Principles of Academic Freedom & Freedom of Expression

Academic Freedom

The Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law adopts and incorporates the principles of Academic Freedom expressed in Chapter 2 of the Chapman University Faculty Manual, specifically those set forth in Sections 2.2-2.5. 

In addition, the Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law (“Law School”) adopts the following additional principles specifically applicable to the Law School, which are intended to comply with the principles of Academic Freedom set forth in ABA Standard 208(a)(1-3):

1. The Law School’s principles and policy on Academic Freedom shall apply to all faculty and administrators, including full-time faculty (including tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track faculty), visiting faculty, clinical faculty, Academic Achievement faculty, adjunct faculty, and lecturers, and any other persons employed to teach any law school course.
2. The Law School’s principles and policy on Academic Freedom shall apply to all faculty and administrators, specifically including those persons identified in Paragraph 1 above, in the course of conducting research, publishing scholarship, engaging in law school governance, participating in law related public service activities, curating library collections and providing information services, exercising teaching responsibilities, including those related to client representation in clinical programs and academic advising, informal discussions, presentations, colloquia, and any other academic activities between and among faculty, whether individually or in groups, and all such similar activites generally considered by faculty members to be appropriate and consistent with academic activity consistent with Chapman University policies.
3. The Law School recognizes that law faculty are regarded as having expertise on matters involving the development and application of legal principles in the United States and throughout the world, and as such have a special duty and responsibility to inform students, colleagues, and the public on matters through their research, scholarship, lecturing, and teaching, and through other forms of speaking out commonly engaged in by law faculty, including, without limitation, media interviews, op-eds, involvement in community forums, sitting on Boards and deliberative bodies, and any other related forms of communication (collectively, “speaking out”).  The Law School recognizes that all such forms of speaking out, if related to the faculty member’s area(s) of expertise, come within the definition of Academic Freedom and thus should be, and are, protected under the principles of Academic Freedom set forth in ABA Standard 208(a)(1-3).
4. All persons identified as enjoying Academic Freedom as defined herein, other than adjunct professors, shall also have rights of due process, including notice, hearing rights, and appeal rights, as more fully set forth in Chapter 10 of the Chapman University Faculty Manual (“Grievance Procedures”), specifically those set forth in Sections 10.1-10.10.

Freedom of Expression

The Fowler School of Law (“Law School” or “FSOL”) adopts the principles of the Chapman University Statement on Free Speech (set forth at https://www.chapman.edu/academics/academic-freedom/index.aspx) and also attached as Appendix 1 hereto.

In addition, the Law School adopts the following additional principles specifically applicable to the Law School, including all FSOL faculty, staff, administration, and students, which are intended to comply with the principles of Freedom of Expression as set forth in ABA Standard 208(b)(1-2) and (c)(1-3):

1. As an institution of higher education, the Law School is committed to free and open inquiry, deliberation and debate in all matters, and the untrammeled verbal and nonverbal expression of ideas. It is the Law School’s policy to provide all members of the Law School community, including faculty, students, and staff, the broadest possible latitude, within the educational mission of the Law School, to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Thus, no one in the Law School community may act in a way that is intended to disrupt a faculty member’s conduct of class. This statement is not intended to restrict the right of students enrolled in a class to engage in discussion, questioning, or other expression intended to foster learning and inquiry, but persons not enrolled as students in a class have no right to engage in any disruption of a class, and may only engage in discussion, questioning, or other expression intended to foster learning and inquiry if expressly permitted by the faculty member.
2. In appropriate circumstances, such as political activity, letters of recommendation, and public statements of opinion, a member of the faculty, administration or staff shall clarify that they are speaking personally and not on behalf of the Law School or University. In determining whether circumstances are appropriate, the member of the faculty, administration or staff shall seek guidance from the Dean of the Law School.
3. The ideas of different members of the Law School community will often and naturally conflict. It is not the proper role of a Law School to insulate individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Deliberation or debate may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the Law School community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or ill-conceived.
4. It is for the individual members of the Law School community, not for the Law School as an institution, to judge the value of ideas, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting those arguments and ideas that they oppose in a respectful and civil manner. Fostering the ability of members of the Law School community to engage with each other in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the Law School’s educational mission.
5. The expression of ideas in the form of “speaking out” as defined and discussed in Paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom above is recognized by the Law School as protected speech within the principles of Freedom of Expression as set forth in ABA Standard 208(b)(1-2) and (c)(1-3).
6. Communication and publicity should be conducted in a manner that is respectful of others’ rights to share information and recognizes one’s part in the Law School community. The foremost issue in this policy is the safety and security of the Law School community and visitors.  Communications may be prohibited and may be grounds for discipline under applicable Chapman University policies if they violate the law, falsely and with malice (defined as knowingly making a false statement or making such statement with reckless disregard for the truth) defame a specific individual or individuals, constitute a knowing or intentional genuine threat of harm, unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests of any person or violate the Chapman University Unlawful Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Policy, found at https://www.chapman.edu/faculty-staff/human-resources/_files/harassment-discrimination-and-sexual-harassment-policy.pdf.
7. The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The Law School prohibits expression that violates the law, falsely defames a specific individual with malice (as defined in Paragraph 5 above), constitutes a genuine threat of harm to any individual or to Law School property, violates the Chapman University Student Conduct Policy, or unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests of any individual. In addition, the Law School may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the institution, including, without limitation, the educational mission of the Law School, the conducting of scheduled classes and examinations, meetings, library services, interviews, ceremonies, and public events. Finally, to the extent that appointment letters, confidentiality agreements or policies, professional conduct policies, or Human Resources policies regulate conduct that may include speech and expression, they are not superseded by this policy. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions not be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the Law School’s commitment to a free and open discussion of ideas.
8. As a corollary to the Law School’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the Law School community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the Law School community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed by other members of the community, or by individuals who are invited to campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the Law School has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of deliberation and debate, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.
9. An individual member or group of members of the Law School academic community may invite any person to address the community, subject to final approval of the Dean of the Law School or their designate. Approval or disapproval of a speaker may only be made on the basis of space availability and consideration of the number of other activities occurring simultaneously, and not on the subject matter or content of the proposed speaker(s). No such approval is necessary for an invitation by a faculty member to a speaker for that faculty member’s regularly scheduled class. For purposes of this document, an event is any public meeting organized by such an individual or group primarily for the dissemination or exchange of ideas. Events may be sponsored by individual students, groups of students, or student organizations with access to Law School benefits. “Public meeting” shall not be construed to include formal academic convocations, regularly scheduled classes, or regular business meetings of Law School organizations.
10. Classrooms are places of dialogue and free exchange for the Law School community. The Law School will accommodate equally all students and student groups who wish to schedule an event or meeting exclusively for the Law School community in a classroom space, subject to availability. Restrictions shall not be placed on individual’s reserving classrooms for the purpose of limiting, managing or controlling the content of the gathering. Individuals must comply with all relevant Law School and Chapman University policies. The individual reserving the classroom is responsible for ensuring compliance with all relevant policies. Failure to comply with any relevant policies may result in an individual’s or organization’s loss of ability to reserve classrooms in the future.
11. Requests by students or student groups to host external groups or speakers in Law School classrooms must be approved by the Administrator in charge of Student Services or their equivalent, subject to final approval by the Dean or their designate. Approval or disapproval of a speaker may only be made on the basis of space availability and consideration of the number of other activities occurring simultaneously, and not on the subject matter or content of the proposed speaker(s). External groups are not permitted to use Law School classrooms without sponsorship by a Law School organization with access to benefits, or a contract defining the terms of use.
12. Physical space to conduct dialogue is a critical component of free speech. Individual students who seek to host events to promote dialogue or discussion can attend training hosted by the Center for Student Engagement to clarify and affirm their understanding of policies related to classroom use for free speech purposes. Students who attend training will have access to the same expedited classroom reservation process as student organizations with access to Law School benefits for internal group meetings only.
13. An individual or group wishing to protest at an event may do so as long as any speaker’s right to free speech and the audience’s right to see and to hear a speaker are not violated. Any protestors who disrupt a speech, presentation, class, speaker, or any event or otherwise shout over, block access to, or otherwise prevent the Law School community attending from hearing or seeing the speech, presentation, class, speaker, or other event shall, at the discretion of the Dean, their designate, or Public Safety, be removed from the Law School building for the remainder of the event.
14. Protestors who are members of the Law School community will be allowed entrance into any part of the Law School building, except for the Law Library, unless they are disturbing Law School activities such as class, student and faculty access to classrooms or class, studying, or office work by faculty or staff. They will be able to stay in the building until the building is closed for the day, or until the office or area closes for business that day. Protestors who are not members of the Law School community will not be permitted entrance into any part of the Law School building without the express written permission of the Dean or their designate.
15. Protestors, whether or not they are members of the law school community, may not enter a building if that space has been secured for a speech to be given in that building. In that case, the protestors must remain outside the building in a space previously designated by the Center for Student Engagement, Facilities, or the Department of Public Safety This policy applies to any part of the Law School  building where a major event or speaker is hosted. Any protestors shall not willfully make or assist in the making of any noise or diversion which disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of any Law School session or class thereof.
16. To the extent the University adopts any policies prohibiting encampments or any structures being used as a protest on University property, such policies shall also apply with equal force to, and be enforced by, the Law School.
17. Violations of the Freedom of Expression of others by engaging in prohibited speech or conduct will subject the violators to the provisions of the Chapman University Conduct Code.

Institutional Statements

1. Universities and Law Schools are often called upon in the face of global, national, or local occurrences to issue public statements on behalf of the institution. These requests are usually grounded in a sense of connection to the values and purpose of the Law School and our common humanity.
2. Often those seeking such statements want educational institutions to identify and condemn the actors whom they regard as principally responsible. In other cases, those seeking statements simply desire an expression of concern or sympathy for the persons directly affected by the incident in question. However, taking institutional positions can interfere with the Law School’s central commitment to free inquiry and obligation to foster a diversity of perspectives within our academic community.
3. As is the case with many of our peers, we have been weighing the value, appropriateness, and limitations of such institutional statements. The Law School has arrived at a strong commitment to make institutional statements only in the limited circumstances where an issue is clearly related to a direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the Law School.
4. The very idea of an “official” position of the Law School on a social, scientific, or political issue runs counter to principles of Academic Freedom-to be a place where competing views are welcomed, challenged, and tested through dialogue and rigorous marshaling of evidence. The Law School is the site, more than any other institution in our society, where the process of truth-seeking through intense and open contest of ideas is given pride of place. Although institutional statements may feel warranted, consoling, or, at times, even necessary to guide the Law School and its constituency through difficult moments, experience has shown that they can be counterproductive, and even at odds with our core mission. These statements can too easily fuel a perception that there are approved or endorsed “institutional” views on political or social issues, which may, in fact, conflict with the views of members of the Law School community. They risk interfering with our truth-seeking function and compromising the ethos and credibility of the Law School in the process.
5. For these reasons, we will restrict our communications to the standard we have articulated-limiting our statements to those occasions where an issue is clearly related to a direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the Law School. This means that not issuing a statement will be our default in the great majority of cases we are likely to face.
6. This posture of restraint does not mean the Law School will be unresponsive or unfeeling in the face of controversy or tragedy. Our priority is to respond to the events around us through the channels that are our Law School’s core strength and time-honored calling of creating knowledge, engaging with ideas, and bringing discoveries and care to the world. When an external event affects members of our Law School community, the Law School’s focus will be to engage interested members of our Law School community in educational and community programming that addresses the topic. Where appropriate, the Law School can offer direct support and engagement for those among us who are affected by the matter.

APPENDIX 1

Chapman University’s Commitment to Free Speech and Academic Freedom

Academic Freedom and Free Speech are hallmarks of the Chapman University academic community. While not exhaustive in definition or scope, we provide this information to establish a framework for how these tenets influence our open exchange of ideas. We are steadfast in our defense of both Academic Freedom and Free Speech. This commitment is unwavering and immutable. As a community of knowledge workers, it is imperative that we also decouple the personal views of members of the faculty from the values and beliefs formally expressed on behalf of the university.

Academic Freedom

The formally recognized definition and scope of academic freedom is outlined in the well-established 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Academic freedom is defined within this statement as the following:

1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.
2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.
3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

Academic freedom exists to allow the pursuit of knowledge without fear of retribution from the educational setting to which faculty belong. This differs from freedom of speech, which also provides protection to faculty, not as members of an academic community, but rather as citizens of the United States.

Freedom of Speech

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

Freedom of Speech is a constitutionally protected right within the First Amendment and prevents Congress-which the Supreme Court interprets as pertaining to all of the federal government-from establishing laws that impede free speech and free expression. California went further in 1992 (amended in 2006) and passed the Leonard Law, which extends certain First Amendment privileges to private and public college students, in addition to high school and university students in some instances, including employees who act to protect students.

In September 2015, Chapman faculty governance, student governance, and our Board of Trustees voted on and adopted a Statement on Free Speech (below) that further articulates the commitment to free and open inquiry on our campuses. Based on the widely adopted University of Chicago Principles of free expression, Chapman’s statement emphasizes the value of free and open debate and highlights the principle that debate may not be suppressed by the university even if the ideas put forth are thought by some to be offensive or unwise. The responsibility lies within the community itself to contest the ideas it opposes.

Just as with academic freedom, faculty should be aware that their affiliation with Chapman University can influence perception and they should make it clear that they are not speaking or acting on behalf of the university.

Chapman University Statement on Free Speech

Because Chapman University (the “University”) is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. The University fully respects and supports the freedom of all members of the University community to engage in robust, uninhibited discussion and deliberation on any and all topics.

Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often not coincide and may quite naturally conflict. It is not the proper role of the University, however, to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression, for example, that violates the law, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment against a specific individual, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the essential activities of the University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.

In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in thoughtful debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.

As a corollary to the University’s vibrant commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. While members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe in a manner which renders them substantially unable to express their views. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others may attempt to restrict it.

Final Adopted:  4-15-25