The University of Connecticut, the state’s flagship public university, prides itself on its R1 research status — a status built heavily on the commitments, contributions, and labor of graduate student employees (also known as Graduate Assistants, or ‘GAs’).
Currently, GAs are fighting to protect academic freedom in their workplace, as the Graduate Employee Union (GEU-UAW) continues bargaining its contract with the university.
In labs and classrooms, graduate student employees teach undergraduates, run experiments, conduct surveys, and generate much of the scholarship credited to UConn. They are not casual “students” on the sidelines living by the motto of “C’s get degrees.” They are employees who keep UConn’s research and teaching enterprise running. As dedicated researchers, curious scholars, and paid employees, GAs perform essential research, writing, and teaching labor that faculty, given other commitments and time constraints, cannot shoulder on their own.
Although UConn’s Graduate School does not yet have its own academic freedom policy, the UConn Law School approved its own Policy on Employee Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression in May 2025. The law school’s academic freedom policy makes clear that protections apply to every law school employee, “without regard to their status” — i.e., tenured or adjunct, student-worker or professor. Indeed, the law school’s policy explicitly extends to student-workers in their capacity as employees. The policy states that, to serve its “mission,” the law school “should not insulate students from ideas because they may find them controversial, offensive, or disagreeable.”
On the basis of this policy alone — one that resembles the very same language proposed by the GEU-UAW, and one that has been approved within the very same university — it makes no sense for the university to deny graduate student employees either the same freedom to teach and discover that it grants to full professors or the same protections that it affords a select group of student-workers in the law school.
In effect, the GEU’s proposed Article XX on academic freedom would write into the existing contract what the law school’s policy — and both the U.S. Constitution and state law — already imply. That is, graduate student researchers and instructors deserve the same freedom in teaching and research as anyone else on campus. Crucially, for graduate student employees, academic freedom is not merely an intellectual value — it is a workplace protection that ensures research and teaching are governed by scholarly judgment rather than managerial preference.
Academic freedom in the classroom and in the law
Academic freedom means that students, professors, instructors, and researchers can pursue and discuss ideas freely and in the open — even controversial ideas. High courts have long held that students enjoy this right. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court famously ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) that students may wear anti-war armbands because “[i]t can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
By the same token, a UConn graduate assistant, professor, or student should be able to investigate or speak up about any relevant topic in class or research. As both John Stuart Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’ and decades of free speech case law make clear, limits on open thought and discussion in a democratic society should kick in only when the speech in question threatens a material disruption to the educational environment, or incites violence and causes direct harm.
What this means in a democracy is that speech, expression, and inquiry cannot be curtailed because they might merely provoke discomfort or disagreement. As Justice Fortas wrote for the Court in Tinker, “Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance.” Nonetheless, this potential for contention does not constitute grounds for suppression.
We can (and universities have) set reasonable rules, such as requiring classes to end on time or banning in-class interruptions. However, another important point emerges: any restriction must be viewpoint-neutral. In constitutional terms, “time, place, and manner” regulations on political speech must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored. The law school’s policy reflects these constitutional principles, making a public commitment to “protecting the rights [of employees] as provided by law.”
Beyond the U.S. Constitution, the law school’s academic freedom policy notes its compliance with Article 1 Section 4 of the Connecticut Constitution: “Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” It also cites Connecticut General Statute Section 31-51g,[6] which both protects employees from retaliation for exercising their federal and state constitutional rights to free speech. It further notes that its rules comply with articles XIV and XV of UConn’s by-laws, which contain the university’s provisions on “academic freedom for faculty and professional staff” and “the expression of dissent” (as described in the law school’s policy).
Academic freedom: a policy and a principle
The Graduate Employees Union’s proposed Article XX on academic freedom would write into the contract what UConn’s mission already implies: that every scholar can teach, research, and speak freely. The GEUs proposed language states that GAs may “present and discuss all relevant matters in and beyond the classroom” and “speak or write without any censorship, threat, restraint, or discipline by the University” in the performance of their duties. It similarly affirms GAs’ right to openly express themselves on any issue, including university policy or governance.
What does this mean? It means, per the proposed language in Article XX, that graduate instructors could cover any course-relevant topic or pursue any line of research without fear that unpopular conclusions will lead to lost funding. Instead, controversial questions would be fair game for study and debate. Graduate students could write articles, testify in public forums, or post on social media about social or political issues without fear of retaliation by the institution.
In a serious R1, scholars should not worry that open-ended inquiry will jeopardize their degrees or appointments. As Albert Einstein said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence… Never lose a holy curiosity.” Indeed, as one learns from the famous philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, science is supposed to be disruptive, perhaps even revolutionary.
The UConn Law School’s academic freedom policy evidently echoes this sentiment in its commitment that the university “should not insulate students from ideas because they may find them controversial, offensive, or disagreeable.” But it is not enough for these principles to sit on paper. They need clear, enforceable language in our agreements and in our relationships so that existing policies carry real weight in practice.
So where do we go from here? The answer: “shared governance.” This is the answer put forward in a CT Mirror op-ed authored by Political Science Professors Jeffrey Dudas and Jeremy Pressman. Dr. Dudas is the current president of UConn’s American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter, while Dr. Pressman serves on the chapter’s executive committee.
GAs are not asking for much in the proposed language of Article XX. They are simply asking to be met and heard in good faith during this bargaining process and in future negotiations. These are not radical demands; they restate the core principles of academic freedom, open discussion, and transparency in public institutions. UConn’s own by-laws, state law, and the First Amendment already underwrite these guarantees. Writing them into the union contract would affirm that UConn genuinely values free inquiry at every level of the university.
Upholding UConn’s public mission
Academic freedom, open debate and discussion, access to information, and spaces for contestation and experimentation are not luxuries. They are the vital organs of higher education, if not of democratic society at large. A public university that disciplines scholars for inconvenient truths or compels instructors to sanitize their syllabi abandons its fundamental commitments to dialogue, learning, and the common good.
UConn’s reputation depends on independence from partisan influence, a willingness to innovate by taking intellectual risks, and a steadfast commitment to truth even when it is uncomfortable. Attempting to polish its image or placate critics through brand management is, as a philosopher might say, a preoccupation with form over substance. Put differently, no amount of messaging, fed hand-to-mouth from consultants to administrators, can ever substitute for the real work of protecting free inquiry, open discussion, and the people who carry them out.
GAs following UConn’s values by speaking clearly, honestly, and frankly in class or as a private citizen deserve the same protection as any full professor. For example, a teaching assistant in an American politics course should not fear discipline for answering a student’s question about gerrymandering, immigration policy, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the best of their knowledge and ability. When even one instructor — from a senior professor to a first-year TA — is chilled or pushed out for doing their job, the intellectual life of the entire campus diminishes. And when such pressures accumulate, the prognosis is clear: the fall of academic freedom leads to an intellectual anemia that weakens the entire institution.
If UConn truly values its position as the state’s flagship public research university and its central role in shaping Connecticut’s future professionals and leaders, then it must do more than count publications or measure productivity by the spreadsheet. As Professors Jeffrey Dudas and Jeremy Pressman remind readers, the university must begin listening to the academic departments, faculty, and student-employees, who are “the beating hearts of the UConn community.” That means supporting fair pay, due process, and unequivocal academic freedom for graduate employees. Graduate employees are not asking for perks. They are asking for parity with existing university policy and with the values UConn professes publicly.
At the end of the day, defending academic freedom is defending democracy. UConn must be a marketplace of ideas, not a walled garden for the ivory tower. Granting GAs the protections in Article XX is not a labor concession. It reaffirms, as Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes said, that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas.” That is a lesson worth teaching every student.
Robert T.F. Downes is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Connecticut, specializing in political theory and public law. The views expressed here are his alone.