An email from the University of Minnesota Office of Human Resources sent Sept. 12 outlined the “dos” and “don’ts” for staff who participate in campus protests. 

Faculty are critical of specific statements in the email, including “do participate during personal time,” and “seek permission when necessary.” The email informs faculty and staff about guidelines on civic engagement and compliance with University policies.

Michael Gallope, a professor and chair of the Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature and vice-chair of the CLA assembly, reacted to the emails. 

“I was shocked,” Gallope said. “The University has no legal basis for regulating employees’ speech on breaks or during lunch or after work. And the entire thrust of the email I interpreted as a direction to supervisors to instruct employees about how they might protest, and the University has no legal basis for doing so.”

There have been seven protests on campus about the war in Gaza this semester. More than 100 people were present at the Oct. 7 protest, including faculty. 

“It was very concerning to me, particularly at a time when there were so many topics of sensitive public debate,” Gallope said. 

Gallope said the University has a constitutional obligation to respect the First Amendment rights of employees

“The community relations email claims that every community member at the University needed to distinguish their speech from that of the University’s at all times. That’s not right,” Gallope said. “There’s no basis for that in state law or board policy.”

How faculty members are able to speak has been an issue of debate, said Eric Van Wyk, chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) committee. The AF&T committee and the faculty senate have discussed academic freedom and free speech for several years. 

“If those are rules that can be interpreted as applying to speech outside of working conditions, then this isn’t explicitly violating anyone’s academic freedom, because no one’s been punished,” Van Wyk said. “But it has what’s called the chilling effect, and that makes it a violation. Then people are self-censoring themselves because they’re worried about some implications.” 

Van Wyk said language is impactful, and this email crossed a line.

“You know the elf on the shelf, right? The idea is that you get your children to behave because someone’s watching,” Van Wyk said. “And that’s not a healthy environment for children, nor for faculty or staff or students. So that’s sort of the concern.”

According to the email, faculty should “participate as private citizens during their non-working hours.” 

Gallope said this is confusing. He discussed how Board policy is narrow, with one policy stating that community members should speak as private citizens when speaking to government bodies.

“The guidance in the Government and Community Relations email was impractical and overly broad.  But students, staff and faculty, in their everyday speech — and certainly when they are protesting in a public forum — are not required to habitually explain that they are not speaking on behalf of the University,” Gallope said. 

Faculty met with President Rebecca Cunningham sometime last week to discuss the emails. As of Oct. 9, there have been no revisions, and no updates have been sent to faculty. 

Administration did not comment to requests made by the Minnesota Daily in time for publishing. 

 “They should communicate any revisions to the entire campus community, otherwise they’re meaningless,” Gallope said