The Words I Wish We Said: On Academic Freedom and Institutional Governance at UNC–Chapel Hill

Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 24 faculty and administrators, including Faculty Council members, School of Civic Life and Leadership (SCiLL) faculty, former SCiLL faculty, and senior administration, this study examines how institutional governance shapes faculty perceptions and contested boundaries of academic freedom. The interview sample was intentionally structured to capture perspectives across distinct positions within the university, allowing for comparison between those involved in traditional faculty governance structures and those connected to a newly established institutional structure. The study traces how faculty interpret academic freedom across teaching, research, extramural expression, and the broader political environment, with attention to how these boundaries are differently defined across actors. The literature review situates the analysis within the historical framework of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), scholarship on the privilege and precarity of tenure, the institutional conditions sustaining shared governance, and research on public university governance. Among the 20 key findings, the most significant is that academic freedom at UNC-Chapel Hill is undermined by the emergence of a “two-tier” system of governance, in which oversight and autonomy are unevenly distributed across institutional units. The study concludes with policy recommendations for enforceable governance structures, robust grievance procedures, clearly defined faculty authority, inter-institutional mutual defense compacts, and safeguards against political interference, ensuring academic freedom remains structurally and evenly protected rather than merely symbolic.