Board of Trustees delays vote for faculty-written free speech proposal

The faculty-led Freedom of Expression Committee presented a 13-page document proposing new procedures for protecting free speech and academic freedom on campus in June 2025. While the document passed overwhelmingly among faculty, the Board of Trustees has not voted on whether to implement it. 

Photo by Haley Scull/The Barnard Bulletin

By Kimberly Wing

October 7, 2025

Updated October 7 at 3:14 p.m.

Barnard College’s Board of Trustees has delayed a deciding vote on a document that defines principles of academic freedom and free speech on campus. Produced by the faculty-led Freedom of Expression (FoE) Committee, the document was introduced to the trustees in June.

Established in December 2024 by President Rosenbury and the Faculty Governance and Procedures (FGP) Committee, the seven-member FoE Committee was charged with proposing principles and procedures ensuring the protection of “freedom of expression” and “academic freedom” at Barnard. The outcome was the “Barnard College Principles of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression,” a 13-page document developed by the FoE committee during the Spring 2025 semester.

The Freedom of Expression Committee charge, finalized by President Rosenbury and the Faculty Governance and Procedures Committee, outlining the responsibilities and timeline for the FoE Committee. Photos of the document shared with the permission of the Freedom of Expression Committee.

Photos provided by the Freedom of Expression Committee

The FoE Committee members were elected by other Barnard faculty, including tenured, nontenured, and tenure-track faculty, as well as lecturers and associates. The Committee decided they would not have a chair to allow its members to work better as an elected group.

Throughout the spring semester, the Committee consulted with students, faculty, librarians, staff, union members, Public Safety officers, the General Counsel of the College, and the College deans, and met with President Rosenbury and Provost Walkowitz on several occasions. The Committee also conducted an early meeting presentation with the Board of Trustees.

Committee member Elizabeth Castelli, professor of religion, spoke to The Bulletin about the timeline and work of the Committee.

“We started off trying to figure out [...] the things the community cares about the most, especially for freedom of expression and academic freedom,” explained Castelli. “We did that by [hosting] a countless number of listening sessions and conversations and meetings with all kinds of constituents throughout the College.”

The Committee met with the Student Government Association and Resident Assistants, and held some open sessions for any students who wanted to talk to the Committee.

“We really felt like we had a robust sense of what was going on on campus,” added Castelli. “That supplemented all of the other resources that we had to have as well, about what other institutions were doing, about what other issues were, and so on. It was a lot of work.”

At the end of the spring semester, the FoE Committee presented the “Principles of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression” to faculty and the trustees. The 13-page document defined academic freedom as the pursuit of knowledge without interference by College administration, trustees, other members of the college community, and “other potential threats to the free exchange of ideas.” The definition of freedom of expression included the protections for speech, writing, assembly, and association, allowing students to “benefit from exposure to a diversity of ideas and viewpoints[,] including new and unfamiliar concepts.”

The finalized Barnard College “Principles of Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression.” Photos of the document shared with the permission of the Freedom of Expression Committee.

Photos provided by the Freedom of Expression Committee

The principles advised against Barnard taking a position of “Institutional Neutrality,” describing it as “potentially problematic” due to concerns of “[restricting] myriad forms of expression.” The document also suggested that the College president and administration “should exercise restraint in commenting on social and political issues that are extrinsic to the mission of the College” to personally avoid “being expected to issue statements on complex topics for which they have no specific expertise.”

Additionally, the principles proposed the creation of the Freedom of Expression Board, composed of three students, three faculty members, and three staff members, responsible for investigating independent claims and issuing an annual report on the College’s status of free expression on campus. 

The FoE Committee also suggested that a copy of the principles be included in College appointment letters, employment contracts, faculty handbooks, and during student, staff, and faculty orientations.

Following the timeline on the charge, the FoE Committee held a faculty-wide presentation of a draft proposal on April 7, followed by a faculty vote on the final document on June 4. Of the faculty members who voted, about 90 percent voted in favor of the document.

“Once we generated a draft of the principles, we circulated those to the faculty. We had gotten feedback and made sure we did come to a conclusion,” said Castelli. “We felt pretty confident that we had come up with a document that a lot of people could get behind.”

Once the Board of Trustees had received the final document and the report of the faculty vote, the FoE Committee gave a short presentation and responded to questions regarding the principles at the trustees’ June meeting. 

The Committee expected the trustees to vote sometime before the start of the Fall 2025 semester. If the document had been approved by both faculty and the trustees, the principles would have been implemented at the beginning of the 2025-2026 academic year.

“They have, to date, not voted. They came back with several things that they wanted the Committee to do to revise the document. There were also particular requests of substantial change in the document that we definitely were not at ease with,” Castelli said. “If [the trustees] don’t like the principles, they have the power in the institution to vote against them.”

Having presented the principles to the trustees, the FoE Committee considers its work as outlined in the charge officially completed. Negotiating with the trustees was not written in the Committee’s responsibilities. 

A revision, according to Castelli, would “delegitimize” the Committee’s work, as faculty had already voted in favor of the final draft of the principles.

“We’re not trying to be incalcitrant or stubborn, it’s just that we think the governance structure is more important, and it’s important for us to agree in advance about what the responsibilities are of an elected faculty committee,” Castelli explained. “It would be inappropriate for this small group of faculty to go and enter into negotiation with the Board of Trustees when the faculty’s place has been expressed really clearly.”

Instead, the FoE Committee communicated with Provost Walkowitz, explaining that, since a majority of faculty had already voted in favor of the document, it was inappropriate to edit the principles.

If the principles are rejected by the trustees, the College will continue to use the “Chicago Principles” to guide policies for free expression on campus until the Fall 2026 semester, when the FoE Committee will present a revised proposal.

Produced by the University of Chicago and adopted by universities and colleges across the country, the “Chicago Principles” addresses ideas similar to the FoE Committee’s proposed principles, including “debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought [...] to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed” unless comments inflict defamation, threats, harassment, or violation of law.

The “Chicago Principles” do not comment on institutional neutrality. Conversely, the FoE Committee’s proposed principles specify procedures to ensure freedom of expression at Barnard College, including how colleges and universities should protect freedom of expression on campus or how administrators should express personal opinions.

Castelli believes that transparent institutional policies for freedom of expression, as outlined in the principles, are “integral to the flourishing of democracy” at the College, and are strongly representative of the needs of Barnard’s community.

“I’m really proud of the work that we did,” Castelli stated. “The document that we came up with truly was a collaborative effort that sought to bring a lot of different interests into the mix. It’s not policy, it’s principles. In some sense, it’s a statement by the institution on what we value the most around freedom of expression.”

The Bulletin reached out to Barnard Media Relations on October 2, along with a follow-up on October 6, to request a comment on behalf of the trustees or the College administration.

On October 7 at 2:38 p.m., a Barnard spokesperson responded to The Bulletin, stating that “The Board of Trustees has asked for revisions to the faculty-written proposal and is hoping to work with the faculty on a collaborative process.”

While the trustees will be hosting their monthly meeting this Thursday on October 9, it is unclear if the deciding vote regarding the principles will be conducted.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to include an October 7 statement from a Barnard spokesperson on behalf of the Board of Trustees.