Once Again, Transparency Is Not the Enemy of Academic Freedom

Public universities are facing a crisis of confidence. Trust in higher education has fallen sharply over the past decade, driven by rising costs, ideological imbalance, and repeated assurances from campus leaders that Americans should simply ‘trust us’ about what happens in the classroom. Gallup reports that only about four in ten Americans now have high confidence in higher education—a steep decline that helps explain rising demands for transparency. Against that backdrop, the University of North Carolina system’s proposal to require faculty to post syllabi publicly has triggered fierce opposition from some professors; faculty who now insist that transparency itself threatens academic freedom.

They are wrong. And their reaction helps explain why public confidence continues to erode.

The UNC policy is straightforward. Beginning as early as next fall, faculty would be required to upload syllabi to a searchable public database, formalizing what UNC System President Peter Hans described as the principle that ‘public university syllabi should be public records.’ The policy does not dictate course content, ban readings, or impose ideological constraints. It simply makes visible what courses aim to cover, how students are evaluated, and what materials are assigned.

Yet faculty opposition has been swift and intense. Professors quoted in Inside Higher Ed warn that public syllabi could be ‘weaponized,’ chilling inquiry and inviting political harassment. A petition circulated by faculty groups and signed by over 2,000 argues that posting syllabi would ‘invite political actors to attack free inquiry’ and could endanger students and instructors. Others claim the policy undermines faculty governance or intellectual property rights.

These concerns deserve to be heard—but they do not justify the conclusion faculty opponents draw.

Academic freedom exists to protect intellectual inquiry from coercion, not to shield publicly funded instruction from public view. Transparency about course structure and readings is not ideological surveillance. It is basic accountability. Syllabi are not private correspondence. They are formal documents outlining expectations for students who pay tuition and, in public institutions, rely on taxpayer support.

The claim that academic freedom depends on opacity is a category error. Universities already publish course catalogs, learning objectives, degree requirements, and faculty research. Many professors voluntarily post syllabi online. What UNC proposes is consistency, not control.

Nor is this primarily about safety. Faculty opponents frequently cite the possibility of harassment, pointing to past controversies involving public records requests or outside criticism. But harassment is not caused by transparency; it is caused by institutional failure to defend faculty when warranted. The proper response to bad-faith pressure is leadership—not secrecy. Universities must be prepared to stand behind their faculty and explain why rigorous, intellectually diverse instruction serves the public good, rather than hoping that obscurity will protect them from scrutiny.

Read the rest of this piece at AEI.

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a scholar with the Sutherland Institute.

Photo: Carmen Murray via Pixabay.