By Eric Schwartz

Last week, the University of Minnesota began removing from its websites certain statements by University units related to the human-rights situation in Ukraine. The action came at the direction of the University’s president.

One statement that was removed came from the University’s globally vaunted Human Rights Program. In human rights terms, the statement was moderate, repeating concerns expressed by the U.S. Government, governments around the world, and UN bodies. The Human Rights Program statement criticized “grave human rights and war crimes that are the result of the military invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces.” It noted “attacks on the civilian population,” and it called for support of refugees, among other elements.

Why would a University with a proud tradition of respect for human rights and a world-renowned Human Rights program take such an extraordinary measure? And why would administrators risk the reputation of both the University and its Human Rights Program?

The University’s actions stem from an ill-considered and poorly conceived resolution by the University’s Board of Regents, which essentially empowers the University president to determine which statements may or may not be issued by university units, including University centers, institutes, programs and departments. And the president has apparently determined that some statements on Ukraine, along with statements on Gaza that were earlier removed, had to go.

These actions come in the wake of statements made by University departments on the situation in Gaza after Oct, 7, 2023. In May of 2024, former Interim University President Jeff Ettinger asked a University task force to consider the issue of what statements on issues of public interest may be made by academic units. The task force recommended that the University recognize the right of units to make statements, subject to a range of carefully considered precautionary principles and guidelines. The task force recommendations were rejected by the Board of Regents, which opted for its own approach.

The University’s action on Ukraine may be due to an effort to appear even-handed: If statements on Gaza are taken down from University websites, statements on Ukraine must follow, along with other statements on global conflicts. But by prioritizing this “even-handedness” over the University’s commitment to the human right of freedom of expression and the right to academic freedom, the president has initiated a process that will undermine the institution’s values.

Indeed, where will it end? Will statements by the University’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies condemning neo-Nazi violence, or honoring the memories of victims of the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust itself, be permissible? If so, is there really a principled distinction between decisions on those statements and the ones that have just been pulled?

In our politically contentious environment, it is certainly understandable that the Regents and the University president may wish to avoid controversies resulting from statements that offer strong perspectives on issues in the public debate. But there are better alternatives to the measures they have chosen.

For example, Dartmouth College has developed an approach and policy that seek to carefully reconcile and vindicate both academic freedom and responsible discourse. Their formula is not unlike the one proposed by the University of Minnesota’s own Task Force, as the Dartmouth guidelines also include precautionary principles and measures to ensure that statements by units are not perceived as statements by the University. Such alternatives might not be perfect, but they represent a good-faith effort to navigate these challenging waters.

Of course, these more enlightened approaches might not meet the expected requirements of the Trump administration. But they would be far more consistent with principles and values that Minnesotans and millions of Americans hold dear. Alas, these approaches are ones that the Regents have chosen to forgo. Instead, we are left with practices that seek to achieve the ever-elusive goal of anticipatory compliance at the expense of much of what has made the University of Minnesota a great institution.

Eric Schwartz, former dean of the Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota, is professor of public affairs and chair of the School’s Global Area. He is also a former U.S. assistant secretary of state.