Provides that certain institutions of higher education shall meet certain standards that do not infringe upon academic freedom

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Julia Salazar says this is needed

In 2025, four adjunct professors at Brooklyn College were fired or not reappointed, despite the fact that they had received recommendations from their department heads, had positive reviews from students, and had been assigned classes to teach the following semester. The adminis- tration offered no reason for these actions. However, the one thing in common between the four professors was their vocal support for Pales- tine. The firings have sparked concerns among students, professors, and activists, who worry that the school is retaliating against faculty for their protected free expression of their views. The incident at CUNY is unfortunately not unique. Professors at insti- tutions in other states, including in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have been fired or investigated for speaking in support of Palestine. Faculty have also faced retaliation for expression or exploration of various other ideas, including for speaking out against the Trump administration and for discussing gender identity in the classroom. This retaliation goes against the fundamental principles of academic freedom, which has been widely embraced for decades. In 1940, the Ameri- can Association of University Professors (AAUP) promulgated its "State- ment of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure." The statement cham- pioned the protection of university faculty's rights to freedom in research, classroom discussions, and in extramural speech and activ- ities. This laid the foundation for the modern understanding of academic freedom. Since the 1940 statement, academic freedom has garnered wide support from public officials, activists, and unions. Several universi- ties have also purported that they abide by the principles of academic freedom. For example, the State University of New York's Policies of the Board of Trustees states, "It is the policy of the University to main- tain and encourage full freedom, within the law, of inquiry, teaching, and research." Additionally, the City University of New York has a Standing Committee on Academic Freedom intended "to maintain vigilance for threats to academic freedom at CUNY." Still, there are current limitations in the existing enforcement of academic freedom principles. Universities have applied the principles inconsistently or found exceptions to legitimize retaliation for other- wise protected speech. For example, universities have equated speaking up in favor of Palestine as potentially hateful or harmful toward Jewish students, conflating Anti-Zionism with antisemitism, to take action against pro-Palestine students and faculty. Moreover, faculty who are not tenured or on a tenure track often are not afforded the same protections as other faculty, as universities frequently do not have to state a cause for termination or retaliation. This bill is meant to codify the principles of academic freedom to afford protection to a wide range of employees at public and private higher education institutions. By amending the education law, the civil service law, and the civil rights law, this bill will apply to all employees at higher education institutions, regardless of the nature of their appointment. The robust definition of academic freedom accounts for speech and activities in and out of the classroom, so that profes- sors may speak freely and explore controversial ideas without fear of retaliation. To enforce this definition and provide relief to employees alleging an academic freedom violation, the bill also establishes a final binding arbitration process for employees at public higher educa- tion institutions, and a private right of action for employees at private higher education institutions.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.