An interim policy on external communications at Ohio University has prompted faculty to question its implications for free speech and academic independence. The policy, 31.001, took effect Aug. 17, 2025, and was introduced by Vice President of University Communications and Marketing Robin Oliver and approved by President Lori Stewart Gonzalez.
According to OU’s Policy 01.001, interim policies are effective for an initial period of no more than 12 months. After that period, the executive staff policy committee may recommend an extension of up to six months.
Bernhard Debatin, a professor at the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, said the policy creates tension for administrators who also serve as faculty. He said the rules restrict how both groups can interact with the media.
Debatin said faculty and administrators who speak to reporters must clarify they are not representing the university.
“If you are an administrator, you have to have permission, and it's very clearly regulated, both in the Faculty Handbook and in OU policy, that administrators are not supposed to speak independently and only if they have permission or if they are authorized to speak,” Debatin said.
Thomas Hodson, who served as director of the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism from 2003 to 2010, said a similar policy existed during his tenure but has become more restrictive over time.
Under Section C of the current policy, “When a university faculty or staff member engages with the media in matters related to an individual's area of academic or research expertise, UCM should be made aware of the interview for tracking purposes.”
Nerissa Young, a journalism professor at OU, said she thinks it would be nearly impossible for UCM to coordinate all discussions that take place on or off campus.
“I mean, it's against the law for one thing, but it's not physically possible for them to do that from a practical standpoint, especially if they're not experts in the areas in which they're speaking for a department or speaking for faculty members, speaking for a program or center on campus,” Young said.
Hodson said he believes the policy infringes on First Amendment rights.
“I believe the policy as formulated abridges free speech rights, especially of tenured faculty members,” Hodson said in an email. “It certainly causes a 'chilling effect' on free speech.”
Young said she thinks the policy is a violation of the First Amendment and an infringement on her civil liberties.
“I'm functioning as a conscientious objector,” Young said. “I'm not following the policy. I don't know how many people are, but I don't think the university needs to tell me when to speak, when not to, to whom and so forth.”
Dan Pittman, a university spokesperson with UCM, said the university has no policy requiring faculty approval before speaking to the media. He noted both the Faculty Handbook and Policy 31.001 explicitly allow faculty and staff to engage with the media on topics related to their academic or research expertise and personal accomplishments.
Pittman also said under the First Amendment, faculty can express personal opinions on their own time, but there are limitations. If a faculty member’s speech breaks the law or causes disruptions in the workplace, that faculty member could be subject to discipline.
Debatin said the policy feels like an intentional move on the part of the university.
“I think you create an atmosphere of fear and of intimidation when you tell people from the get-go, ‘No, you're not allowed to speak because you're a member of the university or staff member, administrative member, so everything must go through this one channel,’” Debatin said.
