In today’s digital era, University faculty might have to watch what they say and what they type. 

The University Senate committee on tenure and academic freedom voted yesterday during its 2 p.m. meeting in the Cathedral of Learning to establish a subcommittee to examine whether or not Pitt needs an online speech policy for faculty. The subcommittee will be comprised of a mix of parent committee members and faculty volunteers who will conduct an internal review of Pitt’s current policies and look into different avenues, such as email disclaimers and revised academic freedom policies. During their evaluation, subcommittee members will determine if adding guidelines or clarifying current documents is necessary to improve policy and protection of faculty.

Barry Gold, a co-chair of the committee, accepted the position of chair of the subcommittee.

Carey Balaban, vice provost of Faculty Affairs, suggested the newly formed subcommittee should examine the vernacular of the policies and consider adding guidelines to help faculty members navigate the rules.

Maria Kovacs, also a co-chair of the tenure and academic freedom committee, said faculty members expressed strong opinions about online speech policies at the last faculty assembly on April 1. 

Kovacs added that there have been instances across the country in which faculty came under fire from university administrators, news outlets and groups outside of academia for expressing personal political opinions online.

Kovacs said the subcommittee should compose a comprehensive, coherent document on the University’s speech and academic freedom policies. She said some of the documented policies and procedures are difficult to locate, and one coherent statement would give faculty better access to the information. 

Kovacs also suggested considering adding a disclaimer to faculty emails stating that the contents are not confidential and represent the opinion of the individual, not the University.

Online speech policies have spurred debate within higher education circles after a number of faculty members’ statements that were made online have traveled outside of the academic sphere. 

An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education titled “One email, much outreach” reported that Rachel Slocum, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, emailed her students last October during the government shutdown to explain that they wouldn’t be able to finish their assignment without information from then-suspended government websites.

“Some of the data gathering assignment will be impossible to complete until the Republican/Tea party controlled House of Representatives agrees to fund the government,” Slocum wrote in the email.

According to the article, one of her students took a screen shot of the email and shared it on Twitter, where various news agencies and political groups picked it up. Slocum and Wisconsin-La Crosse found themselves at the center of a digital controversy that continues to threaten Slocum’s career. Slocum remains employed by Wiconsin-La Crosse.  

Other contentious issues have originated from faculty members’ statements outside their respective universities.. 

University of Kansas associate professor David Guth was put on indefinite administrative leave last September for comments on his personal Twitter account that “caused disruptions in the university’s learning environment,” according to a statement from the university.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Guth tweeted in response to last September’s shootings at the Washington Navy Yard, “the blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”

Balaban and Seth Weinberg, a professor from the Dental School who sits on the University Senate, agreed that there is a difference between situations when the person identifies himself or herself as a faculty member or as a private citizen.

Weinberg said those in academia are expected to behave in a certain manner.

“But, if I make a comment on social media, can the University make a policy that can come back and attack me?” Weinberg said. 

Weinberg said the subcommittee would use the experiences of the professors in Wisconsin and Kansas as case studies. 

“Would we do the same thing that Kansas did? Would our University suspend a faculty member who said something on a social media site because people were threatening to pull funds [from the University]?” Weinberg said.

The meeting was open to faculty, and Jeff Aziz, a professor and advisor in the English department, said he came to the meeting “with a resistance of the notion that more policy was needed.” 

In light of the situation at Kansas, Aziz said not allowing some protection for faculty acting as private citizens would prevent faculty from functioning as politically-minded people. 

For others, the title of a faculty member stays on after the work day.

“My identity — even when I’m at home by myself in my bed — is faculty. I don’t think you can separate that. I think it’s a significant portion of my life,” Kovacs said.