On Dec. 5, 2025, in the midst of exam week, Interim President Dr. Donald Landry and the UF Board of Trustees unanimously passed a new policy enforcing institutional neutrality. This policy forbids “UF institutional and unit leadership teams” from “mak[ing] statements or proclamations regarding social issues.”
UF employees are still free to make political statements when acting as private citizens, as the policy applies only to moments when they are “engaging in university business,” which includes instructional activities, research and scholarship.
Landry says the policy will foster an environment of free expression, academic freedom and open inquiry.
Upon hearing this news, I was extremely worried. It seemed like yet another example of Florida educators facing censure for speaking on controversial topics. I was reminded of the infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill of 2022, which banned Florida public school teachers from discussing sexual orientation and gender identity. Disguised as an effort to advance parental rights in education, the bill subtly — or maybe not so subtly — labeled queer people and culture as a topic that was worthy of controversy.
I was also reminded of the recent happenings at the University of Oklahoma, where a graduate student instructor was fired for “arbitrary … grading” after giving a failing grade to a student’s paper. The paper claimed queer ideologies were “demonic” and “severely harm the American youth.”
The graduate instructor gave the paper a failing grade for not answering the assignment’s question, contradicting itself, using personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class and being offensive. After an outcry from Turning Point USA, the Oklahoma governor and other prominent conservatives, the university put the instructor on administrative leave before firing her.
In light of this recent event and Florida’s history with instructor censorship, my misgivings were valid. However, after reading the text of the policy, I realized I simply misunderstood it. My greatest concern was the implications the policy could have on classroom discussion, which is an integral aspect of students’ learning. How would students discuss controversial topics when professors are barred from bringing them up? And in a time when political figures continuously break the Constitution, how will professors address these vices without dancing around the answer?
But the policy has a carve-out for moments like these, excluding “academic discussion, research or teaching on political or social topics.” This ensures those crucial classroom conversations on political and social issues can still be had.
The policy seems to apply instead to leadership. The text of the policy contains much administrative jargon: “UF institutional and unit leadership,” “Communication Resources,” “University Business,” etc.
Beneath it all, it means UF leadership, including any departments or colleges, cannot make a statement on controversial political and social issues. This ensures leadership will not make proclamations that have the possibility of dividing faculty and students “into those aligned with leadership and those opposed.”
This seems to be an effort to breed intellectual diversity, ensuring departments and colleges are filled with many differing opinions and ideologies. It also ensures professors will not worry that statements made within the classroom on social issues conflict with the statement made by UF leadership.
My support for the policy, though, is only partial. It does fall short in applying the same neutrality requirement to the president of the university. All of the logic and reasoning the policy cites, such as “divid[ing] the student body and faculty into those aligned with leadership and those opposed,” applies equally, if not more so, in cases involving the president. When the president of the university is partisan on these issues, the university as a whole — students and faculty alike — is distracted from the university’s primary duty: education and research.
A possible division among staff and students because of a president’s partisanship is not an unrealistic situation, and UF has a rather recent history of it.
Former President Ben Sasse took the helm of the university in Spring 2023, and his prior experience as a Republican senator from Nebraska quickly became a concern. In response, he promised he would practice “political celibacy.” What followed were many hirings of former Senate staffers and Republican officials to high-paying, remote jobs for the university.
Fortunately, UF does seem to be prioritizing current academics over politicians for its future president, as reflected in the Board of Trustees’ selection of Santa Ono prior to Landry. However, allowing the president to still comment on controversial political and social issues fails to address future pitfalls.
In the meantime, Landry’s institutional neutrality policy is not as scary as it sounds. It isn’t another example of Florida educators losing their freedom to discuss controversial topics.
Instead, it’s an effort to ensure the leadership at UF does not make statements on social issues that may divide the students and faculty. It’s a means to ensure classroom discussions on controversial topics can still thrive as they must in order to receive the fullest education.
For the time being, UF seems to have the right idea on academic freedom for professors.
Contact Timothy Dillehay at tdillehay@alligator.org. Follow him on X @timothydilleh.
