Swarthmore’s Academic Freedom Policy defines and protects free speech on and off campus, including students rights to peaceful protest. Since 1971, the college has adhered to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statements. But in recent years, the college has taken steps to reconsider the policy and its application on campus.
In May 2026, Swarthmore President Val Smith announced to the campus community that the college’s Board of Managers had met with faculty members on the interdivisional Academic Freedom Task Force, who presented possible updates to the college’s Academic Freedom Policy. Smith wrote that these proposed changes had been approved by the faculty, noting that the Board would consider the matter sometime this fall.
On Oct. 5, Smith shared a summary of the September Board meeting. During that session, the Board both discussed the Academic Freedom Policy and began to develop a new Freedom of Expression Policy, with a “stated goal of approving policies this year that defend these principles that are core to our mission, while also protecting the college’s ability to sustain regular operations.” The policy is currently in development.
These conversations follow the college’s controversial approach to alleged violations of the Code of Conduct in recent years and its expansive application of the code’s guidelines.
Notable updates included an increasingly rigid approach to violations of policy on student and faculty behavior and changes to the noise disruption policy following an incident in which a student was charged with “assault” for using a bullhorn at a Board meeting. According to the college, the sound damaged a staff member’s hearing.
What is the Academic Freedom Policy?
The academic freedom policy is defined in the Student Handbook as being protective of peaceful dissent but necessitates noninterference in regular college operations such as “lectures, meetings, events, ceremonies, or other necessary business and community functions.” Additionally, “demonstrations and other forms of protest” are forbidden in “classrooms, offices, libraries, dining halls (including cafes), Worth Health Center, residence hall rooms, and lecture halls.”
The primary national body serving the mission of monitoring and dictating the canon of accepted academic freedom boundaries is the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). With over 500 chapters at accredited colleges and universities, the AAUP asserts the tenets of academic freedom and shared governance as paramount in the foundation of higher education.
The AAUP provides the basis for its definition of academic freedom through its 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and its 1970 Statement on Freedom and Responsibility. Its tenets are based on the three premises of freedom for faculty: to conduct and publish research, to introduce controversial subject matter into the classroom (though avoiding irrelevant subject matter), and to speak and write as citizens outside of their professional capacity.
Similarly, students have the freedom to dissent, associate, organize, and publish material independent of censorship under these guidelines. Colleges and universities across the country, including Swarthmore, use the AAUP’s doctrine to formulate their ideals of academic freedom. Disparate institutions, however, approach the application of those principles differently.
Swarthmore is a founding chapter member of the AAUP, but the role of the chapter operates independently of the school’s official administrative proceedings. The chapter serves to promote and facilitate faculty and community discourse, such as through last spring’s Academic Freedom Teach-In. Additionally, Swarthmore’s Student Handbook itself makes explicit reference to “subscribing to the fundamental tenets” of the AAUP’s views on academic freedom, as well as its 1940 and 1970 statements.
Recent Tests of Academic Freedom
In recent years, academic freedom concerns have additionally arisen from actual policy implementation. After the May 2025 arrest of the nine people — including one Swarthmore student — at a pro-Palestine encampment on Edley-Morgan Lawn, many observers within the college raised questions about where and how intensely the college’s lines on freely protected speech should be drawn.
A particular issue arose in 2024 when the Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT) sent an email to either six or seven (sources dispute) faculty members concerning their following of the satirical account @shartmore on Instagram. The account featured content such as a comparison between the State of Israel and Nazi Germany, as well as a rebuke of a student who represented Israel in an athletic competition.
While the faculty were informed that they could continue to follow the account, a later meeting with Swarthmore’s AAUP chapter expressed faculty discontent resulting from the “values-laden” tone of the email. The email had been sent due to student concern, but the BIRT could not identify a breach of policy on the part of the faculty.
More recently, in April of last year, eight students were charged for the distribution of allegedly “violent” zines protesting the actions of the administration and Board of Managers. The students were identified through campus wide closed-circuit television surveillance footage, leading to faculty rebuke over free speech on campus.
An April letter from faculty published in The Phoenix detailed escalating tactics when dealing with code of conduct violations as well as with eventual increased severity of punishment.
For example, posters must be limited to two per board or approved area and remain up for no longer than a week if not pertaining to a specific event. The particularity of these rules means that they’re frequently not strictly enforced. This leaves room for potential selective enforcement, a concern levied against the college by faculty and students in recent years.
Recent updates to the code of conduct have additionally specified noise restrictions during demonstrations, including chanting or the use of instruments, which have drawn criticism.
The board will likely reconvene in December.
