
 Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Comprehensive Standard 4.2.f. - External Influence........................................................................... 3
Comprehensive Standard 6.4. - Academic Freedom ........................................................................... 4
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 250

 Special Report on Comprehensive
Standards 4.2.f (External Influence) and 6.4 (Academic Freedom)

Introduction
This report is our official response to the Commission’s letter of November 2, 2021 in
which Dr. John Hardt requested a special report in response to media coverage regarding
the University of Florida’s preservation and protection of academic freedom. Dr. Hardt’s
letter presents the following requests:
I am requesting that the institution prepare a report that explains and documents the
extent of its current compliance with the following standards of the Principles of
Accreditation:
• Comprehensive Standard 4.2.f. The governing board protects the institution from
undue influence by external persons or bodies. (External influence)
• Comprehensive Standard 6.4. The institution publishes and implements
appropriate policies and procedures for preserving and protecting academic
freedom. (Academic freedom)
The report should include attention to the following questions:
• To what extent was the recently reported institutional action affected by entities
and/or individuals outside the institution's established governing system?
• To what extent, if any, was the institution's established governing board involved
in the decision-making process prior to the reported action?
• To what extent and in what ways is the recently reported institutional action
consistent with the institution's published policy on academic freedom?
Our response addresses the University of Florida’s ongoing compliance with the stated
standards and provides the necessary documentation and explanation of the areas of
concern raised in the questions.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 251

Comprehensive Standard 4.2.f. - External Influence

In this section of our response, we address briefly how the University of Florida Board of
Trustees (BoT) ensures that the institution is free from undue influence by external
persons or bodies, and respond to these questions regarding external influence:
• To what extent was the recently reported institutional action affected by entities
and/or individuals outside the institution's established governing system?
o None. These actions were not affected by entities or individuals
outside of the university’s established governing system.
• To what extent, if any, was the institution's established governing board
involved in the decision-making process prior to the reported action?
o The university’s governing board was not involved in this decision-
making process at any time.

The decisions that have led to the media reports were all made internally. The University’s
established governing board, the Board of Trustees (BoT), was not involved in the decision-
making process in any way, and entities and/or individuals outside the University’s
established governing system had no effect on the recently reported institutional action.
Because the University’s BoT was not involved in the decision-making process, there are no
responsive minutes of any governing board meeting to provide.

The University of Florida abides by the regulations of the Board of Governors and the
statutes of the State of Florida. These regulations and statutes set forth the processes and
responsibilities of the Board of Trustees and ensures the Board is free from undue external
influence. The State University System Board of Governors conducts an annual New
Trustee Orientation, and this orientation addresses external influence as part of the
Trustees Roles and Responsibilities. Trustees are subject to the Florida Code of Ethics and
Board of Trustees meetings are subject to Florida’s public meeting statute.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 252

Comprehensive Standard 6.4. - Academic Freedom

In this section of our response, we address briefly how the University of Florida preserves
and protects academic freedom, and respond to this question regarding academic freedom:
• To what extent and in what ways is the recently reported institutional action
consistent with the institution's published policy on academic freedom?

The University of Florida values academic freedom and ensures that it is preserved and
protected through policy, procedure, and practice. UF Regulation 6C1-7018 defines UF
policy on academic freedom and responsibility, as the following excerpt describes:
The established policy of the University continues to be that the faculty member must
fulfill his/her responsibility to society and to his/her profession by manifesting
academic competence, scholarly discretion, and good citizenship. The university
instructor is a citizen, a member of a learned profession, and an academic officer of the
University. The instructor should be constantly mindful that these roles may be
inseparable in the public view and should therefore at all times exercise appropriate
restraint and good judgment. Academic freedom is accompanied by the corresponding
responsibility to:
 Be forthright and honest in the pursuit and communication of scientific and
scholarly knowledge.
 Respect students, staff and colleagues as individuals and avoid any exploitation
of such persons for private advantage.
 Respect the integrity of the evaluation process with regard to students, staff
and colleagues, so that it reflects their true merit.
 Indicate when appropriate that one is not an institutional representative unless
specifically authorized as such; and recognize the responsibilities arising from
the nature of the educational process, including such responsibilities, but not
limited to, observing and upholding the ethical standards of their discipline;
participating, as appropriate, in the shared system of collegial governance,
especially at the department/unit level; respecting the confidential nature of

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 253

 the relationship between professor and student; and adhering to one’s proper
role as teacher, researcher, intellectual mentor and counselor.

Article 10 of the 2021-2024 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the University
of Florida Board of Trustees and the United Faculty of Florida confirms the university’s
commitment to preserve and protect academic freedom as the following excerpt describes:

10.1 (a) The University and UFF shall maintain, encourage, protect, and promote the
faculty’s full academic freedom in teaching, research/creative activities, and
professional, university, and employment-related public service, consistent with the
exercise of academic responsibility.

The institutional actions reported in the media related to three faculty members who
sought approval to engage in compensated work outside of their university employment.
The University of Florida’s process for completing these requests routes them through
UFolio, the university’s centralized electronic system for the approval of outside activities
such as service as an expert witness. The UFolio system is an online, sequential approval
process that requires a series of decisions by ancillary reviewers germane to the type of
request,

In a November 5, 2021 memo to the entire UF community, President W. Kent Fuchs

exercised his authority to resolve the request by the three faculty members in a manner
consistent with the university policies on outside activities and academic freedom. In it, he
stated, “ … I have also asked UF’s Conflict of Interest Office to reverse the decisions on
recent requests by UF employees to serve as expert witnesses in litigation in which the
state of Florida is a party and to approve the requests regardless of personal compensation,
assuming the activity is on their own time without using university resources.” While
work, such as this, performed by faculty members in their personal capacity and outside of
their University employment is not covered by the tenets and protections of academic
freedom afforded to faculty as part of their university employment, this final action by the

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 254

president ensured compliance with UF’s commitment to preserve and protect academic
freedom.

Furthermore, in response to community concerns, University of Florida President W. Kent

Fuchs initiated a Task Force on Outside Activities to review the university’s policy and
procedure related specifically to faculty service as expert witnesses. The Final Report
proposes both policy and process recommendations to the president. The report
recommends adopting a university policy that “publicly affirms the academic freedom of
faculty when performing their duties as teachers and scholars” and “publicly affirms the
free speech rights of faculty and staff to comment on matters of public concern…”
President Fuchs has accepted the Final Report recommendations and has instructed staff to
implement them.

Conclusion
The University of Florida Board of Trustees ensures that the institution is free from undue
influence by external persons or bodies through clear and consistently enforced policies
and procedures. The University of Florida also preserves and protects academic freedom
and its concomitant responsibilities in regulation, operationalizes it in its bargaining
agreement with the United Faculty of Florida, and its UFolio process for the approval of
outside activities. The Task Force recommendations to reaffirm publicly the university’s
commitment to academic freedom of faculty and free speech rights of faculty and staff have
been accepted. The University of Florida remains in compliance with Comprehensive
Standards 4.2.f – External Influence and 6.4 – Academic Freedom.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 255

 Chairman’s Remarks
Appendix 5 Board of Trustees Meeting
December 3, 2021

Good morning everyone, I’m so glad to see you all here today. I hope

you had a restful Thanksgiving and that you were able to take time to

reflect on how much we all have to be grateful for.

One of the things for which I’m grateful is the opportunity to serve as

chair of the Board of Trustees for this wonderful university.

It is truly a privilege, and my top goal is to live up to the expectations

and responsibilities that come with the job.

Those expectations, by law, include setting policy for the university and

ensuring the efficient and effective use of our university’s resources.

I owe the university nothing less than my best, and I know my fellow

trustees feel the same way.

Today, I have something on my mind that I feel is important to address.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 256

It is an issue that you all have seen quite a bit about in the news.

I’m speaking about the issue of conflicts of interest and outside

activities.

While I strongly support a free and independent press and I have great

respect for professional and responsible journalists, the stories in the

media about this issue have been incomplete.

This morning, I would like to set the record straight and give you the

rest of the story.

Let me begin by reminding my fellow trustees, the cabinet and our

faculty and staff why we are here.

Several years ago, the Ford Motor Company ran an advertising

campaign with the tagline “Quality is Job 1.”

Here at the University of Florida, we also have a “Job 1.” For us, Job 1 is

educating our students.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 257

Every single thing we do –

• as a board,

• as an administration,

• as faculty,

• as University of Florida employees and officials –

Everything MUST have our students as our number one priority.

Our job is to give our amazing students a top-five university education –

* to teach them,

* advise them,

* mentor them,

* allow them to explore opportunities,

* expose them to a wide range of ideas and

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 258

* to give them the tools they need to go out into the world and be

successful in life.

As a board of trustees, we are responsible for implementing and

maintaining the highest quality of educational programs consistent with

the university’s mission.

As a board, we are fiduciaries – meaning that we put our students’

interests ahead of our own and we hold a position of trust to always do

what is best for the university and its mission.

In this regard, we are responsible for developing policies and standards

that uphold the mission we serve.

Not only do we have amazing students, we also have amazing faculty

members who are here to

• teach our students,

• engage them in research,

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 259

 • mentor and advise them.

Make no mistake - the overwhelming majority of our faculty relish this

role and live every day to fulfill it.

They are providing our students a Top 5 university education and – in

countless cases across UF’s footprint – are making research discoveries

that are

• saving lives,

• improving our quality of life, and

• expanding how we think about the world.

Unfortunately, we learned a couple years ago, that we had a small

number of faculty members who were not carrying out the

responsibilities of their jobs here.

They were not putting the students first.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 260

In fact, they were using university time, resources, and sometimes even

our students to benefit outside jobs and positions from which the

faculty were personally profiting directly.

It was the discovery of what a small group of faculty members were

doing at UF, and at other universities across the nation, that prompted

us to revise our outside activities policy.

Although we’ve talked about this before, here’s a reminder about how

it all started.

Back in August 2018, universities around the country began receiving

letters from the National Institutes of Health indicating that certain

faculty members may be improperly profiting from secondary

employment, that was undisclosed to their own employers.

Those faculty members were spending much time away from their

responsibilities at their home institutions at which they were employed

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 261

to work full-time and were sometimes working with organizations that

constitute a conflict of interest.

In January 2019, UF received such a letter from the NIH identifying two

faculty members that NIH had reason to believe were spending

significant time engaged in these outside activities that they

intentionally did not disclose, instead of spending their time working

for the University of Florida that was paying their full-time salary.

As university officials charged with responding to the NIH began looking

into these issues, they discovered additional individuals who were

engaged in undisclosed second jobs and who, once reviewed, had spent

only minimal time at the university over the course of years – all the

while being paid by UF to be full-time faculty here.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 262

The university’s regulations mirror the federal government’s

requirement that researchers should not simultaneously be pursuing

competing endeavors.

As UF was learning about these faculty members who were

• moonlighting across the world and

• not disclosing their outside activities to UF and

• sometimes not in their classrooms or their labs for many months

out of the year…

we realized we needed to make improvements to the outside activities

approval process and the monitoring of time commitments.

We undertook the long, thorough and thoughtful work of improving

that process and ensuring that the faculty across the university and

their department chairs and deans were provided with ample

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 263

opportunity for input and comments into the revised outside activities

policy.

In 2020, the university board approved the updated policy and the

university was able to apply it to all of those employees not within the

union.

The faculty union voted to approve and ratify the policy in July 2021

through an extensive negotiating and bargaining process.

Again - that new outside activities policy approved by the faculty union

is the same one that has come under scrutiny in relation to some faculty

members who disclosed outside activities requests to testify as expert

witnesses in litigation in which the state of Florida is a party.

The catalyst for the 2020 revisions to the outside activities policy at UF

had nothing to do with the First Amendment or academic freedom.

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 264

On the contrary, we as the board and the administration absolutely

support the First Amendment rights of our faculty and their academic

freedom to

• teach,

• research,

• publish, and

• exercise their rights as citizens.

We know it is core to our mission and we absolutely believe in that.

The catalyst for the policy changes had EVERYTHING to do with making

sure federal, state, and university resources are being used for their

intended purpose and not for purposes unrelated to the university of

Florida or for personal gain.

10

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 265

We have spent much effort ensuring that our policies and regulations

protect the rights of our professors and promote the expression of all

viewpoints.

And, I will repeat that the overwhelming majority of our faculty are

here for the reasons we are:

• to educate,

• research and

• serve the University of Florida as their employer.

However, we saw that some have taken advantage of their positions.

• I am speaking here of faculty members taking second jobs using

the university’s state resources for their own personal gain.

• I am speaking about faculty members who use their positions of

authority to improperly advocate personal political viewpoints to

the exclusion of others.

11

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 266

 • I am speaking about a department chair who tried to find a way for

his faculty to avoid coming into the classrooms by suggesting they

limit their in-person seating to one or two students, in an apparent

effort to dodge Board of Governors guidance.

To this I say – enough.

This behavior is unacceptable.

It is disrespectful not only to the taxpayers of Florida, whose hard-

earned dollars pay faculty salaries, but it is also disrespectful to these

faculty members’ hard-working colleagues – the ones who are doing

their jobs honestly and fulfilling their missions.

And importantly – it is disrespectful to the students who depend on

their professors’ full attention and commitment.

This. Will. Not. Stand.

12

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 267

It must stop, and it WILL stop.

If you allow something to happen, that means you condone it.

Enough.

Let me tell you, our legislators are not going to put up with the wasting

of state money and resources, and neither is this board.

And we shouldn’t.

We are accountable to our students and their families and the

taxpayers to do our jobs.

I am also personally very disappointed in local faculty union leadership

who are actively encouraging donors to stop contributing to the

university and who are actively encouraging university presidents and

provosts around the country to downgrade their reputation assessment

of the University of Florida in rankings surveys.

All of that damages their fellow faculty members and the students we

serve.
13

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 268

We have fought so hard over the years

• to get funding so our faculty could have raises,

• so our students could have good housing,

• so our employees’ families could have day care through Baby

Gator.

Think of everything we’ve been able to accomplish during the past

five years to rebuild our infrastructure and establish world-class

learning and research facilities so our faculty can engage in

interdisciplinary work and our students can experience a state-of-

the-art campus.

• Our Faculty 500 hiring initiative,

• the AI 100 faculty hiring initiative,

• Malachowsky Hall for Data Science & Information Technology,

• a brand-new home for the Student Health Care Center,

• the new Gator Village honors and undergraduate housing – and the

list goes on.

14

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 269

These things were all made possible through the support of our state

leaders.

• Our Speaker of the House, Chris Sprowls, led an initiative to

provide UF with $200 million for the education of our state’s youth

and has entrusted UF to carry out this important program that will

ensure all of our children are able to read.

• Our Senate President, Wilton Simpson, committed $20 million per

year to UF to lead the state and the country in Artificial

Intelligence.

• That will mean $200 million over the next ten years for our AI

initiative.

• Our Governor and his team paved the way for UF to take over the

world-class Scripps Research Institute.

• Our state leaders understand how important these things are, and

they have followed through when we have asked.

15

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 270

And, while the media has suggested that the Governor has played some

role through his relationship with me in UF’s decisions on outside

activities and conflicts of interest, let me be clear:

That is 100% false. Neither I, any other member of this board, the

governor, nor any legislator had any influence on specific decisions on

outside activities and conflicts of interest. Period.

The first I learned about these decisions was when I read the story in

the newspaper.

While, of course, in my role as board chair I have conversations with the

Governor. In fact, my conversations with the Governor have been

about ONE thing and ONE thing only – asking him to help UF to become

one of the leading universities in the country.

And, the Governor has done exactly that in response.

Our state leaders are the

• protectors of the taxpayers of the state of Florida,

16

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 271

 • they have entrusted UF with hundreds of millions of those dollars,

and

• they are also fed up with the waste of those dollars by the few

who are misusing their positions or aren’t doing the jobs they were

hired and committed to do.

• And, our job, as trustees, as fiduciaries, is to ensure that UF is

fixing problems where they exist and that these state funds that

our leaders have entrusted to UF are being used to support our

most important and No. 1 asset --- our students.

It is time to stand up for what is right and to put a stop to what is

wrong.

We owe nothing less to our students, to the overwhelming majority of

our faculty and staff, and to our fellow Floridians.

And now, my friends, let us move forward with doing the business of

this great university and Job 1: taking care of our students.

17

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 272

 18

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom Page 273