WHEN TENURE ISN’T ENOUGH: ACADEMIC FREEDOM UNDER POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURE
Author: Janel Bloch, Senior Editor
Introduction
Universities have long been understood as spaces for the exchange of ideas and the development of knowledge. To support this mission, the principle of academic freedom emerged as a cornerstone of higher education.[i] One early catalyst was the controversy surrounding Stanford economics professor Edward A. Ross, whose dismissal in 1900 following politically controversial remarks sparked national debate and helped inspire the formation of the American Association for University Professors (AAUP) in 1915.[ii] Since then, tenure has functioned as a key safeguard for academic freedom, insulating faculty from retaliation for ideas expressed in their speech, research, or teaching.[iii]
Today, however, that protection appears increasingly uncertain. Recent controversies and legislative developments suggest that tenure may no longer provide the level of security that it once did. In a widely publicized case involving a pending lawsuit,[iv] a university chancellor not only lost his administrative role but also his tenured faculty position after engaging in controversial extracurricular expression. Other faculty have faced threats to their tenure following personal social media posts about politically sensitive topics such as the death of political activist Charlie Kirk.[v]
Meanwhile, states such as Kentucky have enacted laws like HB 4[vi], which restrict certain forms of expression and programming within public universities and create new uncertainty about the boundaries of permissible teaching and discourse. Additional legislation, such as Kentucky’s recently passed HB 490[vii] (sometimes described as an “anti-tenure” measure),[viii] makes it easier to eliminate tenured faculty, adding further uncertainty to faculty members’ working environments.
These developments are often treated as distinct—one involving individual performance and the other legislative reform. But together they indicate a broader shift. Faculty today face increasing internal and external pressures that narrow their space for protected expression. While tenure was originally designed to guard against such pressures, its effectiveness is increasingly in doubt. The result is not only uncertainty about the scope of First Amendment protections for faculty speech but also a growing risk that the protections of tenure are no longer reliable.
The Limits of the First Amendment for Faculty Speech
Public university faculty are government employees, which means that their speech is subject to First Amendment protections but is also subject to the limitations that apply to public employment. Pickering v. Board of Education[ix] and Connick v. Myers[x] provide a framework, sometimes referred to as the Pickering-Connick balancing test, which provide guidance in balancing public employee speech and institutional interests. The Pickering-Connick balancing test first considers whether the public employee was speaking on a matter of public concern rather than a workplace grievance. If the public employee was speaking on a matter of public concern, then the employee’s right to free speech must be balanced against the employer’s interest in maintaining an efficient workplace.[xi] While this test seems straightforward, it is not always straightforward to apply. Another case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, held that public employees do not have First Amendment protection for speech made pursuant to their official duties. However, there is still some question as to whether Garcetti applies to university professors, although the Sixth Circuit’s Meriwether v. Hartop[xii] decision held that it did not.[xiii] Taken together, these doctrines demonstrate that constitutional protections for faculty speech are limited and context-dependent, leaving tenure as a critical, although increasingly uncertain, supplement to academic freedom.
Converging Pressures on Academic Freedom
These overlapping pressures on the protections traditionally associated with tenure are not limited to a small number of high-profile, unusual cases. Rather, they reflect a broader shift in how academic speech is perceived and regulated. Faculty are increasingly inclined to consult and interpret their institution’s academic freedom and free expression policies in light of evolving legal and political implications, leading to even more uncertainty about what speech is protected.
At the same time, as distinctions between job-related and personal activities blur with the ubiquity of social media, faculty struggle to determine what aspects of their communications are subject to free expression.[xiv] As a result, faculty may reasonably question whether their speech—whether in the classroom, in scholarship, or in personal contexts—could subject them to discipline, not to mention make them the subject of a viral news story, such as the professor who gave a student a failing grade on a short essay about gender and religion.[xv]
This uncertainty has practical consequences. With this lack of trust in the protections of academic freedom, they may also choose to entirely avoid controversial or political topics in their teaching, scholarship, and other activities.[xvi] While this avoidance may feel safe to the individual faculty, it has a broader negative effect on academic speech that undermines the core mission of universities to pursue open inquiry, exchange ideas, and advance knowledge.
Faculty concerns about academic freedom and free speech are further compounded by broader political and economic forces affecting higher education. Public universities increasingly exist in environments where legislative oversight, donor expectations, and increasing competition to attract and retain students must be balanced. These dynamics can reinforce internal pressures on faculty expression as universities seek to manage reputational risk in an increasingly polarized and skeptical public and political climate.[xvii]
The Stakes for Academic Freedom
The ideas of tenure and academic freedom were developed to support faculty’s First Amendment rights and to protect them in controversial situations. If tenure no longer provides meaningful protection in controversial cases, its value as a safeguard for academic freedom is fundamentally weakened. Universities risk becoming environments where faculty avoid engaging with difficult or contested issues in their scholarship or classrooms for fear of unpleasant consequences. This fear may also spill into their personal activities, as social media has blurred personal and professional lines. When universities become environments in which controversial ideas are avoided rather than explored, their role as spaces for open inquiry and debate is diminished. The erosion of tenure protections and free expression does not simply affect employment conditions; it reshapes the intellectual character of higher education itself.
[i]See Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors, 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenurewith 1970 Interpretive Comments (1940), https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/1940%20Statement.pdf.
[ii] Melissa De Witte, Academic Freedom’s Origin Story. Stanford Report (May 1, 2023), https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/05/origin-story-academic-freedom.
[iii] Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors, Tenure, https://www.aaup.org/tenure (last visited Apr. 26, 2026).
[iv] Complaint, Gow v. Univ. of Wis. Sys. Bd. of Regents, No. 25-CV-59 (W.D. Wis. filed Jan. 2025). https://www.xbiz.com/docs/news/286832_gow.pdf
[v] Emma Whitford, 6 More Faculty, Staff Removed for Kirk Comments, Inside Higher Ed (Sept. 12, 2025), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2025/09/12/6-more-faculty-staff-removed-kirk-comments.
[vi] Ky. H.B. 4, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., https://legiscan.com/KY/bill/HB4/2025.
[vii] Ky. H.B. 490, 2026 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26RS/hb490.html.
[viii] River Murt, Anti-Tenure House Bill Passes in State Senate, The Murray State News (Apr. 2, 2026), https://murraystatenews.org/206151/news/anti-tenure-house-bill-passes-in-state-senate.
[ix]Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
[x]Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).
[xi] David L. Hudson Jr., Pickering-Connick Test, Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University (Sept. 12, 2025), https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/pickering-connick-test
[xii] Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).
[xiii] David L. Hudson Jr., Sixth Circuit Rejects Garcetti in Context of University Professor’s Classroom Speech (April 6, 2021), First Amendment Watch at New York University, https://firstamendmentwatch.org/sixth-circuit-rejects-garcetti-in-context-of-university-professors-classroom-speech/
[xiv]See, e.g., Found. for Individual Rts. & Expression (FIRE), Scholars Under Fire (2026), http://www.tfire.org/scholars-under-fire.html (tracking incidents of faculty discipline for expression).
[xv] Safiyah Riddle, Oklahoma University Instructor on Leave after Failing Bible-Based Essay on Gender, AP News (Dec. 3, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/university-oklahoma-gender-bible-essay-demonic-0fd51985c123737cd372ba609b730541.
[xvi] Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967).
[xvii]See Christina Pazzanese, Global Concerns Rising About Erosion of Academic Freedom, Harv. Gazette (Aug. 2025), https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/08/global-concerns-rising-about-erosion-of-academic-freedom; Kim Parker, Growing Share of Americans Say the U.S. Higher Education System is Headed in the Wrong Direction, Pew Research Center (Oct. 15, 2025), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/15/growing-share-of-americans-say-the-us-higher-education-system-is-headed-in-the-wrong-direction.